Fair Grazing Fee Bill Introduced

What follows is a press release from Nebraska’s Senator Ben Nelson:

 
July 11, 2012 —Today, Nebraska’s Senator Ben Nelson introduced a taxpayer fairness bill to end the substantial federal subsidies that an elite number of livestock producers receive, saving American taxpayers about $1.2 billion. His bill requires that the Secretary of the Interior work in conjunction with the Secretary of Agriculture to set livestock grazing fees on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and National Forest System public rangelands at rates comparable to those found on nearby private grazing lands.

“The facts are clear. Two percent of ranchers are getting a benefit that 98 percent of other grazing ranchers have not been able to get. They pay far less than the market value for the right to graze on public lands,” said Senator Nelson. “This isn’t fair to the taxpayer, and this isn’t fair to the other 98 percent of cattle grazers who have to compete in the marketplace.

“The State of Nebraska charges over $20 dollars a head of calf to graze on state land. Why should the federal government charge $1.35?”

The senator has also offered his grazing fee bill as an amendment to the Small Business Tax Credit Bill currently before the Senate. If adopted, the amendment would help defray the legislation’s costs.

The Government Accountability Office has estimated that just two percent of American ranchers hold animal grazing rights to National Forest System public rangelands. The grazing fees charged by the federal government on the rangelands are far below market value, at times up to 95% lower than the market fees charged for grazing on state- and privately-owned lands, fees that 98% of grazing ranchers have no choice but to pay.

According to the United States Department of Agriculture Statistics Service, the State of Nebraska charged a state land grazing fee of $27.30/animal in 2011. The $1.35 figure cited by Nelson was published in a United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on Livestock Grazing-Related Federal Expenditures. Among the GAO report’s findings are:

• In 1934, the monthly public rangeland grazing fee was $1.23/animal.
• In 2007, the monthly public rangeland grazing fee was $1.35/animal.
• From 1980 to 2004, BLM and Forest Service grazing fees fell by 40 percent.
• From 1980 to 2004, the market price on grazing fees rose by almost 80 percent.
• The government collects nearly $21 million/year in grazing fees on public rangelands.
• The government puts about $144 million/year into the maintenance of public rangelands.

“Let’s go through some numbers. All the grazing fees on federal lands add up to about $21 million dollars,” said Nelson. “But it costs the federal government $140-some million dollars to take care of those lands. In other words, there is a shortfall of $120 million dollars coming from two percent of ranchers. If I’m one of the 98 percent, I’m going to say ‘that’s not fair.’ That’s why this is a matter of tax fairness.”

Nelson noted that the suppressed grazing fees deny Nebraska funds badly needed for infrastructure projects and education. He highlighted how a sizeable portion of the Forest Service’s collected grazing fees are allocated back to states that house public rangelands.

“In the Forest Service grazing program, 25% of the grazing fees are remitted back to the affected states for use on roads and schools as a payment in lieu of taxes, since counties and cities can’t levy property taxes on that land,” Nelson said. “So, these artificially-lowered grazing fees mean less money is going to states for roads and schools. This bill ensures that tax dollars currently going towards the two percent are redirected into Nebraska’s roads and schools.”

“I have yet to have heard anybody defend this practice by saying that it’s fair – to the 98 percent, or to American taxpayers,” said Nelson. “$1.35 per cow is too darn low.”

The GAO Grazing Fee Study can be found here.
The USDA State Grazing Fee rates can be found here.

Of all the eye-catching stats and information in that press release, this certainly caught my eye:  “In 1934, the monthly public rangeland grazing fee was $1.23/animal.  In 2007, the monthly public rangeland grazing fee was $1.35/animal.”  If only the 2007 price of gas, price of an automobile or the price of a house was as similar to 1934!

Excerpts from Judge Malloy’s Decision on Colt Summit

Guest post by Megan Birzell, The Wilderness Society.

A little more than a month after a leading opponent of the Colt-Summit forest restoration project on the Seeley Lake Ranger District publicly compared Forest Service employees and mill workers to Nazis – and the diverse group of Montanans working to promote forest restoration and much-needed jobs to Nazi sympathizers – Federal District Court Judge Donald Molloy has issued a decision that utterly dismantles the critics’ claims that Colt-Summit is harmful to fish and wildlife including bull trout, lynx and grizzly bears.

