[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 58 (Friday, March 25, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-7060]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: March 25, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VI
Department of the Interior
_______________________________________________________________________
Bureau of Land Management
Office Hearings and Appeals
_______________________________________________________________________
43 CFR Part 4 et al.
Department Hearings and Appeals Procedures; Cooperative Relations;
Grazing Administration--Exclusive of Alaska; Proposed Rule
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
Office of Hearings and Appeals
43 CFR Parts 4, 1780, and 4100
[WO-220-4320-02 24 1A]
RIN 1004-AB89
Department Hearings and Appeals Procedures; Cooperative
Relations; Grazing Administration--Exclusive of Alaska
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Office of Hearings and Appeals,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would amend the regulations that govern how
the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management,
administers livestock grazing. This proposed rule would apply to all
lands on which the Bureau of Land Management administers livestock
grazing. This proposed rule would also amend the Department of the
Interior's appeals regulations pertaining to livestock grazing to
provide consistency with administrative remedies provided for in the
grazing regulations, and would amend the regulations on cooperative
relations to reflect changes in the organization of certain advisory
committees. The proposed changes are a part of an overall effort to
improve the management of the Nation's public rangeland resources.
Public review and comment on this proposal is invited.
An advance notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the
Federal Register on August 13, 1993 (58 FR 43208). Comments received on
the advance notice have been considered in identifying and refining key
components of the rangeland reform effort and in preparing this
proposed rule.
Due to the great volume of comments anticipated on this proposed
rule, the Department requests that reviewers identify the specific
section and paragraph label for the regulatory text on which they are
commenting. Specific statements of what regulatory text the reviewer
feels should be modified, and the reasons for the recommended changes,
are encouraged.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be submitted in writing by
July 28, 1994. Comments postmarked after this date will not be
considered in the preparation of the final rule.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposed rule to Rangeland Reform '94,
P.O. Box 66300, Washington, D.C. 20035-6300. Comments delivered to an
address other than above may not be considered in the preparation of
the final rule.
Comments on the proposed rule will be made available for public
inspection during regular business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.),
Monday through Friday. Viewing of the comments can be arranged by
contacting the Bureau of Land Management at the telephone number
provided below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark W. Stiles, Regulations Analyst,
Division of Legislation and Regulatory Management, Bureau of Land
Management, (202) 208-4256.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
This proposed amendment to 43 CFR parts 4, 1780, and 4100 is part
of the Department of the Interior's Rangeland Reform '94 package. The
provisions of this proposed rule are necessary to ensure proper
administration of livestock grazing on the public rangelands and to
bring about reform in the management of rangelands for the improvement,
protection, and proper function of rangeland ecosystems. Many of the
proposals would result in greater consistency between the
administration of grazing on public rangelands by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) and administration of grazing on National Forest
System lands by the United States Forest Service (Forest Service). This
proposed rule would govern the BLM's administration of livestock
grazing on public rangelands. It is proposed under the principal
authorities of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; FLPMA), the Taylor Grazing Act (43 U.S.C. 315 et
seq.), and the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C.
1901 et seq.)
An advance notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the
Federal Register on August 13, 1993 (58 FR 43208). The comment period
on the advance notice ended September 13, 1993, and was subsequently
reopened for a 30-day period that ended October 20, 1993. A notice of
intent to prepare an associated environmental impact statement (EIS)
was published in the Federal Register on July 13, 1993 (58 FR 37745),
and August 13, 1993 (58 FR 43234). These notices requested public
comment to assist in the scoping process for the EIS. The comment
period on the second notice of intent closed September 13, 1993, and
was subsequently reopened to correspond with the comment period on the
advance notice of proposed rulemaking. A booklet entitled Rangeland
Reform '94 was developed to describe the Secretary's proposal and
approximately 35,000 copies were distributed to all BLM grazing
permittees and lessees, interested Congressional staff, and other
interested parties, in late August and September of 1993.
Reviewers of this proposed rule may find it helpful to refer to the
advance notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal
Register, August 13, 1993, in their consideration of this proposed
rule. The advance notice contains some background material that has not
been reproduced in this proposed rule.
During a three-month period beginning November 17, 1993, Secretary
Babbitt met on 20 occasions around the West with groups which included
western governors, State and local officials, ranchers,
environmentalists and other public land users. He visited locations in
Colorado, Wyoming, and Oregon where on-the-ground consensus groups were
already engaged in addressing how land management decisions should be
made, and participated in hundreds of hours of discussion about the
components of rangeland reform. The meetings in Colorado, Idaho,
Arizona, New Mexico, Wyoming, Oregon, Nevada and Utah resulted in many
productive suggestions that are reflected in the new proposal.
As a result of public comments on the various documents distributed
in the summer of 1993 and the meetings attended by the Secretary, the
Department has modified many of the initial proposals for reforming
rangeland management. The modified Rangeland Reform '94 proposal is
summarized below. Much of the reform package is reflected in the
proposed regulatory text provided in this document. The public is asked
to review this revised proposal and provide comments and
recommendations for improvement. Due to the great volume of comment
anticipated, the Department requests that reviewers specifically
identify the section and paragraph labels for the proposed regulatory
text on which they are providing comment. Reviewers are also asked to
provide suggested wording changes whenever possible. Comments on this
proposed rule will be analyzed in detail and considered in the
preparation of a final rule. The Department also intends to hold public
meetings or hearings in western grazing States to obtain input on this
proposal. Announcement of the place and time for these meetings or
hearings will be made in a separate notice. The Department anticipates
publication of the final rule late in calendar year 1994.
In addition to this proposed rule, the Bureau of Land Management
and the Forest Service, as a cooperating agency, have prepared a draft
EIS. The draft EIS is currently being printed and prepared for
distribution, but advance copies are available for public review at the
Department of the Interior Library, First Floor, 18th and C Streets NW,
Washington, DC. Notice of availability of the draft EIS will be made
through a separate publication in the Federal Register. The draft EIS
analyzes in detail the proposed action and alternatives for improving
the management of the Nation's public rangelands, including regulatory
changes proposed in this rule. The draft EIS also invites public
comment.
Rangeland Reform '94
Rangeland Reform '94 is a proposal developed by the Department of
the Interior through BLM, in close cooperation with the U.S. Department
of Agriculture and the Forest Service, for effecting fundamental policy
changes, including adjustment of the Federal grazing fee, in its
rangeland management program. The purpose of the proposed changes is to
make the BLM's rangeland management program more consistent with
ecosystem management, to accelerate restoration and improvement of the
public rangelands, to obtain for the public fair and reasonable
compensation for the grazing of livestock on public lands, and to
streamline certain administrative functions. As a result of public
input on the initial proposal, and as a result of the BLM's preliminary
analysis of rangeland reform, two additional goals have been included:
to provide a mechanism for effective public participation in
decisionmaking, and to focus Federal and non-Federal management efforts
where they will result in the greatest benefit. In achieving these
goals the Department also intends to make BLM's administration of
livestock grazing more consistent with that of the Forest Service.
There are five major categories of proposed management actions
addressed in Rangeland Reform '94. These categories are (1) The Federal
grazing fee and associated incentives, (2) effective public
participation in rangeland management, (3) administrative practices,
(4) range improvements and water rights, and (5) resource management
requirements, including standards and guidelines. Proposed actions
within each of these categories are discussed in detail elsewhere in
this proposed rule.
Public Comment on the Initial Proposal
A total of about 12,600 letters were received from about 8,000
persons on the advance notice of proposed rulemaking, notice of intent
to prepare an EIS, and the Rangeland Reform '94 summary booklet. These
letters included over 56,000 individual comments. The specific aspects
of the advance notice of proposed rulemaking generating the most
comments were the grazing fee and water rights associated with range
improvement projects. Initial proposals related to affected interests,
grazing advisory boards, grazing permit and lease tenure, unauthorized
subleasing, standards and guidelines and full force and effect also
generated a great number of comments. Many letters expressed opinions
that the overall rangeland reform proposal was a disincentive for good
stewardship, would have major economic impacts on rural western
communities, and would result in the ``taking'' of private property
rights. A great number of comments supported the identified need for
consistency between regulations of the BLM and the Forest Service.
At the invitation of Colorado's Governor Roy Romer, Secretary
Babbitt met on nine separate occasions with a group of State and local
officials, ranchers, conservationists and other land users in Denver
and Gunnison, Colorado, for discussions regarding a process for
building a consensus-driven local approach to rangeland management. The
Colorado Working Group also made suggestions to change or improve the
advance Rangeland Reform '94 proposal introduced in August, 1993.
Similar meetings and follow-up discussions were held in Idaho, Oregon,
and Nevada, in addition to meetings in Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and
Wyoming.
These meetings with the Secretary involved hundreds of hours of
discussion. Input from these meetings resulted in many of the changes
and clarifications made in this proposed rule.
As a result of public comment the Department has made a number of
changes in the initial proposal. An attempt has been made to identify
the most substantial changes in the section-by-section analysis
provided in this proposed rule.
Brief Discussion of Major Elements of Rangeland Reform '94
The following presents the general proposals of Rangeland Reform
'94 and highlights significant changes made in response to public input
on the advance notice of proposed rulemaking. Detailed descriptions of
the specific regulatory changes being proposed are presented in the
section-by-section analysis following this discussion.
The Federal Grazing Fee and Associated Incentives
This proposed rule presents a formula that is intended to correct
the fundamental problems of the present fee.
The first problem is the wide disparity between rates charged for
livestock forage on private and State lands versus the rate charged on
Federal lands. In many western States, the fee for grazing on private
nonirrigated lands is far greater than it is on Federal lands. As the
following chart shows, in 1993, the private grazing land lease rates in
most western States were several times the Federal fee.
1993 Private Nonirrigated Grazing Land Lease Rates Dollars per Animal
Unit Month (National Agricultural Statistics Service)
Federal Fee
$1.86
Arizona
5.72
California
10.40
Colorado
9.70
Idaho
9.25
Kansas
11.30
Montana
11.40
Nebraska
17.00
Nevada
8.80
New Mexico
7.55
North Dakota
10.00
Oklahoma
7.10
Oregon
9.75
South Dakota
12.60
Texas
8.75
Utah
8.90
Washington
7.80
Wyoming
10.50
There are similar disparities between grazing fees charged on State
lands and the Federal fee. For grazing year 1994 the Federal grazing
fee established under existing regulations in 43 CFR part 4100, is
$1.98 per animal unit month (AUM). This fee compares to western State
trust land fees of as low as $1.53 in Arizona to fees ranging from
$4.00 to more than $20.00 in some of the western States for their 1994
grazing year. The different formulas, and the use of competitive
bidding in some States, make it difficult to present an average of the
State trust land grazing fees, but in the States of Nevada, New Mexico,
Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho, the largest States in terms of the number
of BLM AUMs authorized, the State trust land fees per AUM range from a
low of $3.00 in Wyoming to $4.53 in Idaho in 1994.
A second problem of the current fee formula is that while forage
value in the private market has increased substantially over time, the
Federal grazing fee formula has produced relatively small increases
and, in some years, decreases. In 1980, for example, the private
grazing land lease rate for the 11 western States, weighted by survey
weights as determined by the National Agricultural Statistics Service,
was $7.53, while the Federal fee was $2.36; thus, the difference
between the private and Federal rates in 1980 was $5.17. In 1993, the
private grazing land lease rate for the 11 western States was $10.03,
while the Federal fee was $1.86. Thus, the difference between the two
figures had jumped to $8.17.
The proposed formula would address the failure of the existing
formula adequately to reflect private grazing land market conditions by
including a base value that considers the cost differences of operating
on public lands as compared to private leases, as well as appraisal
data, and by annually adjusting the fee in proportion to changes in
private grazing land lease rates. After an initial phase-in period, the
fee would be adjusted annually to reflect the change in the private
land lease rate in the 17 western States (i.e., forage value index).
Although no explicit index based on production costs or value of
products produced is used, both factors influence the prices paid for
forage and so are, to some extent, implicit in the forage value index.
The proposed formula is essentially a return to the simpler formula
that was in effect before 1978 using an updated base value.
While the proposed rule would move toward greater equity among
fees, it would still result in a fee below the fees charged for grazing
on State lands in most western States, and would fall well below
private grazing land lease rates. The amount by which the fee would
increase is similar to recent increases that have taken place at the
State level; those increases have not led to noticeable shifts in the
livestock industry or economic effects on communities in those States.
This, when considered with the reasonableness of the proposed fee
increase and the fact that more than 73 percent of BLM permittees and
lessees would experience a fee increase of less than $1,000 per year,
offers evidence that the proposed change in the fee would generally not
have a significant impact on the stability of the dependent western
livestock industry and would not have a serious detrimental effect on
most permittees and lessees. Some permittees and lessees that are
highly dependent on Federal forage, do not have off-ranch income, and
have heavy debt loads may be required to make some financial
adjustments. These adjustments, in some circumstances, may include sale
of the ranch; however, it is expected that such sales will occur in
limited circumstances. Such sales, it should be noted, are occurring
and will continue to take place under current conditions, as well.
The economic impact on western communities is expected to be
localized and, in most areas, not significant because that portion of
the local economy that depends upon the use of Federal forage is
relatively minor.
The initial proposal generated a great amount of public comment
both for and against increasing the fee. Most of the comments related
to the anticipated impacts to individual operators and to rural western
economies. Many respondents suggested regional economic differences,
the cost of investment in public lands, and overall rangeland resource
conditions should be considered in determining grazing fees. Some felt
the proposed fee would be economically devastating, and some felt that
a fee increase was warranted, but the proposal represented too little
or too great an increase.
As a result of the public input gained following the advance notice
of proposed rulemaking and through the scoping process for the
environmental analysis of Rangeland Reform '94, the Department has
determined that the fee formula initially proposed represents a
reasonable and equitable method for calculating the fee. However, an
adjustment in the forage value index is proposed in this draft. A
provision for an incentive-based fee has also been added.
A base value of $3.96 per AUM to be used in calculating the grazing
fee is proposed in this rule. This value represents a midrange between
the results obtained through the use of two methods for estimating a
fair base value. Explanation of the methodology used in arriving at the
$3.96 base value is presented in the discussion of section 4130.7-1.
The proposed fee would be phased in over the years 1995 through 1997.
Thereafter, annual increases or decreases in the grazing fee resulting
from changes in the forage value index would be limited to 25 percent
of the amount charged the previous year to provide for a measure of
stability that would facilitate business planning.
This proposed rule would establish 1996 as the base year for the
forage value index used in the formula. The forage value index would
not be used to adjust the fee annually in response to market conditions
until the year 1997. This proposed rule would establish the 1995
grazing fee at $2.75, and the 1996 grazing fee at $3.50. Thereafter the
fee would be calculated, except as provided below, using the base value
of $3.96 multiplied by the revised forage value index. By definition,
the forage value index in the year 1997 would equal one; yielding a
1997 grazing fee of $3.96. In subsequent years the calculated fee would
depend on the changes in the market rate for private grazing land
leases as reflected by the forage value index. By comparison, the 1994
grazing fee established under the existing regulations is $1.98 per
AUM.
This change in the derivation of the forage value index is proposed
to reduce the uncertainty in the fee in the immediate future that
resulted from using a forage value index based on less current private
land lease rate data. Under the proposal presented in the advance
notice of proposed rulemaking, the fee would have been adjusted
annually by a forage value index based on the average price paid for
private grazing in the years 1990 through 1992. Assuming that forage
value index would have remained constant until the end of the phase in
period provided in the advance notice, the formula would have yielded a
grazing fee of $4.28 per AUM as compared to a 1997 fee of $3.96 per AUM
using the revised forage value index.
The Department intends to examine the effect of the proposed
grazing fee during the phase-in period to determine the need for any
adjustment in the fee formula.
New provisions have been added to the proposed rule that would
provide for an incentive-based grazing fee and would restrict
implementation of the $3.96 base value in the event a separate
regulation setting forth eligibility criteria is not issued by 1997. In
recent years the Department has considered several proposals for
incentive-based grazing fees targeted at permittees and lessees who
have improved rangelands, contributed to healthy, functional ecological
conditions, and fostered the achievement of resource condition
objectives. The Public Rangelands Improvement Act (43 U.S.C. 1901 et
seq.) and the Taylor Grazing Act provide authority for the Department
to implement incentive-based grazing fees. The Department recognizes
that an incentive-based fee would be a valuable tool for encouraging
stewardship. It was not possible to develop proposed eligibility
criteria for the incentive-based fee in time to include them in
Rangeland Reform '94. However, in anticipation of the issuance of a
separate rule setting forth eligibility criteria, the Department has
included in the proposed rule a 30 percent reduction in the grazing fee
for permittees and lessees who meet the criteria. The 30 percent
reduction would be implemented in the first grazing year after the
Department issues a separate final rule setting forth the eligibility
criteria. These criteria would focus primarily upon those permittees
and lessees who agree to participate in special rangeland improvement
programs characterized by best management practices, the furtherance of
resource condition objectives, and comprehensive monitoring. The
Department anticipates that eligibility criteria would require the
permittee or lessee to undertake management practices beyond those
otherwise required by law and regulation to benefit the ecological
health of the public rangelands.
To ensure timely development of that rule, this proposed rule would
provide that an alternative base value of $3.50 would be implemented in
1997 if the Department has not completed the eligibility criteria. The
Department intends to use its best efforts to issue a final rule
establishing incentive criteria in time to provide an opportunity for
the reduced fee in grazing year 1996. Such a discount would result in a
grazing fee of $2.77 per AUM in 1996 and 1997 for qualifying permittees
and lessees. Reviewers are asked to provide suggested criteria for
qualifying for the reduced fee that address the improvement and
maintenance of rangeland health, the furtherance of resource condition
objectives, and comprehensive monitoring.
Public Participation in Rangeland Management
An important element of true rangeland reform involves allowing
more Americans to have a say in the management of their public lands.
The American rangelands can be--and are--used for far more than
grazing. Hiking, birding, fishing, hunting, and mountain biking are
among the activities that are compatible with sound grazing practices.
All of the public interests will be served by the public lands as long
as all of the public interests are represented when decisions are being
made. Thus, increased public participation is essential to bringing
lasting changes to management of our public lands.
Included in this general category are proposals for the formation
of multiple resource advisory councils in most BLM administrative
districts and the involvement of the multiple resource advisory
councils in the development of standards and guidelines for grazing, a
provision allowing multiple resource advisory councils to establish and
select members of rangeland resource teams and technical review teams
for the purpose of providing input to be used by the resource advisory
council in developing recommendations, removal of references to the
National Public Lands Advisory Council, district advisory councils, and
grazing advisory boards, and modification of how interested members of
the public can become involved in specific grazing decisions.
Most comments on the advance notice, and a great deal of the input
gained through the Secretary's visits to western states, supported
modification of the initial proposal to expand the definition of
affected interests, eliminate grazing advisory boards and district
advisory councils, and create an advisory mechanism with broader
representation and much more direct involvement. Many comments
expressed a concern that local input would be overshadowed by interests
not directly affected by the decisions to be made while others asserted
that all citizens should have an equal say in the management of public
lands. There was also a great amount of interest in making public
participation more effective by encouraging consensus-based forms of
decisionmaking.
During the period of November 1993, through January 1994, Governor
Roy Romer of Colorado convened and conducted nine meetings of the
Colorado working group on rangeland reform. Although this working group
considered many of the proposals of Rangeland Reform '94, a key finding
of the group was that the current framework employed by the Department
and the BLM for encouraging community-based involvement was inadequate.
This issue became the focus of much of the Working Group's efforts. The
Working Group prepared a summary of their findings and a model for
enhanced community-based involvement. The Department agrees with the
findings of the group and has attempted to incorporate all key elements
of the model for public involvement in this proposed rule. The Working
Group's model is presented in its entirety below:
Models for Enhanced Community-Based Involvement in Rangeland Reform
January 20, 1994
The Colorado Rangeland Reform Working Group (``working group'')
is committed to these seven goals: (1) Healthy and sustainable
rangeland ecosystems, (2) healthy, sustainable and diverse economies
and communities (3) accountability of management and users of public
lands to broad public goals, (4) efficient and effective management
of our public lands, (5) fostering mutual respect among public land
users, (6) encouraging the retention of private land open space, and
(7) ensuring public lands are managed to comply with federal laws.
Consistent with these goals, the Colorado working group has
concluded that the current framework for public and community-based
involvement in public lands management is inadequate. That framework
could be significantly enhanced by experimenting with a bottom-up,
grass roots model of public participation that includes multiple
interests and some identified areas of responsibility for on-the-
ground rangeland management decisions, and ensures that all members
of the public who wish to actively participate in public rangelands
decisions, have a full opportunity to do so.
These recommendations are based on two principles: (1) This is a
Colorado model (the Colorado working group recognizes that this
Colorado model may not be applicable to other western states, and
that there may be other models that are better suited to those
states); and (2) that this Colorado model represents a change from
the current and/or traditional management and that this is an
experimental approach.
The working group has explored a number of different models
based in part on the favorable experiences of community and
ecosystem-based approaches like that underway in Gunnison, Colorado;
the ``Owl Mountain'' example in Jackson, County, Colorado; the
Coordinated Resource Management (CRM) experience near Craig,
Colorado; and the Federal Lands Program in Montezuma County,
Colorado. We recognize that these models may not be appropriate for
other states.
For purposes of discussion, the attached ``draft'' represents an
experimental approach to reforming the governance structure for
advisory boards and community-based rangeland decision-making. Based
on the working group's discussions to date, there is consensus on
the basic approach suggested by these models--and consensus on the
value of having Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt share this draft
with other states and experts in the Department of the Interior for
their review. The group further agrees that many of the concepts and
ideas described in this model could be useful and applicable to the
U.S. Forest Service.
