2011-05-23_REVISION - C1981008 (2)

Home Browse Search

>> to eliminate the requirement to include success standards and measurement >> techniques in the approve regu a y p 3A`ram be 're wined? >> Answer: It is anticipated that the final federal reve etation rules will >> be publishe in a y, 20 . 816.116(a)(1) will be amended, and will no >> longer require that success standards and measurement techniques be >> included in regulations subject to OSM approval. However, the final rule >> will differ from the proposed rule. The final rule will include some >> type >> of provision requiring that state regulatory authorities maintain a >> listing of acceptable success standards and measurement techniques, >> within >> guidelines or comparable documents, that are available to the public and >> subject to public review and comment. >> I also mentioned to Bob the difficulty of developing a sound technical >> standard, due to the lack of published NRCS production information for >> several of the soil types that are irrigated locally, as well as the fact >> that representative dryland pasture is a scarce commodity, and there are >> no applicable published production figures. >> Bob's recommendation was that, if at all possible, WFC should attempt to >> use reference areas for irrigated pasture and irrigated hayland, as well >> as dryland pasture and rangeland. I explained some of the difficulties >> the operator was experiencing with reference areas and he understood some >> of the problems. But he reiterated that his recommendation would be that >> the operator look far and wide for reference sites that would work, even >> if it required lease agreements or similar arrangements with area farmers >> or the BLM. Another option we discussed, was that maybe the historic >> record approach would be applicable for irrigated pasturelands and >> irrigated haylands. This would entail a minimum of probably 5 years of >> production records or statistically adequate sampling from applicable >> fields. If there are existing records available from NRCS, FSA, or other >> agencies, or individual farmers, for particular lands that can be tied to >> the soil types of concern, this might be a workable approach. If such >> records are not available, possibly suitable fields could be located and >> WFC could collect the data annually for 5 years to "build" the technical >> standard. >> From a regulatory perspective, Bob is no doubt right, that use of >> reference areas and/or historic record data would be cleaner and >> preferable. Although the federal rule requiring OSM approval of a >> program >> amendment for technical standard wil apparently go away in the near >> future, the Division will apparently still be required to develop >> "programmatic" type approaches or documents for use as technical >> standards, which would likely entail a lengthy time period for >> development, including public review and comment periods. >> By the way, when the original standards for irrigated hayland and >> irrigated pastureland were developed back in the day, OSM approval was >> apparently not obtained, and when the standards were amended in 2000, the >> OSM approval requirement was also overlooked (that was my bad; I was >> involved in that review). >> Anyway, let me know what you think. I think we shoud take Bob's input >> into consideration and discuss it with Greg Lewicki at our meeting on 2