From The Public Lands Ranching Org
The Cost of the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Livestock Grazing Programs NPLGC has estimated the cost of the federal grazing program to taxpayers is approximately $500 million annually. This estimate is based upon the best available information and is generally supported by current published analyses, albeit all are severely limited. A definitive government study is still needed.
Direct USFS and BLM Costs: $131.6 Million
The direct costs of the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) grazing programs are published annually. In FY 2000 (2001 data not used due to accounting changes that made the data less transparent), the Forest Service spent $54.3 million for range management. 1 In 2001, BLM spent $77.3 million. 2
Indirect USFS and BLM Costs: $331.8 Million
Moscowitz and Romaniello (2002) have completed the most recent and thorough study to date documenting the direct and indirect costs of the Forest Service and BLM grazing programs. Although Moscowitz and Romaniello identify many indirect costs of the agency programs (i.e., costs of supporting public lands grazing that are not explicitly attributed to the grazing program), the authors chose to abide by standard economic reporting practices and exclude indirect costs in their final analysis because they are not "transparent" (explicit) in the federal budget. 3 However, every researcher who has studied the costs of public lands grazing (including Moscowitz and Romaniello) have acknowledged that indirect costs are a significant portion-if not greater than direct expenditures-of total grazing costs. 4
With due respect to traditional fiscal reporting practices, for the purpose of improving public policy-and in the absence of better information-the NPLGC estimate of the cost of the federal grazing program includes direct and indirect costs. When addressing grazing costs, NPLGC believes that including indirect cost data that is approximately correct is preferable to ignoring the information, effectively assigning "$0" to such costs, which is precisely wrong.
To this end, Moscowitz and Romaniello compiled a list of major federal budget line items that include indirect costs reasonably attributed to livestock grazing on public lands. The authors suggest that monies represented by each line item might be apportioned as indirect costs for livestock grazing as direct grazing program costs are a proportion of the total direct costs for the four major (ground-disturbing) Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management programs: livestock grazing, timber, recreation and mining. 5
Tables I and II list Forest Service and BLM programs that indirectly support federal public lands grazing. Range management represents six percent of the four Forest Service resource extraction programs, and 37 percent of the BLM extraction programs. 6 Thus the indirect costs of the Forest Service and BLM grazing programs are estimated to be $177 and $154.8 million, respectively, for a total of $331.8 million.
Table I
Forest Service Indirect Grazing Costs 7
Program Annual Appropriation
($ millions)
Land Management Planning $78
Inventory and Monitoring $174
Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness $230
Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management $129
Vegetation and Watershed Management $182
National Fire Plan __$1,910
Total $2,943
Direct grazing costs are 6 percent of Forest Service range, recreation, mining and timber budgets.
Indirect costs attributable to USFS Livestock grazing (6 percent of indirect program costs) $177
Table II
Bureau of Land Management Indirect Grazing Costs 8
Program Annual Appropriation
($ millions)
Soil, Water, and Air $34.0
Riparian $22.5
Cultural Resources Management $13.9
Wildlife and Fisheries Resources $37.9
Threatened and Endangered Species $21.0
Transportation and Facilities Maintenance $74.0
Construction and Access $16.8
Workforce and Organizational Support $126.6
Central Hazardous Materials Fund $10.0
Hazardous Materials Management $16.5
Resource Management Planning $25.8
Land and Resource Information Systems __$19.5
Total $418.5
Direct grazing costs are 37 percent of BLM range, recreation, mining and timber budgets.
Indirect costs attributable to BLM livestock grazing (37 percent of indirect program costs) $154.8
Predator Killing: $8 Million
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife "Services" agency spent $8 million in FY 1999 to kill native wildlife that were considered a threat to livestock. 9
Total Federal Expenditures for USFS and BLM Grazing: $466 Million
Table III summarizes known direct costs and imputed indirect costs of the Forest Service and BLM livestock grazing programs. It also includes the documented cost of predator control on western public lands that directly supports public lands ranching, for a total of $466 million.
Table III
Direct and Indirect Forest Service and BLM Costs
and
Directly Attributable Costs of Other Federal Agencies
Cost Annual Appropriation
($ millions)
US Forest Service direct costs $53
US Forest Service indirect costs $177
BLM direct costs $73
BLM indirect costs $155
Predator control on Western Public Lands $8
TOTAL $466
Revenues: $6.1 Million
The Forest Service deposited $1.6 million to the federal treasury from grazing fees in FY 2000. 10 The Bureau of Land Management collected approximately $4.5 million. 11
Profit or Loss: - $459.9 Million
The total known cost of the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management grazing programs is $466 million annually. Revenues to the federal treasury are approximately $6.1 million from grazing fees, which means only 1.3 percent of the annual cost of the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management grazing programs is recovered from user fees.
Other Federal Fiscal Costs: $X Million?
(Enumerated, But Not Calculated) 12
Other fiscal costs of the Forest Service and BLM livestock grazing programs paid by taxpayers, but not included in Table III:
Endangered Species Act consultation by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service on listed species harmed by public lands grazing (22 percent of all species on the endangered species list have livestock grazing as a factor in their decline 13);
Various USDA agricultural programs and subsidies that cost more per animal to administer to public lands grazing operations than private lands operations ("The average public lands rancher qualifies for [a drought or flood relief] subsidy in four out of every ten years." 14);
Clean Water Act monitoring and enforcement by the Environmental Protection Agency to protect surface waters on public lands polluted by livestock grazing;
Flood control by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation to channel and restore surface waterways damaged by public lands livestock grazing; and
U.S. Department of Justice defense against litigation and appeals filed by citizens to oppose illegal grazing management and planning by the Forest Service and BLM.
It is reasonable to estimate these federal fiscal costs to be at least $40.1 million annually, resulting in a $500 million total annual subsidy for the federal grazing program.
Other Public and Private Costs Not Factored: $X Million?
(Speculated, But Not Estimated)
Moscowitz and Romaniello note that "(m)any costs are borne by non-federal agencies, private institutions and individuals as a result of livestock grazing on public lands." 15 For example, livestock grazing impacts soil, vegetation and watersheds, resulting in erosion and habitat loss that is often mitigated through expensive local water treatment or results in lost recreational opportunities, respectively.
$0.5 Billion Annual Cost Consistent with Other Estimates
Karl Hess (former special advisor on policy to the Assistant Secretary for Program, Policy, and Budget of the Department of the Interior) and Johanna Wald (senior attorney and Land Program Director, Natural Resources Defense Council) have estimated the annual cost of the federal grazing program to be approximately $500 million. 16 The Economist has also reported the annual cost of the federal grazing program to be $460 million 17 (derived independently of this analysis).
More Research and Analysis Needed
The NPLGC estimate is based upon the best available information. Further analysis is needed, perhaps by the General Accounting Office of the United States Congress or the White House Office of Management and Budget.
Economic Costs of Environmental Harms Not Considered
This analysis is limited to federal fiscal costs of public lands grazing. No attempt is made to quantify the economic costs of the severe environmental damage caused by livestock grazing, which could be many times greater than the direct and indirect fiscal costs of the federal grazing program.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Moscowitz, K. and C. Romaniello. 2002. Assessing the Full Cost of the Federal Grazing Program. Center for Biological Diversity. Tucson, AZ: 13.
2. Moscowitz and Romaniello, 14.
3. Moscowitz and Romaniello, 4.
4. See Moscowitz and Romaniello, 21 ("The BLM and Forest Service may spend far more on grazing indirectly through other budget items than through the range management budgets along.").
5. Moscowitz and Romaniello, 21-23.
6. Moscowitz and Romaniello, 21.
7. Adapted from Moscowitz and Romaniello, 22 (Table A-1).
8. Adapted from Moscowitz and Romaniello, 23 (Table A-2).
9. See NPLGC. Predator Control to Protect Livestock, www.publiclandsranching.org/htmlres/troubles_predatorcontrol.htm.
10. Moscowitz, K. and C. Romaniello. 2002. Assessing the Full Cost of the Federal Grazing Program. Center for Biological Diversity. Tucson, AZ: 13.
11. Moscowitz and Romaniello, 14.
12. Moscowitz and Romaniello, 24-27.
13. Wilcove, D. S., D. Rothstein, J Dubow, A Phillips, E. Losos. 1998. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States: assessing the relative importance of habitat destruction, alien species, pollution, overexploitation and disease. BioScience 48(8): 610.
14. Moscowitz and Romaniello, 25.
15. Moscowitz and Romaniello, 28.
16. Hess, K. and J. H. Wald. 1995. Grazing reform: here's the answer. High Country News 27(18).
17. Subsidized cow chow. The Economist (Mar. 7, 2002): 39.
g
http://www.publiclandsranching.org/htmlres/fs_fiscal_costs.htm
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
The "Whos Who" of Welfare Ranchers
Montana BLM Land Lease Subsidy Recipient Billionaire Ted Turner
----------------------------------
The Tale of the Rolex Ranchers and the Living Legends
© March 17, 2005 by Ellen-Cathryn Nash
President
Manes and Tails Organization
http://www.manesandtailsorganization.org/living_legends.htm
(Written before the closing of the last horse-slaugter house in the USA)Wagons West! It is time to round up the American taxpayers’ dollars back into their wallets and grant the wild horses and burros the freedom to exist. The Bureau of Land Management correctly refers to wild horses and burros as 'Living Legends.' However, since Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT) added his now infamous amendment to the 2005 Omnibus Appropriations bill, these 'living legends' are available to be rounded up and sold 'without limitation through auction et. al.' to the highest bidder. That bidder could be a ‘killer buyer’ who will take the animals to the nearest foreign owned slaughterhouse – most likely in Texas as Illinois is rather inconvenient. Once these animals endure the trip while tightly packed in trucks, they will meet the ‘captive bolt’ gun. This method of driving a bolt into the animal's skull – developed for bovines - may or may not render the horses and burros unconscious as required before ‘processing.’ The thought of any animal being bled and butchered while conscious is horrifying. Their flesh will then be sold as a gourmet delicacy in Europe and Japan.
Senator Burns deliberately repealed the 'Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971' - also known as 'The Wild Horse Annie Act' - which had protected the wild horses and burros from exactly the fate described. The BLM states the Wild Horse and Burro Adoption program is being heavily promoted; roughly half of the wild horse and burro population of the United States has the tremendous misfortune of living in the state of Nevada.
Within the State of Nevada, the Bureau of Land Management administers almost 48 million acres of public land. BLM public lands comprise 67 percent of the entire area of the state. 45 million acres are leased primarily by cattle ranchers, but there are some sheep and goat ranchers. The remaining acres are allotted for the wild horses and burros, however the horses and burros overlap onto the leased land.
An ‘animal unit per month' is comprised of the forage necessary to feed one cow and one calf, or five sheep, or five goats. Lessees pay $1.79 per month for each AUM. Wild horse and burro AUMs are comprised of one horse or one burro. Nevada BLM reports there are currently 1,370,366 AUMs being consumed on 45 million acres of public land. With millions of public grazing acres available in Nevada, why are the wild horses and burros perceived as such a problem?
The forage in Nevada is somewhat sparse and there is competition for grazing between the 100-200 thousand cattle with most spending the entire year on BLM land, and the 28 thousand wild horses and burros in that state. This begs the question of why 28 thousand wild horses and burros are considered "competition" to the 100-200 thousand privately owned cattle, and some sheep and goats? The Nevada BLM is correct about the competition for forage, however, upon inspection, it becomes evident that this 'competition' is unnecessary. Also evident is that the American taxpayers are unaware of exactly who the lessees are that their tax dollars are subsidizing, and the complete lack of understanding that Congress has regarding environmental management. Laws enacted by Congress have given the BLM a huge task and a huge problem and the wild horses and burros are paying the price.
Paul Rogers of the 'San Jose Mercury News ("Cash Cows" page 2S, column 2 Nov. 7, 1999)' (Original source: Forest Guardians) performed nine months of research that included studying 26,000 leases. Mr. Rogers’ research revealed that 10% of the total grazing leases are held by lessees that control 65% of the total public land. Furthermore, these lessees include billionaire ranchers and corporations such as Ted Turner, Baron Hilton, Mary Hewlett-Jaffey, JR Simplot, Annheiser-Busch, and the Hunt Oil Company of Dallas. The Public Lands Ranching Organization reports that the federal grazing program operates at a loss, costing taxpayers at least $500,000,000 annually. This figure includes direct program costs and millions of dollars spent on emergency feed, drought and flood relief, and predator control to support or mitigate damage from public lands grazing.