The Colt-Summit project, developed by the Forest Service in collaboration with the Lolo Restoration Committee of the Montana Forest Restoration Committee and funded, in part, through the Southwestern Crown of the Continent Collaborative (www.swcrown.org) is a proposal that will decommission 28 miles of roads, thin and burn 2,038 acres of forest suffering from a century of fire suppression, and re-route four miles of road away from a bull trout spawning stream. These activities will improve lynx, grizzly bear, and bull trout habitat, reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire, and help restore more natural fire regimes to the area.

The project was appealed and then challenged in court last year by the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and a few other groups. The initial appeal of the project included 152 allegations, all of which were rejected. The subsequent lawsuit included 12 allegations, 11 of which were rejected by Judge Molloy in his 46-page decision issued on July 11. The one claim that was upheld by Judge Molloy will likely result in the Forest Service preparing a brief supplement to their extensive analysis, seeking public comment and then moving forward with the project.

Following months of inflammatory rhetoric, name-calling and inaccurate statements by opponents of collaborative forest restoration and the Colt-Summit project, a review of Judge Molloy’s decision is timely, relevant, and highly instructive. Excerpts from that ruling (attached) include the following.

On the National Forest Management Act, National Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species Act:

“The plaintiffs suggest that the Forest Service’s analysis for the Colt summit Project violates NFMA, NEPA and ESA in several respects. By and large, though, the analysis is adequate and meets the requirements of the various acts.”

On lynx, streams and wetlands:

“The plaintiffs argue that the Project violates three Forest Service Standards—two related to lynx and one related to streamside and wetland buffers. The record shows the Project violates none of the lynx or streamside and wetland standards.”

On lynx and snowshoe hare:

“[The Forest Service] noted in addition that the Project will actually improve snowshoe hare and lynx habitat. The plaintiffs do not point to any contrary evidence. There is no record evidence that the Project will ‘reduce snowshoe hare habitat.’”

On Forest Service rules regarding vegetation management:

“The plaintiffs fail to meet their burden of proof…They have not shown the Forest Service made a ‘clear error of judgment…’”

On concerns regarding lynx habitat connectivity:

“

None of these arguments is viable in my view. The Forest Service did consider how the Project would impact lynx travel.”

“A more fundamental problem with the plaintiffs first argument is that the Project does not appear to be in a linkage area. The plaintiffs rely on a large-scale map from the Northern Rockies Lynx Management FEIS to show that the Project is within a linkage area…The map does not lend itself to a precise determination of where the linkage areas are located. As the Service explained, it is only a beginning point and is subject to refinement with additional data.”

“The most recent data from Dr. Squires’ research—which was relied on in the EA—show that lynx are not using the Project Area as a travel corridor…The most recent research shows…there are no linkage areas in the Project Area.”

“The plaintiffs second argument—that the Service applied the standard incorrectly, is also lacking.”

On wetlands and streamside buffer issues:

“Here, the plaintiffs argue that the Forest Service shrank buffers in the Project Area without first conducting the requisite analysis. They also claim that the Service plans to log timber directly within wetlands, in violation of the INFISH standards. The allegations are incorrect.”

“The plaintiffs similarly object that the Project violates INFISH because the record has no site-specific ‘analysis, data, or rationale for shrinking the INFISH buffers.’ Their argument is futile because the Forest Service explained why it shrank the buffers.”

“There is no showing how the Project, as amended in the EA Addendum, violates the INFISH standards for wetlands.”

“The plaintiffs assert the Forest Service plans to cut trees and conduct prescribed burns directly within wetlands…Yet, the plaintiffs claim, the Forest Service did not consider the Project’s impact on wetlands in the FONSI. They write that the FONSI ‘neglects to mention wetlands at all.’ A closer reading of the FONSI shows: ‘The modified proposed action will not impact…wetlands…’ As set forth in its briefs, the Service is not going to conduct any cutting or burning in wetlands. Furthermore, buffers will be created around the wetlands.”

On the Endangered Species Act, lynx, and grizzlies:

“The plaintiffs next insist the Forest Service violated Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act by inadequately analyzing the Project’s effects on lynx and grizzlies and by failing to include the Summit Salvage Project Area in its analysis. This concern also misses the mark.”