I. Multiple Resource Advisory Councils
The working group recommends that Multiple Resource Advisory
Councils be created in order to advise the BLM on a wide variety of
public lands issues, including grazing.
Group consensus exists that these councils should:
Focus on the full array of ecosystem and multiple use
issues associated with federal lands.
Have up to 15 members appointed on a nonpartisan basis
by the Interior Secretary. In making the appointments, the Secretary
shall consider the recommendations of the Governor. Membership shall
be self-nominated. Members could be nonresidents. Nominations will
be accompanied by letters of recommendation from local interest
groups which the nominee will be representing. At least one member
will be a local elected official.
Require that members bring to the table; (1) a
commitment to collaborate, (2) relevant experience or expertise, and
(3) a commitment to success and to apply the law.
Require that, in the aggregate, council membership must
represent the full array of issues and interests, custom and culture
related to federal land use, management, protection, and a general
understanding of the federal laws and regulations governing these
lands.
Participate directly and effectively in the preparation
and amendment of resource management plans.
Serve as a link between broad national policy direction
and the more specific local, on-the-ground actions and public input.
Have an effective role with respect to influencing or
guiding decisions about the implementation of resource area plans.
Require that all council members attend a ``rangeland
ecosystem course of instruction'' within three months of their
appointment. (The working group agreed to an acceptable standardized
curriculum and process--such as the Rangeland Ecosystem Awareness
Program developed by a subgroup--with a full understanding of the
associated costs and a number of the details yet to be worked out.)
Each council shall develop a policy on attendance to
encourage full participation of all members.
Jurisdictional Level
Since the purpose of Multiple Resource Advisory Councils is to
foster broader public input in planning and management activities by
federal public lands agencies, it makes sense for Councils to
operate at a Jurisdictional level that is: (1) Close to local
communities, and (2) close to the land planning decisions made by
federal agencies while still ensuring that they are readily
available and open to public comment.
The Colorado working group believes that to be effective in the
State of Colorado, these advisory bodies need to be created at the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) District level. As appropriate, the
formation of these Councils should also allow for the integration of
both BLM and Forest Service units into one Council, and as the
respective agencies move toward management and planning on an
ecosystem basis, the Councils should re-align accordingly.
A governor or a Multiple Resource Advisory Council could
petition the Secretary to authorize these Councils at a BLM Resource
Area level if that was thought to be desirable. A Rangeland Resource
Team (described below) could make such a request to the Multiple
Resource Advisory Council.
Membership
All interests, uses, and values should be represented to the
extent possible, and a balanced composition should be achieved. The
District BLM manager (or his/her designee) would be non-voting ex-
officio members of the Council. Members would not be required to
reside in the counties served by the respective BLM District.
Members would be required to demonstrate relevant experience and
knowledge of the lands and communities in their Jurisdictional area.
A single individual could serve on only one Council.
Functions
The council would be advisory in nature. Council members would
be involved in the preparation, amendment and implementation of
federal agency land management plans in an advisory capacity. If the
Council disagreed with a federal land manager's decision that
relates to one of the Council's functions, the Council would have
the authority to submit a request for review of the decision to the
Secretary. The Secretary's office would have discretion on the
timeliness of a response, although a date certain could be
encouraged (20 to 30 days).
A Council's opportunity to influence land management decisions
shall be in compliance with the public participation process
outlined by federal laws (The National Environmental Policy Act, the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Administrative Procedure Act,
etc.) Opportunities to streamline and simplify these procedures need
to be explored (perhaps by fully utilizing other authorities noted
in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Public
Rangelands Improvement Act).
The Council would have the authority to designate Rangeland
Resource Teams (described below) and Technical Review Teams to
address specific issues or problems in the District and/or serve as
fact-finding teams.
Councils should work to promote better public participation and
engagement in land management decisions, and to foster conflict
resolution through open dialogue and collaboration instead of
litigation and bureaucratic appeal.
Creation
If it is thought to be desirable to authorize Multiple Resource
Advisory Councils at other levels (i.e., below the BLM District
level), a governor or Multiple Resource Advisory Council could make
that request to the Secretary, or the Rangeland Resource Team could
make such a request to a Multiple Resource Advisory Council.
Multiple Resource Advisory Councils could be created or
``chartered'' in one of three ways:
1. By local initiative and official appointment by the State BLM
Director.
2. By local initiative and appointment by the Secretary.
3. By the Secretary with due consultation given to any
recommendations offered by the Governor.
II. Rangeland Resource Teams
Within each BLM District and administrative unit, local
Rangeland Resource Teams could be formed for the purpose of
enhancing public and community-based involvement in federal public
lands decision-making.
Rangeland Resource Teams are premised on the notion that
rangeland decisions ought to be made with good stewardship, with
appropriate multiple use and compliance with federal laws as guiding
principles. They are also premised on the following principles:
Permittees are in the best position over time to
exercise good stewardship, and to ensure full compliance with
federal laws, and that this opportunity is further enhanced by
direct dialogue and full participation of community-based
environmental and wildlife/sportsmen interests.
Good stewardship and full compliance with federal law
is enhanced and strengthened when community and public interests are
empowered with permittees, members of the public and agency
officials in making decisions.
A substantial portion of the increase in grazing fee
revenues from public lands should be retained and expended at the
local level for the purpose of promoting the ecological health of
the range and investing in good stewardship practices.
There is value in empowering individuals no matter
where they live to work in concert with federal and public interests
in resolving local public lands/rangeland issues at the community
level.
It is expected that these community-based Rangeland Resource
Teams will have a true ecosystem focus. With time and experience,
this model could be organized around eco-regions rather than
according to arbitrary land ownership and federal management
boundaries.
This vision cannot be achieved in one step. The opportunity
presented by this model is to encourage good stewardship by
permittees and other users, and to improve rangeland use, rangeland
ecosystems and management. The Colorado working group believes this
model is an important step toward enhancing these goals--while
laying the foundation for this broader vision.
Jurisdictional Level
In order to have credibility and to ensure that both community
and public interests are represented, Rangeland Resource Teams
should be allowed to spring up in as small an area as a single
allotment but in no case to go beyond an area larger than that
encompassed by the corresponding Multiple Resource Advisory Council
for that area.
Creation
They could be established and dissolved in any of the following
ways:
1. By local initiative and petition to a respective Multiple
Resource Advisory Council. If a petition is denied, the locals could
petition to be a FACA (Federal Advisory Committee Act) body (see
below).
2. By the Multiple Resource Advisory Council when deemed necessary
by that Council.
As a matter of formality, all appointments would be made by the
Multiple Resource Advisory Council. The teams could be terminated by
an affirmative act of the Council. Individual terms for team members
would be established by the Council.
Membership
Rangeland Resource Team membership would be limited to five
members from the following interests: Two resident permittees who
hold permits in the area, one resident at-large community
representative, one environmental representative and one wildlife/
recreation representative. The environmental representative and the
wildlife/recreation representative could be nonresidents; however,
all members shall be required to demonstrate substantial knowledge
and experience of the land and community where they serve.
Nominations will be accompanied by letters of recommendation from
local interest groups which the nominee will be representing.
These members would be required to participate in a ``rangeland
ecosystem course of instruction'' (the working group agreed to an
acceptable standardized curriculum and process--such as the
Rangeland Ecosystem Awareness Program developed by a subgroup--with
a full understanding of the associated costs and a number of the
details yet to be worked out), and would also be required to
demonstrate knowledge of the local rangeland ecosystem.
Under this alternative, at least one member of the resource team
must also be a member of the Multiple Resource Advisory Council.
Other team members could also serve as members of the Multiple
Resource Advisory Council--but such dual appointment would not be
required. For purposes of this section, residency means two years.
Functions
The primary function of Rangeland Resource Teams is to encourage
good stewardship, collaborative solutions and healthy rangeland
ecosystem management through collaboration and by providing
recommendations and information to the Multiple Resource Advisory
Councils.
These teams would encourage community and public participation
and problem-solving on the ground. Rangeland Resource Teams could
have authority to spend the 12.5% range improvement monies currently
under the authority of grazing advisory boards, according to state
law.
Rangeland Resource Teams would also be empowered to develop
proposed solutions for local rangeland problems and make
recommendations to Multiple Resource Advisory Councils. These teams
would participate in developing resource management plans, act as
fact finding bodies and make recommendations on rangeland
improvement monies.
The Multiple Resource Advisory Councils shall give careful
consideration to the recommendations, options and information
provided by the Rangeland Resource Teams.
Rangeland Resource Teams could be charged with assisting in
monitoring rangeland health and reporting on the full scope of their
activities to the Multiple Resource Advisory Councils on a regular
basis. In addition, Rangeland Resource Teams could be charged with
assisting in implementing programs such as the Rangeland Ecosystem
Course of Instruction.
In cases where Rangeland Resource Teams disagree with a
management decision by the federal land manager, the team could
petition the Multiple Resource Advisory Council for an opinion or
create a Technical Review Team (see below) to make recommendations
on specific issues. This does not preempt the ability of any citizen
to challenge a management or planning decision through the existing
administrative and legal appeal process.
Although federal or state land managers would not be members of
the Rangeland Resource Teams, open communication and collaboration
with federal land managers would be expected and encouraged. Federal
land managers should be ex-officio members of the boards.
Rangeland Resource Teams could petition the Secretary for
recognition as advisory bodies under FACA. In such cases, these
teams would be authorized to directly advise federal land managers.
III. Technical Review Teams
Technical Review Teams (TRTs) can be established on an as needed
basis by Multiple Resource Advisory Councils or Rangeland Resource
Teams if they are operating as a FACA body (see above). The
Rangeland Resource Teams may request the Multiple Resource Advisory
Councils to establish TRTs. In some instances, the need for the TRT
may be negated by the Rangeland Resource Team performing a fact-
finding role. Bodies that create TRTs (Multiple Resource Advisory
Councils or Rangeland Resource Teams that are functioning as FACA
advisory bodies) must have at least one member on those TRTs.
TRTs could be empowered to investigate and develop proposed
solutions to specific resource issues which may arise in the local
area. Such teams may also participate in the development of resource
management plans by providing information and options to the
Multiple Resource Advisory Councils. TRTs can function as ``fact
finding'' teams. Selection of TRT members should be at the
discretion of the Council and may be based on the recommendations of
the Rangeland Resource Team, but members should possess sufficient
knowledge and expertise about the resource issues in the area.
Federal land managers as well as members of other governmental
agencies could be ex-officio members of these teams.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 directs the
Secretary to establish advisory councils of not less than 10 and not
more than 15 members appointed from among persons who are
representative of the various major citizens' interests concerning the
problems relating to land use planning or the management of the public
lands located within the area for which an advisory council is
established. To comply with this direction and to improve on current
practices for obtaining advice on the management of public lands and
resources, the Department has adopted the suggestions, with appropriate
modifications, provided in the Colorado model for purposes of its
proposed rule.
The proposed rule would establish multiple resource advisory
councils. These councils would be subject to the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix; FACA). The multiple resource advisory
councils would focus on the full array of ecosystem and multiple use
issues associated with BLM-administered public lands. However, the
multiple resource advisory councils would not provide advice on
internal BLM management concerns such as personnel or budget
expenditures.
A multiple resource advisory council would typically be established
for each BLM administrative district, but under this proposed rule the
area of jurisdiction could be modified to permit ecosystem-based
management and planning. The Department intends that BLM State
Directors would be encouraged to consider whether the formation of
multiple resource advisory councils along ecoregion boundaries would be
a more effective organization for obtaining advice on the management of
public lands within their areas of responsibility. A governor or
multiple resource advisory council could petition the Secretary to
authorize these councils at a BLM resource area level.
The multiple resource advisory councils would advise the Secretary
of the Interior and Bureau of Land Management on matters relating to
ecosystem and multiple use issues associated with public lands and
resources under the administrative jurisdiction of the BLM. Multiple
resource advisory councils would provide advice on preparation,
amendment, and implementation of land use management plans and activity
plans, and would be consulted in the planning for range development and
improvement programs and the preparation of standards and guidelines
for grazing administration. The multiple resource advisory councils
would not be involved in matters such as personnel decisions, or the
allocation of budget except to the extent of providing advice on the
establishment of long-term plans and resource management priorities.
Multiple resource advisory council members would be appointed by
the Secretary or other Federal official designated by the Secretary.
Governors of States in which the councils would be organized would be
requested to provide a list of nominees for the Secretary's
consideration. The Secretary would encourage Governors to formulate
nominations through a process open to the public, and would consider
whether such a process was undertaken in evaluating the nominations. In
addition, a public call for nominations would be made through a notice
in the Federal Register as is provided in the existing 43 CFR 1784.4-1.
Persons could nominate themselves for membership. Nominations would be
required to be accompanied by letters of recommendation from local
interests that the nominee would be representing. The Department
invites public comment on whether such letters should be required to
come from individuals within the area to be served by the multiple
resource advisory council.
Membership of the multiple resource advisory council would reflect
a balance of views to ensure that the council represents the full array
of issues and interests associated with public land use, management,
protection and an understanding of the Federal laws and regulations
governing public lands. Individuals would qualify to serve on a
multiple resource advisory council because they have a commitment to
collaborative effort, possess relevant experience or expertise, and
have a commitment to the successful resolution of resource management
issues and to applying the relevant law. An individual may serve on
only one multiple resource advisory council.
Each of the multiple resource advisory councils would have 15
members, selected by the Secretary, with criteria for membership
clearly outlined. One third of the members of each multiple resource
advisory council would be selected from persons representing commodity
industries, developed recreational activities, or use of public lands
by off-highway vehicles; one third would be selected from
representatives of nationally or regionally recognized environmental or
resource conservation groups and wild horse and burro interest groups,
from representatives of archaeological and historical interests, and
from representatives of dispersed recreational activities; and one
third would be selected from persons who hold State, county, or local
elected office, and representatives of the public-at-large, Indian
tribes within or adjacent to the area, natural resource or natural
science academia, and State agencies responsible for the management of
fish and wildlife, water quality, water rights, and State lands. At
least one member of each multiple resource advisory council would be
required to be an elected official in the area covered by the council,
in accordance with the requirements of section 309 of FLPMA. The
proposed rule would require the Secretary or designee to provide for
balanced and broad representation from within each of the three
categories in appointing members of a multiple resource advisory
council.
All members of a multiple resource advisory council would be
required to attend training in the management of rangeland ecosystems
to ensure a common understanding of many of the scientific, economic,
social and legal considerations involved in managing public lands. The
Colorado working group developed a proposal for a ``Range Ecosystem
Awareness Program'' that would establish a basic curriculum that would
include: basic rangeland ecology, human resource development, the
relationship of public land resources to private lands and communities,
and the pertinent laws and regulations affecting rangeland management.
The Department intends to consider the Working Group's proposal in
developing the curriculum for the training of advisory council members
and invites public comment and suggestions on the content and structure
of this required training.
The Department intends that multiple resource advisory councils
would employ a consensus-building approach in developing
recommendations for the BLM manager to whom they would report. To
encourage this, the proposed rule would require that at least three
council members from each of the three groupings of interests must be
present to constitute an official meeting of a council, and at least
three members from each of the three groupings of interest must be in
agreement for a council to provide an official recommendation to the
BLM official to whom the council reports.
Where a multiple resource advisory council has concerns that its
advice is being arbitrarily disregarded, the council, upon agreement of
all members, could request that the Secretary respond to such concerns
within 60 days. This opportunity for direct communication with the
Secretary is separate and distinct from the administrative appeals
process and the Secretary's response would not constitute a decision on
the merits of any issue that is or might become the subject of an
administrative appeal.
Under this proposed rule the multiple resource advisory councils
could establish rangeland resource teams to enhance public and
community-based involvement in public lands decision-making pertaining
to livestock grazing. Rangeland resource teams would provide local
level input to the multiple resource advisory council and would serve
as fact-finding teams. The rangeland resource teams may, among other
functions, provide input to the multiple resource advisory councils for
grazing-related portions of land use plans and the planned expenditure
of range improvement moneys. At the direction of the multiple resource
advisory councils, rangeland resource teams may provide input and
recommendations to the multiple resource advisory council for an area
ranging from a single grazing allotment to the entire area under the
jurisdiction of the multiple resource advisory council.
Under the proposed rule, local citizens could petition the multiple
resource advisory council to establish a rangeland resource team, or a
rangeland resource team could be established by the multiple resource
advisory council on its own initiative. Rangeland resource teams would
have a minimal core membership that would include two resident
permittees who hold Federal grazing permits or leases within the area
for which input is sought, one resident at-large community
representative, one environmental representative and one wildlife/
recreation representative. For purposes of the proposal, in order to be
a resident, an individual must have lived within the geographical area
covered by the rangeland resource team for at least two years. The
environmental representative and the wildlife/recreation representative
could be nonresidents. However, all members would be required to
demonstrate substantial knowledge and experience of the land and
community where they serve. Nominations would be required to be
accompanied by letters of recommendation from the local interests that
the nominees will be representing. At least one member of the core
group would also be a member of the multiple resource advisory council.
All members of the rangeland resource team would be required to attend
the training in the management of rangeland ecosystems required for
members of the multiple resource advisory council.
Since the rangeland resource teams would provide local-level input,
perform a fact-finding role and provide options and recommendations to
the multiple resource advisory council, as opposed to serving in an
advisory capacity to Federal land managers, it is anticipated that
these groups would not be subject to the requirements of FACA. However,
rangeland resource teams could petition the Secretary for recognition
as advisory bodies under FACA. In such cases, the rangeland resource
teams would be authorized to directly advise Federal land managers on
matters pertaining to livestock grazing.
Rangeland resource teams would have opportunities to raise any
matter of concern with the multiple resource advisory council and to
request that the multiple resource advisory council form a technical
review team, as described below, to provide information and options to
the council for their consideration.
The proposed rule provides that multiple resource advisory councils
could establish technical review teams on an as-needed basis in
response to requests of interested citizens, the authorized officer, or
on their own motion. Technical review teams could also be established
on an as needed basis by rangeland resource teams that have been
chartered as FACA bodies. Technical review teams would be limited to
tasks assigned by the multiple resource advisory council or chartered
rangeland resource team and would report to the parent committee. The
technical review teams would consider specific issues for the purpose
of providing local level input and serving as fact-finding teams. The
technical review teams would not be subject to FACA because they will
not be advising Federal officials. A technical review team would be
dissolved by the parent committee upon completion of the assigned task.
The membership of a technical review team would be selected by the
multiple resource advisory council, or rangeland resource team where
chartered under FACA. The technical review team would be required to
include at least one member of the multiple resource advisory council
or chartered rangeland resource team.
Rangeland resource teams and technical review teams serving in a
fact-finding role for the purpose of providing input to the multiple
resource advisory council would in no way preclude the collection and
analysis of scientific data by BLM, or the BLM's use of technical
experts from outside of the Bureau. To the contrary, information
collected by the fact-finding teams and BLM should be complementary
and, in combination, would provide a multiple resource advisory council
with a solid basis from which to form a recommendation.
An alternative concept for technical review teams is also under
consideration. Under this alternative, technical review teams would be
formed to address specific unresolved technical issues by the BLM
authorized officer on the motion of the BLM or in response to a request
by the multiple resource advisory council. Where the technical review
team is requested by the multiple resource advisory council, the charge
for the technical review team would be written jointly by the BLM and
the advisory council. The purpose of the team would be to gather and
analyze data and develop recommendations to aid the decisionmaking
process, and functions of the team would be limited to tasks assigned
by the authorized officer. Review team members would be composed of BLM
or other government employees, with at least one member from a State
agency or a Federal agency other than BLM. The authorized officer would
also be allowed to employ and compensate private sector consultants who
would function as team members, and to compensate team members for per
diem and travel expenses. The authorized officer, in consultation with
the multiple resource advisory council, would determine team
membership, establish the task of the technical review team, appoint a
team leader, provide administrative support, and determine when the
team should be disbanded. In the selection of team members, preference
will be given to scientific and technical experts who have experience
in the bio-physiographic region of concern.
The authorized officer would be required to specify a time period
for the completion of the assigned task. Technical review teams would
terminate upon completion of the task assigned, or the time period
established by the authorized officer, whichever comes first.
The alternative concept for technical review teams would not result
in the formation of advisory committees under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act because team members would either be Federal or other
government agency employees, or paid consultants. The Department
invites public review and comment on this alternative as well as the
concept for technical review teams included in the proposed rule.
While specific functions for rangeland resource teams and technical
review teams are outlined in this proposed rule, there is another
reason for their creation. The teams are designed to facilitate input
from the many consensus groups that have formed--and will form--
throughout the West. Groups such as the Gunnison Group from Colorado,
the Oregon Watershed Improvement Group and Wyoming's Sun Ranch
Stewardship effort all took root voluntarily. These groups are proving
that ranchers, environmentalists and others can come to agreement on
land management practices. Rather than replace these kinds of groups,
the new teams are designed to bring them closer to the process, to
allow their influence to spread across the West.
Although FLPMA requires that the Secretary establish advisory
councils, there is no statutory requirement for the formation of
rangeland resource teams and technical review teams. While the
Department views the provisions for multiple resource advisory
councils' use of rangeland resource teams and technical review teams as
significant advances in the promotion of public participation and
consensus-based decisionmaking, the Department recognizes that the
success of the concept would hinge on many factors. Active
participation, willingness to donate time and travel expenses,
willingness to work collaboratively toward recommendations to the
advisory councils, and knowledge of resource management principles are
all critical to the success of the rangeland resource team and
technical review team concept.