In Nevada, the cost to the government for maintaining the wild horses and burros for one year is $794,760.00. The cost to the lessees to graze their privately owned livestock for one year is $2,452,955.14. The BLM fee, when compared with an average of $12 on private land in the west, is quite a bargain for the ranchers.
In reality, the wild horses and burros are not the problem, rather it is the privately owned livestock grazing on public lands subsidized by American taxpayers at great expense. It is important to note that cattle are ‘static’ animals in that they do not move much and they destroy the ground. It takes ten years to reclaim land destroyed by cattle, and longer in arid areas such as Nevada. The cattle grazing on public lands are ‘anecdotal’ to the beef industry as they comprise a mere 2.5% of the total beef consumption in the United States. Why is this allowed? Perhaps the land leases in Nevada - at least - should be nullified.
The wild horses and burros need not be rounded up in Nevada, rather the privately owned livestock do. Congress must actually read the bills they pass and demand much more ‘intelligence’ regarding public land management. Congress must enable the Bureau of Land Management to perform its primary function: to protect the public land and the wild life that lives on it. We all know how the 'Tale of the Rolex Ranchers and the Living Legends' will end. This is an American tragedy and it should not be this way.
© March 17, 2005 by Ellen-Cathryn Nash
President
Manes and Tails Organization
Special thanks to Mr. Billy Stern of the Forest Guardians Organization and the staff of the Nevada and Montana BLM District Offices for their kind help.
http://www.manesandtailsorganization.org/living_legends.htm
The Taylor Grazing Act / BLM Rooted In "U.S. Grazing Service"
The Taylor Grazing Act - From the Wyoming BLMs website;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
Taylor Grazing Districts in 1937
(Opportunity and Challenge: The Story of BLM.
DOI, BLM, 1988. Washington: GPO.)
The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (43 USC 315), signed by President Roosevelt, was intended to "stop injury to the public grazing lands [excluding Alaska] by preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration; to provide for their orderly use, improvement, and development; [and] to stabilize the livestock industry dependent upon the public range" (USDI 1988). This Act was pre-empted by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA).
Introduction
Approximately 80 million acres of land valuable for grazing and forage crops were available to be placed into grazing districts authorized by the Taylor Grazing Act. To administer these grazing districts, Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes created a Division of Grazing with Farrington Carpenter, a Colorado rancher, at the helm. Carpenter held a series of meetings with ranchers and state officials to determine grazing district boundaries. The first grazing district (Rawlins), was established in Wyoming on March 20, 1935; others soon followed. By June 1935, over 65 million acres had been placed in grazing districts. All the established grazing districts are still in effect today.
Secretary Ickes fired Carpenter in 1939 and replaced him with Richard Rutledge. With a new director, the Division of Grazing was renamed the U.S. Grazing Service. Rutledge wanted to establish an effective conservation agency. In order to achieve this, he laid out rules of conduct for his employees. Today, these standards are still the foundation of the Bureau of Land Management's mission. On July 16, 1946, the Grazing Service and the General Land Office merged to form the Bureau of Land Management. Following are some of those principles.
Self Reliance: There is often the tendency upon receiving a tough assignment to push it aside and wait until you can ask the boss a lot of questions concerning the way he wants the job done. This results in procrastination and in a leaning [sic] attitude on the part of the doer. Stand on your own two feet and take responsibility.
Organizational Attitude: No organization can be successful if cliques or jealousies exist. These things tend to retard and to break down the spirit of the organization. Likewise, feuds and personal fights are extremely detrimental and are bound to react upon someone. Troublemakers have no place in the organization. Rating officers must take recognition of such things. The ability to get along with and work with others, and the attitude toward others, are important factors in efficiency determination.
Public Service: Let's get firmly fixed in our minds at the outset that we are public servants, employed by the public and paid by the public from funds provided by taxation in some form. We are responsible to the entire public and are not bureaucratic bosses to work our will upon the public as we see fit.
Sharp Practices: There can be no place in the administrator's thoughts or actions for anything that approaches sharp practices. Stockmen are usually not as well informed as the administrator. Many times they are trusting, depending upon the administrator. There should be no tendency toward scheming or taking advantage of lack of information or ignorance. Your actions should always be square, with equity and fairness.
Mixing: This is somewhat akin to friendliness, although it goes farther. It is very necessary that an administrator mix with or contact all kinds of people, meetings, associations, church groups, and others. Be a part of the community.
Self-Justification: One of the very worst habits that an administrator can fall into is that of trying to justify his actions under all circumstances. If an administrator had made a mistake, the thing to do is to face the situation and correct the action. An administrator can lose the respect and confidence of his users very quickly by adopting an attitude of self-justification.
Capriciousness: The administrator should avoid actions which might be termed capricious. Any funny notion or foolish idea, or snap judgement, may take the turn of capriciousness. Keep your feet on the ground and remember that you are business men [sic], doing business.
Under the current grazing regulations (43 Code of Federal Regulations Part 4100), there are four differences in BLM's administration of livestock grazing on section 15 leases and section 3 permits.
Section 3 of the Act
Section 3 of the Taylor Grazing Act concerns grazing permits issued on public lands within the grazing districts established under the Act. It gave leasing preference to landowners and homesteaders in or adjacent to the grazing district lands. Permits were issued for not more than 10 years.
Base Property Requirements: Base property is land, owned or controlled by a BLM permittee, which serves as the permittee's base for a livestock operation. The land must be capable of producing crops or forage that can be used to support livestock for a specified period of time. Under a section 3 permit, the base property does not have to adjoin the public lands being used for grazing livestock.
Domestic Use Grazing Permits: Section 5 of the Taylor Grazing Act and the grazing regulations made provision for the issuance of free subsistence grazing permits on public lands inside a grazing district. There was no similar provision for free domestic use or subsistence grazing on the section 15 lease lands.
Distribution of Grazing Receipts: Receipts from grazing on section 3 lands are distributed three ways: 50% goes to range betterment projects, 37½% remains in the US Treasury, and 12½% is returned to the state. In Wyoming, the 12% is administered by thegrazing advisory boards established under Wyoming Statutes 9-571 and 9-572.
Section 15 of the Act
Section 15 of the Taylor Grazing Act concerns issuing grazing leases on public lands outside the original grazing district boundaries. It states that "The Secretary of the Interior is further authorized, in his discretion, where vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved lands of the public domain are so situated . . . . to lease any such lands for grazing purposes, upon such terms and conditions as the Secretary may prescribe . . . ."
Base Property Requirements: As described under "Section 3" above, base property is land, owned or controlled by a BLM permittee or lessee, which may serve as a base for a livestock operation. The land must have the capability to produce crops or forage that can be used to support the livestock authorized for a specified period of time. The base property supporting a section 15 grazing lease must adjoin the leased public lands unless no applicant owns adjoining lands. In most cases, the base property for a section 15 lease adjoins, surrounds, or is intermingled with the leased public lands.
Preference Lease Rights of Isolated Tracts: The Taylor Grazing Act and the current regulations provide for giving a preference to applicants having base property which adjoins or corners the public lands they apply to lease. The preference right to lease the whole tract is given where the public lands consist of isolated tracts embracing 760 acres or less. This lease preference is available for a period of 90 days after the tract has been offered for lease.
Domestic Use Grazing Permits: Under Section 15, no provision for free domestic use or subsistence grazing on the section 15 lease lands is made.
Distribution of Grazing Receipts: The receipts from grazing on section 15 public lands are distributed two ways: 50% goes to range betterment projects and 50% is returned to the state. In Wyoming, the portion returned to the state is distributed back to the counties in which it originated under state statute 9-570.
From 1934 to 1968, grazing use on the 16 million acres of Section 15 public lands was authorized under 10-year leases. Grazing fees were assessed on an acreage basis. Lessees were required to pay the lease regard-less of whether or not they actually had livestock on the leased lands. No provisions were made for refund or nonpayment due to drought, fire, or other factors.
In August 1968, regulation changes were implemented to place the Section 15 public lands under "multiple use management" (43 CFR 4125.1-1). Key changes made to the regulations are as follows.
Allowed for joint use of the leased area by two or more lessees.
Prohibited locked gates or other actions by the lessee to prevent or interfere with lawful public use of the public land.
Established a framework for cooperation between BLM and lessees to develop allotment management plans aimed at improving resource conditions.
Established construction standards for fences and other projects constructed by the lessees to assure multiple use objectives were met.
Changed grazing fee charges from an acreage basis to payment for forage consumed as measured by animal unit months (AUMs).
Federal Land Policy & Management Act of 1976
The Federal Land Policy and Management Policy Act of 1976 (FLPMA) was passed to establish policy for managing BLM-administered public lands. To ensure long-term stability and use of BLM-administered public lands by the live-stock industry, FLPMA authorized 10-year grazing permits and required a two-year notice of cancellation. The Act also directed grazing advisory boards (formed under the Taylor Grazing Act) to guide the BLM in develop-ing allotment management plans and allocating range betterment funds.
Unlike the Taylor Grazing Act, FLPMA did not distinguish between grazing permits and leases. In sections 401 through 403 of FLPMA, which deals with grazing management on the public lands, the term "permit or lease" appears over 25 times together and never as only "permit" or "lease." The clear intent of Congress is that BLM's grazing administration on all public lands be consistent for both permits and leases.
The BLM's grazing regulations were changed in July 1978 to eliminate separate sections addressing admin-istration of section 3 permits and section 15 leases. This made the regulations consistent with the language of FLPMA in that no distinction is made between permits and leases.
Selective Management Policy
The BLM's selective management policy is used extensively in administering grazing leases. The selective management policy requires that BLM apply its limited workforce and budget to those lands providing the greatest potential for improvement and public benefit. Grazing allotments are separed into three management categories: "I" (improve), "M" (maintain), and "C" (custodial). Generally, leases consisting of small, iso-lated tracts of public lands are managed custodially. BLM's major emphasis on the custodial leases is with var-ious administrative actions such as billings, lease renewals, and transfers. On the larger blocks of public land that offer the best opportunity for multiple use management initiatives, BLM works with the grazing lessees to take actions or authorize uses to achieve various resource management objectives. In other words, the BLM's management and administration of custodial or "C" category allotments is similar to the old (pre-1968) section 15 leases. Administration of grazing on the larger blocks of public land in the "I" and "M" categories is similar to administration of section 3 permits.
Standards & Guidelines
Standards for Healthy Rangelands and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management became effective August 21, 1995 in accordance with the Department of Interior's final rule for grazing administration. The development and application of these standards and guidelines are to achieve the four fundamentals of rangeland health outlined in the grazing regulations (43 CFR 4180.1). Those four fundamentals are: (1) watersheds are functioning properly; (2) water, nutrients, and energy is cycling properly; (3) water quality meets state standards; and (4) habitat for special status species is protected.
Standards address the health, productivity, and sustainability of the BLM administered-public rangelands and represent the minimum acceptable conditions for the public rangelands. The standards apply to all resource uses on public lands. Guidelines provide for, and guide the development and implementation of, reasonable, responsible, and cost-effective management practices at the grazing allotment and watershed level. The guidelines are management practices that will either maintain existing desirable conditions or move rangelands toward statewide standards within reasonable timeframes.
The standards for Wyoming were developed in cooperation with the Wyoming Resource Advisory Council, the State of Wyoming, and BLM staff. The BLM's current selective management policy serves as a base for the allotment review along with other allotment priorities. Over time all grazing allotments will be addressed for standards and guidelines.
Grazing Regulation Changes
Other changes that became effective August 21, 1995 that occurred with the Department of the Interior's final rule for grazing administration are:
Management of the public lands in section 3 and section 15 are now the same.
The distribution of grazing fees remains the same as it was under the Taylor Grazing Act.
Leases are issued for section 15 and permits are issued for section 3.
Livestock being leased from/or pastured for someone else are subject to a surcharge.
