Opinion ID: 183027
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Public participation in the management of grazing on public rangelands

Text: It is undisputed that the 2006 Regulations significantly reduce public oversight of grazing on public land. The effect of that reduction, however, and whether there are foreseeable and related environmental consequences is disputed. The first interdisciplinary team of experts assembled by the BLM to review the proposed regulations in 2002 cautioned that: The [revised] definitions of interested and interested public appear, by themselves, benign. However, using those definitions ... appear[s] to allow the exclusion of virtually all other [i.e. non-rancher] members of the public who may otherwise want to participate.... Restricting public participation will ultimately lead to poorer land management decisions ... [and] to greater environmental harm, without necessarily sustaining or improving economic conditions. AR 67848-49. In November 2003, a second interdisciplinary team of experts assembled by the BLM expressed concern about the proposed reduction in public oversight and consultation in the management of public rangelands. In their report to the BLM, the interdisciplinary team concluded that the deletion of the requirement to consult, cooperate, and coordinate with or seek review and comment from the interested public would result in long-term adverse impacts to wildlife and special status species on public lands. AR 68009. That report further concluded that the requirement for the BLM to cooperate with established grazing boards will result in giving permittees and lessees greater access to the decision making process at the expense of conservation groups who are advocates for wildlife resources, resulting in a long-term adverse impact for wildlife and special status species resources. Id. FWS officials also reviewed the 2006 Regulations prior to publication and expressed concern. Specifically, in their report to the BLM, the FWS officials commented that the proposed reduction in public oversight may constrain biologists and range conservationists from recommending and implementing management changes and that [FWS] believe[s] these aspects of the proposed revisions have the potential to be detrimental to fish and wildlife resources. [8] AR 68058. Similar comments expressing concern that reduced public oversight would have negative environmental consequences were submitted by the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, California Department of Fish and Game, and Arizona Department of Game and Fish, among other state agencies. In the Final EIS, the BLM explains that it reduced the involvement of interested public, by eliminating the ability to comment as to some management decisions and increasing the requirements to do so for others, to improve efficiency and reduce the costs of sending periodic mailings to interested public members who are not in fact active participants. Final EIS at 5-95. The BLM concludes that the 2006 Regulation's changes to public participation will not affect the environment. Id. at 4-36, 4-37. The BLM states that the reduction in public participation should allow the BLM to make more timely decisions. Thus, it would have a beneficial effect on vegetation resources. Id. at 4-32. The Final EIS also notes that the changed definition of interested public would enable the BLM to focus communication efforts on those interested publics who are involved in the significant issues occurring on grazing allotments. Id. at 4-27. The BLM further explains that [w]hile public input may help identify environmental impacts, the BLM's experience under the existing regulations is that public participation ... can be inefficient and unproductive and, in some instances, redundant. Appendix FEIS at 37.