In recognition of the demanding requirements for the success of the
two forms of input teams, the Department is considering an alternative
of proposing the use of rangeland resource teams and technical review
teams on an experimental basis rather than adopting the proposal BLM-
wide. The Department invites the public to comment on the merits of
providing for the use of rangeland resource teams and technical review
teams on an experimental basis. Comments are specifically requested on
the criteria for selecting areas for the experimental implementation of
the rangeland resource teams and technical review teams. Criteria could
include broad-based support for participation in a consensus-building
approach among the interested parties, and interested parties having
demonstrated the ability to work cooperatively and provide consensual
advice on public rangeland issues.
Range Improvements and Water Rights
The initial proposals pertaining to ownership of range improvements
and water rights generated a great number of comments. Most of the
comments were not opposed to the intent of the proposed changes to
conform with the common practice of keeping title to permanent
improvements in the name of the party holding title to the land.
However, many respondents expressed concern that the wording suggested
that the Federal government would take existing rights to range
improvements and water. The text pertaining to range improvement
ownership has been modified in this proposed rule and a new section has
been added to clarify the provisions for water rights associated with
livestock grazing on public lands.
The proposed rule would require that title to all new grazing-
related improvements constructed on public lands, or made to the
vegetation resource of public lands, except temporary or removable
improvements, would be in the United States. Since the proposed change
would be prospective, valid existing rights to range improvements and
compensation therefor under section 402(g) of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1752(g))
would not be affected. The permittee or lessee may hold title to
removable range improvements authorized as livestock handling
facilities such as corrals, creep feeders and loading chutes, and to
temporary improvements such as troughs for hauled water. With respect
to new permanent improvements, a permittee's, lessee's, or cooperator's
interest for contributed funds, labor, and materials would be
documented. This documentation is necessary to ensure proper credit
pursuant to section 402(g) of FLPMA, which provides compensation for
the permittee's or lessee's authorized permanent improvements whenever
a permit or lease is canceled, in whole or in part, in order to devote
the lands to another public purpose. New permanent water improvement
projects such as spring developments, wells, reservoirs, stock tanks,
and pipelines, would be authorized through cooperative range
improvement agreements.
The proposed rule would carry forward the proposals in the advance
notice regarding the distribution and use of range improvement funds
and add a requirement to consult with multiple resource advisory
councils during the planning of range development and improvement
programs.
The proposed rule provides consistent direction for the BLM
regarding water rights on public lands for livestock watering purposes.
It is intended to generally make BLM's policy consistent with Forest
Service practice, and with BLM policy prior to being changed in the
early 1980's.
Under the proposed rule, any new rights to water on public land for
livestock watering on such land would be acquired, perfected,
maintained, and administered under State law. In all cases involving
the development and registration, pursuant to State law, of new rights
to water on public land for livestock watering, cooperative agreements
will be used to provide that such livestock water rights are to be used
and maintained in conjunction with the grazing permit or leases and do
not give rise to a claim for compensation in the event the permit or
lease to which it is attached is canceled in whole or in part to devote
the lands to another public purpose.
The proposal would not create any new Federal reserved water
rights, nor would it affect valid existing water rights. Any right or
claim to water on public land for livestock watering on public land by
or on behalf of the United States would remain subject to the
provisions of 43 U.S.C. 666 (the McCarran Amendment) and section 701 of
FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1701 note; disclaimer on water rights). Finally, the
proposal would not change existing BLM policy on water rights for uses
other than public land grazing, such as irrigation, municipal, or
industrial uses.
With respect to new water rights, some comments have suggested that
permittees and the United States file jointly for water rights on
public lands associated with livestock watering on public lands. When
permitted by State law or regulation, for ease of administration, co-
application with the lessee could be authorized, as it is in Wyoming.
The proposed rule does not contain such a provision, although if joint
filing is permitted under State law, and filing exclusively in the name
of the United States is not, then the proposed language would permit
joint filing. Comments are specifically sought on whether the rule
should mandate joint filing to the extent consistent with or even if
not permitted under, State law or if the current language in the
proposed rule is preferable. Comments are sought in particular on
whether co-applications should be allowed where it would not change the
underlying ownership of the water right.
Administrative Practices
Included in this category are disqualification of applicants for
grazing permits and leases, expedited procedure for the review of
administrative appeals and implementation of decisions, issuance of
grazing preference, a surcharge for the authorized leasing or
subleasing of grazing preference associated with base property or
pasturing of livestock owned by other than the permittee or lessee,
suspended nonuse, and unauthorized use.
The Department has made several changes in the initial proposals
affecting administrative practices in response to public input. Aspects
of the initial proposals regarding administrative practices that
received the greatest number of comments were adjustments in permit and
lease tenure as a performance incentive, full force and effect of
decisions, disqualification of applicants who have had permits or
leases canceled for violation of terms and conditions of State and
Federal grazing permits, authorized leasing and subleasing surcharges,
and the elimination of suspended nonuse.
The proposal to limit permit and lease tenure in some instances to
5 years has not been carried forward from the advance notice of
proposed rulemaking. Public comment on the advance notice suggested the
proposal would do little to encourage stewardship and would
inadvertently penalize operators new to public land grazing, especially
those starting in the business, by inhibiting their ability to secure
necessary financing. The Department agrees that the proposal in the
advance notice related to permit and lease tenure could result in
unacceptable impacts and has withdrawn that proposal.
The proposal in the advance notice of proposed rulemaking to place
grazing administration decisions in full force and effect generated
some confusion and has been clarified in this proposed rule. The
objective of placing decisions in full force and effect is to expedite
placing decisions into effect to benefit resource conditions and to
address administrative problems. The proposal would not take away the
ability of affected parties to file an appeal or to request a stay of
the decision until such time as the appeal is decided. The Department
believes this is critical to meet the goals of streamlining
administration and focusing limited resources where they can do the
most good, and has retained the substance of the initial proposal. An
attempt has been made to clarify the explanation of the proposed appeal
provisions in this rule.
Under the proposed rule, persons choosing to appeal a decision of
the authorized officer would be provided a 30-day period in which to
file an appeal. Appellants requesting a stay of the decision would be
required to file a petition for stay with their appeal. In the instance
where a petition for stay has been filed with an appeal, the Department
of the Interior's Office of Hearings and Appeals would have 45 days
from the expiration of the 30-day appeal period either to grant or deny
the petition for stay, in whole or in part. Thus, where a person has
filed a petition for stay of the decision of the authorized officer
along with an appeal, and where the request for stay is denied,
implementation of the decision could be delayed up to 75 days. In the
event a stay of the decision is granted, the decision would be stayed
until such time as a determination on the appeal is made.
The initial proposal to disqualify applicants for grazing permits
and leases as a result of cancellation of State or Federal grazing
permits and leases during the 36 months preceding application has been
modified in response to public comment. This proposed rule would limit
the provision for disqualification on the basis of cancellation of
grazing permits during the preceding 36 months to applications for new
or additional permits and leases. Also, consideration of an applicant's
history of compliance with the terms and conditions of State permits
and leases has been limited to State permits and leases within the
boundary of the Federal grazing allotment for which application has
been made. Cancellation of such State permits or leases within 36
months prior to application would disqualify applicants for new or
additional Federal permits or leases. A new provision has been added
that would make it clear that partial suspension of a Federal grazing
permit or lease would not be grounds for disqualification. Partial
suspension of a permit or lease is a measure used where actions of the
permittee or lessee are not determined to justify cancellation. The
Department feels that disqualification of applicants on the basis of
partial suspension would result in excessive punitive action and would
reduce the usefulness of partial suspension in addressing violations.
The advance notice of proposed rulemaking provided for automatic
disqualification on the basis of the suspension or cancellation of an
applicant's other Federal or State grazing permits or leases during the
36 months prior to application. Under the proposed rule, the
consideration of an applicant's history of performance on other Federal
or State grazing permits or leases would not apply to applicants for
the renewal of a BLM grazing permit or lease. The Department invites
comment on whether an applicant's history of performance on other
Federal and State grazing permits and leases should be added as a
discretionary, rather than automatic, basis for determining
qualification for the renewal of a BLM grazing permit or lease. Also,
the Department invites comment on whether a similar provision for a
discretionary review of past performance should apply to applicants for
new or additional BLM permits or leases, in addition to the automatic
disqualification where an applicant has had a Federal or State permit
canceled for violation during the 36 months prior to application.
The proposal presented in the advance notice of proposed rulemaking
to eliminate suspended nonuse generated concern that property rights
and financing agreements would be affected. The Department does not
agree with these comments. For the most part it appears that these
suspended AUMs have no real impact on ranches or on the condition of
public lands. The initial proposal was intended to remove all reference
to suspended nonuse because only in rare instances has forage placed in
this category been made available for livestock consumption. However,
given the contentious nature of the issue and the fact that the
Department views the matter as merely an administrative record-keeping
issue, this proposed rule does not carry forward the elimination of
suspended nonuse presented in the advance proposal.
Numerous comments were received on the Department's proposal to
levy a surcharge when the private property serving as a base for public
land grazing is leased or when livestock owned by other than the
grazing permittee or lessee are pastured on public lands. This proposal
was made in response to findings of the General Accounting Office (see,
e.g., RCED-86-168BR), the Office of the Inspector General (see report
#92-1-1364) that permittees and lessees who sublease are unduly
benefitting from their permits or leases. A major criticism of the
initial proposal was that it would penalize leasing arrangements with
sons and daughters of permittees and lessees who are grazing a few
animals as part of an educational or group project, or sons and
daughters who are trying to build a livestock herd in anticipation of
assuming all or part of the family operation. The Department recognizes
the need to avoid penalizing children of grazing permittees and lessees
in these situations and has provided for an exemption from the
authorized subleasing surcharge for sons and daughters of public land
permittees and lessees. A broader criticism, which surfaced during
meetings in Nevada, is that most pasturing agreements are a means of
financing available to ranchers who might not be able to finance their
own inventory, and that contrary to the findings of the General
Accounting Office reports, they do not involve windfall profits taken
by absentee landlords and permit or lease holders. Some Nevada
participants also suggested that any surcharge on the subleasing of
permits and leases should be formulated as a percentage of the return
on the sublease rather than a percentage of the Federal grazing fee.
The Department invites comment on these two considerations.
Some of the comments received on the proposals relating to
prohibited acts suggested that the proposed wording was subject to
broad interpretation that could lead to punitive action in response to
violations unrelated to grazing use. Subpart 4140, ``Prohibited Acts,''
would be amended to modify the list of acts that are prohibited on
public lands that could result in the loss of grazing permits or leases
under subpart 4170. Particular attention is invited to proposed section
4140.1(b)(12), which refers to Federal or State laws or regulations
concerning, among other things, conservation or protection of natural
and cultural resources or environmental quality when public lands are
involved or affected.
There are, of course, a great many laws or regulations that might
fit within this category. These laws have independent enforcement
authority; that is, violations are dealt with under penalty provisions
in these laws themselves. This section of the existing regulations
provides the possibility, in addition to these penalty provisions, of
loss of the grazing permit or lease for violations.
It is not the intent of the proposal for the authorized officer to
take enforcement steps involving the grazing permit or lease for any
and all violations, no matter how de minimus or technical; or for
violations of laws that, while they do deal with protection of natural
and cultural resources or the environment, do not centrally reflect
upon the ability of the permittee or lessee to be a good steward of the
public lands.
Rather, the intent is to provide the possibility of loss of the
grazing permit or lease whenever more than de minimus violations of
laws occur that do concern, in a more than remote way, the management
of the public lands. Subsection (b)(12) (i) through (vi) contains a
narrative description of the kind of laws that, in our judgment, do
directly concern stewardship ability on the public lands. It is
difficult to go beyond such a narrative description to list such laws
with precision, particularly in the text of the regulation itself. If
that were done, a new rulemaking would be necessitated each time a law
were changed by the Congress, which happens not infrequently.
Furthermore, a detailed list of laws, with statutory and section
numbers, would be lengthy and probably require the assistance of a law-
trained person to decipher.
A proposed list of such laws, more than de minimus violations of
which could lead to loss of a grazing permit or lease, follows. Public
comment is specifically invited on the list. Upon promulgation of the
final rule, the final list of such laws would be made available to each
authorized officer and each permittee and lessee.
Animal Damage Control--7 U.S.C. 426
Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act--7 U.S.C. 1012
Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act, as amended--7 U.S.C. 136,
et seq.
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide & Rodenticide Act--7 U.S.C. 135, et seq.
Airborne Hunting Act--16 U.S.C. 742j-1
Anadromous Fish Conservation Act--16 U.S.C. 757a, et seq.
Antiquities Act--16 U.S.C. 431, et seq.
Archeological Resources Protection Act--16 U.S.C. 470aa, et seq.
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act--16 U.S.C. 668
Endangered Species Act, as amended--16 U.S.C. 668aa, et seq.--16 U.S.C.
1531, et seq.
Erosion Act (Soil Conservation)--16 U.S.C. 590a, et seq.
Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956--16 U.S.C. 742a, et seq.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act--16 U.S.C. 661, et seq.
Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act--16 U.S.C. 461, et seq.
Lacey Act, as amended--16 U.S.C. 851, et seq.
Migratory Bird Conservation Act--16 U.S.C. 751, et seq.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act--16 U.S.C. 703, et seq.
National Forest Management Act of 1976--16 U.S.C. 1600, et seq.
National Historic Preservation Act, as amended--16 U.S.C. 470, et seq.
National Trails System Act, as amended--16 U.S.C. 1241, et seq.
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended--16
U.S.C. 668dd, 668ee
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act--16 U.S.C. 1271, et seq.
Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act--16 U.S.C. 1331, et seq.
Wilderness Act--16 U.S.C. 1131, et seq.
Wildlife Restoration Act--16 U.S.C. 669, et seq.
Clean Water Act, as amended--33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq.
Clean Air Act, as amended--42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act,
as amended--42 U.S.C. 6911, et seq.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended--42 U.S.C. 6901, et
seq.
Safe-Drinking Water Act, as amended--42 U.S.C. 201, et seq.
Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended--42 U.S.C. 6901, et seq.
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended--43 U.S.C.
1701, et seq.
Public Lands Unlawful Enclosure Act--43 U.S.C. 1601, et seq.
Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978--43 U.S.C. 1901, et seq.
Taylor Grazing Act--43 U.S.C. 315, et seq.
References to the term ``affected interests'' have been removed
throughout the rule and replaced with the term ``interested public.''
The proposed rule would also remove the authorized officer's current
discretion to determine whether an individual is an ``affected
interest.'' These changes were not included in the advance notice of
proposed rulemaking.
The reason for the change is to provide a consistent standard for
participation by the public. Any party who writes to the authorized
officer to express concern for the management of livestock grazing on
specific grazing allotments will be recognized as a member of the
``interested public'' under the proposed rule. This allows the BLM to
develop a record to assure notification of proposed and final decisions
and to involve the ``interested public'' in the consultation process.
Requirements for consultation with the interested public have been
added in sections of the proposed rule that deal with the initial
allocation of forage, development of activity plans and range
improvement programs, the issuance or renewal of grazing permits or
leases, and the establishment or adjustment of the terms and conditions
of grazing permits and leases.
The advance notice of proposed rulemaking included provisions that
would allow the authorized officer to issue final decisions without
first issuing a proposed decision in specified circumstances. This
proposed rule would carry forward the provision that the authorized
officer could directly issue final decisions when decisions are
necessary to protect rangeland resources from damage in ``emergency''
situations under section 4110.3-3(b), and would add that decisions to
close areas to certain forms of livestock use when necessary to abate
unauthorized use, as provided in section 4150.2(d), could be issued as
final decisions without first issuing proposed decisions. The
provisions are necessary to provide responsive action in these
circumstances. The other circumstances specified in the advance notice
that would not have required a proposed decision were nondiscretionary
decisions, decisions that were previously part of a broader final
decision that was initially issued as a proposed decision, and
decisions that involve the application of discretion within the
established terms and conditions of grazing permits and leases. These
categories have been removed in this proposed rule. However, there may
be circumstances where resource protection and administrative
efficiency could be enhanced by avoiding the delay of implementation
that occasionally can result from the protracted resolution of protests
of proposed decisions. In all cases, the right to appeal final
decisions to the Office of Hearings and Appeals would be retained. The
public is invited to comment on whether there should be additional
circumstances where the authorized officer should have the ability to
issue final decisions without first issuing a proposed decision.
A new provision has been included in the proposed rule to eliminate
the requirement for prolonged implementation of necessary reductions in
permitted livestock use when data, including field observations, show
grazing use or patterns of use are not consistent with standards and
guidelines, are causing an unacceptable level or pattern of
utilization, or grazing use exceeds the livestock carrying capacity of
the area. Under the existing regulations, necessary reductions in
livestock use of more than 10 percent have been phased in over a period
of five years. Although that provision may, in the short term, mitigate
some of the adverse effects on permittees and lessees, it has inhibited
responsive action in situations where reductions in use are most
needed. Under the proposed rule, the authorized officer, after
consultation with the affected permittee or lessee, the State having
lands or managing resources within the area, and the interested public,
would take action to reduce grazing use either by reaching an agreement
with the involved parties or by decision. The Department anticipates
that, in many cases, agreements can be reached that would result in
gradual reductions in use. However, the Department recognizes the need
to provide for responsive action where rangeland health and function is
not being maintained.
Other proposals within the category of administrative practice have
been modified somewhat in response to comments received, while
attempting to retain the general substance of the proposed actions.
Also, an attempt has been made to clarify many of the explanations of
proposals, and to refine the regulatory text to more accurately achieve
the objective of the initial proposal.
Resource Management Requirements, Including Standards and Guidelines
Public comments on the standards and guidelines included as an
appendix to the advance notice of proposed rulemaking generally
expressed doubt that it is possible to develop a set of national
standards and guidelines that could be universally applied to grazing
administration on public lands. Many reviewers recommended that
standards and guidelines should only be developed at a more local
level. Many comments also expressed uncertainty regarding whether the
standards and guidelines would have the effect of law given they were
presented as an appendix rather than proposed regulatory text.
The Department agrees that standards and guidelines prepared at a
more local level would be better tailored to fit resource conditions
and livestock management practices. Therefore, the Department has not
carried forward the standards and guidelines as included with the
advance notice. However, in order to promote greater administrative
consistency, and to focus management attention and resources where they
will result in the greatest environmental benefit, the Department
recognizes a need to establish clear national requirements for grazing
administration and guidance for the preparation of State or regional
standards and guidelines. These national requirements and guiding
principles for State or regional standards and guidelines have been
included in the text of this proposed rule. In addition, the Department
recognizes the importance of putting standards and guidelines in place
in a timely manner, and has provided a mechanism for doing so in this
proposal.
The Department intends that State or regional standards and
guidelines for grazing administration would be developed in
consultation with multiple resource advisory councils, interested
public, and others within 18 months following the effective date of the
final rule. In the event State or regional standards and guidelines
have not been completed and approved by the Secretary within 18 months
of the effective date of the final rule, fallback standards and
guidelines provided in this proposed rule would be implemented. The
Department feels this provision for fallback standards and guidelines
is needed to provide for necessary resource protection and to encourage
prompt action toward the development of State or regional standards and
guidelines. The fallback standards and guidelines would also provide a
benchmark by which to measure the adequacy of State or regional
standards and guidelines.
The national requirements, guiding principles for the development
of State or regional standards and guidelines, and the fallback
standards and guidelines proposed in this rule all focus on attaining
and maintaining healthy rangeland ecosystems, including riparian areas.
The Department recognizes that achieving and maintaining properly
functioning ecosystems is critical to the protection of public
rangelands and resources, and resource uses. Achieving and maintaining
healthy rangeland conditions greatly benefits resources and uses such
as wildlife and fish habitat, water quality, and recreational
activities. Although BLM land use plans and activity plans may provide
for achieving resource conditions that go beyond the benchmarks for
ecological health and functional condition proposed in this rule,
achieving properly functioning ecosystems is prerequisite to the
conservation of rangeland resources.
The national requirements for all grazing-related plans and
activities on public lands under this proposed rule include continuing
or implementing grazing practices that maintain or achieve healthy,
properly functioning ecosystems and riparian systems; continuing or
implementing grazing practices that maintain, restore or enhance water
quality and assist in the attainment of water quality that meets or
exceeds State water quality standards; and continuing or implementing
grazing management practices that assist in the maintenance,
restoration, or enhancement of the habitat of threatened or endangered
species, or species that are classified as candidates for threatened or
endangered species listing. These requirements are intended to reflect
the fundamental legal mandates for the management of public lands under
the Taylor Grazing Act, FLPMA, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and other relevant authorities. Where
existing management practices fail to meet these national requirements,
the BLM authorized officer would be required to take action as soon as
practicable but not later than the start of the next grazing year. This
would include actions such as reducing livestock stocking rates,
adjusting the season or duration of livestock use, or modifying or
relocating range improvements.
Standards and guidelines would be developed to provide further
guidance, within the framework of the national requirements, in the
administration of livestock grazing on public lands. Bureau of Land
Management State Directors, in consultation with the affected multiple
resource advisory councils, would be responsible for identifying the
appropriate geographical area for which standards and guidelines would
be developed. Standards and guidelines would be developed for an entire
State or for an ecoregion encompassing portions of more than one State.
