November 6, 2015 Comments are off Montana Stockgrowers Association
Share:

Senate Acts on WOTUS Legislation

waterThis week, the Senate finally took up a series of votes on the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers’ “waters of the United States” rule. A major priority for cattle ranchers and all land-use stakeholders, Montana Stockgrowers has been working aggressively with our Congressional Representatives and Attorney General Tim Fox to repeal WOTUS and limit EPA’s attempt at overreach in controlling our water on private lands.

Earlier this week, the Senate took a vote on SB 1140 – Federal Water Quality Protection Act, sponsored by Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), which failed to obtain the necessary 60 votes to pass. SB 1140 aimed to repeal WOTUS in favor of rules to “protect traditional navigable water and wetlands from water pollution, while also protecting farmers, ranchers and private landowners.”

Montana Stockgrowers Association, along with Attorney General Tim Fox and Montana Chamber of Commerce signed on in support of SB 1140. Senator Steve Daines supported the bill and testified in front of Congress, sharing comments from MSGA President, Gene Curry.

“MSGA thanks Senator Daines for supporting SB 1140, the Federal Water Quality Protection Act, and his continued opposition to work to stop the final WOTUS rule. This rule is an unwise and unwarranted expansion of EPA’s regulatory authority over Montana’s waters, and would have a significant detrimental impact on Montana’s ranchers.”

Watch Daines’ testimony regarding WOTUS here. Following the vote, Senator Jon Tester signed on to a letter to EPA administrator, Gina McCarthy, encouraging the agency to “provide clearer and concise implementation guidance to ensure that the rule is effectively and consistently interpreted,” recognizing this as something ranchers deserve.

The Senate then turned to consideration of a joint resolution of disapproval sponsored by Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa). The vote in support of the joint resolution showed bi-partisan support and the resolution passed 53-44. SJ 22 “would order the EPA and Corps to withdraw the WOTUS rule and would prevent the agencies from further similar rulemaking.” (Farm Progress) The joint resolution must still be considered by the House before going to the President’s desk.

Montana Stockgrowers continues to work aggressively with our state and national leaders to represent the interests of our members on this important national policy. We encourage all MSGA members to attend policy committee meetings during our upcoming Annual Convention for further discussion on this and other important policy topics.

A full Annual Convention agenda and registration can be found on our website at mtbeef.org.

November 2, 2015 Comments are off Montana Stockgrowers Association
Share:

Public Lands Council Welcomes New Executive Director

PLC LogoWASHINGTON (November 2, 2015) – The Public Lands Council welcomes Ethan Lane to the association in his new role as executive director. Lane is originally from Arizona and joins PLC with over 18 years’ experience in natural resource and land use issues. In his new role, he will also serve as executive director of federal lands for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.

Brenda Richards, PLC president and Idaho rancher, said, “We are pleased to welcome Ethan to the association. PLC is stronger than it ever has been before, and we are excited for the future of the industry. Under the Ethan’s leadership, we are confident that the organization will continue to grow, and we will continue to see wins in Washington D.C. that help public lands in the West.”

PLC is the only national organization dedicated solely to representing the ranchers who hold federal grazing permits and operate on federal lands. Public lands ranchers play an integral role in regional and national efforts to safeguard America’s open spaces, local industries, and rural heritage. Today, more than 22,000 public land ranchers maintain 250 million acres of U.S. public land.

Before coming to PLC and NCBA, Lane served as an advisor for a variety of private companies and industries operating on public lands throughout the West. He also spent ten years prior to moving to Washington D.C. helping to grow and manage a large real estate and ranch portfolio including more than 500,000 acres in Arizona alone – much of that made up of State, U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. Bureau of Land Management grazing permits.

“With his experience and knowledge of the issues, Ethan brings unique perspective on the challenges landowners and lessees face in operating successful businesses on public lands,” said Richards. “He has a great understanding of the complexity and multitude of issues public lands ranchers face in the West and will be able to hit the ground running.”

