BLM says that conservation will be used for restoration and compensatory mitigation, which can have a bunch of definitions, just like the word “conservation.” The livestock industry is having problems with how BLM came up with the new rule, which is called “Conservation and Landscape Health.” There was virtually no stakeholder participation; there were several stakeholder listening sessions held, but ranchers felt they were few and far between and didn’t answer their questions.
It appears the BLM is having a hard time explaining conservation leases and how they would be used. Will environmental groups start leasing large landscapes for non-use by grazers? BLM doesn’t seem to be clear on how they will use it.
The proposed rule provides that the BLM will protect intact landscapes, restore degraded habitat and make wise management decisions based on science and data. To support these activities, the proposed rule would apply land health standards to all BLM-managed public lands and uses, clarify that conservation is a “use” within FLPMA’s multiple-use framework and revise existing regulations to better meet FLPMA’s requirement that the BLM prioritize designating and protecting Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, according to the proposed rule.
It’s been dry in the West; the landscape has been in a drought, but that has been changed by Mother Nature. We have had more moisture in the West and the country looks good. Grass was short and cattlemen destocked their ranges—now they will restock these public ranges. Yet who will be responsible for making conservation lease decisions? The BLM folks in Washington D.C.
The NCBA and other livestock groups sent a letter to BLM Director Tracy Stone Manning, opposing the rule. “The rule would allow environmental activists to hold ‘conservation leases’ that could displace federal lands grazing and other multiple uses, changing the way BLM has managed lands for generations,” NCBA wrote in a Beef Bulletin. “BLM is attempting to push this rule through without adequate public input and holding public meetings far away from the rural communities this rule would impact the most. If western cattle producers lose access to federal lands for grazing, there will be significant negative impacts on U.S. cattle producers across the country.”
Even state governors are telling BLM to back down on their proposed conservation rule. Six red state federal land governors have penned a letter to Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, calling on her agency to pull the proposed rule. They wrote, “We oppose the Proposed Rule and urge the BLM to start over, withdraw its proposal, and instead focus its efforts on working closely with states, local governments, and stakeholders on rulemaking that will truly enhance active management and actual conservation of BLM lands within the framework of multiple use and sustained yield.”
On Thursday, after WLJ press time, the House Natural Resources Committee held a hearing to discuss the bill Rep. John Curtis (R-UT-03) proposed, H.R. 3397, which would require the BLM to withdraw the rule on conservation leases and start over. Agencies don’t make laws; Congress does.
“Ranchers have a reasonable expectation of transparency and predictability with dealing with the BLM, and this proposed rule falls short on both accounts,” said NCBA Executive Director of Natural Resources and Public Lands Council Executive Director Kaitlynn Glover. “The covert manner in which the rule was developed and announced has left permittees feeling like the rule is either a capitulation to the extremist environmental groups who want to eradicate grazing from the landscape or a concerted effort to develop rules that preclude ranchers’ input.”
It appears that public lands resource users may have BLM ready to pull back on this conservation leases rule. BLM has been very vague on the details of this proposal and shouldn’t move forward. The BLM has also been quiet about the proposal, too; states, industry and stakeholders have been essentially kept out of the rule-making process. The comment period ends June 20; however, livestock groups have asked for an extension. But then again, it appears Congress will kill the rule with H.R 3397.
The Biden administration hasn’t been friendly to agriculture pushing this rule and their position on Waters of the U.S. — PETE CROW