Last updated: 05-29-2008
USA.GOV | No Fear Act | DOI | Disclaimer | About BLM | Notices | Get Adobe Reader®
Privacy Policy | FOIA | Kids Policy | Contact Us
http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/field_offices/Casper/range/taylor.1.html
The Public Rangelands Improvement Act or "The Wild Horse Slaughter Bill"
-CITE-
43 USC CHAPTER 37 - PUBLIC RANGELANDS IMPROVEMENT 01/08/2008
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 43 - PUBLIC LANDS
CHAPTER 37 - PUBLIC RANGELANDS IMPROVEMENT
-HEAD-
CHAPTER 37 - PUBLIC RANGELANDS IMPROVEMENT
-MISC1-
Sec.
1901. Congressional findings and declaration of policy.
1902. Definitions.
1903. Rangelands inventory and management; public
availability.
1904. Range improvement funding.
1905. Grazing fees; economic value of use of land; fair
market value components; annual percentage change
limitation.
1906. Authority for cooperative agreements and payments
effective as provided in appropriations.
1907. National Grasslands; exemptions.
1908. Experimental stewardship program.
-End-
-CITE-
43 USC Sec. 1901 01/08/2008
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 43 - PUBLIC LANDS
CHAPTER 37 - PUBLIC RANGELANDS IMPROVEMENT
-HEAD-
Sec. 1901. Congressional findings and declaration of policy
-STATUTE-
(a) The Congress finds and declares that -
(1) vast segments of the public rangelands are producing less
than their potential for livestock, wildlife habitat, recreation,
forage, and water and soil conservation benefits, and for that
reason are in an unsatisfactory condition;
(2) such rangelands will remain in an unsatisfactory condition
and some areas may decline further under present levels of, and
funding for, management;
(3) unsatisfactory conditions on public rangelands present a
high risk of soil loss, desertification,(!1) and a resultant
underproductivity for large acreages of the public lands;
contribute significantly to unacceptable levels of siltation and
salinity in major western watersheds including the Colorado
River; negatively impact the quality and availability of scarce
western water supplies; threaten important and frequently
critical fish and wildlife habitat; prevent expansion of the
forage resource and resulting benefits to livestock and wildlife
production; increase surface runoff and flood danger; reduce the
value of such lands for recreational and esthetic purposes; and
may ultimately lead to unpredictable and undesirable long-term
local and regional climatic and economic changes;
(4) the above-mentioned conditions can be addressed and
corrected by an intensive public rangelands maintenance,
management, and improvement program involving significant
increases in levels of rangeland management and improvement
funding for multiple-use values;
(5) to prevent economic disruption and harm to the western
livestock industry, it is in the public interest to charge a fee
for livestock grazing permits and leases on the public lands
which is based on a formula reflecting annual changes in the
costs of production;
(6) the Act of December 15, 1971 (85 Stat. 649, 16 U.S.C. 1331
et seq.- the WFHBA), continues to be successful in its goal of protecting
wild free-roaming horses and burros from capture, branding,
harassment, and death, but that certain amendments are necessary
thereto to avoid excessive costs in the administration of the
Act, and to facilitate the humane adoption or disposal of excess
wild free-roaming horses and burros which because they exceed the
carrying capacity of the range, pose a threat to their own
habitat, fish, wildlife, recreation, water and soil conservation,
domestic livestock grazing, and other rangeland values;
(b) The Congress therefore hereby establishes and reaffirms a
national policy and commitment to:
(1) inventory and identify current public rangelands conditions
and trends as a part of the inventory process required by section
1711(a) of this title;
(2) manage, maintain and improve the condition of the public
rangelands so that they become as productive as feasible for all
rangeland values in accordance with management objectives and the
land use planning process established pursuant to section 1712 of
this title;
(3) charge a fee for public grazing use which is equitable and
reflects the concerns addressed in paragraph (a)(5) above;
(4) continue the policy of protecting wild free-roaming horses
and burros from capture, branding, harassment, or death, while at
the same time facilitating the removal and disposal of excess
wild free-roaming horses and burros which pose a threat to
themselves and their habitat and to other rangeland values;
(c) The policies of this chapter shall become effective only as
specific statutory authority for their implementation is enacted by
this chapter or by subsequent legislation, and shall be construed
as supplemental to and not in derogation of the purposes for which
public rangelands are administered under other provisions of law.
-SOURCE-
(Pub. L. 95-514, Sec. 2, Oct. 25, 1978, 92 Stat. 1803.)
-REFTEXT-
REFERENCES IN TEXT
Act of December 15, 1971, referred to in subsec. (a)(6), is Pub.
L. 92-195, Dec. 15, 1971, 85 Stat. 649, as amended, popularly known
as the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, which is classified
generally to chapter 30 (Sec. 1331 et seq.) of Title 16,
Conservation. For complete classification of this Act to the Code,
see Short Title note set out under section 1331 of Title 16 and
Tables.
This chapter, referred to in subsec. (c), was in the original
"this Act", meaning Pub. L. 95-514, Oct. 25, 1978, 92 Stat. 1803,
which enacted this chapter and amended sections 1739 and 1751 to
1753 of this title and sections 1332 and 1333 of Title 16. For
complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title
note set out below and Tables.
-MISC1-
SHORT TITLE
Section 1 of Pub. L. 95-514 provided: "That this Act [enacting
this chapter and amending sections 1739 and 1751 to 1753 of this
title and sections 1332 and 1333 of Title 16, Conservation] may be
cited as the 'Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978'."
-FOOTNOTE-
(!1) So in original.
-End-
-CITE-
43 USC Sec. 1902 01/08/2008
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 43 - PUBLIC LANDS
CHAPTER 37 - PUBLIC RANGELANDS IMPROVEMENT
-HEAD-
Sec. 1902. Definitions
-STATUTE-
As used in this chapter -
(a) The terms "rangelands" or "public rangelands" means lands
administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of
Land Management or the Secretary of Agriculture through the Forest
Service in the sixteen contiguous Western States on which there is
domestic livestock grazing or which the Secretary concerned
determines may be suitable for domestic livestock grazing.
(b) The term "allotment management plan" is the same as defined
in section 1702(k) of this title, except that as used in this
chapter such term applies to the sixteen contiguous Western States.
(c) The term "grazing permit and lease" means any document
authorizing use of public lands or lands in national forests in the
sixteen contiguous Western States for the purpose of grazing
domestic livestock.
(d) The term "range condition" means the quality of the land
reflected in its ability in specific vegetative areas to support
various levels of productivity in accordance with range management
objectives and the land use planning process, and relates to soil
quality, forage values (whether seasonal or year round), wildlife
habitat, watershed and plant communities, the present state of
vegetation of a range site in relation to the potential plant
community for that site, and the relative degree to which the
kinds, proportions, and amounts of vegetation in a plant community
resemble that of the desired community for that site.
(e) The term "native vegetation" means those plant species,
communities, or vegetative associations which are endemic to a
given area and which would normally be identified with a healthy
and productive range condition occurring as a result of the natural
vegetative process of the area.
(f) The term "range improvement" means any activity or program on
or relating to rangelands which is designed to improve production
of forage; change vegetative composition; control patterns of use;
provide water; stabilize soil and water conditions; and provide
habitat for livestock and wildlife. The term includes, but is not
limited to, structures, treatment projects, and use of mechanical
means to accomplish the desired results.
(g) The term "court ordered environmental impact statement" means
any environmental statements which are required to be prepared by
the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the final judgment or
subsequent modification thereof as set forth on June 18, 1975, in
the matter of Natural Resources Defense Council against Andrus.
(h) The term "Secretary" unless specifically designated
otherwise, means the Secretary of the Interior.
(i) The term "sixteen contiguous Western States" means the States
of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota,
Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
-SOURCE-
(Pub. L. 95-514, Sec. 3, Oct. 25, 1978, 92 Stat. 1804.)
-REFTEXT-
REFERENCES IN TEXT
This chapter, referred to in opening provision and in subsec.
(b), was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 95-514, Oct.
25, 1978, 92 Stat. 1803, which enacted this chapter and amended
sections 1739 and 1751 to 1753 of this title and sections 1332 and
1333 of Title 16, Conservation. For complete classification of this
Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1901 of
this title and Tables.
-End-
-CITE-
43 USC Sec. 1903 01/08/2008
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 43 - PUBLIC LANDS
CHAPTER 37 - PUBLIC RANGELANDS IMPROVEMENT
-HEAD-
Sec. 1903. Rangelands inventory and management; public availability
-STATUTE-
(a) Following enactment of this chapter, the Secretary of the
Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall update, develop
(where necessary) and maintain on a continuing basis thereafter, an
inventory of range conditions and record of trends of range
conditions on the public rangelands, and shall categorize or
identify such lands on the basis of the range conditions and trends
thereof as they deem appropriate. Such inventories shall be
conducted and maintained by the Secretary as a part of the
inventory process required by section 201(a) of the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1711), and by the Secretary of
Agriculture in accordance with section 1603 of title 16; shall be
kept current on a regular basis so as to reflect changes in range
conditions; and shall be available to the public.
(b) The Secretary shall manage the public rangelands in
accordance with the Taylor Grazing Act (43 U.S.C. 315-315(o)), the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701-
1782), and other applicable law consistent with the public
rangelands improvement program pursuant to this chapter. Except
where the land use planning process required pursuant to section
202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1712)
determines otherwise or the Secretary determines, and sets forth
his reasons for this determination, that grazing uses should be
discontinued (either temporarily or permanently) on certain lands,
the goal of such management shall be to improve the range
conditions of the public rangelands so that they become as
productive as feasible in accordance with the rangeland management
objectives established through the land use planning process, and
consistent with the values and objectives listed in sections
1901(a) and (b)(2) of this title.
-SOURCE-
(Pub. L. 95-514, Sec. 4, Oct. 25, 1978, 92 Stat. 1805.)
-REFTEXT-
REFERENCES IN TEXT
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, referred to
in subsec. (b), is Pub. L. 94-579, Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2743, as
amended, which is classified principally to chapter 35 (Sec. 1701
et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to
the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1701 of this
title and Tables.
The Taylor Grazing Act, referred to in subsec. (b), is act June
28, 1934, ch. 865, 48 Stat. 1269, as amended, which is classified
principally to subchapter I (Sec. 315 et seq.) of chapter 8A of
this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code,
see Short Title note set out under section 315 of this title and
Tables.
-End-
-CITE-
43 USC Sec. 1904 01/08/2008
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 43 - PUBLIC LANDS
CHAPTER 37 - PUBLIC RANGELANDS IMPROVEMENT
-HEAD-
Sec. 1904. Range improvement funding
-STATUTE-
(a) Authorization of additional appropriations
In order to accomplish the purposes of this chapter, there are
hereby authorized to be appropriated the sum of an additional
$15,000,000 annually in fiscal years 1980 through 1982; for fiscal
years 1983 through 1986 an amount no less than the amount
authorized for 1982; and for fiscal years 1987 through 1999 an
amount not less than $5,000,000 annually more than the amount
authorized for fiscal year 1986. Such funds shall be in addition to
any range, wildlife, and soil and water management moneys which
have been requested by the Secretary under the provisions of
section 1748 of this title, and in addition to the moneys which are
available for range improvements under section 1751 of this title.
(b) Availability of unappropriated funds for subsequent fiscal
years
Any amounts authorized by this section not appropriated in one or
more fiscal years shall be available for appropriation in any
subsequent years.
(c) Fund limitations for prescribed uses; distribution,
consultation and coordination; public hearings and meetings;
interested parties; priority of cooperative agreements with range
users
No less than 80 per centum of such funds provided herein shall be
used for on-the-ground range rehabilitation, maintenance and the
construction of range improvements (including project layout,
project design, and project supervision). No more than 15 per
centum of such funds provided herein shall be used to hire and
train such experienced and qualified personnel as are necessary to
implement on-the-ground supervision and enforcement of the land use
plans required pursuant to section 1712 of this title and such
allotment management plans as may be developed. Such funds shall be
distributed as the Secretary deems advisable after careful and
considered consultation and coordination, including public hearings
and meetings where appropriate, with the district grazing advisory
boards established pursuant to section 1753 of this title, and the
advisory councils established pursuant to section 1739 of this
title, range user representatives, and other interested parties. To
the maximum extent practicable, and where economically sound, the
Secretary shall give priority to entering into cooperative
agreements with range users (or user groups) for the installation
and maintenance of on-the-ground range improvements.