Lane starts with PLC and NCBA on November 2, 2015.

October 6, 2015 Comments are off Montana Stockgrowers Association
Share:

Montana Livestock Groups Submit Bison Comments

brucellosisMontana Stockgrowers Association, Montana Association of State Grazing Districts and the Montana Public Lands Council, submitted comments regarding the Montana FWP’s DRAFT Environmental Impact Statement Bison Conservation and Management in Montana document. The 90 day comment period closed on September 11th. FWP has stated a record of decision is expected by early next year.

Our organizations comments were reflective of our membership policies regarding bison management. Some of the general concerns regarding a potential bison relocation included:

  1. Damages to fences by bison that compromise landowner attempts at good grazing management
  2. Private property owners expected to bear the brunt of the expenses
  3. Wild bison would be direct forage competitors with livestock, which would force cattle producers to reduce their herds if bison populations were present on their lands
  4. Federal and state grazing allotments may be put in jeopardy by the relocation of bison to these lands, negatively affecting Montana’s livestock industry

Our members have clearly stated in our policy that we are opposed to bison relocation, but we are committed to being active participants in future negotiations with all entities involved. Some of our critical concerns to any bison relocation include:

  1. The use of private lands without the landowner’s permission
  2. Any relocation must follow strict guidelines:
    • No diseased bison will be relocated anywhere in Montana, other than a state and federally approved quarantine facility or a packing plant for immediate processing
    • Before any other relocation, DFWP shall develop and adopt a comprehensive statewide management plan that is entirely consistent with 87-1-216, MCA

In reviewing the proposed alternatives, our organizations supported Alternative 1: No Action. In reviewing the entire document, there were numerous concerns regarding a number of sections in the Draft EIS.

Starting with the Genetics section, there appeared to be a recommendation to have a bison population of at least 1,000 animals for genetic purposes. Our comments stated potential herds with these types of population numbers would need extremely large landscapes and nutritional requirements that would lead to significant impacts on neighboring family ranches.

On the section of Brucellosis Management, disease management is one of the livestock industry’s most serious concerns. In the Bison/Agriculture Interactions section, federal grazing permits are referenced. Our organizations have experience with groups seeking to reduce or eliminate these grazing permits to allow more habitat for wildlife. Our concerns stated that many ranchers could be faced with significant legal costs to defend their permits over such challenges.

In the section of Costs to Bison Management, our organizations see some deficiencies it the realization of actual costs to the Department to manage a potential bison population. One of the major concerns among our members is the Department would engage in a restoration project and then have a shortage of funds to adequately run the program. Our organizations also recommend that if a bison proposal moves forward, it be conducted in an area where there is local support.

The Montana Stockgrowers Association, Montana Association of State Grazing Districts and the Montana Public Lands Council will continue to engage in all facets of this decision making process and keep the members informed on any developments.

September 25, 2015 Comments are off Montana Stockgrowers Association
Share:

Sage Grouse not listed as Endangered Species

sageGrouseOn Tuesday, September 22, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services announced that the greater sage grouse would not be listed as an endangered species. This is a significant accomplishment following extensive work by officials, industry and conservation groups in 11 states who have worked to form plans for conservation of the bird’s habitat.

Department of the Interior Secretary Sally Jewell made the announcement on Tuesday via video. Click here to watch and read her statement.

Montana Stockgrowers Association, Montana Public Lands Council and Montana Association of State Grazing Districts are supportive of the recent decision. Even with sage grouse not listed under ESA, our organizations will still be working on this issue on our members’ behalf, at both the state and federal level.

At the state level, Montana has developed state legislation and a state plan, which will be operational by January 1, 2016. In order to accomplish this accelerated time schedule, we will be participating in all facets of the program, such as:

  • Attendance at the Montana Sage Grouse Oversight Team (MSGOT) meetings
  • Further developing program rules for mitigation and habitat exchanges
  • Development of landowner incentives

The MSGOT will hold two more meeting this fall, with the next being November 17 in Helena. Click here to learn more about Montana Sage Grouse Management.