Standards and guidelines would not be prepared for a smaller area
totally within the boundaries of a single State except where the BLM
State Director, in consultation with the multiple resource advisory
councils, determines that the combination of the geophysical and
vegetal character of an area is unique and the health of the rangelands
within the area could not be adequately protected using standards and
guidelines developed on a broader geographical scale. The intent of
this limitation on the geographical scope of standards and guidelines
is to provide for the development and application of uniform standards
and guidelines across an area including public lands of similar
character. This limitation would result in more consistent application
of standards and guidelines, and would encourage collaboration between
BLM offices, multiple resource advisory councils, and the public in
addressing the resource management needs and concerns of an area.
Standards and guidelines could be developed for ecoregions involving
public lands within more than one State for the purpose of ensuring the
consistent application of rangeland management measurements and
practices across an identifiable ecoregion.
This proposed rule would establish guiding principles to be
addressed in the development of standards and guidelines. The guiding
principles represent what the Department has identified as the resource
concerns and types of management practices that must be considered in
the development of standards and guidelines. The guiding principles for
the development of standards are intended to provide focus on riparian
area function and the minimum soil and vegetation conditions required
for rangeland ecosystem health. The guiding principles for the
development of guidelines for grazing administration provide focus on
the consideration of management practices that assist in or do not
inhibit meeting certain legal mandates and achieving and maintaining
rangeland health. Included in these guiding principles are the
requirements that State or regional guidelines address: grazing
practices to be implemented to benefit threatened or endangered species
and candidate species, and to maintain, restore or enhance water
quality; critical periods of plant growth or regrowth and the need for
rest from livestock grazing; situations in which continuous season-long
grazing, or use of ephemeral rangelands, could be authorized; the
allowable types and location of certain range improvements and
management practices; and utilization or residual vegetation limits.
The BLM State Director, in consultation with multiple resource
advisory councils, the interested public, and others, would be required
to develop standards and guidelines that are consistent with the
national requirements and the guiding principles. It is anticipated
that there may be a need to add additional standards and guidelines
consistent with the national requirements to reflect the State or
regional resources, the character of the public lands, local livestock
management practices, and community interests. For example, State or
regional guidelines may specify limitations on the season of livestock
use or thresholds for utilization by livestock in crucial big game
winter ranges. Multiple resource advisory councils, and their rangeland
resource teams and technical review teams, would play an important role
in designing standards and guidelines to meet conditions and concerns
encountered within the specific State or region by facilitating open
discussion and ensuring that the views of all interested parties are
considered in preparing their recommendations for the BLM. The BLM
would not implement State or regional standards or guidelines developed
pursuant to this proposed rule prior to their approval by the
Secretary.
The proposed rule includes a provision for fallback standards and
guidelines that would become effective 18 months after the effective
date of the final rule in the event that State or regional standards
and guidelines are not complete. The fallback standards and guidelines
would remain in effect until State or regional standards and guidelines
are completed and approved by the Secretary.
The fallback standards are largely based on indicators of soil
stability and watershed function, distribution of nutrients and energy,
and the ability of plant communities to recover. The three categories
of indicators, when considered in combination, have been found to be
key in assessing rangeland health. The standards are generally based on
the findings of the Committee on Rangeland Classification presented in
``Rangeland Health'' (National Research Council 1994) and BLM's
Riparian Area Management (TR1737-9, Process for Assessing Proper
Functioning Condition, 1993). A fourth fallback standard addresses
indicators of healthy flood plain structure and condition, a critical
component of healthy rangeland ecosystems and riparian systems.
The fallback guidelines would restrict management practices to
those activities that assist in or do not hinder meeting certain legal
mandates and achieving or maintaining rangeland health. The fallback
guidelines include the requirement that grazing management practices be
implemented that assist in or do not hinder the recovery of threatened
or endangered species, or assist in preventing the listing of species
identified as candidates for threatened or endangered species. This
guideline is intended to avoid the impacts associated with the listing
of more species as threatened or endangered. A second guideline would
require that grazing practices be implemented that would assist in
attaining and protecting water quality consistent with the Clean Water
Act. The fallback guidelines would also require that grazing schedules
include periods of rest during times of critical plant growth or
regrowth, and that continuous season-long grazing be limited to
instances where it has been demonstrated that such use would be
consistent with achieving or maintaining rangeland health and riparian
functioning condition, and with meeting established resource
objectives. Under the fallback guidelines, development of springs or
other projects affecting water would be designed to protect the
ecological values of the affected sites. Livestock management practices
or management facilities such as corrals, pipelines, or fences, would
generally be required to be located outside of riparian-wetland areas,
and where standards for these areas are not being met, the facilities
could be removed or relocated, or the management practices modified.
The fallback guidelines would require the establishment and application
of utilization or residual vegetation limits that would benefit the
diversity and vigor of woody and herbaceous species, maintain healthy
age-class structure in riparian-wetland and aquatic plant communities,
and would leave sufficient biomass and plant residue to provide for
sediment filtering, the dissipation of stream energy, and streambank
stability and shading. Finally, the fallback guidelines would require
that allotment management plans and other activity plans addressing
livestock grazing that are developed or amended after the fallback
guidelines become effective specify desired plant communities,
including minimum percentages of site vegetation cover, and incorporate
utilization limits for both riparian and upland sites to assist in
achieving or maintaining proper functioning condition.
The Department recognizes that the proposed fallback standards and
guidelines may not fit all situations. A provision has been included in
the proposed rule that would allow BLM State Directors to adjust the
fallback standards and guidelines, subject to approval of the
Secretary, to fit State or local conditions. However, in tailoring the
fallback standards and guidelines to more local conditions, the BLM
State Directors must ensure that the general purpose of each of the
fallback standards and guidelines is met.
The national requirements proposed in this rule, and all standards
and guidelines, whether fallback, State, or regional would be
implemented subject to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4331 et seq.; NEPA) and applicable land use planning
regulations. The national requirements and guiding principles for State
and regional standards and guidelines are analyzed in the draft EIS for
Rangeland Reform '94. The fallback standards and guidelines are also
analyzed in the draft EIS. Any additional NEPA analysis required during
development of State or regional standards and guidelines would tier to
the analysis of national requirements and standards and guidelines
presented in the EIS for Rangeland Reform '94.
The BLM planning regulations direct that actions be in conformance
with BLM land use plans. It is anticipated that in most instances,
established standards and guidelines, and associated implementation
actions, would be in conformance with existing land use plans, although
in some cases land use plans may require modification.
It is the Department's intent to develop State or regional
standards and guidelines, complete plan conformance tests, and
undertake necessary plan amendments within 18 months of the effective
date of the final rule. Development of the State or regional standards
and guidelines and any plan amendments that are necessary would occur
simultaneously. Thus, State or regional standards and guidelines would
be implemented as they are finalized and approved by the Secretary. If
this has not occurred within 18 months of the effective date of the
final rule, fallback standards and guidelines would be put in place
until the State or regional standards and guidelines are completed. The
Department envisions that all rangelands administered by the BLM under
43 CFR part 4100 would have enforceable standards and guidelines by the
end of the 18-month period.
Implementation of the national requirements and the standards and
guidelines for grazing administration would be accomplished by
directing specific actions to promote or achieve the requirements and
standards and guidelines. The specific actions needed to implement the
requirements, standards, and guidelines would be incorporated in the
terms and conditions of grazing permits and leases, and other grazing
authorizations. Actions needed to implement the requirements,
standards, and guidelines would also be incorporated in allotment
management plans or other activity plans as they are prepared or
amended.
The proposed rule would require that the authorized officer specify
terms and conditions that would ensure conformance with the national
requirements, standards, and guidelines in all grazing leases and
permits. These terms and conditions would be added at the time of
permit or lease issuance, including the transfer or renewal of permits
or leases. However, where the authorized officer determines that the
national requirements or established standards and guidelines are not
being met under existing terms and conditions, the terms and conditions
of grazing permits and leases and other grazing authorizations would be
modified as soon as practicable, but not later than the start of the
next grazing year.
Reflecting the national requirements and standards and guidelines
in the terms and conditions of grazing permits and leases would provide
the management mechanism to help achieve, to the extent practicable,
healthy rangeland ecosystems. While grazing administration may not be
the only factor affecting the health of rangeland ecosystems, it is the
Department's intent to ensure improvement in the context of grazing
management through the standards and guidelines for grazing
administration.
The Department intends that all high priority grazing allotments
would be reviewed for the need to modify terms and conditions to ensure
conformance with the national requirements, and standards and
guidelines within three years of the effective date of this rule.
Priority would be based largely on the review of riparian area
conditions. This review, in combination with incorporating terms and
conditions reflecting the national requirements and standards and
guidelines as permits and leases are issued, renewed or transferred,
should ensure that a large portion of BLM grazing allotments would be
protected by the national requirements and the standards and
guidelines. The public is invited to provide comments and suggestions
on the structure of the review of grazing allotments and the criteria
for determining the priority of allotments to be reviewed.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Part 4 of Title 43--Department Hearings and Appeals Procedures
Section 4.477 Effect of Decision Suspended During Appeal
The proposed rule would revise the heading of this section to
reflect that grazing decisions would no longer automatically be
suspended when an appeal is filed as provided in the proposed revision
of 43 CFR subpart 4160. The proposed rule would also remove other
references to suspension of the decision of the authorized officer upon
appeal.
Part 1780--Cooperative Relations
Section 1784.0-5 Definitions
The proposed rule would replace the term ``authorized
representative'' with ``designated Federal Officer'' to make the
terminology of the rule more consistent with the terminology of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act and 41 CFR 101-6.1019.
Section 1784.2-1 Composition
This section would be amended to remove the eligibility requirement
for grazing advisory board members. This requirement would no longer be
necessary with the discontinuance of the grazing advisory boards.
Composition for multiple resource advisory councils and their rangeland
resource teams and technical review teams would be provided for in the
specific sections of the proposed rule pertaining to such councils and
teams.
Section 1784.2-2 Avoidance of Conflict of Interest
The proposed rule would clarify that permittees and lessees would
be eligible for service on multiple resource advisory councils,
rangeland resource teams, and technical review teams. This change is
necessary to ensure that all stakeholders, including those with
financial interests in the management of public lands, are able to
provide input to multiple resource advisory councils so that resource
advisory councils would be able to develop recommendations based on
direct community and user input. The proposed rule would also provide
that no advisory committee, rangeland resource team or technical review
team member could participate in any matter in which such member is
directly interested. Furthermore, members of multiple resource advisory
councils would be required to disclose their direct or indirect
interest in Federal grazing permits or leases administered by BLM.
Section 1784.3 Member Service
The proposed rule would establish that appointments to advisory
committees would be for two-year terms unless otherwise specified in
the charter. Specific references to grazing advisory board, district
advisory council and National Public Lands Advisory Council
appointments, terms and election procedures, would be removed. Advisory
committees are established through individual charters or by statute.
Membership requirements, terms of appointments and election procedures
must be prescribed in these charters and are, therefore, not necessary
in this proposed rule.
Also, the provisions for reimbursement of committee members' travel
and per diem expenses would be modified to make clear that individuals
selected by committees to provide input, but who themselves are not
appointed committee members, shall not be eligible for reimbursement.
Under the proposed rule the newly formed multiple resource advisory
councils would play a greater role in advising BLM land managers than
the district advisory councils and grazing advisory boards they
generally replace. The Department expects that the expanded role of the
councils would require more frequent council meetings, resulting in
greater administrative, travel, and per diem expenses to be incurred by
BLM. The provision that members of rangeland resource teams and
technical review teams who are not also members of the parent advisory
council would not be reimbursed for expenses is intended to limit the
expenses to be incurred by the BLM. However, the limitation on
reimbursements for travel and per diem could affect the ability of some
persons to participate on the input teams. The public is asked to
provide specific comments and suggestions on whether this limitation is
appropriate or how it might be modified.
Section 1784.5-1 Functions and Section 1784.5-2 Meetings
These sections would be amended by replacing the term ``authorized
representative'' with the term ``designated Federal officer.'' These
changes provide consistency with the terminology of FACA.
Section 1784.6-1 National Public Lands Advisory Council, Reserved
Sections 1784.6-2 and 1784.6-3, Section 1784.6-4 District Advisory
Councils, and Section 1784.6-5 Grazing Advisory Boards
References to the National Public Lands Advisory Council, district
advisory councils and grazing advisory boards are removed in their
entirety and replaced with three new sections that would establish
multiple resource advisory councils and associated input teams.
Reserved sections 1784.6-2 and 1784.6-3 would be removed. The new
sections are discussed separately below.
Section 1784.6-1 Multiple Resource Advisory Councils
This section would provide for the establishment of multiple
resource advisory councils. One multiple resource council would be
established for each BLM administrative district except when prohibited
by factors such as limited interest in participation, geographic
isolation in terms of proximity to users and public lands, or where the
configuration and character of the lands is such that organization of
councils along BLM district boundaries is not the most effective means
for obtaining advice for the management of the ecosystems or resources
of the area. The exceptions are intended to provide for situations such
as those encountered in Alaska where it is difficult for interested
persons to participate because of extreme travel distances, or
situations where management of neighboring BLM districts or portions of
districts involving similar lands and ecosystems can best be served by
organizing a multiple resource advisory council along boundaries other
than BLM district administrative boundaries. The determination of the
area for which a multiple resource advisory council would be organized
would be the responsibility of the affected BLM State Director.
Organization by ecoregion boundaries would be encouraged where
appropriate. The Governors of the affected States and established
multiple resource advisory councils could petition the Secretary to
establish a multiple resource advisory council for a specific BLM
resource area.
Multiple resource advisory councils would provide advice to the
Bureau of Land Management official to whom it reports regarding the
preparation, amendment and implementation of land use plans. The
councils would also assist in establishing other long-range plans and
resource management priorities in an advisory capacity. The Department
intends that this would include providing advice on the development of
plans for range improvement or development programs and has included in
the proposed amendments to 43 CFR subpart 4120 a requirement for
consultation with multiple resource advisory councils in the planning
of range improvement or development programs. Multiple resource
advisory councils would not provide advice on personnel management, nor
would they provide advice on the allocation and expenditure of funds
subsequent to budget planning.
Appointments to multiple resource advisory councils would be made
by the Secretary. In making appointments, the Secretary would consider
nominations from the Governor of the affected State and nominations
received in response to a public call for nominations. The Secretary
would encourage Governors to develop their nominations through an open
public process. In reviewing nominations submitted by the Governors,
the Secretary would consider whether an open public process was used.
All nominations would be required to be accompanied by letters of
recommendation from interests or organizations to be represented that
are located within the area for which a council is organized.
The Secretary would appoint 15 members to each multiple resource
advisory council. Five members would be selected from persons
representing commodity industries, developed recreational activities,
or use of public lands by off-highway vehicles; five would be selected
from representatives of nationally or regionally recognized
environmental or resource conservation groups and wild horse and burro
interest groups, from representatives of archeological and historical
interests, and from representatives of dispersed recreational
activities; and five would be selected from persons who hold State,
county, or local elected office, and representatives of the public-at-
large, Indian tribes within or adjacent to the area, natural resource
or natural science academia, and State agencies responsible for the
management of fish and wildlife, water quality, water rights, and State
lands. The proposed rule would require that at least one of the members
appointed to each council must hold elected State, county, or local
office. An individual would not be allowed to serve on more than one
multiple resource advisory council at any given time.
The proposed rule would require council members to have
demonstrated experience or knowledge of the geographic area for which
the council provides advice. The Department seeks comment as to the
necessity of this requirement, particularly as it applies to experts.
For purposes of the multiple resource advisory councils, the
Secretary would rely on the provisions of the current regulations found
at 43 CFR 1784.3(f), governing the removal of advisory council members.
The proposed rule would require that all members of multiple
resource advisory councils would attend a course of instruction in the
management of rangeland ecosystems that has been approved by the BLM
State Director. This requirement is intended to ensure a common general
understanding of the resources management principles and concerns
involved in management of the public lands. Public comment and
suggestions are invited on the content and structure of this required
training.
The proposed rule provides that an official meeting of a multiple
resource advisory council requires at least three members from each of
the three broad categories of interests from which appointments were
made. Formal recommendations of the council would require agreement by
at least three members of each of the three broad categories of
interests that attend an official meeting.
Multiple resource advisory councils would be provided the option of
requesting Secretarial review where the council believes its advice has
been arbitrarily disregarded by the BLM manager. If requested, the
Secretary would respond directly to a council's concerns within 60
days. Such a request would require agreement by all 15 members of the
council. The Secretary's response would not constitute a decision on
the merits of any issue that is or might become the subject of an
administrative appeal and would not preclude an affected party's
ability to appeal a decision of the authorized officer.
Section 1784.6-2 Rangeland Resource Teams
The proposed rule would provide for the formation of rangeland
resource teams by a multiple resource advisory council on their own
motion or in response to a petition by local citizens. Rangeland
resource teams would be formed for the purpose of providing local level
input and serving as fact-finding teams for issues pertaining to
grazing administration. Rangeland resource teams would provide input
and recommendations to the multiple resource advisory council on public
land grazing management issues within the area for which the rangeland
resource team is formed. The geographical scope of a rangeland resource
team would not exceed the area for which the advisory council provides
advice. Rangeland resource teams organized under a multiple resource
advisory council would not provide advice to the Federal land manager.
Rangeland resource teams would consist of five members selected by
the multiple resource advisory council. Membership would include two
persons holding Federal grazing permits or leases within the area for
which the team is formed. Additional members would include one person
representing the public-at-large, one person representing a nationally
or regionally recognized environmental organization, and one person
representing national, regional, or local wildlife or recreation
interests. Members representing grazing permittees or lessees and the
local public-at-large would be required to have resided within the area
for which the team would provide advice for at least two years prior to
their selection. Persons selected by the council to represent the
public-at-large, environmental, and wildlife or recreation interests
could not hold Federal grazing permits or leases. The proposed rule
requires that at least one member of the rangeland resource team be
selected from the membership of the parent multiple resource advisory
council.
The multiple resource advisory council would be required to select
rangeland resource team members from nominees that qualify by virtue of
their knowledge or experience of the lands, resources, and communities
that fall within the area for which the team is formed. All nominations
for membership would be required to be accompanied by letters of
recommendation from the local interests to be represented. The
membership provisions are intended to ensure that rangeland resource
teams are able to represent key stakeholders and interests in providing
input to the more broadly organized multiple resource advisory
councils.
The proposed rule would require that all members of rangeland
resource teams would attend a course of instruction in the management
of rangeland ecosystems that has been approved by the BLM State
Director. The Colorado working group developed a proposal for a ``Range
Ecosystem Awareness Program'' that would establish a basic curriculum
that would include: basic rangeland ecology, human resource
development, the relationship of public land resources to private lands
and communities, and the pertinent laws and regulations affecting
rangeland management. The Department intends to consider the Working
Group's proposal in developing the curriculum for the training of
rangeland resource team members and invites public comment and
suggestions on the content and structure of this required training.
Rangeland resource teams would have opportunities to raise any
matter of concern with the multiple resource advisory council and to
request that the multiple resource advisory council form a technical
review team, as described below, to provide information and options to
the council for their consideration.
Although no specific provision has been made in the proposed rule,
rangeland resource teams could petition the Secretary for chartered
advisory committee status. Chartered rangeland resource teams would be
subject to the general provisions of 43 CFR part 1780 and the
provisions of the charter prepared pursuant to FACA.
Section 1784.6-3 Technical Review Teams
Under the proposed rule a multiple resource advisory council could
establish technical review teams, as needed, in response to a petition
of an involved rangeland resource team or on their own motion.
Rangeland resource teams chartered under FACA could also establish
technical review teams. Technical review teams would conduct fact
finding and provide input to the parent multiple resource advisory
council or chartered rangeland resource team. Their function would be
limited to specific assignments made by the parent committee, and would
be limited to the geographical scope and scope of management actions
for which the multiple resource advisory council or chartered rangeland
resource team provides advice. Technical review teams would terminate
upon completion of the assigned task.
Members of technical review teams would be selected by the multiple
resource advisory council or chartered rangeland resource team on the
basis of their knowledge of resource management or their familiarity
with the issues involved in the assigned task. At least one member of
each technical review team would be required to be selected from the
membership of the parent multiple resource advisory council or
chartered rangeland resource team.
PART 4100--GRAZING ADMINISTRATION--EXCLUSIVE OF ALASKA
Subpart 4100--Grazing Administration--Exclusive of Alaska; General
Section 4100.0-2 Objectives
The proposed rule would amend the objectives statement for part
4100 by including as objectives the preservation of public land and
resources from destruction and unnecessary injury, the enhancement of
productivity for multiple use purposes, the maintenance of open spaces
and integral ecosystems, and the maintenance of the stability of
communities depending on the western livestock industry.
Section 4100.0-5 Definitions
The proposed rule would remove two definitions, add five new
definitions, and revise 10 definitions in section 4100.0-5. Generally
these amendments would reduce redundancy and make the definitions more
concise, germane, and understandable. Several changes were made to the
definitions presented in the advance notice of proposed rulemaking,
most notably, the removal of the definition for ``Affected interest''
and replacement with the term ``Interested public.'' This new term is
used to recognize necessary public involvement in decisionmaking and to
make 43 CFR part 4100 more consistent with other BLM rules and those of
the Forest Service.
The proposed rule would redefine Active use to include conservation
use and exclude nonuse or suspended use.
The proposed rule would add a definition of Activity plan to mean a
plan for managing a use, or resource value or use, and would clarify
that an AMP is one form of an activity plan.
The definition of Actual use would be revised to clarify that the
term may refer to all or just a portion (e.g., a pasture) of a grazing
allotment.
A new definition of Affiliate addresses the controlling interests
of a permittee's business relationships. The term is used in
determining whether applicants have satisfactory records of performance
for receiving or renewing a permit or lease or in receiving additional
forage that becomes available for allocation to livestock grazing.
