CONSERVANCY OF THE PHOENIX INC BLM REPLY TO THE MORROW'S LETTER OF INQUIRY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Lander Field Office
P.O. Box 589 (1335 Main Street)
Lander, Wyoming, 82520-0589
4180
Allotment #1636April 26, 2002
Mr. and Mrs. Lance Morrow
P.O. Box 480
Jeffrey City, Wyoming 82310
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Morrow:
This letter is in response to your letter dated March 22, 2002 regarding management of the Granite Mountain Open Allotment and an allotment meeting held on March 7, 2002. In your letter you raise several issues I would like to respond to. In addition, you specifically request a response to thirteen questions which I will address as well.
The meeting that was held on March 7, 2002, at the BLM office in Lander was called by Scott Fluer, Rangeland Management Specialist of my staff. The purpose of the meeting with all interested publics and permittees was to discuss annual grazing management on the allotment, including concerns over drought, and to discuss the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands in preparation for this years evaluation of the allotment.
As you are aware, the meeting that day was very difficult. In fact, I or Mike Stewart should have been there along with additional staff, ie. a biologist and soil scientist, to assist in addressing questions and concerns. Since Scott was the only member of our staff in the meeting, it was very difficult for him to conduct the meeting, record comments and discuss controversial subject matter all at the same time. Therefore, I am the one responsible for not having sufficient BLM representation at the meeting to assist Scott. Scott has been very good at working with diverse interests throughout the Lander Field Office to address resource issues. I fully expect he will be successful in this effort as well if given the necessary support and cooperation from me, the permittees and interested publics.
We recognize the problems with riparian areas, soils and vegetation, wildlife and wild horse habitat and other issues that you point out in your letter. Many of these conditions were noted in the 1987 Lander Resource Management Plan, which resulted in this allotment being categorized as an "I" or "Improve" allotment. Since that time, our staff has been working to address resource concerns on many of our high priority allotments. We are now addressing the Granite Mountain Open Allotment. As Scott pointed out in the meeting, this year BLM will be evaluating the Granite Mt. Open Allotment for conformance with the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands. Applying appropriate actions to meet standards will allow us to make changes on the ground in this allotment. Please be aware, however, that the Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health have only been in existence since 1995. Although there have been known resource concerns in the allotment for some time, the allotment has not yet been evaluated for conformance with the Standards.Actual use levels in 2001 were 35% of preference or 63% of the agreed upon AUMs as outlined in the 1993 rangeland management agreement. Much of the Lander Field Office has been plagued by drought conditions for the last 2 - 3 years. However, the Granite Mountain Open Allotment has been impacted by these dry conditions to a much lesser degree. We have never said that drought is responsible for the undesirable riparian conditions on the allotment, instead we have repeatedly stated that they are a function of season long livestock grazing over many years. Wild horses too have played a role in the conditions of the riparian habitats that we have today. BLM has addressed this by removing horses over the past several years to achieve the appropriate management levels. In addition, BLM and the permittees entered into a management agreement in 1993 whereby 45% of the AUMs allocated to each permittee are voluntarily held in non-use.
The following are responses to your thirteen questions:
1. Please clarify if a public lands grazing permit is a revocable privilege or a right?
Wasn't there a recent United States Supreme Court decision on this issue?A public lands grazing permit is defined under 43 CFR 4100.0-5 as follows: Grazing permit means a document authorizing use of the public lands within an established grazing district. Grazing permits specify all authorized use including livestock grazing, suspended use, and conservation use. Permits specify the total number of AUMs apportioned, the area authorized for grazing use or both.
The Public Lands Council, et.al., Petitioners vs. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior, et. al., No. 98-1991, dated May 15, 2000, considered this issue. In this docket the U.S. Supreme Court defines the wording in the syllabus as quoted below.
(a) Section 4100.0-5's new definition (*3) of "grazing preference" does not violate 43 U.S.C. 315b's requirement that "grazing privileges" "be adequately safeguarded." Before its amendment, 4100.0-5 defined "grazing preference" as "the total number of AUMs of livestock grazing on public lands apportioned and attached to base property owned or controlled by a permittee or lessee, " but the 1995 version refers only to a priority, not to a specific number of AUMs, and it adds a new term, "permitted use," which refers to forage "allocated by, or under the guidance of an applicable land use plan. " The new definitions do not exceed the Secretary's authority under 315b. First, 315b's words " so far as consistent with the purposes" of the Act and "issuance of a permit" creates no "right, title, interest, or estate" make clear that the ranchers' interest in permit stability is not absolute and that the Secretary is free reasonably to determine just how, and the extent to which, grazing privileges are to be safeguarded.Under our regulations, 43 CFR 4110.3-2 and 4110.3-3, BLM has the authority to suspend a permit on a temporary basis or a portion of the permitted use for resource conditions. These reductions or adjustments in the permit can be made only "after consultation, cooperation, and coordination with the affected permittee or lessee, the State having lands or managing resources within the area, and the interested public, reductions of permitted use shall be implemented through a documented agreement or by decision of the authorized officer. Decisions implementing 4110.3-2 shall be issued as proposed decisions pursuant to 4160.1 except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section".