(d) Environmental assessment record and environmental impact
statement requirements
Prior to the use of any funds authorized by this section the
Secretary shall cause to have prepared an environmental assessment
record on each range improvement project. Thereafter, improvement
projects may be constructed unless the Secretary determines that
the project will have a significant impact on the quality of human
environment, necessitating an environmental impact statement
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act [42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.] prior to the expenditure of funds.
-SOURCE-
(Pub. L. 95-514, Sec. 5, Oct. 25, 1978, 92 Stat. 1805.)
-REFTEXT-
REFERENCES IN TEXT
National Environmental Policy Act, referred to in subsec. (d), is
Pub. L. 91-190, Jan. 1, 1970, 83 Stat. 852, as amended, which is
classified generally to chapter 55 (Sec. 4321 et seq.) of Title 42,
The Public Health and Welfare. For complete classification of this
Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 4321 of
Title 42 and Tables.
-End-
-CITE-
43 USC Sec. 1905 01/08/2008
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 43 - PUBLIC LANDS
CHAPTER 37 - PUBLIC RANGELANDS IMPROVEMENT
-HEAD-
Sec. 1905. Grazing fees; economic value of use of land; fair market
value components; annual percentage change limitation
-STATUTE-
For the grazing years 1979 through 1985, the Secretaries of
Agriculture and Interior shall charge the fee for domestic
livestock grazing on the public rangelands which Congress finds
represents the economic value of the use of the land to the user,
and under which Congress finds fair market value for public grazing
equals the $1.23 base established by the 1966 Western Livestock
Grazing Survey multiplied by the result of the Forage Value Index
(computed annually from data supplied by the Economic Research
Service) added to the Combined Index (Beef Cattle Price Index minus
the Price Paid Index) and divided by 100: Provided, That the annual
increase or decrease in such fee for any given year shall be
limited to not more than plus or minus 25 per centum of the
previous year's fee.
-SOURCE-
(Pub. L. 95-514, Sec. 6(a), Oct. 25, 1978, 92 Stat. 1806.)
-EXEC-
EX. ORD. NO. 12548. GRAZING FEES
Ex. Ord. No. 12548, Feb. 14, 1986, 51 F.R. 5985, provided:
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution
and laws of the United States of America, and in order to provide
for establishment of appropriate fees for the grazing of domestic
livestock on public rangelands, it is ordered as follows:
Section 1. Determination of Fees. The Secretaries of Agriculture
and the Interior are directed to exercise their authority, to the
extent permitted by law under the various statutes they administer,
to establish fees for domestic livestock grazing on the public
rangelands which annually equals the $1.23 base established by the
1966 Western Livestock Grazing Survey multiplied by the result of
the Forage Value Index (computed annually from data supplied by the
Statistical Reporting Service) added to the Combined Index (Beef
Cattle Price Index minus the Prices Paid Index) and divided by 100;
provided, that the annual increase or decrease in such fee for any
given year shall be limited to not more than plus or minus 25
percent of the previous year's fee, and provided further, that the
fee shall not be less than $1.35 per animal unit month.
Sec. 2. Definitions. As used in this Order, the term:
(a) "Public rangelands" has the same meaning as in the Public
Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-514) [this
chapter];
(b) "Forage Value Index" means the weighted average estimate of
the annual rental charge per head per month for pasturing cattle on
private rangelands in the 11 Western States (Montana, Idaho,
Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Washington,
Oregon, and California) (computed by the Statistical Reporting
Service from the June Enumerative Survey) divided by $3.65 and
multiplied by 100;
(c) "Beef Cattle Price Index" means the weighted average annual
selling price for beef cattle (excluding calves) in the 11 Western
States (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona,
Utah, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, and California) for November
through October (computed by the Statistical Reporting Service)
divided by $22.04 per hundred weight and multiplied by 100; and
(d) "Prices Paid Index" means the following selected components
from the Statistical Reporting Service's Annual National Index of
Prices Paid by Farmers for Goods and Services adjusted by the
weights indicated in parentheses to reflect livestock production
costs in the Western States: 1. Fuels and Energy (14.5); 2. Farm
and Motor Supplies (12.0); 3. Autos and Trucks (4.5); 4. Tractors
and Self-Propelled Machinery (4.5); 5. Other Machinery (12.0); 6.
Building and Fencing Materials (14.5); 7. Interest (6.0); 8. Farm
Wage Rates (14.0); 9. Farm Services (18.0).
Sec. 3. Any and all existing rules, practices, policies, and
regulations relating to the administration of the formula for
grazing fees in section 6(a) of the Public Rangelands Improvement
Act of 1978 [43 U.S.C. 1905] shall continue in full force and
effect.
Sec. 4. This Order shall be effective immediately.
Ronald Reagan.
-End-
-CITE-
43 USC Sec. 1906 01/08/2008
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 43 - PUBLIC LANDS
CHAPTER 37 - PUBLIC RANGELANDS IMPROVEMENT
-HEAD-
Sec. 1906. Authority for cooperative agreements and payments
effective as provided in appropriations
-STATUTE-
Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, authority to
enter into cooperative agreements and to make payments under this
chapter shall be effective only to the extent or in such amounts as
are provided in advance in appropriation Acts.
-SOURCE-
(Pub. L. 95-514, Sec. 9, Oct. 25, 1978, 92 Stat. 1807.)
-End-
-CITE-
43 USC Sec. 1907 01/08/2008
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 43 - PUBLIC LANDS
CHAPTER 37 - PUBLIC RANGELANDS IMPROVEMENT
-HEAD-
Sec. 1907. National Grasslands; exemptions
-STATUTE-
All National Grasslands are exempted from the provisions of this
chapter.
-SOURCE-
(Pub. L. 95-514, Sec. 11, Oct. 25, 1978, 92 Stat. 1808.)
-End-
-CITE-
43 USC Sec. 1908 01/08/2008
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 43 - PUBLIC LANDS
CHAPTER 37 - PUBLIC RANGELANDS IMPROVEMENT
-HEAD-
Sec. 1908. Experimental stewardship program
-STATUTE-
(a) Scope of program
The Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture are hereby authorized
and directed to develop and implement, on an experimental basis on
selected areas of the public rangelands which are representative of
the broad spectrum of range conditions, trends, and forage values,
a program which provides incentives to, or rewards for, the holders
of grazing permits and leases whose stewardship results in an
improvement of the range condition of lands under permit or lease.
Such program shall explore innovative grazing management policies
and systems which might provide incentives to improve range
conditions. These may include, but need not be limited to -
(1) cooperative range management projects designed to foster a
greater degree of cooperation and coordination between the
Federal and State agencies charged with the management of the
rangelands and with local private range users,
(2) the payment of up to 50 per centum of the amount due the
Federal Government from grazing permittees in the form of range
improvement work,
(3) such other incentives as he may deem appropriate.
(b) Report to Congress
No later than December 31, 1985, the Secretaries shall report to
the Congress the results of such experimental program, their
evaluation of the fee established in section 1905 of this title and
other grazing fee options, and their recommendations to implement a
grazing fee schedule for the 1986 and subsequent grazing years.
-SOURCE-
(Pub. L. 95-514, Sec. 12, Oct. 25, 1978, 92 Stat. 1808.)
-End-
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/43C37.txt
43 USC CHAPTER 37 - PUBLIC RANGELANDS IMPROVEMENT 01/08/2008
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 43 - PUBLIC LANDS
CHAPTER 37 - PUBLIC RANGELANDS IMPROVEMENT
-HEAD-
CHAPTER 37 - PUBLIC RANGELANDS IMPROVEMENT
-MISC1-
Sec.
1901. Congressional findings and declaration of policy.
1902. Definitions.
1903. Rangelands inventory and management; public
availability.
1904. Range improvement funding.
1905. Grazing fees; economic value of use of land; fair
market value components; annual percentage change
limitation.
1906. Authority for cooperative agreements and payments
effective as provided in appropriations.
1907. National Grasslands; exemptions.
1908. Experimental stewardship program.
-End-
-CITE-
43 USC Sec. 1901 01/08/2008
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 43 - PUBLIC LANDS
CHAPTER 37 - PUBLIC RANGELANDS IMPROVEMENT
-HEAD-
Sec. 1901. Congressional findings and declaration of policy
-STATUTE-
(a) The Congress finds and declares that -
(1) vast segments of the public rangelands are producing less
than their potential for livestock, wildlife habitat, recreation,
forage, and water and soil conservation benefits, and for that
reason are in an unsatisfactory condition;
(2) such rangelands will remain in an unsatisfactory condition
and some areas may decline further under present levels of, and
funding for, management;
(3) unsatisfactory conditions on public rangelands present a
high risk of soil loss, desertification,(!1) and a resultant
underproductivity for large acreages of the public lands;
contribute significantly to unacceptable levels of siltation and
salinity in major western watersheds including the Colorado
River; negatively impact the quality and availability of scarce
western water supplies; threaten important and frequently
critical fish and wildlife habitat; prevent expansion of the
forage resource and resulting benefits to livestock and wildlife
production; increase surface runoff and flood danger; reduce the
value of such lands for recreational and esthetic purposes; and
may ultimately lead to unpredictable and undesirable long-term
local and regional climatic and economic changes;
(4) the above-mentioned conditions can be addressed and
corrected by an intensive public rangelands maintenance,
management, and improvement program involving significant
increases in levels of rangeland management and improvement
funding for multiple-use values;
(5) to prevent economic disruption and harm to the western
livestock industry, it is in the public interest to charge a fee
for livestock grazing permits and leases on the public lands
which is based on a formula reflecting annual changes in the
costs of production;
(6) the Act of December 15, 1971 (85 Stat. 649, 16 U.S.C. 1331
et seq.- the WFHBA), continues to be successful in its goal of protecting
wild free-roaming horses and burros from capture, branding,
harassment, and death, but that certain amendments are necessary
thereto to avoid excessive costs in the administration of the
Act, and to facilitate the humane adoption or disposal of excess
wild free-roaming horses and burros which because they exceed the
carrying capacity of the range, pose a threat to their own
habitat, fish, wildlife, recreation, water and soil conservation,
domestic livestock grazing, and other rangeland values;
(b) The Congress therefore hereby establishes and reaffirms a
national policy and commitment to:
(1) inventory and identify current public rangelands conditions
and trends as a part of the inventory process required by section
1711(a) of this title;
(2) manage, maintain and improve the condition of the public
rangelands so that they become as productive as feasible for all
rangeland values in accordance with management objectives and the
land use planning process established pursuant to section 1712 of
this title;
(3) charge a fee for public grazing use which is equitable and
reflects the concerns addressed in paragraph (a)(5) above;
(4) continue the policy of protecting wild free-roaming horses
and burros from capture, branding, harassment, or death, while at
the same time facilitating the removal and disposal of excess
wild free-roaming horses and burros which pose a threat to
themselves and their habitat and to other rangeland values;
(c) The policies of this chapter shall become effective only as
specific statutory authority for their implementation is enacted by
this chapter or by subsequent legislation, and shall be construed
as supplemental to and not in derogation of the purposes for which
public rangelands are administered under other provisions of law.
-SOURCE-
(Pub. L. 95-514, Sec. 2, Oct. 25, 1978, 92 Stat. 1803.)
-REFTEXT-
REFERENCES IN TEXT
Act of December 15, 1971, referred to in subsec. (a)(6), is Pub.
L. 92-195, Dec. 15, 1971, 85 Stat. 649, as amended, popularly known
as the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, which is classified
generally to chapter 30 (Sec. 1331 et seq.) of Title 16,
Conservation. For complete classification of this Act to the Code,
see Short Title note set out under section 1331 of Title 16 and
Tables.
This chapter, referred to in subsec. (c), was in the original
"this Act", meaning Pub. L. 95-514, Oct. 25, 1978, 92 Stat. 1803,
which enacted this chapter and amended sections 1739 and 1751 to
1753 of this title and sections 1332 and 1333 of Title 16. For
complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title
note set out below and Tables.
