NCBA held their midyear meeting in Denver last week and attracted quite a crowd; about 700 people showed up. The big topics discussed included fake meat, sustainability and foreign trade, which are major policy issues the organization has done a good job of representing you on, among others.
I typically spend most of my time with the Public Lands Committee (PLC) because we have a lot of readers who use BLM or U.S. Forest Service (USFS) grazing allotments. The group has been working hard to make some changes to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to simplify the grazing allotment system and the renewal lease process. They want to use more categorical exclusions on grazing leases that have not seen any substantial change since the last renewal period, and the agencies seem to support this move.
This is what the Department of Interior tried to do with the Hammond allotments in Oregon. But that situation is about politics, not doing the right thing for the land, which hasn’t been utilized for five years and is in need of a good clean grazing. The activist groups and the courts have a grip on this case, not the agencies, even though they are the defendants.
The land agencies have been very receptive to the changes that the PLC has proposed. They realize the time and resource savings and understand that they don’t need a review for every little change on every allotment. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is in support of the ESA changes for the same reasons.
Whenever the Center for Biological Diversity raises their head, there is a new ESA petition. They sue the agency for not completing their work on time. This allows the activist group to assess the Equal Access to Justice bank account for fees. Think of it like an ATM machine for these activist groups.
One thing that has always bothered me with these activist groups is: Why do they have standing in the courts? What damages are they suffering, and what actual loss have they endured to show damages? They shouldn’t even be allowed to use the courts for their grievances. If there is some case law out there supporting their standing it must be very thin justification.
Bob Mountain, USDA’s national grasslands coordinator, spoke to the group about the grazing management handbook, which USFS decisionmakers are required to use. The handbook is being updated and the rough draft is close to being done. He said they are trying to be consistent with the BLM handbook. Mountain has been with USFS for 50 years and is retiring at the end of the year. Mountain also lives in Laramie, WY, and is in touch with the industry he has worked in. His experience and guidance will be missed when he goes.
He said to expect three broad changes regarding categorical exclusions, horse management, and range improvement. He also asked the question, “If there is no substantial change to the landscape, why do NEPA evaluations again?”
Ethan Lane said to expect substantial changes to categorical exclusions, noting the White House has been friendly to us. But we need to make certain that any new NEPA policies are implemented right and the agencies administer them properly. He also said that the policy changes for ESA are currently hung up in the Office of Management and Budget and must go through the appropriations process. He said the House and Senate budget committees intend to fund the government and aren’t interested in any riders or poison pills. They are also asking the budget committee to fund the new wild horse and burro proposal that was agreed to by major stakeholders, like the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) and American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) and the major farm groups. He said we need to keep a sharp eye on HSUS and ASPCA. The groups are getting a lot of pushback from their members so it’s hard to trust them; they can turn on dime.
The industry has a lot of issues moving in the right direction, but timing may be the most critical, says Lane. He pointed out that the ball is in motion on NEPA and Congress will come back from their summer recess and need to deal with these appropriations bills. Then the political season starts, and everyone is on reelection mode. So, we need to get things accomplished quickly. If we get into a new administration in 2020, and it’s the opposition in office, we will have to start all over or come up with a new strategy. He knows that we can’t get a lot done legislatively and need to work with the regulatory agencies because they will bear more fruit for public land ranchers. — PETE CROW