2. Does the BLM plan to do anything this year to make Granite Mnt. Open Allotment meet Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health for riparian health or is the BLM going to allow Granite Mt. Open Allotment to continue to fail this standard?
As previously explained, a conformance evaluation of the Wyoming Standards for Rangeland Health has not been completed for the Granite Mountain Common Allotment. This office will be completing that evaluation this year. Once that has been completed, appropriate actions will be developed for any standards that are not met. Those appropriate actions must then be initiated by the start of the next grazing season. This year, in consultation with the permittees and interested publics, we will be considering temporary fences at Blackrock Gap, Tin Cup Spring and Buffalo Creek riparian areas. These electric fences would have one or two wires and would be installed prior to June 15th and let down or removed by October 15th this year. These are intended to start improving these specific riparian areas within the allotment.
3. We support your range specialist, Scott's contention that the allotment requires years of rest to begin to meet Wyoming Rangeland Standards for riparian areas and vegetative composition. Is it an appropriate suggestion to heed your rangeland specialist's advice and rest this allotment from livestock grazing until it recovers?
Scott's intention that day was to discuss the need to implement a 3-5 year rest on the riparian areas within the allotment, not the entire allotment. As Scott stated in the meeting, for the most part, the uplands are meeting standards, but portions of the allotment are not meeting the standards due to a lower seral stage on some upland areas. These areas, even under no grazing, would not respond or shift in composition for an estimated 75-100 years. This is due to the types of plants that inhabit these sites. We do not agree that the entire allotment needs three to five years of rest.
4. In your recent drought letter dated 3/20/02, you stated that BLM will focus attention on those allotments that have season long livestock grazing and allotments with riparian areas in "tough shape". Do you agree that Granite Mt. Open allotment fits those conditions and thus Granite Mt. Allotment warrants focused "attention"this year?
Yes, Scott will continue to monitor the Granite Mountain Open Allotment for impacts from grazing associated with drought. Scott inspected the allotment quite frequently last year to keep current on the conditions in the area. As you know, conditions are drier now than they were last year. We will be monitoring this allotment along with many others for drought impacts. Based on our negotiations with the permittees, livestock use this year will be at the same level (4,387 AUMs) as last year, ie. 35% of preference or 63% of the AUMs in the 1993 Rangeland Management Agreement. Turnout is scheduled to begin May 15th with approximately 15% of the cattle and then the remainder on or about June 10th. Cattle are scheduled to be in the allotment until October 30th. However, if drought conditions continue to deteriorate and adequate moisture is not received in April and May, we will be revisiting those negotiations and will take appropriate steps to deal with the on the ground conditions.5. Would BLM be receptive to using modern science that reflects current livestock realities (over 1000 pound cows and early calves) to refigure livestock AUMs on Granite Mt. Open Allotment? If so, the stocking rate should be based on drought years and consider grouse and other sensitive wildlife species that are now ignored in the current forage allocation scheme. All we are asking for is the use of common sense and science to find the true carrying capacity of the land for both livestock and wildlife too. Is there any way BLM can scientifically measure how much forage is there now?
The BLM standard AUM calculation is based on a 1000 lb. cow with calf, less than 6 months of age at side. The standard assumes this pair consumes 26 lbs. of forage per day, or 780 lbs. of forage per month. It is generally true that modern cattle tend to be larger and consume more forage than this standard assumes. This issue can be addressed through setting utilization standards and adjusting the level of use as necessary to achieve rangeland health standards.
We do have condition and trend plots that were established in 1982 that monitor vegetation production, frequency and density. There are 19 condition and trend transects located throughout the allotment. Production, frequency and density data of vegetation has been collected and compiled. This data can be used for establishing an estimated stocking rate for the allotment. We will use this information when the allotment management plan is developed.
6. Why are ranchers allowed to put out cows with calves over six months old that are being counted and charged as one AUM? Shouldn't the BLM be counting six month old animals as a separate AUM and charging the permittee for the forage that animal is eating?
Our regulations are clear on this issue. 43 CFR 4130.8-1 (c), states in part: For the purposes of calculating the fee, an animal unit month is defined as a month's use and occupancy of the range by 1 cow, bull, steer, heifer, horse, burro, mule, 5 sheep or 5 goats over the age of 6 months at the time of entering the public lands or other lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management; by any such weaned animals regardless of age; and by such animals that will become 12 months of age during the authorized period of use. No charge shall be made for animals under 6 months of age, at the time of entering public lands or other lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, that are the natural progeny of animals upon which fees are paid, provided they will not become 12 months of age during the authorized period of use, nor for progeny born during that period.
7. Has there ever been a grazing suitability analysis for the Granite Mt. Open Allotment. If so, can we obtain a copy of the results from your office. If not, when can we expect a grazing suitability analysis to be performed?No, there has not been a grazing suitability analysis completed for the Granite Mt. Open Allotment. As we develop the allotment management plan a suitability analysis will be incorporated as part of the overall management plan.