-MISC1-
SHORT TITLE
Section 1 of Pub. L. 95-514 provided: "That this Act [enacting
this chapter and amending sections 1739 and 1751 to 1753 of this
title and sections 1332 and 1333 of Title 16, Conservation] may be
cited as the 'Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978'."
-FOOTNOTE-
(!1) So in original.
-End-
-CITE-
43 USC Sec. 1902 01/08/2008
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 43 - PUBLIC LANDS
CHAPTER 37 - PUBLIC RANGELANDS IMPROVEMENT
-HEAD-
Sec. 1902. Definitions
-STATUTE-
As used in this chapter -
(a) The terms "rangelands" or "public rangelands" means lands
administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of
Land Management or the Secretary of Agriculture through the Forest
Service in the sixteen contiguous Western States on which there is
domestic livestock grazing or which the Secretary concerned
determines may be suitable for domestic livestock grazing.
(b) The term "allotment management plan" is the same as defined
in section 1702(k) of this title, except that as used in this
chapter such term applies to the sixteen contiguous Western States.
(c) The term "grazing permit and lease" means any document
authorizing use of public lands or lands in national forests in the
sixteen contiguous Western States for the purpose of grazing
domestic livestock.
(d) The term "range condition" means the quality of the land
reflected in its ability in specific vegetative areas to support
various levels of productivity in accordance with range management
objectives and the land use planning process, and relates to soil
quality, forage values (whether seasonal or year round), wildlife
habitat, watershed and plant communities, the present state of
vegetation of a range site in relation to the potential plant
community for that site, and the relative degree to which the
kinds, proportions, and amounts of vegetation in a plant community
resemble that of the desired community for that site.
(e) The term "native vegetation" means those plant species,
communities, or vegetative associations which are endemic to a
given area and which would normally be identified with a healthy
and productive range condition occurring as a result of the natural
vegetative process of the area.
(f) The term "range improvement" means any activity or program on
or relating to rangelands which is designed to improve production
of forage; change vegetative composition; control patterns of use;
provide water; stabilize soil and water conditions; and provide
habitat for livestock and wildlife. The term includes, but is not
limited to, structures, treatment projects, and use of mechanical
means to accomplish the desired results.
(g) The term "court ordered environmental impact statement" means
any environmental statements which are required to be prepared by
the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the final judgment or
subsequent modification thereof as set forth on June 18, 1975, in
the matter of Natural Resources Defense Council against Andrus.
(h) The term "Secretary" unless specifically designated
otherwise, means the Secretary of the Interior.
(i) The term "sixteen contiguous Western States" means the States
of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota,
Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
-SOURCE-
(Pub. L. 95-514, Sec. 3, Oct. 25, 1978, 92 Stat. 1804.)
-REFTEXT-
REFERENCES IN TEXT
This chapter, referred to in opening provision and in subsec.
(b), was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 95-514, Oct.
25, 1978, 92 Stat. 1803, which enacted this chapter and amended
sections 1739 and 1751 to 1753 of this title and sections 1332 and
1333 of Title 16, Conservation. For complete classification of this
Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1901 of
this title and Tables.
-End-
-CITE-
43 USC Sec. 1903 01/08/2008
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 43 - PUBLIC LANDS
CHAPTER 37 - PUBLIC RANGELANDS IMPROVEMENT
-HEAD-
Sec. 1903. Rangelands inventory and management; public availability
-STATUTE-
(a) Following enactment of this chapter, the Secretary of the
Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall update, develop
(where necessary) and maintain on a continuing basis thereafter, an
inventory of range conditions and record of trends of range
conditions on the public rangelands, and shall categorize or
identify such lands on the basis of the range conditions and trends
thereof as they deem appropriate. Such inventories shall be
conducted and maintained by the Secretary as a part of the
inventory process required by section 201(a) of the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1711), and by the Secretary of
Agriculture in accordance with section 1603 of title 16; shall be
kept current on a regular basis so as to reflect changes in range
conditions; and shall be available to the public.
(b) The Secretary shall manage the public rangelands in
accordance with the Taylor Grazing Act (43 U.S.C. 315-315(o)), the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701-
1782), and other applicable law consistent with the public
rangelands improvement program pursuant to this chapter. Except
where the land use planning process required pursuant to section
202 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1712)
determines otherwise or the Secretary determines, and sets forth
his reasons for this determination, that grazing uses should be
discontinued (either temporarily or permanently) on certain lands,
the goal of such management shall be to improve the range
conditions of the public rangelands so that they become as
productive as feasible in accordance with the rangeland management
objectives established through the land use planning process, and
consistent with the values and objectives listed in sections
1901(a) and (b)(2) of this title.
-SOURCE-
(Pub. L. 95-514, Sec. 4, Oct. 25, 1978, 92 Stat. 1805.)
-REFTEXT-
REFERENCES IN TEXT
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, referred to
in subsec. (b), is Pub. L. 94-579, Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2743, as
amended, which is classified principally to chapter 35 (Sec. 1701
et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to
the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1701 of this
title and Tables.
The Taylor Grazing Act, referred to in subsec. (b), is act June
28, 1934, ch. 865, 48 Stat. 1269, as amended, which is classified
principally to subchapter I (Sec. 315 et seq.) of chapter 8A of
this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code,
see Short Title note set out under section 315 of this title and
Tables.
-End-
-CITE-
43 USC Sec. 1904 01/08/2008
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 43 - PUBLIC LANDS
CHAPTER 37 - PUBLIC RANGELANDS IMPROVEMENT
-HEAD-
Sec. 1904. Range improvement funding
-STATUTE-
(a) Authorization of additional appropriations
In order to accomplish the purposes of this chapter, there are
hereby authorized to be appropriated the sum of an additional
$15,000,000 annually in fiscal years 1980 through 1982; for fiscal
years 1983 through 1986 an amount no less than the amount
authorized for 1982; and for fiscal years 1987 through 1999 an
amount not less than $5,000,000 annually more than the amount
authorized for fiscal year 1986. Such funds shall be in addition to
any range, wildlife, and soil and water management moneys which
have been requested by the Secretary under the provisions of
section 1748 of this title, and in addition to the moneys which are
available for range improvements under section 1751 of this title.
(b) Availability of unappropriated funds for subsequent fiscal
years
Any amounts authorized by this section not appropriated in one or
more fiscal years shall be available for appropriation in any
subsequent years.
(c) Fund limitations for prescribed uses; distribution,
consultation and coordination; public hearings and meetings;
interested parties; priority of cooperative agreements with range
users
No less than 80 per centum of such funds provided herein shall be
used for on-the-ground range rehabilitation, maintenance and the
construction of range improvements (including project layout,
project design, and project supervision). No more than 15 per
centum of such funds provided herein shall be used to hire and
train such experienced and qualified personnel as are necessary to
implement on-the-ground supervision and enforcement of the land use
plans required pursuant to section 1712 of this title and such
allotment management plans as may be developed. Such funds shall be
distributed as the Secretary deems advisable after careful and
considered consultation and coordination, including public hearings
and meetings where appropriate, with the district grazing advisory
boards established pursuant to section 1753 of this title, and the
advisory councils established pursuant to section 1739 of this
title, range user representatives, and other interested parties. To
the maximum extent practicable, and where economically sound, the
Secretary shall give priority to entering into cooperative
agreements with range users (or user groups) for the installation
and maintenance of on-the-ground range improvements.
(d) Environmental assessment record and environmental impact
statement requirements
Prior to the use of any funds authorized by this section the
Secretary shall cause to have prepared an environmental assessment
record on each range improvement project. Thereafter, improvement
projects may be constructed unless the Secretary determines that
the project will have a significant impact on the quality of human
environment, necessitating an environmental impact statement
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act [42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.] prior to the expenditure of funds.
-SOURCE-
(Pub. L. 95-514, Sec. 5, Oct. 25, 1978, 92 Stat. 1805.)
-REFTEXT-
REFERENCES IN TEXT
National Environmental Policy Act, referred to in subsec. (d), is
Pub. L. 91-190, Jan. 1, 1970, 83 Stat. 852, as amended, which is
classified generally to chapter 55 (Sec. 4321 et seq.) of Title 42,
The Public Health and Welfare. For complete classification of this
Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 4321 of
Title 42 and Tables.
-End-
-CITE-
43 USC Sec. 1905 01/08/2008
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 43 - PUBLIC LANDS
CHAPTER 37 - PUBLIC RANGELANDS IMPROVEMENT
-HEAD-
Sec. 1905. Grazing fees; economic value of use of land; fair market
value components; annual percentage change limitation
-STATUTE-
For the grazing years 1979 through 1985, the Secretaries of
Agriculture and Interior shall charge the fee for domestic
livestock grazing on the public rangelands which Congress finds
represents the economic value of the use of the land to the user,
and under which Congress finds fair market value for public grazing
equals the $1.23 base established by the 1966 Western Livestock
Grazing Survey multiplied by the result of the Forage Value Index
(computed annually from data supplied by the Economic Research
Service) added to the Combined Index (Beef Cattle Price Index minus
the Price Paid Index) and divided by 100: Provided, That the annual
increase or decrease in such fee for any given year shall be
limited to not more than plus or minus 25 per centum of the
previous year's fee.
-SOURCE-
(Pub. L. 95-514, Sec. 6(a), Oct. 25, 1978, 92 Stat. 1806.)
-EXEC-
EX. ORD. NO. 12548. GRAZING FEES
Ex. Ord. No. 12548, Feb. 14, 1986, 51 F.R. 5985, provided:
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution
and laws of the United States of America, and in order to provide
for establishment of appropriate fees for the grazing of domestic
livestock on public rangelands, it is ordered as follows:
Section 1. Determination of Fees. The Secretaries of Agriculture
and the Interior are directed to exercise their authority, to the
extent permitted by law under the various statutes they administer,
to establish fees for domestic livestock grazing on the public
rangelands which annually equals the $1.23 base established by the
1966 Western Livestock Grazing Survey multiplied by the result of
the Forage Value Index (computed annually from data supplied by the
Statistical Reporting Service) added to the Combined Index (Beef
Cattle Price Index minus the Prices Paid Index) and divided by 100;
provided, that the annual increase or decrease in such fee for any
given year shall be limited to not more than plus or minus 25
percent of the previous year's fee, and provided further, that the
fee shall not be less than $1.35 per animal unit month.
Sec. 2. Definitions. As used in this Order, the term:
(a) "Public rangelands" has the same meaning as in the Public
Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-514) [this
chapter];
(b) "Forage Value Index" means the weighted average estimate of
the annual rental charge per head per month for pasturing cattle on
private rangelands in the 11 Western States (Montana, Idaho,
Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Washington,
Oregon, and California) (computed by the Statistical Reporting
Service from the June Enumerative Survey) divided by $3.65 and
multiplied by 100;
(c) "Beef Cattle Price Index" means the weighted average annual
selling price for beef cattle (excluding calves) in the 11 Western
States (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona,
Utah, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, and California) for November
through October (computed by the Statistical Reporting Service)
divided by $22.04 per hundred weight and multiplied by 100; and
(d) "Prices Paid Index" means the following selected components
from the Statistical Reporting Service's Annual National Index of
Prices Paid by Farmers for Goods and Services adjusted by the
weights indicated in parentheses to reflect livestock production
costs in the Western States: 1. Fuels and Energy (14.5); 2. Farm
and Motor Supplies (12.0); 3. Autos and Trucks (4.5); 4. Tractors
and Self-Propelled Machinery (4.5); 5. Other Machinery (12.0); 6.
Building and Fencing Materials (14.5); 7. Interest (6.0); 8. Farm
Wage Rates (14.0); 9. Farm Services (18.0).
Sec. 3. Any and all existing rules, practices, policies, and
regulations relating to the administration of the formula for
grazing fees in section 6(a) of the Public Rangelands Improvement
Act of 1978 [43 U.S.C. 1905] shall continue in full force and
effect.
Sec. 4. This Order shall be effective immediately.
Ronald Reagan.