In addition to the state plan development, our organizations will be also working on the federal level. On the federal side, BLM has just released their Resource Management Plans (RMP) for the state. These plans provide the direction for public land and federal minerals managed by the Bureau of Land Management and provide a framework for the future management direction for the planning area.

With the release of these RMPs, we will be:

  • Reviewing these plans as it relates to impacts to livestock grazing
  • Work with the agency to ensure livestock grazing is not impacted by sage grouse decisions
  • Clarify specific criteria and requirements within the document and how they will impacting livestock producers.

Montana’s leadership provided statements regarding the DOI and USFWS announcement on Tuesday:

Our organizations also request input from our members on areas of possible concerns or program areas where livestock producers can receive some benefit. Please contact the MSGA office if you have any further questions. Stay tuned to MSGA News updates and emails for more information as it becomes available.

September 10, 2015 Comments are off Montana Stockgrowers Association
Share:

Livestock Groups Consider MOU for Brucellosis Management | Podcast

PodcastThe National Public Lands Council is hosting their annual meeting this week in Cody, Wyoming. Several Montana ranchers are taking advantage of the close proximity to attend the conference and meeting with public land users from across the country. Montana Stockgrowers and Montana Public Lands Council has several representatives at the meeting and we’ll be catching up later with Jay Bodner to learn more about the big topics of discussion coming out of the event.

Ranchers representing the Montana Public Lands Council in Cody this week include Vicki Olson of Malta and MPLC President, John and Joe Helle from Dillon, George Trischman from Sheridan and Johnny Schultz

Earlier, Montana Stockgrowers took part in a Tri-State Meeting prior to the PLC conference in Cody, to meet with representatives from our neighboring states of Idaho and Wyoming. MSGA Executive Vice President, Errol Rice, shares more about the topics discussed on the Stockgrowers podcast. As part of the meeting, the three states agreed to encourage state and federal agencies to create a working committee that will work toward better solutions for managing brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area.

Click here to listen to today’s podcast on a new page.

August 28, 2015 Comments are off Montana Stockgrowers Association
Share:

USDA Invests an Additional $211 Million for Sage Grouse Conservation Efforts

PLC LogoWASHINGTON – Yesterday, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack announced the Natural Resources Conservation Service will continue its partnership with ranchers to invest in efforts for the conservation of Sage Grouse habitat. The four-year strategy will invest approximately $211 million in conservation efforts on public and private lands throughout the 11 Western states. The Public Lands Council and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association appreciate the NRCS’s commitment to a continued partnership with ranchers.

“Ranchers across the West appreciate the continued partnership with NRCS through the Sage Grouse Initiative,” said Brenda Richards, PLC president and rancher from southern Idaho. “As the original stewards of our Western lands, ranchers work day-in and day-out to maintain healthy rangelands and conserve our natural resources for the generations to come. The Sage Grouse Initiative has proven itself to be a win-win for livestock producers and the grouse, and the partnership through 2018 will support the continuation of the successful conservation efforts already underway.”

The sage grouse is found in eleven states across the western half of the United States, including California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming and encompasses 186 million acres of public and private land. In 2010, the Sage Grouse Initiative launched and has helped ranchers implement increased conservation efforts on their land, benefiting both the grouse habitat and rangeland for livestock ranchers.

The Sage Grouse, due to frivolous lawsuit and litigation, is currently at risk of being listed under the Endangered Species Act. However, the ESA has become one of the most economically damaging laws facing our nation’s livestock producers and is great need of modernization. When species are listed as “threatened” or “endangered” under the ESA, the resulting use-restrictions placed on land and water, the two resources upon which ranchers depend for their livelihoods, are crippling. The ESA has not been reauthorized since 1988 and NCBA and PLC believe the rather than listing the grouse under the ESA, efforts like the Sage Grouse Initiative will benefit the bird more and prove that listing is not the answer.