8. BLM's draft EIS Rangeland Reform of 1994 points out that the condition of BLM lands receiving less than 12 inches of annual moisture is unlikely to improve under the current grazing management practices. Especially given that Granite Mt. Open Allotment has a documented 20 year history of failure to meet rangelands standards, do you agree that BLM must take drastic and immediate action before irreversible damage occurs on Granite Mt. allotment due to overgrazing?
BLM shares your concern about rangeland health in the Granite Mountain Open Allotment, particularly on riparian areas. That is why we will be evaluating the allotment for conformance with the Wyoming Standards for Healthy Rangelands this year. The result of the evaluation will identify appropriate actions to address those areas which do not meet one or more of the standards.
9. Why does BLM propose to allow continued livestock grazing in Granite Mt. Open Allotment knowing it will make it harder for sage grouse to survive (based on BLM's draft interim management guidelines for sage grouse)?
As you have pointed out above, BLM has released a draft of management guidelines for sage- grouse in Wyoming to its field offices for review. These guidelines are in draft format only and are not to be used until the final guidelines are completed. These guidelines will probably be completed following the completion of Wyoming=s Statewide Sage-grouse Conservation Plan this summer or early fall. In addition, as guidelines, they will provide guidance on land management actions (in this case livestock grazing) that occur on public lands.
The BLM is directed to manage the public lands under the Federal Land Management and Policy Act of 1976 (FLMPA). This act directs the BLM to manage the public lands for multiple uses. Livestock grazing is one of those multiple uses.
10. Permittees seem to be ignorant of the problems of the impacts that their livestock operations have on sage grouse and other sensitive wildlife species. Can a BLM program be initiated to educate ranchers as to the cause and effects of their private livestock production on public lands?
During the development of an Allotment Management Plan for the Granite Mountain Open allotment, the BLM will be meeting with permittees and interested publics. Part of those meetings will include discussions on the impacts of livestock grazing on a variety of resources in the allotment. These discussions will hopefully lead to effective resolutions concerning impacts to sensitive species. At this time the BLM has no specific plans to initiate any new program to educate specific resource users of their operations on sage-grouse or other sensitive species.11. Have the permittees been made aware of the failing standards on Granite Mt. Allotment? Have BLM reports been shared with the permittees so they know about the problems? If not, how come the permittees have not been made aware by the BLM. If the ranchers have been made aware through field tours and consultations why is the allotment still failing standards and why isn't anything new being tried?
BLM has held numerous field tours, meetings and all information has been shared with the permittees. In an effort to address the resource concerns on the allotment, in 1993 the permittees agreed to take 45% voluntary non-use on the allotment and to other management actions outlined in that agreement. A copy of that agreement in enclosed for your information.
Following the evaluation of the allotment, an environmental assessment will be prepared with a range of alternatives to be analyzed as to the best management to implement and address the appropriate actions outlined in the standards and guidelines evaluation. This will in turn lead to a new allotment management plan.
12. Why didn't Scott tell ranchers why the vegetation standard (rangeland standard #3) partially failed due to a undesirable plant composition and why didn't Scott educate the ranchers about the solutions?During the meeting on March 7, 2002, Scott reviewed each of the standards to be evaluated. Standard #3 addresses the upland vegetation component of the Wyoming Standards and Guidelines process. Scott explained the upland vegetation condition in the allotment. He discussed vegetative composition in the allotment and that some areas, due to their composition would not meet standards. These sites are typically dominated by threadleaf sedge (Carex filifolia) and tend to dominate some sites in the allotment. This plant typically increases overtime as desirable species decrease. Changing the composition at these sites to bring back a diverse plant community is likely not possible.
13. Why is the BLM considering allowing cattle grazing on an already severely abused allotment, especially in light of the permittees' admitted inability to herd their animals out of riparian areas?
The entire allotment is not severely abused. Most of the uplands are in mid or late seral condition. These uplands typically receive less than 20% utilization during the grazing season except those areas adjacent to water. As one approaches a riparian area or water source, utilization increases. These areas are severely utilized and degraded. Three of these areas (Buffalo Creek, Tin Cup Creek Meadows and Black Rock Gap) are currently being proposed for temporary fencing. These temporary fences would provide for rest of these areas from livestock for a 3-5 year period.Again, I would like to reiterate that the Lander Field Office is working toward improved resource management in the Granite Mt. Open Allotment as well as several others. Our specialists work hard to involve a variety of groups, interested publics, ranchers, agencies and others interested in management of public rangelands
If you have any further questions regarding the Granite Mountain Open Allotment you may contact either Scott Fluer, Rangeland Management Specialist or Mike Stewart, Assistant Field Manager, or myself at 307-332-8400.
Sincerely,
Field Manager
1 Attachment:
1 - Allotment Management AgreementMSTEWART:csg:04/26/2002 MorrowResponse_MSversion1.wpd
CORRESPONDENCE STAMP
( ) READING FILE
(X) CASE FILE