-End-
-CITE-
43 USC Sec. 1906 01/08/2008
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 43 - PUBLIC LANDS
CHAPTER 37 - PUBLIC RANGELANDS IMPROVEMENT
-HEAD-
Sec. 1906. Authority for cooperative agreements and payments
effective as provided in appropriations
-STATUTE-
Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, authority to
enter into cooperative agreements and to make payments under this
chapter shall be effective only to the extent or in such amounts as
are provided in advance in appropriation Acts.
-SOURCE-
(Pub. L. 95-514, Sec. 9, Oct. 25, 1978, 92 Stat. 1807.)
-End-
-CITE-
43 USC Sec. 1907 01/08/2008
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 43 - PUBLIC LANDS
CHAPTER 37 - PUBLIC RANGELANDS IMPROVEMENT
-HEAD-
Sec. 1907. National Grasslands; exemptions
-STATUTE-
All National Grasslands are exempted from the provisions of this
chapter.
-SOURCE-
(Pub. L. 95-514, Sec. 11, Oct. 25, 1978, 92 Stat. 1808.)
-End-
-CITE-
43 USC Sec. 1908 01/08/2008
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 43 - PUBLIC LANDS
CHAPTER 37 - PUBLIC RANGELANDS IMPROVEMENT
-HEAD-
Sec. 1908. Experimental stewardship program
-STATUTE-
(a) Scope of program
The Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture are hereby authorized
and directed to develop and implement, on an experimental basis on
selected areas of the public rangelands which are representative of
the broad spectrum of range conditions, trends, and forage values,
a program which provides incentives to, or rewards for, the holders
of grazing permits and leases whose stewardship results in an
improvement of the range condition of lands under permit or lease.
Such program shall explore innovative grazing management policies
and systems which might provide incentives to improve range
conditions. These may include, but need not be limited to -
(1) cooperative range management projects designed to foster a
greater degree of cooperation and coordination between the
Federal and State agencies charged with the management of the
rangelands and with local private range users,
(2) the payment of up to 50 per centum of the amount due the
Federal Government from grazing permittees in the form of range
improvement work,
(3) such other incentives as he may deem appropriate.
(b) Report to Congress
No later than December 31, 1985, the Secretaries shall report to
the Congress the results of such experimental program, their
evaluation of the fee established in section 1905 of this title and
other grazing fee options, and their recommendations to implement a
grazing fee schedule for the 1986 and subsequent grazing years.
-SOURCE-
(Pub. L. 95-514, Sec. 12, Oct. 25, 1978, 92 Stat. 1808.)
-End-
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/43C37.txt
MUCH Govt Waste Within the Dept of Interior / BLM
January 27, 2009
Letter to:
Nancy Killefer
Chief Performance Officer
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
From: Wild Earth Guardians
Dear Ms. Killefer:
Congratulations on your appointment to Chief Performance Officer for the Obama Administration. We are pleased that President Obama has prioritized government efficiency and ensuring a fair return for taxpayers as a central component of good government. Your previous experience in the private sector and public service, and expertise in organizational practices are proof of your qualifications for the position.
We don’t need to remind you that we are in the midst of some of the worst economic times that our Nation has ever faced. Extraordinary economic circumstances require extraordinary action. We are poised to assist you and your new office in reducing wasteful government spending in ways that not only protect and restore taxpayer’s faith in our government, but also in our ability to protect and
restore our air, water, wildlife, lands and climate.
While there are many, notoriously wasteful federal programs, we wish to draw your attention to a class of programs that not only drain the federal budget, but destroy public lands and resources as well. For decades the federal government has subsidized environmentally destructive resource use at the behest of powerful industries. The result is that public lands livestock grazing, wildlife
trapping and killing, federal timber sales, public lands mining, and lost royalties have cost taxpayers billions, even while these activities have degraded our public lands, dirtied our air and despoiled our water.
Prominent researchers, including renowned biologists Dr. E.O. Wilson and Dr. Norman Myers,have found that perverse and environmentally destructive subsidies not only threaten ecosystems,air and water, but hinder our attempts to implement more sustainable forms of production. More efficient, environmentally benign or beneficial processes to produce energy, food and fiber have
difficulty competing with more wasteful, ecologically harmful, subsidized competitors. In other words this is not just a matter of spending the taxpayers dollars wisely and protecting our environment, but also creating an economic and regulatory context which ushers in a new paradigm that benefits human survival and co-existence with one another and with wildlife and our precious
natural heritage.
Following are some examples of federal programs that we ask you to formally investigate and which must be reformed or eliminated to reduce wasteful spending and ensure a fair return to the federal government. Please note that this synopsis considers only the fiscal costs of these programs and does not attempt to quantify the additional social and ecological costs, nor the costs of restoring
ecosystems and species degraded by these harmful land uses.
1. Federal Public Lands Livestock Grazing
USDI/Bureau of Land Management
USDA/Forest Service
Former Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt has written that federal public lands livestock grazing “is the most damaging use of public land.” The Government Accountability Office reported that the federal government spends at least $144 million each year managing private livestock grazing on 235 million acres of federal land, but collects only $21 million in grazing fees—for a net loss of at least $123 million per year.
The Bureau of Land Management and U.S.Forest Service manage 98 percent of public land used for grazing, and accounts for the majority of federal grazing subsidies. Public lands ranchers were charged the federal minimum of $1.35
per cow per month to graze public land in 2008; fees on equivalent private grazing lands averaged $15.90 in 2007.
2. “Wildlife Services”
USDA/Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service/Wildlife Service
Wildlife Services spent $117 million, including $61 million of federal funds, to kill 2.4 million wild animals representing 319 species in fiscal year 2007 on behalf of agricultural interests and for other purposes. The euphemistically named agency annually kills coyotes, bobcats, cougars, raccoons, beaver, prairie dogs, Canada geese, robins, blackbirds, woodpeckers, gray foxes, red foxes, badgers, skunks, woodchucks, and marmots. The agency even occasionally kills threatened and endangered species, including grizzly bears, wolves and eagles, which federal
taxpayers are paying other federal agencies to protect and restore.
3. Federal Timber Sales
USDA/Forest Service
The Forest Service timber sale program is devastating to our national forests and the federal budget. Taxpayers for Common Sense reported that the program annually spends hundreds of millions of dollars more than it collects from timber companies, costing American taxpayers $407 million in 1998. The Forest Service no longer provides detailed accounting of its timber sale program, but the Government Accountability Office reported that reducing appropriations for the program could result in significant savings based on timber sale receipts collected in the
1990s. For example, during fiscal years 1995 through 1997, the Forest Service timber sale program cost taxpayers approximately $1.2 billion.
4. Lost Mineral Royalties
USDI/Bureau of Land Management
USDI/Minerals Management Service
Natural gas is an important energy source, yet in the production of oil and gas, millions of dollars of this valuable product are unnecessarily wasted. Industry annually vents or flares 148 billion cubic feet of methane in natural gas production alone. With a value of more than $5.00/thousand cubic feet, this amounts to more than $740,000,000 of lost income. Much of this gas is federally owned. Not only does this represent a loss in royalty revenue for the United States, the escaped methane is a significant source of global warming pollution.
5. Lost Coal Royalties
DOI/Bureau of Land Management
The Powder River Basin in northeastern Wyoming is the country’s leading coal producing region. In 2007 the basin produced 42 percent of the Nation’s coal. Much of this coal is federally owned and managed by the Bureau of Land Management.
Despite the massive amount of coal produced in the Powder River Basin, the Bureau of Land Management has “decertified” the area as a coal production region. This allows coal mining companies, rather than the federal government, to propose and design coal lease boundaries. Not surprisingly, mining companies draw lease boundaries tailored to their needs, which often fail to meet federal standards for fair compensation and extraction of the resource. Since coal companies can propose their own lease boundaries, they often design boundaries that effectively
deter others from bidding on the leases, thereby suppressing competition and preventing the government from receiving market rates for the leases.
6. General Mining Law of 1872
The General Mining Law of 1872 is a relic law that gives away billions of dollars in government subsidies to mining companies through below-cost sale of public lands and minerals. The 137-year-old law allows mining companies—including foreign interests—to patent public land and minerals for just a few dollars per acre—paying 1872 prices for land worth billions of dollars.
Earthworks, a conservation organization interested in reforming the 1872 Mining Law,
estimates that the federal government has given away more than $245 billion in mineral resources through patenting since 1872. To add insult to injury, mining companies are not required to pay royalties on minerals taken from patented mines. Earthworks estimates that taxpayers are denied approximately $100 million annually in royalty revenue as a result.
The 1872 Mining Law distorts the minerals market and elevates hardrock mining as the
dominant use of public land, regardless of other potential uses. Mining fragments and destroys natural habitats. Abandoned mines are costly to restore and may threaten local watersheds and communities for decades.
On the day that President Obama announced the creation of the position of Chief Performance Officer, he stated “we can no longer afford to sustain the old ways when we know there are new and more efficient ways of getting the job done. Even in good times, Washington can’t afford to continue these bad practices. In bad times, it’s absolutely imperative that Washington stop them and restore confidence that our government is on the side of taxpayers and everyday Americans.”
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter and we look forward to hearing from you. I will be in Washington, DC during the week of March 9-13 and would be pleased to meet with you to discuss these concerns.
Sincerely,
John C. Horning
Executive Director
WildEarth Guardians
Letter to:
Nancy Killefer
Chief Performance Officer
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
From: Wild Earth Guardians
Dear Ms. Killefer:
Congratulations on your appointment to Chief Performance Officer for the Obama Administration. We are pleased that President Obama has prioritized government efficiency and ensuring a fair return for taxpayers as a central component of good government. Your previous experience in the private sector and public service, and expertise in organizational practices are proof of your qualifications for the position.
We don’t need to remind you that we are in the midst of some of the worst economic times that our Nation has ever faced. Extraordinary economic circumstances require extraordinary action. We are poised to assist you and your new office in reducing wasteful government spending in ways that not only protect and restore taxpayer’s faith in our government, but also in our ability to protect and
restore our air, water, wildlife, lands and climate.
While there are many, notoriously wasteful federal programs, we wish to draw your attention to a class of programs that not only drain the federal budget, but destroy public lands and resources as well. For decades the federal government has subsidized environmentally destructive resource use at the behest of powerful industries. The result is that public lands livestock grazing, wildlife
trapping and killing, federal timber sales, public lands mining, and lost royalties have cost taxpayers billions, even while these activities have degraded our public lands, dirtied our air and despoiled our water.
Prominent researchers, including renowned biologists Dr. E.O. Wilson and Dr. Norman Myers,have found that perverse and environmentally destructive subsidies not only threaten ecosystems,air and water, but hinder our attempts to implement more sustainable forms of production. More efficient, environmentally benign or beneficial processes to produce energy, food and fiber have
difficulty competing with more wasteful, ecologically harmful, subsidized competitors. In other words this is not just a matter of spending the taxpayers dollars wisely and protecting our environment, but also creating an economic and regulatory context which ushers in a new paradigm that benefits human survival and co-existence with one another and with wildlife and our precious
natural heritage.
Following are some examples of federal programs that we ask you to formally investigate and which must be reformed or eliminated to reduce wasteful spending and ensure a fair return to the federal government. Please note that this synopsis considers only the fiscal costs of these programs and does not attempt to quantify the additional social and ecological costs, nor the costs of restoring
ecosystems and species degraded by these harmful land uses.
1. Federal Public Lands Livestock Grazing
USDI/Bureau of Land Management
USDA/Forest Service
Former Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt has written that federal public lands livestock grazing “is the most damaging use of public land.” The Government Accountability Office reported that the federal government spends at least $144 million each year managing private livestock grazing on 235 million acres of federal land, but collects only $21 million in grazing fees—for a net loss of at least $123 million per year.
The Bureau of Land Management and U.S.Forest Service manage 98 percent of public land used for grazing, and accounts for the majority of federal grazing subsidies. Public lands ranchers were charged the federal minimum of $1.35
per cow per month to graze public land in 2008; fees on equivalent private grazing lands averaged $15.90 in 2007.