“The Endangered Species Act is outdated and has proven itself ineffective,” said Philip Ellis, who ranches in Wyoming. “Of the 1,500 domestic species listed since 1973, less than two percent have ever been deemed recovered. With this partnership, voluntary conservation efforts have increased, ranchers remain on the land, and wildlife habitat is thriving. In fact, Interior Secretary Jewell announced this year that through working with ranchers and other stakeholders in Nevada and California, the Bi-State Sage Grouse population was no longer at risk and was not listed under the ESA. This is prime example of how land management and conservation efforts should be made, in partnership with those that know the land the best.”

Learn more about the USDA NRCS Sage Grouse Initiative programs here.

August 26, 2015 Comments are off Montana Stockgrowers Association
Share:

Explanation of Montana Tax Reappraisal Notices

The following is a guest column from Montana Representative Rob Cook, R-Conrad

Representative Rob CookThe arrival of reappraisal notices from the Montana Department of Revenue (DOR) has many Montana taxpayers experiencing sticker shock. But, before we are panicked enough to begin construction of a bunker, it would be useful to know how a sharp increase in appraised market value affects our actual tax bill.

Let’s look at a reappraisal notice. Assume that we find in the table on page 2 that the previous year taxable value for our residence was $1000 and that our current year taxable value is now a frightening $1500. Should we expect that our current year property taxes will also increase by a factor of 1.5?

The short answer is no and, while there are many factors that contribute to this, I’ll attempt to explain a few of the most important.

First, we should consider that if the taxable value of our property grew at such an alarming rate, shouldn’t the taxable value of all the neighboring properties have grown by a similar factor? If we didn’t complete any new construction or major renovations since the last appraisal in 2008 – then it is likely that our new values simply reflect an uptick in the local housing market and that our new taxable value has not moved disproportionately to that of our neighbors.

Perhaps inadvertently, we have uncovered one of the nuances of the Montana property tax system – when we are investigating a particular class of property the absolute value of an individual change is not as important as the comparison of the properties relative change to the relative change of other members in its class. For example, if the average change for neighboring properties was 1.3 and our change was 1.5, then we should expect that our taxes will increase by a greater percentage than our neighbors. Conversely, if the average change for neighboring properties was 1.7, then we could expect that our taxes would increase by a smaller percentage than our neighbors. In the latter case, it is actually possible for our taxes to decrease!

Next, we should consider what happens when the taxable value of every class of property increases. We know that the total taxes collected is equal to the taxable value multiplied by the mill rate, so did our county and local government just get a license to explode their budgets?

Fortunately, in this scenario, taxpayers are protected by Montana law. The growth in county and local government budgets is limited to one-half the average rate of inflation plus the taxes provided by any new growth. Thus, if the total taxable value goes up, the mill rate must be reduced so that total collections do not exceed the maximum allowable budget.

Finally, if we take into account the maximum budget constraint and the relative movement of our property within its class, it becomes apparent that the actual property taxes we will be required to pay does not mirror the increase in taxable value. In fact, in most cases any increase in property taxes should lie much closer to the increase provided by the maximum budget constraint than to the multiplier derived from the comparison of the current and existing taxable values.

This has been a very simplistic explanation of a reappraisal notice and I would be remiss if I did not mention that, in addition to the discussed relative movement within a class, there is also relative movement between classes. The legislature attempts to mitigate the latter by employing a technique called ‘taxable value neutrality’.

Taxable value neutrality simply means that the statewide total taxable value of residential, commercial, and agricultural properties remains the same each year. This was achieved in the last session by lowering the tax rates for each of these classes.

Because this mitigation technique is applied to the statewide totals, it can cause tax shifting at the local level. If we wish to be strictly accurate, these shifts must be considered when attempting to decipher the actual tax impact of the reappraisal notice.

Our property tax system and reappraisal process can be difficult to understand. I have selected a residential property example but the same considerations apply to commercial and agricultural properties. I hope the explanation has been useful and I appreciate your time.