The definition of Allotment management plan (AMP) would be modified
to describe more clearly the focus and purpose of the plan, and to make
clear that an AMP is a form of activity plan.
A definition of Conservation use would be added to mean an activity
for the purpose of protecting the land and its resources from
destruction or unnecessary injury. The term would include improving
rangeland conditions and the enhancement of resource values or
functions.
The definition of Consultation, cooperation and coordination would
be modified to reflect the proposed discontinuance of grazing advisory
boards; to clarify that consultation, cooperation, and coordination
apply to the development, revision, or termination of allotment
management plans; and to include States having not only lands but also
resource management responsibility (e.g., wildlife, water quality) in
the subject allotment.
The proposed rule would redefine the terms Grazing lease and
Grazing permit to clarify what forms of use are authorized in leases
and permits and to clarify that the documents specify a total number of
AUMs apportioned.
The definition of Grazing preference would be revised to mean the
priority to have a Federal permit or lease for a public land grazing
allotment that is attached to base property owned or controlled by a
permittee or lessee, or applicant. The proposed revision would better
match the language of section 3 of the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934. The
definition would drop the reference to a specified quantity of forage,
a practice that was adopted by the former Grazing Service during the
adjudication of grazing privileges. Like the Forest Service, the BLM
would identify the amount of grazing use (AUMs), consistent with land
use plans, in grazing use authorizations to be issued under a lease or
permit.
A definition of Interested public would be added to mean an
individual, group or organization that has submitted written comments
to the authorized officer regarding the management of livestock grazing
on specific grazing allotments.
The definition of Land use plan would be revised to remove the
inference that all management framework plans would be replaced by
resource management plans.
A definition of Permitted use would be added to define the amount
of forage in an allotment that is allocated for livestock grazing and
authorized for use, or included as suspended nonuse, under a grazing
permit or lease. The definition was added to those included in the
advance notice of proposed rulemaking. The term replaces the animal
unit months of forage use previously associated with grazing
preference.
The definition of Range improvement would be expanded to include
protection and improvement of rangeland ecosystems as a purpose of
range improvements.
The definition of Suspension would be revised to reflect the
revision of the definition of the term ``preference.'' The term
``preference'' would be replaced with ``permitted use.''
A definition of Temporary nonuse would be added to refer to
permitted use that may be temporarily made unavailable for livestock
use in response to a request by the permittee or lessee.
The term Unauthorized leasing and subleasing would be defined to
mean leases or other agreements that have not been approved by the
authorized officer.
The definition of Utilization would be amended to mean the
consumption of forage by all animals consistent with the definitions in
the BLM Technical Reference 4400-3 and the Bureau Manual System for
Inventory and Monitoring.
Section 4100.0-7 Cross-References
This section would be amended to guide the public to the applicable
sections of the 43 CFR part 4 when considering an appeal of a decision
relating to grazing administration, and to 43 CFR part 1780 regarding
advisory committees.
Section 4100.0-9 Information Collection
This section would be added to conform to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The section discloses
to the public the estimated burden hours needed to comply with the
information collection requirements in this proposed rule, why the
information is being collected, and what the information will be used
for by the BLM.
Subpart 4110--Qualifications and Preference
Sections 4110.1 Mandatory Qualifications
Although most applicants for grazing use would be engaged in the
livestock business, the proposed rule would clarify that mortgage
insurers, natural resource conservation organizations, and private
parties whose primary source of income is not the livestock business,
could meet the criteria for qualification for a grazing permit or
lease.
The proposed rule would add requirements that applicants for the
renewal or the issuance of new grazing permits or leases, and any
affiliates, must be determined by the authorized officer to have a
satisfactory record of performance based on specified standards.
Applicants for renewal must be determined to be in substantial
compliance with the terms and conditions of the expiring permit or
lease. In assessing whether an applicant for renewal is in substantial
compliance, the authorized officer would consider the number of prior
incidents of noncompliance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4100,
as well as the nature and seriousness of any single incident of
noncompliance.
The proposed rule would deny a new permit or lease to those
applicants who have had Federal grazing leases or permits, or State
grazing permits or leases within the Federal grazing allotment for
which application is made, canceled due to violations of terms or
conditions during the 36 months preceding application. Applicants and
their affiliates that have been barred from holding a Federal grazing
permit or lease by court order would also be determined to be
disqualified.
The provisions pertaining to disqualification include changes made
to the provisions of the advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
Restricting the scope of consideration of the applicant's history of
performance under State leases to those State lands located within the
Federal grazing allotment boundary for which application is made is
intended to reduce the workload associated with obtaining and reviewing
State records. Also, the inability of the applicant to make use of
State lands within the Federal grazing allotment would often inhibit
the orderly administration of the Federal permit or lease.
The advance notice of proposed rulemaking provided for
disqualification on the basis of suspension or cancellation of certain
permits or leases. Under the proposed rule, suspension of grazing
permits or leases, in whole or in part, would not result in
disqualification.
The provisions for disqualification would also affect the
allocation of increased forage under Secs. 4110.2-3 and 4110.3-1 and
conflicting applications under Sec. 4130.1-2. These three sections
reference ``qualified applicants.''
The amendments pertaining to the disqualification of applicants are
intended to reflect the requirements of the Taylor Grazing Act and
FLPMA that public lands be managed in a way that protects them from
destruction or unnecessary injury and provides for orderly use,
improvement, and development of resources, as well as provisions for
renewing permits and leases except where violations of rules and
regulations and terms and conditions of the permit or lease have
occurred.
Section 4110.1-1 Acquired Lands
The proposed rule would revise this section to clarify that
existing grazing permits and leases on lands acquired by the BLM are
subject to the permit or lease terms and conditions that were in effect
at the time of acquisition. Upon expiration of the preexisting permit
or lease, grazing management of the acquired lands would become subject
to the provisions of 43 CFR part 4100.
Section 4110.2-1 Base Property
This section would be amended by clarifying that base property is
required to be capable of serving as a base for livestock operations
but it need not be used for livestock production at the time the
authorized officer finds it to be base property. A provision has been
added to the amendments presented in the advance notice to make clear
that the permittee's or lessee's interest in a base water previously
recognized as base property shall qualify as base property. Where
authorized water developments on public lands that have been previously
recognized as base property require reconstruction or replacement in
order to continue to service the same area, and the reconstructed or
new development has been authorized through a range improvement permit
or cooperative range improvement agreement, the permittee's or lessee's
interest in the new or reconstructed water development would be
recognized as base property.
Section 4110.2-2 Specifying Grazing Preference
This section would be renamed ``Specifying permitted use'' to
reflect the redefinition of the term ``grazing preference,'' and would
be amended to replace the term ``grazing preference'' with ``permitted
use.'' Also, the section would be amended to clarify that levels of
grazing use on ephemeral or annual ranges are established on the basis
of the amount of forage that is temporarily available pursuant to
vegetation standards prescribed by land use plans or activity plans.
Section 4110.2-3 Transfer of Grazing Preference
This section would be amended to reflect the new requirements of
Sec. 4110.1-1 pertaining to the applicant's history of performance and
by adding a new paragraph (f) to require that new permits or leases
stemming from transfer of the base property be for a minimum time
period of three years. These provisions are necessary to provide for
stability in meeting the objectives of these regulations for protection
and improvement of the rangelands and resources and to reduce the
administrative work in processing transfers. Currently about 1,850 of
the BLM leases or permits, approximately 10 percent of the total
number, involve leased base property.
Section 4110.2-4 Allotments
This section would be amended to clarify that designation and
adjustment of allotment boundaries include the authority for, and the
practice of, combining or dividing allotments when determined by the
authorized officer to be necessary to achieve resource condition
objectives or to enhance administrative efficiency. This section
includes changes in addition to those presented in the advance notice
of proposed rulemaking to clarify that modification of allotments must
be done through agreement or decision of the authorized officer, and to
make clear that the interested public would be involved in the
designation or adjustment of allotment boundaries.
Section 4110.3 Changes in Permitted Use
This section would be amended by replacing the term ``grazing
preference'' with ``permitted use,'' and by clarifying that changes in
permitted use shall be supported by monitoring data, field
observations, land use planning decisions, or data collected through
other studies. This section includes changes made in addition to those
presented in the advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
Section 4110.3-1 Increasing Permitted Use
This section would be revised by including the requirement that a
permittee or lessee, or other applicant has been determined to be
qualified under subpart 4110, by substituting the term ``permitted
use'' in place of ``grazing preference,'' and by clarifying the
requirements for consultation. Also, reference to a permittee's or
lessee's demonstrated stewardship would be added to factors to be
considered in allocating available forage. This section includes
changes made in addition to those presented in the advance notice of
proposed rulemaking.
Section 4110.3-2 Decreasing permitted grazing use
This section would be amended by revising the heading, revising
paragraph (b) to expand the list of methods for determining when a
reduction in grazing use is necessary, and by deleting paragraph (c).
The amendment would add to monitoring ecological site inventory and
other recognized methods for determining forage production as methods
of identifying when use exceeds the livestock carrying capacity of the
area considered. The amendment would also add a reference to national
requirements and standards and guidelines. Under this section the
authorized officer would be required to take or approve corrective
action when grazing use or patterns of use result in less than properly
functioning conditions of the ecosystem, as established by the proposed
national requirements and standards and guidelines and identified
through monitoring or field observations, or when use exceeds the
livestock carrying capacity. The BLM Technical Reference 4400-5
(Rangeland Inventory and Monitoring Supplemental Studies) describes
acceptable methodologies for estimating forage production. The revised
section would allow the use of other acceptable methods to estimate
rangeland carrying capacity to be used as the basis for making initial
adjustments in grazing use. Subsequent adjustments could be made as
monitoring data are collected and analyzed. The amendment would
therefore allow more responsive action when use or patterns of use
result in a failure to meet resource condition objectives.
This section includes changes made in addition to those presented
in the advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
Section 4110.3-3 Implementing reductions in Permitted Use
The proposed rule would rename the section, would remove existing
paragraph (a) and other requirements for phased-in reductions in
grazing use, and would amend existing paragraph (b) to remove the terms
``consultation, coordination and cooperation,'' and ``suspension of
preference'' and add in their place the terms ``consultation'' and
``reductions in grazing use,'' respectively, and provide, by way of
reference to Sec. 4110.3-2, for the application of national
requirements and standards and guidelines and the use of other methods,
in addition to monitoring, for determining the need for an initial
reduction. The change in the heading is intended to describe the
section more accurately. The removal of existing paragraph (a) and
other requirements for phased reductions in use would allow more
responsive correction of situations where grazing use exceeds carrying
capacity. Removing the phased implementation requirement would not
prohibit agreements or decisions that would allow phased reductions in
use. The cross reference to other methods of estimating forage
production and identifying and the use of monitoring or field
observations to identify when grazing use or patterns of use are not
consistent with the national requirements or standards and guidelines,
or grazing use is otherwise causing an unacceptable level or pattern of
utilization, would also allow more responsive action to improve the
rangeland condition. The Department does not intend that extended
monitoring would be necessary to begin needed adjustment of use. The
removal of the term ``coordination and cooperation'' would result in a
more precise statement of the requirements placed on the authorized
officer. The statutory requirement of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1752), as
amended by section 8 of the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978,
for consultation, coordination, and cooperation applies to the
development, revision, and termination of allotment management plans.
Existing paragraph (c) would be redesignated as paragraph (b) and would
be amended to remove the word ``temporary'' because it implies only one
season while the influences of natural events such as drought could
significantly affect vegetation health and productivity for several
months or years after a drought has passed. Other minor amendments
clarify the action of the field manager and retain the special
provisions for making ``emergency'' decisions effective. This section
includes changes made in addition to those presented in the advance
notice of proposed rulemaking.
Section 4110.4-2 Decrease in Land Acreage
The proposed rule would amend paragraph (a) by removing the words
``suspend'' and ``suspension.'' As explained above, reductions in
authorized use under preference permits or leases would no longer be
recognized as suspended use.
Subpart 4120--Grazing Management
Section 4120.2 Allotment Management and Resource Activity Plans
The proposed rule would amend this section by revising the heading
and by adding reference to other activity plans that may prescribe
grazing management. It has been the BLM's policy to develop more
integrated activity plans for managing resources of an allotment, such
as coordinated resource management plans. The BLM strongly favors the
development of integrated activity plans over single purpose plans such
as allotment management plans (AMPs) because integrated plans allow
BLM, permittees or lessees, and other affected persons to take a
broader look at all of the management needs of an area while still
addressing actions specific to the various uses and resource conditions
of the area. The proposed rule would clarify that draft AMPs, or other
draft activity plans, may be prepared by other agencies, or permittees
or lessees. In addition to the initial proposal in the advance notice,
a provision has been made for the preparation of draft allotment
management plans by other interested parties. Allotment management
plans or other activity plans would not become effective until approved
by the authorized officer. Paragraph (a) would be amended by replacing
the reference to district grazing advisory boards with multiple
resource advisory councils and including State resource management
agencies in the activity planning process as explained above. The
amendment would also provide that plans shall include standards and
guidelines that are not included as terms and conditions of the permit
or lease. The amendment would provide that flexibility granted to
permittees or lessees under a plan shall be determined on the basis of
demonstrated stewardship. The requirement for earning flexibility is an
incentive for cooperating grazing operators to manage for the
improvement of rangeland conditions. The proposed rule would make the
inclusion of other than public lands in an allotment management plan or
other activity plan a discretionary action as opposed to a requirement
as worded in the existing regulations. Finally, this section would
reference the NEPA analysis and related public participation that is
required for the planning and revision of allotment or activity plans,
and would provide that the decision document following the
environmental analysis would serve as the proposed decision for
purposes of subpart 4160.
Section 4120.3-1 Conditions for Range Improvements
This section would be amended by inserting a new paragraph (f)
addressing reviews of decisions associated with range improvement
projects. The amendment clarifies the process for administering
protests and appeals of the decision and directs appeals through the
administrative remedies process (43 CFR part 4160) provided for in
grazing administration. At present, appeals of these decisions
regarding range improvements go to the Interior Board of Land Appeals
without an opportunity for a local field hearing on the facts of the
case as is the practice with other rangeland grazing program decisions.
Section 4120.3-2 Cooperative Agreements
The section heading would be revised to clarify that this section
deals with cooperative range improvements as opposed to ``cooperative
agreements'' with other Federal or State agencies. The proposed rule
would amend this section to make it clear that the United States would
have title to all new permanent grazing-related improvements
constructed on public lands. Title to temporary grazing-related
improvements used primarily for livestock handling or water hauling
could be retained by the permittee or lessee. This change conforms with
the common practice of keeping title of permanent improvements in the
name of the party holding title to the land. The amendment would not
change the agreements currently in effect.
Section 4120.3-3 Range Improvement Permits
This section would be amended to make it clear that a permittee or
lessee may apply for a range improvement permit to install, use,
maintain, or modify range improvement projects, whether permanent or
temporary, needed to meet management objectives established for the
allotment. The permittee would hold title to removable livestock
handling facilities and to temporary improvements such as troughs for
hauled water or loading chutes. The amendment would also clarify that
permanent water improvement projects would be authorized through
cooperative range improvement agreements. The proposed rule would
remove the provision that permittees or lessees would control the use
of ponds or wells by livestock. Permittees and lessees would be the
graziers and, therefore, would control livestock use of water sources.
The proposed amendment will not affect ownership or rights currently
held in a range improvement.
A provision was added to those presented in the advance notice to
make clear that the authorized officer would retain a record of
permittee or lessee contributions to specific authorized range
improvement projects. This record would be used in determining
compensation due the permittee or lessee from the BLM in the event a
permit or lease is canceled in order to devote the public lands to
another public purpose, including disposal of the lands. The record
would also be considered prior to the transfer of grazing preference.
The rule would provide for the BLM to mediate disputes about
reasonable compensation for the operation and maintenance of facilities
when another operator is authorized temporary use of forage that the
preference permit holder cannot use.
Section 4120.3-8 Range Improvement Fund
The proposed rule would add a new section to this part that
addresses the distribution and use of the ``range betterment'' funds
appropriated by Congress through section 401(b) of FLPMA for range
improvement expenditure by the Secretary of the Interior. The range
betterment fund has been called the range improvement appropriation by
Congress and is known by that title in the BLM. The proposed amendment
would provide for distribution of the funds by the Secretary or
designee. The proposed rule would provide that one-half of the range
improvement fund would be made available to the State and District from
which the funds were derived. The remaining one-half would be allocated
by the Secretary or designee on a priority basis. All range improvement
funds would be used for on-the-ground rehabilitation, protection and
improvements of public rangeland ecosystems. Current policy requires
the return of all range improvement funds to the District from which
they were collected. The BLM has found this not to be in the best
interest of the public because it prevents use of the funds in areas
where they are most needed and results in some offices experiencing
difficulty expending available funds efficiently. The proposed
amendment would correct the imbalance by ensuring that the funds are
distributed on a priority basis.
The proposed rule would clarify that range improvement includes
activities such as planning, design, layout, modification, and
monitoring/evaluating the effectiveness of specific range improvements
in achieving resource condition and management objectives. Maintenance
of range improvements and costs associated with the contracting of
range improvement was added to the list of activities included in the
advance notice of proposed rulemaking for which range improvement funds
may be used. Maintenance was an allowable use of range improvement
funds prior to a policy change made in 1982.
The proposed rule would require consultation with affected
permittees, lessees, and the interested public during the planning of
range development and improvement programs. Multiple resource advisory
councils would also be consulted during the planning of range
development and improvement programs, including the development of
budgets for range improvement and the establishment of range
improvement priorities.
Section 4120.3-9 Water Rights for the Purpose of Livestock Grazing on
Public Lands
This section was added in response to comments on language
pertaining to water rights that was presented in the advance notice.
This section would provide consistent direction for the BLM regarding
water rights on public lands for livestock watering purposes. Under the
proposed rule, any new rights to water on public land for livestock
watering on such land would be acquired, perfected, maintained, and
administered under State law, and in the name of the United States
unless State law prohibits it.
The proposal would not create any new Federal reserved water
rights, nor would it affect valid existing water rights. Any right or
claim to water on public land for livestock watering on public land by
or on behalf of the United States would remain subject to the
provisions of 43 U.S.C. 666 (the McCarran Amendment) and section 701 of
FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1701 note; disclaimer on water rights). Finally, the
proposal would not change existing BLM policy on water rights for uses
other than public land grazing, such as irrigation, municipal, or
industrial uses.
Section 4120.5 Cooperation in Management
The proposed rule would add a new section on cooperation in
management to recognize and regulate cooperation with, among others,
State, county, Indian tribal, local government entities and Federal
agencies.
Section 4120.5-1 Cooperation With State, County, and Federal Agencies
This section would recognize existing cooperation with State cattle
and sheep boards, county and local noxious weed control districts, and
State agencies involved in environmental, conservation, and enforcement
roles related to these cooperative relationships. The Taylor Grazing
Act, Noxious Weed Control Act, FLPMA, Public Rangeland Improvement Act
(43 U.S.C 1901 et seq.), and other statutes and agreements require
cooperation with State, county and local governments, and Federal
agencies.
Subpart 4130--Authorizing Grazing Use
Section 4130.1 Applications
This section would make it clear that applications must contain the
proposed active grazing use, temporary nonuse, and conservation use.
This amendment is proposed to end confusion about the ``failure to
use'' provisions of subpart 4170. The inadvertent loss of permitted use
or preference due to punitive action in response to failure to make use
is easily avoided by applying for nonuse and receiving approval from
the authorized officer.
Section 4130.1-1 Changes in Grazing Use
This section would provide for field managers to make temporary
changes in authorized use, either increases or decreases, not to exceed
25 percent of the authorized use or 100 AUMs, whichever is greater,
following consultation with the affected permittees or lessees and the
State having land or responsibility for resources management within the
allotment. This would provide latitude to the authorized officer for
authorizing minor or incidental adjustments in grazing use without
extensive consultation, simplifying day-to-day administration. The
provision for 25 percent or 100 AUMS, whichever is greater, is intended
to specify what constitutes minor or incremental adjustments. The
Department proposes the 100 AUM limitation to provide sufficient
latitude in cases where minor adjustments, in terms of the total amount
of forage, would constitute a large percentage of the permitted use
(i.e., small permits or leases). Changes of a temporary nature could be
made in a timely manner when the proposed changes conform with the
applicable land use plan and standards and guidelines, and are within
the terms and conditions of the existing permit or lease. Examples of
the types of changes that would be considered under this section are
the activation of previously approved temporary nonuse, placing
permitted use in temporary nonuse, and the use of forage temporarily
available on ephemeral or annual ranges.
Section 4130.1-2 Conflicting Applications
This section would be amended by adding criteria to be considered
in granting a use authorization or permit or lease. The proposed rule
would incorporate the history of applicants' and affiliates' compliance
with the terms and conditions of Federal and State grazing permits and
leases and demonstrated stewardship of the public lands as criteria for
granting permits or leases where there is more than one qualified
applicant.
Section 4130.2 Grazing Permits or Leases
The permit and lease tenure proposals included in the advance
notice of proposed rulemaking have not been carried forward. Public
comment on the advance notice suggested the permit and lease tenure
provisions would result, among other things, in severe limitations on
the ability of prospective permittees and lessees to secure financing
for the purchase and operation of ranches. Under this proposed rule,
permits and leases would continue to be offered for 10-year terms
except in specified circumstances.