“Here the plaintiffs reason the Forest Service failed to comply with ESA Sec. 7(a)(2) because it did not analyze whether the Colt-Summit Project would adversely modify lynx critical habitat The assertion is belied by the record. The Forest Service went beyond its obligations under ESA Sec. 7(a)(2) in drafting both a biological assessment that addresses lynx and lynx critical habitat and in engaging in informal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service.”

“Both the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service found that the Project ‘is not likely to adversely affect’ lynx or lynx critical habitat.”

“The plaintiffs question at length the proposition that the Forest Service can use Forest Plan standards—such as the lynx standards—as a surrogate for the requirements under ESA Sec. 7(a)(2). While interesting, the thesis misses the point.”

“Neither the Forest Service nor the Fish and Wildlife Service ignored the effects that the Project might have on lynx or lynx critical habitat. There has been no showing of convincing argument or evidence that the agencies’ analysis is flawed.”

“The Forest Service did not explain why it included the Summit Salvage area from its analysis. But it did not have to. It does not need to explain why it excludes every imaginable area subject to possible analysis. It only needs to explain why it selected the units of analysis that it chose. In this case it did so with respect to both lynx and grizzlies.”

“The plaintiffs argue, only in passing, that the Project will have the potential to adversely affect grizzly bears. They make no specific argument as to how the Forest Service’s analysis about grizzlies somehow violates ESA Sec. 7(a)(2). Instead, they make sparse, blanket allegations that grizzly bears will be harmed. The record is binding and it shows the Forest Service’s analysis of grizzly bear impact does not violate ESA Sec. 7(a)(2).”

“The plaintiffs argue that the Forest Service did not adequately consider the impact of the Project on lynx critical habitat or the lynxes’ use of the Project Area as a corridor for travel between the Bob Marshall and Mission Mountains…the Forest Service did, in fact, discuss the impacts that the Project would have on lynx crucial habitat. The Service offered a long discussion of the impacts but it concluded that the Project will not have any significant impacts…The plaintiffs do not offer any reasoned explanation for why the Forest Service’s analysis is inadequate and they have not explained how the project would have a ‘significant effect’ on the lynx critical habitat.”

“Critical habitat aside, the plaintiffs maintain that lynx use the Project Area as a travel corridor and that the Forest Service did not consider the impacts that the Project would have on that corridor….The Forest Service, however, argues that the Project Area is not a corridor for lynx travel and that there is therefore no need to consider how the Project will impact lynx travel. The Forest Service has the better argument.”

“The Forest Service relies on GPS tracking data from Dr. Squires which shows detailed information about how lynx use the area. Dr. Squires’ data tends to show that lynx do not use the Project Area as a corridor to travel between the Bob Marshall and Mission Mountains. What the data tends to show is that lynx cross Highway 83 south of the Project Area. This means the Project Area is probably not an ‘ecologically critical area’ based on its use by the lynx as a linkage corridor. Moreover, the Forest Service explained in the EA why the Project would not have any impact on corridors or linkages for grizzly bears, gray wolves, and lynx.”

“As discussed above, the Service adequately considered the impacts on lynx, lynx habitat and grizzlies.”

On the National Environmental Policy Act:

“The plaintiffs next argue the Forest Service violated in several respects…all but one of these arguments fail.”

“Here, the plaintiffs claim that the Forest Service predetermined that the EA would result in a FONSI…In this case, there was no predetermination to issue a FONSI.”

On bull trout:

“As to bull trout, the only part of the project that will have an impact is culvert removal and decommissioning of Road 646. Both the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service recognize that the culvert removal and road decommissioning will have a short-term impact on bull trout. But, in its Biological Opinion, the Fish and Wildlife Service explained that those actions will ‘reduce long-term sediment delivery by 77 percent’ and ‘improve access to spawning and rearing habitat and thermal refugia.’ As a result, the Fish and Wildlife Service determined the actions will help ‘restore’ the Upper Clearwater sub-watershed. The plaintiffs have apparently abandoned their argument regarding bull trout as they did not offer any response to the Forest Service’s discussion of bull trout and the Biological Opinion in their reply brief.”

“For all the reasons stated, the Forest Service adequately considered the Project’s impacts on listed species and critical habitat.”

Opinion on Colt Summit Published

Here are the actual acreages and treatments from the Colt Summit documentation.

Judge Molloy’s opinion on Colt Summit link here.

Article in Missoulian here.