2. “Wildlife Services”
USDA/Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service/Wildlife Service
Wildlife Services spent $117 million, including $61 million of federal funds, to kill 2.4 million wild animals representing 319 species in fiscal year 2007 on behalf of agricultural interests and for other purposes. The euphemistically named agency annually kills coyotes, bobcats, cougars, raccoons, beaver, prairie dogs, Canada geese, robins, blackbirds, woodpeckers, gray foxes, red foxes, badgers, skunks, woodchucks, and marmots. The agency even occasionally kills threatened and endangered species, including grizzly bears, wolves and eagles, which federal
taxpayers are paying other federal agencies to protect and restore.
3. Federal Timber Sales
USDA/Forest Service
The Forest Service timber sale program is devastating to our national forests and the federal budget. Taxpayers for Common Sense reported that the program annually spends hundreds of millions of dollars more than it collects from timber companies, costing American taxpayers $407 million in 1998. The Forest Service no longer provides detailed accounting of its timber sale program, but the Government Accountability Office reported that reducing appropriations for the program could result in significant savings based on timber sale receipts collected in the
1990s. For example, during fiscal years 1995 through 1997, the Forest Service timber sale program cost taxpayers approximately $1.2 billion.
4. Lost Mineral Royalties
USDI/Bureau of Land Management
USDI/Minerals Management Service
Natural gas is an important energy source, yet in the production of oil and gas, millions of dollars of this valuable product are unnecessarily wasted. Industry annually vents or flares 148 billion cubic feet of methane in natural gas production alone. With a value of more than $5.00/thousand cubic feet, this amounts to more than $740,000,000 of lost income. Much of this gas is federally owned. Not only does this represent a loss in royalty revenue for the United States, the escaped methane is a significant source of global warming pollution.
5. Lost Coal Royalties
DOI/Bureau of Land Management
The Powder River Basin in northeastern Wyoming is the country’s leading coal producing region. In 2007 the basin produced 42 percent of the Nation’s coal. Much of this coal is federally owned and managed by the Bureau of Land Management.
Despite the massive amount of coal produced in the Powder River Basin, the Bureau of Land Management has “decertified” the area as a coal production region. This allows coal mining companies, rather than the federal government, to propose and design coal lease boundaries. Not surprisingly, mining companies draw lease boundaries tailored to their needs, which often fail to meet federal standards for fair compensation and extraction of the resource. Since coal companies can propose their own lease boundaries, they often design boundaries that effectively
deter others from bidding on the leases, thereby suppressing competition and preventing the government from receiving market rates for the leases.
6. General Mining Law of 1872
The General Mining Law of 1872 is a relic law that gives away billions of dollars in government subsidies to mining companies through below-cost sale of public lands and minerals. The 137-year-old law allows mining companies—including foreign interests—to patent public land and minerals for just a few dollars per acre—paying 1872 prices for land worth billions of dollars.
Earthworks, a conservation organization interested in reforming the 1872 Mining Law,
estimates that the federal government has given away more than $245 billion in mineral resources through patenting since 1872. To add insult to injury, mining companies are not required to pay royalties on minerals taken from patented mines. Earthworks estimates that taxpayers are denied approximately $100 million annually in royalty revenue as a result.
The 1872 Mining Law distorts the minerals market and elevates hardrock mining as the
dominant use of public land, regardless of other potential uses. Mining fragments and destroys natural habitats. Abandoned mines are costly to restore and may threaten local watersheds and communities for decades.
On the day that President Obama announced the creation of the position of Chief Performance Officer, he stated “we can no longer afford to sustain the old ways when we know there are new and more efficient ways of getting the job done. Even in good times, Washington can’t afford to continue these bad practices. In bad times, it’s absolutely imperative that Washington stop them and restore confidence that our government is on the side of taxpayers and everyday Americans.”
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter and we look forward to hearing from you. I will be in Washington, DC during the week of March 9-13 and would be pleased to meet with you to discuss these concerns.
Sincerely,
John C. Horning
Executive Director
WildEarth Guardians
Welfare Ranching Continues Out West
For immediate release: February 2, 2009
Contacts:
Greta Anderson, Arizona Director, Western Watersheds Project - 520-623-1878
Mark Salvo, Director, Sagebrush Sea Campaign, WildEarth Guardians - 502-757-4221
Welfare Ranching Continues Out West
Tucson, AZ - On Friday the federal government announced the annual public lands grazing fee for 2009. It is $1.35 per animal unit month (AUM), the minimum fee allowed under current law and third year in a row that the fee has been so low. The fee, which is charged on most Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service grazing allotments, does not come close to recouping the costs of the federal grazing program.
"The federal grazing program doesn't pay for itself-not by a long-shot," said Greta Anderson, Arizona Director for Western Watersheds Project. "It's effectively a hand-out for a special interest group."
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported in 2005 that the BLM and Forest Service spends $132.5 million annually on grazing management, but collects only $17.5 million in grazing fees, for an annual loss of at least $115 million to taxpayers. The average grazing fee on equivalent, non-irrigated private lands in the West was $15.90 per AUM in 2007.
"Given the massive budget shortfall our country is facing, we can no longer afford to subsidize a small group of ranchers to pursue their preferred lifestyle on public lands at public expense," said Mark Salvo, Director of the Sagebrush Sea Campaign for WildEarth Guardians.
WildEarth Guardians sent a letter to the new Chief Performance Officer for the Obama Administration last week identifying a host of wasteful federal programs, including the grazing program.
The federal grazing fee is determined by a formula established by the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (PRIA). Fees are based on the amount of forage required to sustain one "animal unit" for one month. The fee has failed to keep up with inflation or the cost of administering the program. In fact, the GAO reported in 2005 that the BLM would need to charge $7.64 per AUM to recoup grazing program expenses, and the Forest Service would need to charge $12.26/AUM.
In 2005 conservation organizations submitted a petition for rulemaking to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of the Interior to update the fee formula to produce fees that cover the costs of the federal grazing program. Under the Administrative Procedures Act, the agencies are supposed to respond within a "reasonable period" of time.
"The Obama Administration needs to respond now to the grazing fee petition to comply with the law," said Jon Marvel, Executive Director of Western Watersheds Project.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download the News Release
2005 Government Accountability Office Report: Livestock Grazing
2005 fee petition;
Click on title above to go to the website where tou can download a copy of the Press Release & Letter;
http://www.westernwatersheds.org/news-media/news-release/2009-grazing-fee
Contacts:
Greta Anderson, Arizona Director, Western Watersheds Project - 520-623-1878
Mark Salvo, Director, Sagebrush Sea Campaign, WildEarth Guardians - 502-757-4221
Welfare Ranching Continues Out West
Tucson, AZ - On Friday the federal government announced the annual public lands grazing fee for 2009. It is $1.35 per animal unit month (AUM), the minimum fee allowed under current law and third year in a row that the fee has been so low. The fee, which is charged on most Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service grazing allotments, does not come close to recouping the costs of the federal grazing program.
"The federal grazing program doesn't pay for itself-not by a long-shot," said Greta Anderson, Arizona Director for Western Watersheds Project. "It's effectively a hand-out for a special interest group."
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported in 2005 that the BLM and Forest Service spends $132.5 million annually on grazing management, but collects only $17.5 million in grazing fees, for an annual loss of at least $115 million to taxpayers. The average grazing fee on equivalent, non-irrigated private lands in the West was $15.90 per AUM in 2007.
"Given the massive budget shortfall our country is facing, we can no longer afford to subsidize a small group of ranchers to pursue their preferred lifestyle on public lands at public expense," said Mark Salvo, Director of the Sagebrush Sea Campaign for WildEarth Guardians.
WildEarth Guardians sent a letter to the new Chief Performance Officer for the Obama Administration last week identifying a host of wasteful federal programs, including the grazing program.
The federal grazing fee is determined by a formula established by the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (PRIA). Fees are based on the amount of forage required to sustain one "animal unit" for one month. The fee has failed to keep up with inflation or the cost of administering the program. In fact, the GAO reported in 2005 that the BLM would need to charge $7.64 per AUM to recoup grazing program expenses, and the Forest Service would need to charge $12.26/AUM.
In 2005 conservation organizations submitted a petition for rulemaking to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of the Interior to update the fee formula to produce fees that cover the costs of the federal grazing program. Under the Administrative Procedures Act, the agencies are supposed to respond within a "reasonable period" of time.
"The Obama Administration needs to respond now to the grazing fee petition to comply with the law," said Jon Marvel, Executive Director of Western Watersheds Project.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download the News Release
2005 Government Accountability Office Report: Livestock Grazing
2005 fee petition;
Click on title above to go to the website where tou can download a copy of the Press Release & Letter;
http://www.westernwatersheds.org/news-media/news-release/2009-grazing-fee
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Tracing the Roots of a Diabolical Plan....
to eliminate 11 of Nevadas wild horse herds, and zero out not only the horses but their wild horse rangelands too! What for? Why for special interest, of course! Big Game Hunting, Resource Development (Mining Permits) and now, "Community Development."
Read all about it here, in the....2007
Ely Proposed Resource Management Plan
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Click on title above to go there;
http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/ely_field_office/blm_programs/planning/ely_rmp_2007.html
Read all about it here, in the....2007
Ely Proposed Resource Management Plan
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Click on title above to go there;
http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/ely_field_office/blm_programs/planning/ely_rmp_2007.html
More Old News: Interior Secretary Sued For Stacking BLM Advisory Boards
Cronyism on public lands advisory boards challenged
April 18, 2002
Denver, CO -- Conservation groups filed suit in Colorado today to overturn Interior Secretary Gale Norton's appointment of political cronies to three public lands advisory boards. Norton's appointments are one of the clearest examples of the Bush administration giving business interests decision-making power over the public's interests. Secretary Norton appointed the controversial individuals to Colorado's Resource Advisory Councils (RACs), which are boards intended to advise the federal Bureau of Land Management on important land use issues. These boards are supposed to represent a spectrum of interest groups regularly involved with public lands issues. They are not supposed to be political appointments, although this board appears to be just that.
Earthjustice filed the suit on behalf of the Colorado Environmental Coalition and Colorado Mountain Club after repeated attempts to work with the Department of Interior to remedy the situation were ignored.
"Americans have a right to a fair and open process, and the appointment of the governor's slate by Secretary Norton violates that trust. Now we will have our day in court," said Vera Smith, conservation director with the Colorado Mountain Club.
Fifty other qualified citizens who had completed the application process correctly were passed over at the 11th hour when Republican Governor Bill Owens, a strong Norton supporter, brought his slate of pro development names forward two weeks after the deadline passed. The 13 people nominated after the fact by Governor Owens were rubber stamped by the BLM in September 2001 when the appointments were made. The law requires appointees to present a letter of reference from the groups they purport to represent when they apply for the boards. This requirement was never fulfilled for the Owens slate.
"In 2001, BLM's new appointments were virtually dictated by the governor, whose nominations were universally appointed, to the detriment of the rest of the public," said Earthjustice attorney Eric Huber.
Governor Bill Owens was an early champion of Gayle Norton as Secretary of the Interior, and testified in support of her confirmation by the Senate. In bowing to the governor's influence, BLM had to ignore its own nomination deadline and qualification requirements.
"As acknowledged by the governor's office, these candidates never submitted lawful applications and are therefore not legally nominated. Those appointees who failed to follow the law should not be allowed to serve on this body," said Pete Kolbenschlag, Western Slope Field Director with the Colorado Environmental Coalition.
Contact:Eric Huber, Earthjustice, 303-623-9466
Vera Smith, Colorado Mountain Club, 303-279-3080 x106
Pete Kolbenschlag, Colorado Environmental Coalition, 970-527-7502
Regional Offices Alaska California Florida Headquarters International Mid-Pacific Northeast Northern Rockies Northwest Policy & Legislation Rocky Mountain Washington, DC
426 17th Street, Oakland, CA 94612 | 1.800.584.6460 | info@earthjustice.org
Founded as the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund in 1971
http://www.earthjustice.org/news/press/002/interior_secretary_sued_for_stacking_blm_advisory_boards.html
April 18, 2002
Denver, CO -- Conservation groups filed suit in Colorado today to overturn Interior Secretary Gale Norton's appointment of political cronies to three public lands advisory boards. Norton's appointments are one of the clearest examples of the Bush administration giving business interests decision-making power over the public's interests. Secretary Norton appointed the controversial individuals to Colorado's Resource Advisory Councils (RACs), which are boards intended to advise the federal Bureau of Land Management on important land use issues. These boards are supposed to represent a spectrum of interest groups regularly involved with public lands issues. They are not supposed to be political appointments, although this board appears to be just that.