The proposed rule would clarify that all grazing permits and leases
issued, including the transfer or renewal of permits and leases, would
include terms and conditions addressing the national requirements and
standards and guidelines proposed under subpart 4180, as well as terms
and conditions establishing allowable levels, seasons and duration of
use, and other terms and conditions that would assist in achieving
management objectives, provide for proper range management, or assist
in the orderly administration of the public rangelands. Terms and
conditions reflecting the national requirements proposed under subpart
4180 would begin being incorporated in grazing permits and leases as
permits and leases are issued, including transfer or renewal, upon the
effective date of the rule. Standards and guidelines for grazing
administration would be reflected in the terms and conditions of
grazing permits and leases upon their completion or, in the absence of
the completion of State or regional standards and guidelines, as the
fallback standards and guidelines presented in section 4180.2 of this
proposed rule become effective.
A new paragraph has been added in addition to those presented in
the advance notice to make clear the requirements for consultation with
interested parties prior to the issuance or renewal of grazing permits
and leases.
The provision of the advance notice that would prevent the renewal
of permits and leases when the permittees or lessees are found to be in
repeated noncompliance with the terms and conditions of expiring
grazing permits or leases has been removed from this section. Section
4110.1--Mandatory qualifications, would require that applicants for
renewal must be determined to be in substantial compliance with the
terms and conditions of their grazing permit or lease. In assessing
whether an applicant for renewal is in substantial compliance, the
authorized officer would consider the number of prior incidents of
noncompliance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4100, as well as the
nature and seriousness of any single incident of noncompliance.
Therefore, a separate provision in this section is deemed to be
unnecessary.
The provision of the advance notice that applicants for renewal
would be required to be found to not be in violation of the provisions
of 43 CFR part 4100 has been removed. Section 4170.1-1--Penalty for
violations, in the existing regulations provides for withholding
issuance of permits and leases when applicants are in violation of the
provisions of this part.
The provision of the advance notice that would prohibit the offer
or grant of permits and leases when the applicant refuses to accept the
terms and conditions of the offered permit or lease has been amended to
clarify that it would apply to applicants for renewal and new permits
and leases.
The proposed rule clarifies the application for and granting of
conservation use and temporary nonuse. Conservation use would be
established as one of the allowable uses a permittee or lessee may be
granted. The existing regulations grant the authorized officer the
discretion to place forage in nonuse for conservation purposes. The
change from the term ``nonuse for conservation purposes'' to
``conservation use'' is intended to clarify that conservation use is
allowable, when in conformance with applicable land use plans, activity
plans and standards and guidelines, and will allow the Department to
fulfill one of the requirements of the Taylor Grazing Act, which is to
``preserve land and its resources from destruction or unnecessary
injury'' (43 U.S.C. 315a).
Forage made available as a result of temporary nonuse may be
authorized for temporary use by another operator. Forage used for
conservation purposes would not be available to other livestock
operators. The procedures guiding approval of nonuse are proposed in
response to a recommendation from the March 19, 1986, Inspector
General's review of the grazing management program.
Section 4130.4-1 Exchange-of-Use Grazing Agreements
This section would include needed requirements that the agreements
for exchange of use will be in harmony with management objectives, and
will be compatible with existing livestock operations. The agreements
would be required to address the fair sharing of maintenance and
operation of range improvements and would be approved for the same term
as any leased lands that are offered.
Section 4130.4-3 Crossing Permits
This section would provide for terms and conditions for crossing
permits, a form of temporary use authorization. The proposed amendments
are consistent with the customary practices of BLM field offices.
Section 4130.5 Ownership and Identification of Livestock
This section would be amended to make it clear that, before grazing
livestock owned by persons other than the permittee or lessee, the
permittee or lessee is required to have an approved use authorization
and have submitted a copy of the documented agreement or contract that
includes information required for the BLM's administration of permits
and leases and management of rangeland resources. This generally does
not create a new requirement. Many field offices are currently
requiring the information to document the legality of the pasturing of
livestock owned by persons other than the permittees.
In addition to the proposals of the advance notice, this proposed
rule would add an exemption from some of the requirements for ownership
of livestock for sons and daughters of permittees or lessees in
specified circumstances. This modification is necessary to allow the
exemption of sons and daughters, who are grazing livestock on public
lands under their parents' permit or lease in specified circumstances,
from the authorized leasing or subleasing surcharge provided in
Sec. 4130.7.
Section 4130.6-1 Mandatory Terms and Conditions
This section would be amended through minor additions and deletions
that clarify that use shall not exceed the livestock carrying capacity
of the allotment, and by removing unnecessary references to previous
sections. The section would be further amended to add a paragraph (c)
that would require that standards and guidelines be reflected in the
terms and conditions of permits and leases.
Section 4130.6-2 Other Terms and Conditions
This section would be amended to provide for proper rangeland
management and to remove unnecessary language. The proposed amendment
would allow terms and conditions to provide for improvement of riparian
area functions and for protecting other rangeland resources and values
consistent with applicable land use plans. The amendments are
consistent with the themes of protection, improvement, and restoration
of the rangelands to increase overall productivity, and will enhance
multiple-use management as required by the applicable laws cited above.
The addition of paragraph (h), a provision affirmatively stating that
BLM shall have administrative access across the permittee's or lessee's
owned or leased private lands, is intended to address attempts made to
prevent the BLM from performing functions such as range use
supervision, compliance checks, and trespass abatement.
Section 4130.6-3 Modification
The proposed rule would amend this section to clarify consultation
requirements in the modification of terms and conditions of permits.
The amendment would identify the opportunity to be provided the public
for review and comment, or to give input, during the evaluation of
monitoring results or other data that provide a basis for decisions
regarding grazing use or management.
Section 4130.7-1 Payment of Fees
The proposed rule would amend this section by revising the grazing
fee formula, adding a provision for phasing in the grazing fee over the
years 1995 through 1997, providing for an adjustment of the fee formula
in the event separate final regulations prescribing qualification
criteria for an incentive-based fee are not completed, and providing
for a 25 percent cap on changes in the calculated fee from year to
year. The section would be further amended to make clear the definition
of a billing unit, to provide for assessing a surcharge for the public
landlord's share of authorized subleasing associated with Federal land
grazing, to provide for multi-year billing in specified circumstances
to reduce administrative workload associated with small grazing
allotments, to clarify that grazing use that occurs before a bill is
paid is an unauthorized use and may be dealt with under the settlement
and penalties sections of these regulations and may result in the
limitation of flexibility authorized under an allotment management
plan, and to provide for free use where the primary objective of
livestock use is to benefit resource conditions or management, such as
scientific study or the control of noxious weeds. The advance notice of
proposed rulemaking proposed to phase in the grazing fee over the
grazing years of 1994 through 1996. This proposed rule would also phase
in the revised grazing fee, but the initial phase would begin with
grazing year 1995.
The proposed amendment of the grazing fee formula has been prepared
in cooperation with the Forest Service. In reviewing potential
modification of the grazing fee formula the BLM and Forest Service
identified criteria by which any new fee proposal should be measured.
Those criteria are:
1. The fee charged for livestock grazing should approximate market
value. Using market value helps assure that the public receives a fair
return for the private use of publicly owned resources.
2. The fee should not cause unreasonable impacts on communities
that are not economically diverse or to livestock operations that are
greatly dependent on public land forage.
3. The grazing fee should recover a reasonable amount of government
costs involved in administering grazing permits and leases and should
provide increased funds to improve ecological conditions.
4. The fee system should be understandable and reasonably easy to
administer.
The present fee system, in effect since 1978, has been
controversial and criticized for the wide disparity between rates
charged for livestock grazing on private lands and those charged for
Federal lands. While the forage value in the private market increased
substantially over time, the Federal grazing fee has decreased during
some periods or had relatively small increases.
The proposed fee system would use a base value adjusted annually by
the change in the private grazing land lease rate. The proposed base
value was derived by using data from two different studies. The first
study is the 1966 Western Livestock Grazing Survey (WLGS), where over
10,000 individuals were interviewed to determine the costs of operating
on Federal lands, as compared to operating on private land leases.
Information on the private grazing land lease rate was also collected.
The WLGS determined that the westwide value for grazing Federal lands
equalled $1.23 per AUM for 1966. This value is updated to a 1991 base
value of $3.25 per AUM by multiplying $1.23 by 264, the percentage
change in the private grazing land lease rate from the base years 1964-
1968, and dividing by 100.
The second study is the 1983 appraisal of the value of grazing on
the BLM and Forest Service lands in the 16 western States. This
appraisal involved interviews with approximately 100,000 persons and
generated 7,246 usable records of fees paid for livestock grazing. The
appraisal divided the 16 western States into 6 pricing regions.
The appraisers concluded that the value of public land grazing
ranged from $4.68 per head month (equivalent to BLM's AUM for billing
purposes) in the southwest pricing region to $8.55 per head month in
the northern plains pricing region. In 1992, the appraisal was updated,
based on additional data for private grazing lease rates gathered
during 1991. The update found no change in the $4.68 per head month
value of grazing in the southwest pricing region, and found an increase
to $10.26 per head month in the northern plains pricing region. The
$4.68 appraisal value is the lowest of the appraised values and is
considered a reasonable amount on which to base a westwide fee. Using
the lowest of the appraised values would minimize the impact on
livestock grazing permittee.
This proposed rule would establish a new base value of $3.96 per
AUM by averaging the results of the two studies ($3.25 plus $4.68
divided by 2 equals $3.96). By averaging these two values the base
value is established in consideration of the economic value of the
forage and costs of production. After an initial phase-in period, the
fee would be adjusted annually by multiplying the base value by the
Forage Value Index (FVI), which reflects the change in the private
grazing land lease rate in the 17 western States weighted by the number
of public AUMs sold in each State. The private grazing land lease rate
estimate is prepared annually by the USDA, National Agricultural
Statistics Service. Although the FVI does not explicitly use indices
based on production costs or on the value of the livestock produced,
both of these factors influence the prices paid for grazing livestock
on private lands and, therefore, are implicit in the forage value
index.
The definition of the FVI in this proposed rule has been changed
from the definition presented in the advance notice of proposed
rulemaking. In the advance notice the FVI was to be calculated by
dividing the prior year weighted average AUM price on private grazing
lands in the 17 western States by the weighted average AUM price on
private grazing lands in the 17 western States during the years 1990
through 1992. That method would have established 1990 through 1992 as
the base years from which the Federal grazing fee would be indexed.
Beginning in 1994, the FVI would have been used to calculate the
Federal grazing fee under the advance proposal. In this proposed rule,
the concept of the FVI has been retained but the FVI base year would be
1996 and the FVI would not be used to calculate the Federal grazing fee
until 1997.
The intent of this change in the FVI base year is to address the
concern that the FVI calculation proposed in the advance notice would
have resulted in adjusting the Federal grazing fee by several years'
worth of change in private grazing land lease rates, resulting in an
uncertain and possibly significant jump or drop in the calculated fee.
Under this proposed rule the FVI would first be used in calculating the
1997 grazing fee and would be based on the 1996 private grazing land
lease rates in each of the 17 western States. By definition, the FVI in
the year 1997 would equal one, resulting in a 1997 grazing fee equal to
the base value. In subsequent years the fee would reflect changes from
the 1996 private grazing land lease rates. The Department recognizes
that basing the FVI in a single year, as opposed to the three year
average presented in the advance notice, could result in slightly
greater volatility in the index. However, the Department feels this
potential volatility in the index, given the relative stability in the
private grazing land lease rates and the limitation on annual
fluctuations discussed below, is overshadowed by the need to avoid some
of the uncertainty associated with an FVI based on less current data.
The grazing fee charged in 1994 is $1.98 per AUM. Under this
proposed rule the formula would result in a grazing fee in 1997 of
$3.96. The fee would be phased-in by establishing the 1995 grazing fee
at $2.75, and the 1996 fee at $3.50. Thereafter, except as explained
below, the fee would be calculated by multiplying the $3.96 base value
by the FVI. After the phase-in, the grazing fee would be allowed to
change by no more than 25 percent annually, plus or minus, from the
amount charged the previous year. The phase-in and the 25 percent per
year limit are intended to moderate the impact of fee changes on
livestock operations and ranching communities.
Two provisions have been added to the proposed rule regarding
incentive-based grazing fees. First, the proposed rule provides for a
30 percent reduction in the grazing fee to those permittees and lessees
who meet the applicable eligibility criteria to be established in a
separate rule. Second, the proposed rule provides that if separate
final regulations necessary to implement the incentive-based fee are
not issued prior to the start of grazing fee year 1997, implementation
of the $3.96 base value would be delayed. The Department believes that
a 30 percent reduction in the grazing fee would be a valuable tool in
promoting good stewardship. However, the effectiveness of this
incentive would rest on the criteria for qualification. These criteria
would focus primarily upon those permittees and lessees who agree to
participate in special rangeland improvement programs characterized by
best management practices, the furtherance of resource condition
objectives, and comprehensive monitoring. The Department has not found
general agreement on the criteria necessary to qualify for the fee
reduction and, accordingly, has decided to consider that aspect of the
incentive-based fee through a separate rulemaking. The proposed delay
in implementation of the $3.96 base value, in the event that final rule
on these criteria has not been issued, is intended to demonstrate the
Department's commitment to expeditious implementation of the incentive-
based fee. The Department anticipates that eligibility criteria would
require the permittee or lessee to undertake management practices
beyond those otherwise required by law and regulation to benefit the
ecological health of the public rangelands.
In the absence of completed regulations establishing the criteria
for qualification for the reduced fee, and beginning in the grazing fee
year 1997, a base value of $3.50 would be substituted in the formula.
The $3.50 base value would continue until such time as the incentive-
based fee regulations are completed. This provision would not affect
the phase-in of the fee in the grazing fee years 1995 and 1996, or the
25 percent cap on annual changes in the calculated fee.
The proposed rule would provide for collecting a surcharge for
certain authorized leasing and subleasing activities associated with a
Federal permit or lease attached to base property. It would retain the
provision for legal transfer of base leases and permits and the
pasturing of livestock owned by persons other than the permittee or
lessee.
The initial proposal in the advance notice has been modified to
exclude from the surcharge sons and daughters of permittees or lessees
grazing livestock on public lands as part of an educational or youth
programs pertaining to livestock rangeland management, or when
establishing a livestock herd in anticipation of assuming part or all
of the family ranch operation. This change was made in recognition of
the public concern that the surcharge could unduly restrict
opportunities for young persons learning or entering the livestock
business.
The issue of subleasing or pasturing livestock owned by others in
connection with public land grazing permits or leases has been
controversial and there has been much concern expressed in the West by
the livestock industry and conservation organizations, alike. The
concern is easily understood when one considers that past Federal
grazing fees have been sufficiently low as to present opportunities for
substantial profit when a permittee or lessee pastures another party's
livestock or leases the base property. Also, the short-term nature of
agreements for pasturing livestock owned by persons other than the
permittee or lessee presents less incentive for stewardship of the
land.
In developing an approach to address these concerns the BLM queried
departments responsible for the management of State lands in most of
the western States to determine how they were addressing this issue and
if they were collecting a share of the lease or service fees being
charged. The BLM found that most of the States that allow subleasing or
pasturing of livestock owned by persons other than the permittee or
lessee require the payment of a service fee or surcharge, or a portion
of the amount in excess of the State's rental fee.
Under the proposed rule the Department would recognize two types of
authorized leasing or subleasing. The first is the lease or sublease of
public land grazing privileges associated with the base property. Such
a lease or sublease would be authorized so long as the associated base
property is leased or subleased together with the public land grazing
privileges and the BLM authorized officer approves the arrangement. The
second is a pasturing agreement under which livestock not owned by the
permittee or lessee but under the control of the permittee or lessee is
allowed to graze on the permit or lease area. In order to be
authorized, such a lease or sublease arrangement would require approval
of the BLM authorized officer. Other types of subleasing arrangements
would be unauthorized.
The Department is proposing to charge a surcharge of 20 percent on
all grazing fee billings for the authorized lease or sublease of public
land grazing privileges associated with base property. An analysis of
the costs and prices indicates that a 20 percent surcharge as applied
by the State of New Mexico, the lowest of the States charging for
subleasing, would be appropriate and is consistent with the approach
used by other western States.
The Department also proposes to follow the example of the western
States subleasing charges to establish a surcharge for authorized
leasing or subleasing arrangements constituting pasturing agreements,
as described above. The Department proposes a surcharge of 50 percent
for the forage used in pasturing livestock owned by other than the
permittee or lessee under a BLM permit or lease where the livestock is
under the control of the BLM permittee or lessee. This figure is
comparable to the $1.00 per AUM sublease fee charged by the State of
Utah and would capture the typically larger profit associated with
pasturing livestock. The surcharge would be 70 percent of the grazing
bill when there is both an authorized lease or sublease of grazing
preference and an authorized pasturing agreement. Sons and daughters of
permittees and lessees would be provided with an exemption from the
surcharges under circumstances specified in the rule.
The proposed rule includes a provision for multiple-year billing of
grazing fees. This provision was not included in the advance notice of
proposed rulemaking. It has been added in response to preliminary
analyses of Rangeland Reform '94 that suggested a need to identify
further opportunity for reductions in administrative expense and
staffing needs. The proposed rule would allow the authorized officer to
approve advance billing for up to 5 years where agreed to by the
permittee or lessee and where annual authorized livestock use does not
exceed 200 AUMs. At the end of the billing period or prior to any
termination or transfer of the permit or lease, a separate billing
would be issued to reconcile amounts owed or overpaid as a result of
changes in the grazing fee. This provision focuses on smaller public
land leases that result in disproportionately high administrative
costs. Multiple-year billing would free limited staff and resources to
work on higher priority resource concerns.
The new provisions for free use provide for the authorized officer
to approve free use under limited circumstances. Under this section,
free use could be permitted where the primary objective of authorized
grazing use or conservation use is the management of vegetation to meet
resource objectives other than the production of livestock forage, to
conduct scientific research or administrative studies, or to control
noxious weeds.
Section 4130.7-2 Incentive-Based Grazing Fee Reduction
Existing Secs. 4130.7-2 and 4130.7-3 would be redesignated as
Secs. 4130.7-3 and 4130.7-4, respectively, and a new section 4130.7-2
would be added to provide for the calculation of the incentive-based
grazing fee and the criteria for qualifying for the fee reduction.
This section would provide for a 30 percent reduction in the
grazing fee where the criteria for qualification are met. However, the
criteria for qualification are not included in this proposed rule. The
Department intends to use its best efforts to complete a separate rule
that will establish the criteria prior to the start of the 1996 grazing
fee year, and has reserved a paragraph for the criteria in this
proposed rule.
This section would provide that the incentive-based fee for
qualifying applicants in the grazing year 1996 would be calculated by
multiplying the base value of $3.96 times 0.70 (70 percent). This would
yield a 1996 incentive-based fee of $2.77. Beginning in grazing fee
year 1997, the incentive-based fee would be calculated by multiplying
the base value of $3.96 times the FVI and 0.70. This calculation would
again yield an incentive-based fee of $2.77 for the grazing fee year
1997 because the FVI, by definition, would equal one for grazing fee
year 1997. In subsequent years the incentive-based fee would fluctuate
in keeping with changes in the private grazing land lease rate as
reflected by the FVI. Yearly increases and decreases would be limited
to no more than 25 percent of the incentive-based fee in the prior
year.
This section would include a paragraph reserved for the
qualification criteria that will be developed in a separate rulemaking.
Section 4130.7-4 Service Charge
Section 4130.7-3 would be amended by redesignating the section as
Sec. 4130.7-4, and by adding applications that are made solely for
temporary nonuse or conservation use. The service fee would offset the
costs of processing such applications.
Subpart 4140--Prohibited Acts
Section 4140.1 Prohibited Acts on Public Lands
Paragraph (a)(2) of this section would be amended to end
misunderstandings about approved temporary nonuse and failure to make
substantial use as authorized. Once temporary nonuse is approved, it
becomes an authorized action and is therefore not subject to penalty
action under Sec. 4170.1. Other proposed amendments to this section
would clarify paragraph (b)(1) to establish that the receipt of a
grazing fee bill does not authorize grazing use of the range until the
bill is paid. Paragraph (b)(9) would be amended to make it clear that
the permittee is responsible for controlling livestock so they do not
stray on to ``closed to range'' areas where grazing is prohibited by
local laws, such as ``formally designated agriculture districts'' or
municipalities. To be consistent with the Forest Service this section
would restore two provisions that existed in this subpart prior to
1984. These provisions would make subject to penalty permittee or
lessee violations of the Wild and Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act of
1971, the Endangered Species Act, and Federal or State laws or
regulations concerning pest or animal damage control, and conservation
or protection of natural and cultural resources or environmental
quality when public lands are involved or affected. Under Sec. 4170.1-
3, no action could be taken in response to violations of State and
Federal laws pertaining to pest or animal damage control, and
conservation or protection of natural and cultural resources or
environmental quality unless the permittee or lessee is convicted or
otherwise determined by the appropriate authority to have been in
violation, and there are no outstanding appeals.
Several changes were made in addition to those presented in the
advance notice of proposed rulemaking to enable BLM law enforcement
personnel to assist in protection of authorized use of the public lands
and to clarify the various acts committed against grazing animals. In
addition some changes have been made to make clear that attempted
payment by a check that is not honored by the bank does not constitute
payment and would result in unauthorized use, and to provide for
reclamation of lands, property or resources when damaged by
unauthorized use or actions.
A list of the types of violations of Federal and State laws and
regulations concerning pest or predator control and conservation or
protection of natural and cultural resources or the environment that
would be prohibited acts where public lands are involved or affected
has been added in this proposed rule. This change was made in response
to comments on the advance notice of proposed rulemaking that suggested
that this provision needed to be more explicit.