August 25, 2015 Comments are off Montana Stockgrowers Association
Share:

Eastern Montana Irrigators Work to Provide for Fish Habitat, Challenged By Lawsuit

Irrigation Ranchers HandsIrrigators in Eastern Montana find themselves in the midst of a lawsuit involving a 100-year-old diversion dam and habitat for the pallid sturgeon. Despite efforts made by irrigators to provide project allowances to protect fish habitat, environmentalist groups are pressing forward with damage claims.

On August 27, a preliminary injunction hearing will be held to stop construction on modifications to the Intake Diversion Dam on the Lower Yellowstone River in front of Judge Morris at the Federal District Court. The diversion dam, dating back to 1905, was constructed to divert water into a main canal in order to provide dependable water supply sufficient to irrigate over 50,000 acres of land.

In February, Defenders of Wildlife and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a lawsuit charging that Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) failed to comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in operating two dams in the upper Missouri River Basin, which are endangering the pallid sturgeon.

Plaintiffs claim the Intake Diversion Dam on the Yellowstone River blocks pallid sturgeon from reaching critical spawning grounds. The groups also claim timing and temperature of water releases from the Fort Peck Dam destroy the sturgeons’ spawning and rearing habitat in the main stem Missouri.

Current construction plans provide special consideration to protect the migration paths and habitat of the fish. This includes necessary updates to the diversion provide for development of a fish bypass and placement of a concrete weir that supplies the irrigation project in order to protect the migration paths and habitat of the fish.

According to Dr. Gary Brester, Professor of Agricultural Economics at Montana State University, “the annual average total crop value produced by this irrigation district (over the past five years) is estimated to be slightly more than $54 million.” Mr. Brester goes on to state that if irrigation were to cease, production values for this area would face an estimated $40 million reduction, representing a substantial decline in economic activity.

Jim Steinbeisser, District Director for Montana Stockgrowers Association (MSGA) and irrigation project user, also identifies the importance of the 100-year-old diversion dam to irrigators in the area, “Our community depends on this project for the many jobs that it creates due to the productiveness of the valley, and the stability that irrigation water provides,” says Steinbeisser.

Due to the critical importance of this lawsuit, Gene Curry, President of MSGA, also filed a declaration.  Mr. Curry stated, “The irrigated fields within this project area, provide a significant grazing resource for livestock, which would also be critically reduced with the loss of irrigation. Livestock producers would be forced to look for alternative grazing pastures outside the area, reducing the livestock herd or complete dispersion of the herd if other grazing opportunities are not available.”

In order to address ESA concerns in 2007, the Corps received authorization to assist the Bureau of Reclamation with protecting fish from becoming entrained in the irrigation canal and improving fish passage at the diversion dam. Construction of a new headworks structure with screens to reduce fish entrainment in the irrigation canal was completed in spring 2012.

A second phase in the project included a supplemental Environmental Assessment that identified alternatives to modify the existing diversion dam located in Intake, to improve passage for endangered pallid sturgeon and other native fish in the lower Yellowstone River.

The Bureau and Corps stated in their decision, “the action alternative would both be expected to improve fish passage for pallid sturgeon and other native fish, and are not expected to result in any long-term adverse impacts to any threatened or endangered species, or species of special concern.” The current lawsuit has challenged this decision.

Montana Stockgrowers previously submitted formal comments regarding project modifications and will continue to provide input where needed. MSGA believes the work proposed in the EA will allow agencies to address fish migration concerns and provide for irrigators who are of great importance to the area’s communities and economy.

July 14, 2015 Comments are off Montana Stockgrowers Association
Share:

Livestock Groups Submit Comments on Yellowstone-Area Bison Management

brucellosisThe Montana Stockgrowers Association (MSGA), Montana Association of State Grazing Districts (MASGD and the Montana Public Lands Council (PLC), recently provided comments to Yellowstone National Park, regarding the Yellowstone-area Bison Management Plan/EIS.