Earthjustice filed the suit on behalf of the Colorado Environmental Coalition and Colorado Mountain Club after repeated attempts to work with the Department of Interior to remedy the situation were ignored.
"Americans have a right to a fair and open process, and the appointment of the governor's slate by Secretary Norton violates that trust. Now we will have our day in court," said Vera Smith, conservation director with the Colorado Mountain Club.
Fifty other qualified citizens who had completed the application process correctly were passed over at the 11th hour when Republican Governor Bill Owens, a strong Norton supporter, brought his slate of pro development names forward two weeks after the deadline passed. The 13 people nominated after the fact by Governor Owens were rubber stamped by the BLM in September 2001 when the appointments were made. The law requires appointees to present a letter of reference from the groups they purport to represent when they apply for the boards. This requirement was never fulfilled for the Owens slate.
"In 2001, BLM's new appointments were virtually dictated by the governor, whose nominations were universally appointed, to the detriment of the rest of the public," said Earthjustice attorney Eric Huber.
Governor Bill Owens was an early champion of Gayle Norton as Secretary of the Interior, and testified in support of her confirmation by the Senate. In bowing to the governor's influence, BLM had to ignore its own nomination deadline and qualification requirements.
"As acknowledged by the governor's office, these candidates never submitted lawful applications and are therefore not legally nominated. Those appointees who failed to follow the law should not be allowed to serve on this body," said Pete Kolbenschlag, Western Slope Field Director with the Colorado Environmental Coalition.
Contact:Eric Huber, Earthjustice, 303-623-9466
Vera Smith, Colorado Mountain Club, 303-279-3080 x106
Pete Kolbenschlag, Colorado Environmental Coalition, 970-527-7502
Regional Offices Alaska California Florida Headquarters International Mid-Pacific Northeast Northern Rockies Northwest Policy & Legislation Rocky Mountain Washington, DC
426 17th Street, Oakland, CA 94612 | 1.800.584.6460 | info@earthjustice.org
Founded as the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund in 1971
http://www.earthjustice.org/news/press/002/interior_secretary_sued_for_stacking_blm_advisory_boards.html
BLM sued for records of Reid contacts / 07'
Old but Relevant News: Worth a Re-Run;
Link to this page
BLM sued for records of Reid contacts
A conservative group said Tuesday it is suing the Bureau of Land Management for records about any role Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other Nevada politicians had in a real estate development project in the state.
The group, Judicial Watch, said the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) had not responded to a Freedom of Information Act request March 8 seeking correspondence with Reid, D-Nev., Republican Sen. John Ensign John Eric Ensign (born 25 March 1958) is the junior United States Senator from Nevada, serving since January 2001. He is a member of the Republican Party, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee of Nevada.
The Los Angeles Times reported in a story last year that Reid and other Nevada politicians intervened with federal officials on behalf of Nevada lobbyist Harvey Whittemore and his 43,000-acre development of homes and golf courses northeast of Las Vegas Las Vegas. It is the largest city in Nevada and the center of one of the fastest-growing urban areas in the United States. .
Specifically, the Times reported that Reid and Ensign met with the head of the Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), independent agency of the U.S. government, with headquarters in Washington, D.C. It was established in 1970 to reduce and control air and water pollution, noise pollution, and radiation and to ensure the safe handling and to relay developers' concerns about permits being delayed because of potential environmental impacts. One of Reid's sons, Leif, has represented Whittemore as an attorney.
Reid and others in the Nevada congressional delegation have said the development represents economic benefits for the state.
"This is clearly a politically motivated move by a right-wing group attempting to get headlines," Jon Summers, a spokesman for Reid, said in a statement after the suit was announced.
Summers said that because 87 percent of land in Nevada is managed by the federal government, members of Congress work closely with federal agencies on land use issues.
"Every member of Nevada's delegation strongly supports this project, which would create more than half a million jobs and provide more than 150,000 homes when complete," said Summers.
Judicial Watch filed the suit in U.S. District Court in Washington on Sept. 5. The Bureau of Land Management did not respond immediately to a message left after hours with its press office.
Copyright 2007 AP News
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/BLM+sued+for+records+of+Reid+contacts-a01611391757
Link to this page
BLM sued for records of Reid contacts
A conservative group said Tuesday it is suing the Bureau of Land Management for records about any role Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other Nevada politicians had in a real estate development project in the state.
The group, Judicial Watch, said the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) had not responded to a Freedom of Information Act request March 8 seeking correspondence with Reid, D-Nev., Republican Sen. John Ensign John Eric Ensign (born 25 March 1958) is the junior United States Senator from Nevada, serving since January 2001. He is a member of the Republican Party, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee of Nevada.
The Los Angeles Times reported in a story last year that Reid and other Nevada politicians intervened with federal officials on behalf of Nevada lobbyist Harvey Whittemore and his 43,000-acre development of homes and golf courses northeast of Las Vegas Las Vegas. It is the largest city in Nevada and the center of one of the fastest-growing urban areas in the United States. .
Specifically, the Times reported that Reid and Ensign met with the head of the Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), independent agency of the U.S. government, with headquarters in Washington, D.C. It was established in 1970 to reduce and control air and water pollution, noise pollution, and radiation and to ensure the safe handling and to relay developers' concerns about permits being delayed because of potential environmental impacts. One of Reid's sons, Leif, has represented Whittemore as an attorney.
Reid and others in the Nevada congressional delegation have said the development represents economic benefits for the state.
"This is clearly a politically motivated move by a right-wing group attempting to get headlines," Jon Summers, a spokesman for Reid, said in a statement after the suit was announced.
Summers said that because 87 percent of land in Nevada is managed by the federal government, members of Congress work closely with federal agencies on land use issues.
"Every member of Nevada's delegation strongly supports this project, which would create more than half a million jobs and provide more than 150,000 homes when complete," said Summers.
Judicial Watch filed the suit in U.S. District Court in Washington on Sept. 5. The Bureau of Land Management did not respond immediately to a message left after hours with its press office.
Copyright 2007 AP News
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/BLM+sued+for+records+of+Reid+contacts-a01611391757
BLM Sued over Ranchers Deal / 2003
This would be an interesting case to update, although none of these legal challanges to BLMs policies succeed for long.....the courts seems to rubber-stamp everything the BLm says, thinks or does. Where the heck did we get all these compassionless judges? The deck is definately stacked against our efforts to protect our wild horses!
BLM sued over Robbins deal
By BRODIE FARQUHAR Star-Tribune staff writer
Two conservation groups filed a lawsuit last Thursday in U.S. District Court
in the District of Columbia against top officials of the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) -- objecting to a unique settlement in favor of a
Thermopolis-area rancher.
Western Watersheds Project of Hailey, Idaho and American Lands Alliance of
Washington, D.C., filed suit last week alleging unlawful actions and
failures of action by the top leadership of the BLM, "who have overridden
the scientific and professional judgment of BLM staff in order to favor a
wealthy and politically powerful rancher, Harvey Frank Robbins, granting him
grazing privileges and preferences in violation of the nation's laws and
regulations governing public lands grazing."
The lawsuit is not aimed at Robbins, only his settlement with the BLM and
the BLM officials who authorized the settlement: allegedly Kathleen Clarke,
director of the bureau and Francis Cherry, her deputy director. The
settlement, achieved after years of lawsuits and counter lawsuits between
Robbins and the BLM, stayed all regulatory action against Robbins, even
though grazing violations have allegedly continued.
"I understand the BLM is conducting its own internal investigation," said
Laird Lucas, an attorney for Advocates for the West, a Boise-based,
nonprofit, conservation law firm. "We're hoping this will prod the BLM into
a settlement." Lucas and associate Lauren Rule have teamed up with Jonathan
Lovvorn of Meyer & Glitzenstein in Washington, D.C.
The lawsuit alleges violations of the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act, Taylor Grazing Act, and the Code of Federal Regulations, but not the
Endangered Species Act. Lucas said he's investigating biologists' statements
that grizzly bears inhabit Robbins' ranches and whether a grizzly bear was
illegally shot and killed. An ESA complaint that BLM did not consult with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over grizzly bears observed on Robbins'
Owl Creek allotments could be filed separately or added as an amendment.
Lucas said the federal government has 60 days to respond. If the case is
still ongoing in the spring, Lucas said he may seek injunctive relief. He
cited BLM records that indicate BLM pastures leased by Robbins have
experienced moderate to severe degradation due to overgrazing and the
ongoing drought. "That land really needs a rest," Lucas said.
Celia Boddington, spokeswoman for BLM headquarters, said the lawsuit is
still under review and the bureau has no comment as yet.
Western Watersheds Project is a nonprofit conservation organization focused
on protecting and conserving public lands and natural resources of
watersheds in the West. American Lands Alliance is a nonprofit conservation
organization that works with grassroots organizations and individuals to
protect and preserve desert, forest, and aquatic ecosystems.
--------------
"The indifference, callousness and contempt that so many people exhibit
toward animals is evil, first because it results in the great suffering of
animals, and second because it results in an incalculably great
impoverishment of the human spirit."
Ashley Montagu
http://lists.envirolink.org/pipermail/ar-news/Week-of-Mon-20030929/007343.html
BLM sued over Robbins deal
By BRODIE FARQUHAR Star-Tribune staff writer
Two conservation groups filed a lawsuit last Thursday in U.S. District Court
in the District of Columbia against top officials of the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) -- objecting to a unique settlement in favor of a
Thermopolis-area rancher.
Western Watersheds Project of Hailey, Idaho and American Lands Alliance of
Washington, D.C., filed suit last week alleging unlawful actions and
failures of action by the top leadership of the BLM, "who have overridden
the scientific and professional judgment of BLM staff in order to favor a
wealthy and politically powerful rancher, Harvey Frank Robbins, granting him
grazing privileges and preferences in violation of the nation's laws and
regulations governing public lands grazing."
The lawsuit is not aimed at Robbins, only his settlement with the BLM and
the BLM officials who authorized the settlement: allegedly Kathleen Clarke,
director of the bureau and Francis Cherry, her deputy director. The
settlement, achieved after years of lawsuits and counter lawsuits between
Robbins and the BLM, stayed all regulatory action against Robbins, even
though grazing violations have allegedly continued.
"I understand the BLM is conducting its own internal investigation," said
Laird Lucas, an attorney for Advocates for the West, a Boise-based,
nonprofit, conservation law firm. "We're hoping this will prod the BLM into
a settlement." Lucas and associate Lauren Rule have teamed up with Jonathan
Lovvorn of Meyer & Glitzenstein in Washington, D.C.
The lawsuit alleges violations of the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act, Taylor Grazing Act, and the Code of Federal Regulations, but not the
Endangered Species Act. Lucas said he's investigating biologists' statements
that grizzly bears inhabit Robbins' ranches and whether a grizzly bear was
illegally shot and killed. An ESA complaint that BLM did not consult with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over grizzly bears observed on Robbins'
Owl Creek allotments could be filed separately or added as an amendment.
Lucas said the federal government has 60 days to respond. If the case is
still ongoing in the spring, Lucas said he may seek injunctive relief. He
cited BLM records that indicate BLM pastures leased by Robbins have
experienced moderate to severe degradation due to overgrazing and the
ongoing drought. "That land really needs a rest," Lucas said.
Celia Boddington, spokeswoman for BLM headquarters, said the lawsuit is
still under review and the bureau has no comment as yet.
Western Watersheds Project is a nonprofit conservation organization focused
on protecting and conserving public lands and natural resources of
watersheds in the West. American Lands Alliance is a nonprofit conservation
organization that works with grassroots organizations and individuals to
protect and preserve desert, forest, and aquatic ecosystems.
--------------
"The indifference, callousness and contempt that so many people exhibit
toward animals is evil, first because it results in the great suffering of
animals, and second because it results in an incalculably great
impoverishment of the human spirit."
Ashley Montagu
http://lists.envirolink.org/pipermail/ar-news/Week-of-Mon-20030929/007343.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