Subpart 4150--Unauthorized Grazing Use
Section 4150.1 Violations
This section would be reorganized for readability and to add the
requirement that the authorized officer shall determine whether a
violation is nonwillful, willful, or repeated willful to clarify
subsequent sections of the rule.
Section 4150.2 Notice and Order To Remove
This section would be amended to grant the authorized officer
authority and provide for determining if a nonwillful violation is
incidental in nature, and to clarify actions for expedient resolution
of these innocent or unintended trespasses. The ability to close areas
for a period of up to 12 months to specified class and kinds of
livestock for the sole purpose of abating unauthorized use was added in
addition to the changes presented in the advance notice of proposed
rulemaking. Reference to the agents of livestock owners has also been
added. These changes will facilitate the process of identifying and
removing unauthorized livestock from public rangelands.
Section 4150.3 Settlement
This section would be amended to provide guidelines for considering
nonmonetary settlement that waives fees for unintentional incidental
trespasses in a fair manner while preventing needless expense in the
best interest of the public. Key provisions of determination would be:
the operator is not at fault, an insignificant amount of forage is
consumed, no damage occurred, and nonmonetary settlement is in the best
interest of the United States. The method for determining the
settlement amounts would be amended to base the value of forage on the
monthly rate per AUM for pasturing livestock on private, nonirrigated
land in the 17 western States. This section includes changes made in
addition to those presented in the advance notice of proposed
rulemaking to reduce the potential for abuse of discretion by
clarifying when a nonmonetary settlement for nonwillful violations may
be made.
Subpart 4160--Administrative remedies
Section 4160 Administrative Remedies
The proposed rule would amend this section to improve organization,
clarify the process and requirements, and to provide for application of
the Departmental rule located at section 4.21 of this title regarding
full force and effect decisions and petitions for staying the effect of
a decision pending determination on appeal.
Section 4160.1 Proposed Decisions
This section would be amended to provide clarification that a final
decision may be issued without first issuing a proposed decision when
action under paragraph 4110.3-3(b) of this part is necessary to stop
resource damage, or when action is taken under paragraph 4150.2(d) to
close an area to unauthorized grazing use. This proposed amendment does
not limit appeal rights provided in Sec. 4160.3. It would serve to
expedite the decision process where immediate action is necessary.
This section includes changes made in addition to those presented
in the advance notice of proposed rulemaking to clarify, primarily,
what information must be contained in a proposed decision.
Section 4160.3 Final Decisions
This section would be amended to clarify the process for filing an
appeal and a petition for a stay of the decision. Under the proposed
rule, decisions would be implemented at the end of the 30-day appeal
period except where a petition for stay has been filed with the Office
of Hearings and Appeals, in which case the Office of Hearings and
Appeals has, under Sec. 4.21 of this title, a period of 45 days from
the end of the appeal period in which to decide on the petition for
stay. This process would temporarily stay the decision up to 75 days if
a stay is not granted. A stay, if granted, would suspend the effect of
the decision pending final disposition of the appeal. Under the present
grazing administration appeals process, decisions other than those
pertaining to emergency action are automatically stayed upon the timely
filing of an appeal. This has resulted in delays of up to two years
before necessary corrective action can be taken.
This proposal would protect the public's rights to an appeal and
would provide a method for staying decisions where the Office of
Hearings and Appeals determines it would be appropriate to do so. At
the same time this section would prevent unnecessary delays in action.
The advance notice stated that when no protest is received on a
proposed decision it shall become the final decision and will be
appealable for a period of 30 days. Clarification of the wording
relating to this point in the advance notice of proposed rulemaking has
been made in this proposed rule.
The proposed revisions would make 43 CFR part 4100 more consistent
with the Department's Sec. 4.21 of this title. Several changes were
made in addition to those presented in the advance notice of proposed
rulemaking to make clear how the Departmental rule would apply.
The proposed rule also clarifies the amount of grazing use that
would be allowable when a decision has been stayed by the Office of
Hearings and Appeals or by order of a Federal Court. Where an appellant
had no authorized grazing use the preceding year, the authorized
grazing use would be required to be consistent with the decision
pending a final determination on appeal. Appellants affected by this
provision would include persons that are applicants for permit or lease
transfers. Where a decision proposes to change the amount of authorized
grazing use, the permitted grazing use would remain at no more than the
appellant's previously determined permitted use during the time an
appeal is pending. Reference to ephemeral use has been added to the
amendments included in the advance notice of proposed rulemaking which
pertain to levels of use pending determination on appeal. This
amendment would provide for making decisions immediately effective when
it is necessary to protect the rangeland resources or to facilitate
abatement of unauthorized use by closing an area to grazing use under
sections 4110.3-3 and 4150.2 of this part.
Section 4160.4 Appeals
This section would be amended to make it clear that any party whose
interest is adversely affected may appeal the final decision of the
authorized officer. The amendment would also provide instructions
regarding the filing of appeals and petitions to stay decisions. When a
final decision is issued, all parties whose interests have been
adversely affected may file an appeal and a petition for stay of the
decision within 30 days from the date of receipt of a final decision,
or 30 days from the date a proposed decision becomes final in the
absence of a protest. Under the process of Sec. 4.21 of this title, the
Office of Hearings and Appeals would be allowed 45 days from the end of
the appeal period to review the petition and issue a determination. A
decision would not be in effect during the consideration of a petition
for stay unless it was made effective for reasons under Sec. 4110.3-
3(b) or 4150.2(d) of this subpart. The determination of who qualifies
as an affected party is made by OHA.
This section includes changes made in addition to those presented
in the advance notice of proposed rulemaking, including a requirement
for prompt transmittal by the authorized officer of appeals and
petitions for stay to the Office of Hearings and Appeals.
Subpart 4170--Penalties
Section 4170.1-1 Penalty for Violations
This section would be amended to provide for a penalty for
unauthorized leasing and subleasing in the amount of two times the
private grazing land lease rate for the 17 western States as supplied
annually by the National Agricultural Statistics Service, and all
reasonable expenses incurred by the United States in detecting,
investigating, and resolving the violation. This penalty would be more
consistent with the penalties provided for unauthorized use and would
be simpler to administer than the penalty provided in the existing
regulations. This provision was not included in the advance notice of
proposed rulemaking.
Section 4170.1-2 Failure to Use
This section would be amended to clarify the consultation
requirements when considering taking action to cancel, in whole or in
part, a permit or lease in response to failure to use, and to clarify
that the failure to make substantial grazing use as authorized means
the failure to make active grazing use as approved on a grazing use
authorization. Permittees and lessees would be required to apply and
receive approval for nonuse or conservation use. This section also
would include failure to maintain or use water base property in the
grazing operation. The failure to make authorized use may result in
monitoring studies providing false information which could cause
decisions to overobligate the forage resource of the rangeland. The
failure to apply for conservation use or nonuse prevents the BLM from
having an opportunity to determine if conservation use or nonuse is in
conformance with applicable plans and if it will aid in achieving
resource condition objectives. Review by the authorized officer of
applications for nonuse is also necessary to determine if forage left
unused should be allocated to another party through a temporary permit.
Finally, water property is crucial to the proper use and operation of
livestock grazing in water base areas. If base property waters are not
kept in serviceable condition, livestock are forced to overuse the
service areas of the remaining waters.
Section 4170.1-3 Bald Eagle Protection Act and Endangered Species Act
The proposed rule would amend this section to include Federal or
State predator animal and pest control and protection of the natural
environment, wild free-roaming horses and burros, natural and cultural
resources, or resource conservation regulations or laws. The heading of
this section would be amended to reflect the change in scope. These
proposed amendments are also made in the section on prohibited acts,
Sec. 4140(b) of this part, and discussed earlier. The proposed
amendments would adopt language of the grazing administration
regulations that existed before 1984.
Section 4170.2-2 Penal Provisions Under the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act
The proposed rule would amend this section to adopt the alternative
fines provisions of title 18 U.S.C. 3571, current language that has
been enacted since enactment of FLPMA to strengthen the protection of
natural or cultural resources.
Subpart 4180--National Requirements and Standards and Guidelines for
Grazing Administration
This subpart would be added to establish national requirements for
the administration of grazing on public lands. It would also include a
provision for the development of State or regional standards and
guidelines for grazing administration. These requirements, standards,
and guidelines are proposed to establish clear direction for managing
rangelands in a manner that would achieve or maintain ecological
health, including the protection of habitats of threatened or
endangered species and candidate species, and the protection of water
quality.
Section 4180.1 National Requirements for Grazing Administration
This new section would establish national requirements for grazing
administration on public rangelands. The national requirements would
include the requirement for maintaining or achieving healthy, properly
functioning ecosystems and riparian areas and instituting measures to
further the purposes of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)
and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). All
grazing-related actions on public lands would be required to conform
with the national requirements. Where the national requirements are not
being met, the authorized officer would be required to take corrective
action prior to the start of the next grazing season. This would
include actions such as reducing livestock stocking rates, adjusting
the season or duration of livestock use, or modifying or relocating
range improvements.
Nothing in the national requirements relating to riparian systems
would be construed to create a water right based on Federal law.
Section 4180.2 Standards and Guidelines for Grazing Administration
This new section would establish the requirements for the
development of standards and guidelines, and guiding principles for the
development of standards and guidelines for grazing administration on
public lands. All grazing related actions within the affected area
would be required to conform with the standards and guidelines. The
geographical area to be covered by the standards and guidelines
developed pursuant to this section would be determined by the BLM State
Director. Standards and guidelines would be required to be developed
for an entire State, or for an ecoregion including portions of more
than one State, except where the geophysical or vegetal character of an
area is unique and the health of the rangelands could not be ensured by
using standards and guidelines developed for a larger geographical
area. The preparation of standards and guidelines would involve public
participation and consultation with multiple resource advisory
councils, Indian tribes, and Federal agencies responsible for the
management of lands within the affected area. Public participation
would include the involvement of the interested public.
The proposed rule would establish guiding principles to be
addressed in the development of standards and guidelines. The guiding
principles for standards to be developed pertain to the minimum soil,
water and vegetation conditions required for rangeland ecosystem
health. All standards for grazing administration would be required to
address factors relating to soil stability and watershed function, the
distribution of nutrients and energy, and the recovery mechanisms of
plant communities and riparian functioning conditions. The proposed
guiding principles for the development of guidelines for grazing
administration pertain to the types of management actions necessary to
ensure that the standards can be met. Included in these guiding
principles are the requirements that State or regional guidelines
address grazing practices to be implemented to benefit threatened or
endangered species and candidate species, and to maintain, restore or
enhance water quality; critical periods of plant growth or regrowth and
the need for rest from livestock grazing; situations in which
continuous season-long grazing, or use of ephemeral rangelands, could
be authorized; the allowable types and location of certain range
improvements and management practices; and utilization or residual
vegetation limits.
The proposed rule provides that where State or regional standards
and guidelines are not developed within 18 months of the effective date
of the proposed rule, fallback standards and guidelines included in the
text of the rule would be implemented. The fallback standards address
the same factors relating to soil stability and watershed function, the
distribution of nutrients and energy, the recovery mechanisms of plant
communities, and riparian functioning condition as provided for under
the guiding principles. However, the fallback standards include more
detail as to the conditions that would exist under each of the factors
when rangelands are in healthy, functional condition. Under the
fallback standards, rangelands would be measured against benchmarks for
the presence and development of top soils, evidence of active soil
erosion, distribution of plants and nutrients in both space and time,
distribution of plant litter, rooting throughout the available soil
profile, the growth forms of plants, plant vigor, the presence of a
range of age classes for the vegetation on site, presence and
development of flood plains, and channel sinuosity, width-to-depth
ratio, and gradient in relation to the landscape setting. Individual
sites may be in healthy, functional condition even though they do not
meet all of these measures; however, the Department feels that
generally failing to meet the benchmarks across an area the size of a
typical grazing pasture or allotment would be reliable evidence that
the specific area is not in healthy, functional condition.
Fallback guidelines for grazing administration would restrict
management practices to those activities that assist in or do not
hinder meeting certain legal mandates and achieving or maintaining
rangeland health. The fallback guidelines address the same types of
actions and practices that are considered under the guiding principles
for the development of State or regional guidelines, but present these
actions and practices as guidance for management. The fallback
guidelines include the requirement that grazing management practices be
implemented that assist in or do not hinder the recovery of threatened
or endangered species, or assist in, or do not hinder, preventing the
listing of species identified as candidates for threatened or
endangered species. The fallback guidelines would also require that
grazing practices be implemented that would assist in attaining and
protecting water quality consistent with the Clean Water Act. Other
fallback guidelines would require that grazing schedules include
periods of rest during times of critical plant growth or regrowth,
limit the authorization of continuous season-long grazing to instances
where it has been demonstrated to be consistent with achieving or
maintaining rangeland health and meeting established resource
objectives. Spring developments or other projects affecting water would
be required to be designed to protect the ecological values of the
affected sites. Livestock management practices or management facilities
would generally be required to be located outside of riparian-wetland
areas, and where standards for these areas are not being met, the
facilities could be removed or relocated, or the management practices
modified. The fallback guidelines would also require the establishment
and application of utilization or residual vegetation targets.
Fallback standards and guidelines could be tailored by the BLM
State Director better to fit local ecosystems and management practices.
Modifications of the fallback standards and guidelines would require
the approval of the Secretary.
Standards and guidelines would be adhered to in the development of
grazing-related portions of activity plans, and would be reflected in
permits and leases as terms and conditions. Where data, including field
observations, found acceptable to the authorized officer indicate that
the standards and guidelines are not being met, the authorized officer
would be required to take appropriate action, such as adjusting
numbers, seasons, or duration of use by livestock, or modifying other
management practices or range improvements, as soon as practicable but
not later than the start of the next grazing year. Standards and
guidelines would not be implemented prior to approval by the Secretary.
The principal author of this proposed rule is George W. Ramey,
Range Conservationist, BLM Washington Office (WO) Division of Rangeland
Resources, assisted by other members of the WO Division of Rangeland
Resources, numerous BLM field office personnel, personnel from the
Washington Office and various field offices of the Forest Service, and
Mark W. Stiles of the BLM WO Division of Legislation and Regulatory
Management.
The BLM and the Forest Service, as a cooperating agency, are
preparing a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) on rangeland
reform as announced in the Federal Register on July 13, 1993, and
August 13, 1993. A notice of availability of the draft EIS will be
published in the Federal Register. The draft EIS will invite public
comment. Following the comment period on the draft EIS, a final EIS
will be developed.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866.
The Department has prepared an initial Small Entities Flexibility
Assessment analyzing the economic impact of this rulemaking on small
entities pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605 et
seq.). The initial assessment found that although some marginally
profitable small livestock businesses that are highly dependent on
public land grazing could experience significant economic impacts, most
small businesses, organizations, and governments would not experience
significant economic effects. The initial assessment is available at
the address provided above.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12630,
the Attorney General Guidelines, Department of the Interior Guidelines,
and the Attorney General Supplemental Guidelines to determine the
takings implications of the proposed rule if it were promulgated as
currently drafted. Because the relevant statutes and regulations
governing grazing on Federal land and case law interpreting said
statutes and regulations have consistently recognized grazing on
Federal land as a revocable license and not a property interest, it has
been determined that this proposed rule does not present a risk of a
taking.
The Department has certified to the Office of Management and Budget
that these regulations meet the applicable standards provided in
sections 2(a) and 2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778.
The collections of information contained in this rule have been
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 44 U.S.C.
3501, et seq. and assigned clearance numbers: 1004-0005, 1004-0019,
1004-0020, 1004-0041, 1004-0047, 1004-0051, and 1004-0068.
Public reporting burden for the information collections are as
follows: clearance number 1004-0005 is estimated to average 0.33 hours
per response, clearance number 1004-0019 is estimated to average 0.33
hours per response, clearance number 1004-0020 is estimated to average
0.33 hours per response, clearance number 1004-0041 is estimated to
average 0.25 hours per response, clearance number 1004-0047 is
estimated to average 0.25 hours per response, clearance number 1004-
0051 is estimated to average 0.3 hours per response, and clearance
number 1004-0068 is estimated to average 0.17 hours per response,
including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this
burden estimate or any other aspect of these collections of
information, including suggestions for reducing the burden to the
Information Collection Clearance Officer (873), Bureau of Land
Management, Washington, DC 20240, and the Office of Management and
Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, 1004-0005, 1004-0019, 1004-0020,
1004-0041, 1004-0047, 1004-0051, or 1004-0068, Washington, DC 20503.
List of Subjects
43 CFR Part 4
Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Claims, Equal
access to justice, Government contracts, Grazing lands, Indians,
Interior Department, Lawyers, Mines, Penalties, Public lands, Surface
mining
43 CFR Part 1780
Administrative practice and procedure, Advisory committees, Land
Management Bureau, Public lands
43 CFR Part 4100
Administrative practice and procedure, Grazing lands, Livestock,
Penalties, Range management, Reporting and record keeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble and under the authority of
43 U.S.C. 1201, the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix),
section 2 of the Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1950 (5 U.S.C. Appendix),
the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (43 U.S.C. 315 et seq.), the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and
the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.),
it is proposed to amend part 4 of subtitle A of title 43 and part 1780,
group 1700, subchapter A and part 4100, group 4100, subchapter D of
chapter II of subtitle B of title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations
as set forth below:
PART 4--DEPARTMENT HEARINGS AND APPEALS PROCEDURES
1. The authority for 43 CFR part 4 continues to read as follows:
Authority: R.S. 2478, as amended, 43 U.S.C. sec. 1201, unless
otherwise noted.
Subpart E--Special Rules Applicable to Public Land Hearings and
Appeals
2. The authority citation for subpart E of part 4 continues to read
as follows:
Authority: Sections 4.470 to 4.478 also issued under authority
of sec. 2, 48 Stat. 1270; 43 U.S.C. 315a.
3. Section 4.477 is amended by revising the heading, removing
paragraph (a), removing the paragraph designation from paragraph (b),
and revising the first sentence of the paragraph to read as follows:
Sec. 4.477 Effect of decision during appeal.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Sec. 4.21(a) of this part and
consistent with the provisions of Sec. 4160.3 of this title, the
authorized officer may provide in his decision that it shall be in full
force and effect pending decision on an appeal therefrom. * * *
PART 1780--COOPERATIVE RELATIONS
4. The authority citation for part 1780 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. Appendix I, 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.
Subpart 1784--Advisory Committees
Sec. 1784.0-5 [Amended]
5. Section 1784.0-5 is amended by removing from paragraph (d) the
term ``Authorized representative'' and adding in its place the words
``Designated Federal officer''.
6. Section 1784.2-1 is amended by removing paragraph (b),
redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (b), and revising the newly
redesignated paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 1784.2-1 Composition.
* * * * *
(b) Individuals shall qualify to serve on an advisory committee
because their education, training, or experience enables them to give
informed and objective advice regarding an industry, discipline, or
interest specified in the committee's charter; they have demonstrated
experience or knowledge of the geographical area under the purview of
the advisory committee; and they demonstrated a commitment to
collaborate in seeking solutions to resource management issues.
7. Section 1784.2-2 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), and
(b), and by adding a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 1784.2-2 Avoidance of conflict of interest.
(a) * * *
(1) Holders of grazing permits and leases may serve on advisory
committees, including multiple resource advisory councils, and may
serve on rangeland resource teams and technical review teams;
* * * * *
(b) No advisory committee member, including members of multiple
resource advisory committees, and no member of a rangeland resource
team or technical review team, shall participate in any matter in which
the member has a direct interest.
(c) Members of multiple resource advisory councils shall, at a
minimum, be required to disclose their direct or indirect interest in
Federal grazing permits or leases administered by the Bureau of Land
Management. For the purposes of this paragraph, indirect interest
includes holdings of a spouse or a dependent child.
8. Section 1784.3 is amended by removing paragraph (a), (b)(3),
(b)(4), (b)(5), (c), (d) and (g); redesignating paragraphs (b)(1) and
(b)(2) as paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2), respectively; adding
introductory text to newly redesignated paragraph (a); removing from
newly redesignated paragraph (a)(1) the word ``district'' and adding in
its place the words ``geographical area''; removing paragraph (b) and
redesignating paragraphs (e) and (f) as paragraphs (b) and (c),
respectively; removing the words ``his authorized representative'' from
newly redesignated paragraph (c) and adding in its place the words
``the designated Federal officer''; and adding a new paragraph (d) to
read as follows:
Sec. 1784.3 Member service.
(a) Appointments to advisory committees shall be for 2-year terms
unless otherwise specified in the charter or the appointing document.
Terms of service normally coincide with duration of the committee
charter. Members may be appointed to additional terms at the discretion
of the authorized appointing official.
* * * * *
(d) For purposes of compensation, members of advisory committees
shall be reimbursed for travel and per diem expenses when on advisory
committee business, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5703. Except for members
of a multiple resource advisory committee who are also resource or
technical review team members as provided in Secs. 1784.6-2 and 1784.6-
3, no reimbursement shall be made for expenses incurred by teams or
individuals selected by established committees for the purpose of
providing input.
9. Sections 1784.5-1 and 1784.5-2 are amended by removing the term
``authorized representative'' and adding in its place the term
``designated Federal officer'', and removing the word ``his'' and
adding in its place the word ``the''.
Secs. 1784.6-4 and 1784.6-5 [Removed]
10. Sections 1784.6-4 and 1784.6-5 are removed.
11. Section 1784.6 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1784.6 Membership and functions of multiple resource advisory
councils, rangeland resource teams, and technical review teams.