Currently, the National Park Service (NPS) and the State of Montana are serving as joint lead agencies in the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a plan to manage Yellowstone-area bison.  As stated in their documents, the goal is to minimizing brucellosis transmission between these wild bison and livestock to the extent practicable. This EIS would be developed to replace the existing Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP). In addition to submitting comments, MSGA also attended the public scoping open house in Bozeman.

The main basis of our comments, were the result of policy that was passed at the MSGA Mid-Year meeting.  Those recommendations included:

  1. No increase in the current population goal of 3,000 for the entire Yellowstone area bison herd.
  2. No further increases of the current areas outside YNP where migrating bison are tolerated.
  3. Continual vaccination of captured bison in the Park.

In reviewing the preliminary draft alternatives, our organizations most support the current No Action alternative. This alternative incorporates population control, spring haze back dates, vaccination, culling, hunting and shipment of excess animals to processing facilities. While other alternatives include some components of this alternate, the remainder of the alternatives tend to reduce management actions by the agency, which in our view will lead to greater conflicts.

The comments also included provisions in each alternative that we supported or opposed. Some of those concerns included removal of livestock from private land or federal grazing leases on the Forest Service or other federal lands. These private lands and grazing leases are an important element to any ranching operation and the removal of livestock from these areas will put these family ranches in jeopardy.

Lastly, it was our recommendation YNP, stay the EIS planning until the National Academy of Science’s study of brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area is complete. This study is scheduled to examine factors associated with the increased occurrence of brucellosis transmission from wildlife to livestock and the recent expansion of brucellosis in non-feedground elk. In addition, it is slated to consider the role of feeding grounds, predators, population size and other factors in facilitating brucellosis infection.

One important aspect will be the committee’s work to explore the likelihood of developing vaccines that are more effective, delivery systems, and diagnostic protocols for cattle, bison and elk. Our organizations feel it is imperative to engage and complete this critical study before any action is taken on the Yellowstone-area Bison Management Plan/EIS.

July 13, 2015 Comments are off Montana Stockgrowers Association
Share:

EPA Releases Waters of the U.S. Rule

waterThe Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) Rule was finalized by EPA and Army Corps on May 27, 2015.  MSGA is currently reviewing the rule, but initially, it appears few changes have been made from the proposed rule. In a number of cases, the rule represents an expansion of federal jurisdiction beyond current practices and the limitations affirmed by the Supreme Court.

The agencies received over 1 million comments on the WOTUS proposal before they closed the second comment period on November 14, 2014. MSGA, working with NCBA, also viewed the new rule as a:

  • Increase in jurisdiction over ephemeral streams
  • New expansive jurisdiction over adjacent waters
  • Many ditches subject to federal regulation

MSGA provided extensive comments in opposition to the proposed rule, including:

  1. Removal of intermittent and ephemeral non-navigable streams from the rule.
  2. Remove the inclusion of ditches in the definition of tributary.
  3. Remove the provision that would make isolated wetlands, ponds and other open waters per se jurisdictional if they are located within a riparian area or floodplain.
  4. Withdraw the Interpretive Rule that limits the Sec. 404 “normal farming, silviculture and ranching” exemption to 56 NRCS practices, which limits landowner protections.

The Agencies have estimated the rule will cost as much as $306 million annually. MSGA is currently working with others to consider possible avenues to rewrite or halt implementation of the rule. Due to the concern over the rule, there are currently two bills in Congress to halt the proposed WOTUS Rule.

The first is the Regulatory Integrity Protection Act (H.R. 1732). This bill calls for the EPA to withdraw their rule and has passed the full House by a bi-partisan vote of 261-155.

In Senate, the Federal Water Quality Protection Act (S. 1140) was introduced to Environment and Public Works Committee. This bill would also require the EPA and Army Corps to withdraw the WOTUS proposal and develop a new proposal that would reach consensus with state and local governments on defining “Waters of the United States.” Senator Steve Daines is cosponsor of S. 1140 legislation.