Here’s an excerpt:

“The plaintiffs in this case insist the Forest Service’s cumulative effects analysis for lynx is inadequate. On this point they are correct. On remand the Forest Service must prepare a supplemental (environmental assessment) that adequately addresses the cumulative effects for lynx, and if necessary after that review, an (environmental impact statement).”

The project was heralded earlier this year as the model for a new kind of collaborative forest management, where lumber mills and conservation groups work in concert with the U.S. Forest Service on tasks everyone agrees are needed.

Colt-Summit’s backers included Pyramid Mountain Lumber, the Wilderness Society, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and two retired chiefs of the U.S. Forest Service.

Molloy’s decision blocked the 2,000 acres of logging and 17 miles of roadwork, but Megan Birzell of the Wilderness Society, a supporter of the plan, told the Missoulian last month that the judge’s finding was not a major setback because of his concurrent finding that the project passed muster under the Endangered Species Act.

“The judge said it won’t have an impact on lynx, but the Forest Service needs to beef up their analysis to better document that,” she said.

The plaintiffs argued that the project area serves as a corridor for lynx that move between the Bob Marshall Wilderness and the Mission Mountains. Molloy said this does not appear to be the case.

The Forest Service relies on GPS tracking data that show lynx do not use the project area as a corridor to travel between the Bob Marshall and Mission Mountains, he wrote, but instead cross Highway 83 south of the project.

“This means the project area is probably not an ‘ecologically critical area’ based on its use by the lynx as a linkage corridor,” according to his opinion.

The Forest Service now must prepare a supplemental environmental assessment, and is enjoined from implementing the Colt Summit project while the assessment is pending.

Note from Sharon: I’m going to take a look at the decision because it should be interesting exactly what kind of more cumulative impacts the judge is looking for.

This article says there are 2,000 acres of “logging”; again I have posted above the table that shows the acres. 1200 are “understory slashing with underburning”. Now it’s true I’m not from Montana but usually, where I’m from, “understory” is not merchantable, hence not “logging” as defined in the dictionary. Commercial thinning (selective logging) seems to be on about 600 acres.

One piece of evidence that this is confusing is that the reporter said:

The National Environmental Policy Act has been a regular stumbling block for Forest Service timber projects. It requires a variety of scientific reviews to ensure a project doesn’t hurt the environment.

This isn’t really clear that NEPA “allows” the project to hurt the environment; ESA here is the statute that protects the environment. NEPA requires documentation that you have considered the impacts; it’s a procedural statute. That’s what’s confusing, yet illuminating, about this decision (it seems to be saying, “you have made the case you’re not in violations of any environmental statutes but you haven’t documented as much as NEPA requires”).

It could be that the plaintiffs are hoping that the FS will provide additional documentation so that they can make the case that there is really an ESA violation. Because it seems like it raises the question “is this about not following ESA, or about making people do more documentation, and to what end?”

“An Ecosystem Management Strategy for Sierran Mixed Conifer Forests”

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr220/

“Description: Current Sierra Nevada forest management is often focused on strategically reducing fuels without an explicit strategy for ecological restoration across the landscape matrix. Summarizing recent scientific literature, we suggest managers produce different stand structures and densities across the landscape using topographic variables (i.e., slope shape, aspect, and slope position) as a guide for varying treatments. Local cool or moist areas, where historically fire would have burned less frequently or at lower severity, would have higher density and canopy cover, providing habitat for sensitive species. In contrast upper, southern-aspect slopes would have low densities of large fire-resistant trees. For thinning, marking rules would be based on crown strata or age cohorts and species, rather than uniform diameter limits. Collectively, our management recommendations emphasize the ecological role of fire, changing climate conditions, sensitive wildlife habitat, and the importance of forest structure heterogeneity.”

This is a basic scientific reasoning for the marking prescriptions we are using in our current project. In scanning through some of it (it seems QUITE comprehensive!), I found this little gem.

‘How is ecological restoration defined in the GTR? In the face of changing
climate conditions, our focus is on increasing ecosystem resiliency. This focus
is consistent with that described in USDA Forest Service Manual 2020.5,
which defines ecological restoration as: “The process of assisting the recovery
of resilience and adaptive capacity of ecosystems that have been degraded,
damaged, or destroyed. Restoration focuses on establishing the composition,
structure, pattern, and ecological processes necessary to make terrestrial and
aquatic ecosystems sustainable, resilient, and healthy under current and future
conditions.” ‘