12. Section 1784.6-1 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1784.6-1 Multiple resource advisory councils.
(a) One multiple resource advisory council shall be established for
each Bureau of Land Management administrative district except when the
relevant Bureau of Land Management State Director determines one or
more of the following conditions exist:
(1) There is insufficient interest in participation to ensure that
membership can be fairly balanced in terms of the points of view
represented and the functions to be performed;
(2) The location of the public lands with respect to the population
of users and other interested parties precludes effective
participation; or
(3) The configuration and character of the public lands and
resources, and the juxtaposition of these lands and resources to
affected communities, are such that a separate multiple resource
advisory council for each Bureau of Land Management district in which
the lands are situated is not the most effective means for obtaining
consensual advice for the management of ecosystems and resources
present, in which case a multiple resource advisory council may be
established to correspond with ecoregion boundaries.
The Governor of the affected States or existing multiple resource
advisory councils may petition the Secretary to establish a multiple
resource advisory council for a specified Bureau of Land Management
resource area.
(b) A multiple resource advisory council advises the Bureau of Land
Management official to whom it reports regarding the preparation,
amendment and implementation of land use plans for public lands and
resources within its area. Except for the purposes of long-range
planning and the establishment of resource management priorities, a
multiple resource advisory council shall not provide advice on the
allocation and expenditure of funds. A multiple resource advisory
council shall not provide advice regarding personnel actions.
(c) The Secretary or designee shall appoint 15 members to serve on
each multiple resource advisory council. The Secretary or designee
shall appoint at least one elected State, county or local government
official to each council. An individual may not serve concurrently on
more than one multiple resource advisory council.
(1) 5 members of each council shall be appointed from nominees who:
(i) Hold Federal grazing permits or leases within the area for
which the council is organized;
(ii) Represent interests associated with transportation or rights-
of-way;
(iii) Represent developed outdoor recreation, off-highway vehicle
users, or commercial recreation activities;
(iv) Represent timber harvest; or
(v) Represent energy and mineral development.
(2) 5 members of each council shall be appointed from nominees
representing:
(i) Nationally or regionally recognized environmental
organizations;
(ii) Dispersed recreational activities;
(iii) Archeological and historical interests; or
(iv) Nationally or regionally recognized wild horse and burro
interest groups.
(3) 5 members of each council shall be appointed, except as
provided in paragraph (c) of this section, from nominees that:
(i) Hold State, county or local elected office;
(ii) Are employed by the State agency responsible for the
management of fish and wildlife;
(iii) Are employed by the State agency responsible for the
management of water quality;
(iv) Are employed by the State agency responsible for water
allocations or the establishment of priorities for use of ground water;
(v) Are employed by the State agency responsible for the management
of State lands;
(vi) Represent Indian tribes within or adjacent to the area for
which the council is organized;
(vii) Are employed as academicians in natural resource management
or the natural sciences; or
(viii) Represent the affected public-at-large.
(4) In appointing members of a multiple resource advisory council
from the 3 categories set forth in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and
(c)(3) of this section, the Secretary or designee shall provide for
balanced and broad representation from within each category.
(d) In making appointments to multiple resource advisory councils
the Secretary shall consider nominations made by the Governor of the
State or States affected and nominations received in response to public
calls for nominations pursuant to Sec. 1784.4-1. Persons interested in
serving on multiple resource advisory councils may nominate themselves.
All nominations shall be accompanied by letters of reference from
interests or organizations to be represented that are located within
the area for which the specific council is organized.
(e) Persons appointed to multiple resource advisory councils shall
attend a course of instruction in the management of rangeland
ecosystems that has been approved by the responsible Bureau of Land
Management State Director.
(f) A multiple resource advisory council shall meet at the call of
the designated Federal officer and elect their own officers. The
designated Federal officer shall attend all meetings of the council.
(g) At least 3 council members from each of the 3 categories of
interest from which appointments are made pursuant to paragraph (c) of
this section must be present to constitute an official meeting of the
council. Formal recommendations shall require agreement of at least 3
council members from each of the 3 categories of interest from which
appointments are made. Requests for Secretarial review provided for in
paragraph (h) of this section shall require agreement of the 15 council
members.
(h) Where the multiple resource advisory council becomes concerned
that its advice is being arbitrarily disregarded, the council may
request that the Secretary respond directly to such concerns within 60
days of receipt. Such a request can be made only upon the agreement of
all council members. The Secretary's response shall not constitute a
decision on the merits of any issue that is or might become the subject
of an administrative appeal, and shall not be appealable.
(i) Administrative support for a multiple resource advisory council
shall be provided by the office of the designated Federal officer.
13. A new Sec. 1784.6-2 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 1784.6-2 Rangeland resource teams.
Multiple resource advisory councils may form rangeland resource
teams for the purposes of providing local level input and serving as
fact-finding teams in response to a petition from local citizens or on
the motion of the council. Rangeland resource teams provide input and
recommendations to the multiple resource advisory council on concerns
pertaining to grazing administration on public lands within the area
for which the rangeland resource team is formed, not to exceed the
geographical area or scope of management actions for which the multiple
resource advisory council provides advice.
(a) Rangeland resource teams shall consist of 5 members selected by
the multiple resource advisory council. Membership shall include 2
persons holding Federal grazing permits or leases within the area for
which input is sought and who have resided within the jurisdiction of
the rangeland resource team for at least two years prior to their
selection, 1 representative of the local public-at-large who has
resided within the jurisdiction of the rangeland resource team for at
least two years prior to selection who is not a Federal grazing
permittee or lessee, 1 representative of a nationally or regionally
recognized environmental organization who is not a Federal grazing
permittee or lessee, and 1 representative of national, regional or
local wildlife or recreation interests who is not a Federal grazing
permittee or lessee. At least one rangeland resource team member must
also be a member of the multiple resource advisory council. Persons may
qualify for selection as rangeland resource team members by virtue of
their knowledge or experience of the lands, resources, and communities
that fall within the area for which they are formed. Nominations for
membership shall be accompanied by letters of recommendation from local
interests which the nominee will be representing.
(b) Members of rangeland resource teams shall attend a course of
instruction in the management of rangeland ecosystems that has been
approved by the responsible Bureau of Land Management State Director.
(c) Established rangeland resource teams shall remain intact until
such time as they are terminated by the multiple resource advisory
council, or until the charter of the multiple resource advisory council
expires.
(d) Rangeland resource teams shall have opportunities to raise any
matter of concern with the multiple resource advisory council and to
request that the multiple resource advisory council form a technical
review team pursuant to Sec. 1784.6-3 to conduct fact-finding and to
prepare options for the council's consideration.
14. A new Sec. 1784.6-3 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 1784.6-3 Technical review teams.
(a) A multiple resource advisory council may establish, on an as
needed basis, a technical review team in response to a petition of an
involved rangeland resource team or on their own motion. Technical
review teams may also be established by a rangeland resource team
chartered as an advisory committee. The function of technical review
teams shall be limited to tasks assigned by the parent advisory
committee relating to fact finding within the geographical area and
scope of management actions for which the parent advisory committee
provides advice.
(b) Members of technical review teams shall be selected by the
multiple resource advisory council on the basis of their knowledge of
resource management or their familiarity with the specific issues for
which the technical review team has been formed. The technical review
team shall include at least 1 member of the parent advisory committee.
(c) Technical review teams shall terminate upon completion of the
task assigned by the parent advisory committee.
PART 4100--GRAZING ADMINISTRATION--EXCLUSIVE OF ALASKA
15. The authority citation for part 4100 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 43 U.S.C. 315, 315a-315r, 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq., 43
U.S.C. 1901 et seq., 43 U.S.C. 1181d.
Subpart 4100--Grazing Administration--Exclusive of Alaska, General
16. Section 4100.0-2 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 4100.0-2 Objectives.
The objectives of these regulations are: to promote the orderly
use, improvement and development of the public lands; to preserve their
resources from destruction and unnecessary injury; to maintain the
public values provided by open spaces and integral ecosystems; to
enhance the productivity of public lands for multiple use purposes by
preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration; to stabilize the western
livestock industry and dependent communities; and to provide for the
inventory and categorization of public lands on the basis of range
conditions and trends. These objectives shall be realized in a manner
that is consistent with land use plans, multiple use, sustained yield,
environmental values, economic and other objectives stated in 43 CFR
part 1720, subpart 1725; the Taylor Grazing Act of June 28, 1934, as
amended (43 U.S.C. 315, 315a-315r); section 102 of the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and the
Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.).
17. Section 4100.0-5 is amended by removing the definition of
``Affected interests'' ``Grazing preference'', and ``Subleasing'';
revising the definitions of ``Active use'', ``Actual use'', ``Allotment
management plan (AMP)'', ``Consultation, cooperation and
coordination'', ``Grazing lease'', ``Grazing permit'', ``Land use
plan'', ``Range improvement'', Suspension'', and ``Utilization''; and
by adding in alphabetical order the definitions of ``Activity plan'',
``Affiliate'', ``Conservation use'', ``Grazing preference or
preference'', ``Interested public'', ``Permitted use'', ``Temporary
nonuse'', and ``Unauthorized leasing and subleasing'' to read as
follows:
Sec. 4100.0-5 Definitions
* * * * *
Active use means the current authorized use, including livestock
grazing and conservation use. Active use may constitute a portion, or
all, of permitted use. Active use does not include temporary nonuse or
suspended use of forage within all or a portion of an allotment.
Actual use means where, how many, what kind or class of livestock,
and how long livestock graze on an allotment, or on a portion or
pasture of an allotment.
* * * * *
Activity plan means a plan for managing a resource use or value to
achieve specific objectives. For example, an allotment management plan
is an activity plan for managing livestock grazing use to improve or
maintain rangeland conditions.
Affiliate means an entity or person that controls or has the power
to control a permittee or lessee. The term ``control'' means any one or
a combination of the following relationships:
(1) With regard to an entity, based on instruments of ownership or
voting securities, owning of record in excess of 50 percent of the
entity, or having any other relationship which gives a person authority
directly or indirectly to determine the manner in which the entity
conducts grazing operations;
(2) Having any other relationship which gives a person authority
directly or indirectly to determine the manner in which an applicant,
permittee or lessee conducts grazing operations; or
(3) Presumptively in the following relationships, unless a person
can demonstrate that he does not in fact have the authority directly or
indirectly to determine the manner in which the relevant grazing
operation is conducted: being an officer, director, or general partner
of the entity; having the ability to commit the financial or real
property assets or working resources of the entity; or based on
instruments of ownership or voting securities, owning of record 10
through 50 percent of an entity.
* * * * *
Allotment management plan (AMP) means a documented program
developed as an activity plan that focuses on, and contains the
necessary instructions for, the management of livestock grazing on
specified public lands to meet resource condition, sustained yield,
multiple use, economic and other objectives.
* * * * *
Conservation use means an activity, excluding livestock grazing,
for purposes of:
(1) Protecting the land and its resources from destruction or
unnecessary injury;
(2) Improving rangeland conditions; or
(3) Enhancing resource values, uses, or functions.
Consultation, cooperation, and coordination means an interactive
process for obtaining advice, or exchanging opinions on the
development, revision or termination of allotment management plans or
other activity plans affecting the administration of grazing on public
lands, from other agencies and affected permittee(s) or lessee(s),
landowners involved, advisory committees where established, any State
having lands or responsible for managing resources within the area and
other interested public.
* * * * *
Grazing lease means a document authorizing use of the public lands
outside an established grazing district. Grazing leases specify all
authorized use including livestock grazing, suspended use, and
conservation use. Leases specify the total number of AUMs apportioned.
Grazing permit means a document authorizing use of the public lands
within an established grazing district. Grazing permits specify all
authorized use including livestock grazing, suspended use, and
conservation use. Permits specify the total number of AUMs apportioned.
Grazing preference or preference means a superior or priority
position against others for the purpose of receiving a grazing permit
or lease. This priority is attached to base property owned or
controlled by the permittee or lessee.
Interested public means an individual, group or organization that
has submitted a written request to the authorized officer to be
provided an opportunity to be involved in the decisionmaking process
for the management of livestock grazing on specific grazing allotments
or has submitted written comments to the authorized officer regarding
the management of livestock grazing on a specific allotment.
Land use plan means a resource management plan or management
framework plan. These plans are developed through public participation
in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 and establish management direction for resource
uses of public lands.
* * * * *
Permitted use means the forage allocated by, or under the guidance
of, an applicable land use plan for livestock grazing in an allotment
under a permit or lease and is expressed in AUMs.
Range improvement means an authorized physical modification or
treatment which is designed to improve production of forage; change
vegetation composition; control patterns of use; provide water;
stabilize soil and water conditions; restore, protect and improve the
condition of rangeland ecosystems; or provide habitat for livestock,
wild horses and burros, and fish and wildlife. The term includes, but
is not limited to, structures, treatment projects, and use of
mechanical devices or modifications achieved through mechanical means.
* * * * *
Suspension means the temporary withholding from active use, through
a decision issued by the authorized officer or by agreement, of part or
all of the permitted use in a grazing permit or lease.
Temporary nonuse means the authorized withholding, on an annual
basis, of all or a portion of permitted livestock use in response to a
request of the permittee or lessee.
* * * * *
Unauthorized leasing and subleasing means:
(1) The assignment of base property and the associated Federal
grazing permit or lease to another party without a required transfer
approved by the authorized officer,
(2) The assignment of public land grazing privileges to another
party without the assignment of the associated base property,
(3) Allowing another party to graze on public lands livestock that
are not owned or controlled by the permittee or lessee, or
(4) Allowing another party to graze livestock on public lands under
a pasturing agreement without the approval of the authorized officer.
Utilization means the percentage of forage that has been consumed
by livestock, wild horses and burros, wildlife and insects during a
specified period. The term is also used to refer to the pattern of such
use.
18. Section 4100.0-7 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 4100.0-7 Cross reference.
The regulations at part 1600 of this chapter govern the development
of land use plans; the regulations at part 1780, subpart 1784 of this
chapter govern advisory committees; and the regulations at subparts B
and E of part 4 of this title govern appeals and hearings.
19. A new Sec. 4100.0-9 is added as follows:
Sec. 4100.0-9 Information collection.
(a) The information collection requirements contained in Group 4100
have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and assigned clearance numbers 1004-0005, 1004-
0019, 1004-0020, 1004-0041, 1004-0047, 1004-0051, and 1004-0068. The
information would be collected to permit the authorized officer to
determine whether an application to utilize public lands for grazing or
other purposes should be approved. Response is required to obtain a
benefit.
(b) Public reporting burden for the information collections are as
follows: clearance number 1004-0005 is estimated to average 0.33 hours
per response, clearance number 1004-0019 is estimated to average 0.33
hours per response, clearance number 1004-0020 is estimated to average
0.33 hours per response, clearance number 1004-0041 is estimated to
average 0.25 hours per response, clearance number 1004-0047 is
estimated to average 0.25 hours per response, clearance number 1004-
0051 is estimated to average 0.3 hours per response, and clearance
number 1004-0068 is estimated to average 0.17 hours per response,
including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this
burden estimate or any other aspect of these collections of
information, including suggestions for reducing the burden to the
Information Collection Clearance Officer (873), Bureau of Land
Management, Washington, DC 20240, and the Office of Management and
Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, 1004-0005, 1004-0019, 1004-0020,
1004-0041, 1004-0047, 1004-0051, or 1004-0068, Washington, DC 20503.
Subpart 4110--Qualifications and Preference
20. In Sec. 4110.1, the introductory text of the section, and
paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) are redesignated as paragraphs (a)
introductory text, (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3), respectively, newly
redesignated paragraph (a) introductory text is revised, and a new
paragraph (b) is added to read as follows:
Sec. 4110.1 Mandatory qualifications.
(a) Except as provided under Secs. 4110.1-1, 4130.3, and 4130.4-3,
to qualify for grazing use on the public lands an applicant must own or
control land or water base property, and must be:
* * * * *
(b) Applicants for the renewal or issuance of new permits and
leases and any affiliates must be determined by the authorized officer
to have a satisfactory record of performance.
(1) The applicant for renewal of a grazing permit or lease, and any
affiliate, shall be deemed to have a satisfactory record of performance
if the authorized officer determines the applicant and affiliates to be
in substantial compliance with the terms and conditions of the existing
Federal grazing permit or lease for which renewal is sought, and with
the rules and regulations applicable to the permit or lease. The
authorized officer may take into consideration circumstances beyond the
control of the applicant or affiliate in determining whether the
applicant and affiliates are in substantial compliance with permit or
lease terms and conditions and applicable rules and regulations.
(2) Applicants for new permits or leases, and any affiliates, shall
be deemed not to have a record of satisfactory performance when:
(i) The applicant or affiliate has had any Federal grazing permit
or lease canceled for violation of the permit or lease within the 36
calendar months immediately preceding the date of application,
(ii) The applicant or affiliate has had any State grazing permit or
lease, for lands within the grazing allotment for which a Federal
permit or lease is sought, canceled for violation of the permit or
lease within the 36 calendar months immediately preceding the date of
application, or
(iii) The applicant or affiliate has been barred from holding a
Federal grazing permit or lease by order of a court of competent
jurisdiction.
(3) In determining whether affiliation exists, the authorized
officer shall consider all appropriate factors, including, but not
limited to, common ownership, common management, identity of interests
among family members, and contractual relationships.
(4) Applicants shall submit an application and any other
information requested by the authorized officer in order to determine
that all qualifications have been met.
21. Section 4110.1-1 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 4110.1-1 Acquired lands.
Where lands have been acquired by the Bureau of Land Management
through purchase, exchange, act of Congress or executive order, and an
agreement or the terms of the act or executive order provide that the
Bureau of Land Management shall honor existing grazing permits or
leases, such permits or leases are governed by the terms and conditions
in effect at the time of acquisition by the Bureau of Land Management,
and are not subject to the requirements of Sec. 4110.1.
22. Section 4110.2-1 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1),
(a)(2) and (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 4110.2-1 Base property.
(a) * * *
(1) It is capable of serving as a base of operation for livestock
use of public lands within a grazing district; or
(2) It is contiguous land, or, when no applicant owns or controls
contiguous land, noncontiguous land that is capable of being used in
conjunction with a livestock operation which utilizes public lands
outside a grazing district.
* * * * *
(c) An applicant shall provide a legal description, or plat, of the
base property and shall certify to the authorized officer that this
base property meets the requirements under paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section. A permittee's or lessee's interest in water previously
recognized as base property on public land shall be deemed sufficient
in meeting the requirement that the applicant control base property.
Where such waters become unusable and are replaced by newly constructed
or reconstructed water developments that are the subject of a range
improvement permit or cooperative range improvement agreement, the
permittee's or lessee's interest in the replacement water shall be
deemed sufficient in meeting the requirement that the applicant control
base property.
23. Section 4110.2-2 is amended by revising the section heading and
paragraph (a), and in paragraph (c) removing the term ``grazing
preference'' and adding in its place the term ``permitted use'' to read
as follows:
Sec. 4110.2-2 Specifying permitted use.
(a) Permitted use is granted to holders of grazing preference and
shall be specified in all grazing permits and leases. Permitted use
shall encompass all authorized use including livestock use, any
suspended use, and conservation use, except for permits and leases for
designated ephemeral rangelands, or annual rangelands where livestock
use is occasionally authorized based upon forage availability.
Authorized livestock use shall be based upon the amount of forage
available for livestock grazing as established in the land use plan,
except, in the case of ephemeral or annual rangelands, a land use plan
or activity plan may alternatively prescribe vegetation standards to be
met in the occasional use of such rangelands.
* * * * *
24. Section 4110.2-3 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1),
redesignating paragraph (f) as (g), removing from paragraph (b) the
term ``grazing preference'' and adding in its place the term
``permitted use'', and adding a new paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 4110.2-3 Transfer of grazing preference.
(a) * * *
(1) The transferee shall meet all qualifications and requirements
of Secs. 4110.1 and 4110.2.
* * * * *
(f) Transfers shall be for a period of not less than 3 years unless
a shorter term is determined by the authorized officer to be consistent
with management and resource condition objectives.
* * * * *
25. Section 4110.2-4 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 4110.2-4 Allotments.
After consultation with the affected grazing permittees or lessees,
the State having lands or responsible for managing resources within the
area, and the interested public, the authorized officer may designate
and adjust grazing allotment boundaries. The authorized officer may
combine or divide allotments, through an agreement or by decision, when
necessary for the proper and efficient management of public rangelands.
26. Section 4110.3 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 4110.3 Changes in permitted use.
The authorized officer shall periodically review the permitted use
specified in a grazing permit or lease and shall make changes in the
permitted use as needed to manage, maintain or improve rangeland
productivity, to restore ecosystems to properly functioning condition,
or to comply with the national requirements and standards and
guidelines pursuant to subpart 4180. These changes must be supported by
monitoring, field observations, ecological site inventory or other data
acceptable to the authorized officer.
27. Section 4110.3-1 is amended by revising the section heading and
paragraph (a), removing the words ``grazing preferences'' from
paragraph (b) and adding in their place the words ``suspended permitted
use'', revising the introductory text of paragraph (c), revising
paragraph (c)(1), and in paragraph (c)(2) removing the term ``grazing
preference'' and adding in its place the term ``permitted use'' and
removing the words ``and/or'' and adding in their place the word
``and'' to read as follows:
Sec. 4110.3-1 Increasing permitted use.
* * * * *
(a) Additional forage temporarily available for livestock grazing
use may be apportioned on a nonrenewable basis.
* * * * *
(c) After consultation with the affected permittees or lessees, the
State having lands or managing resources within the area, and the
interested public, additional forage on a sustained yield basis
available for livestock grazing use in an allotment may be apportioned
to permittees or lessees or other applicants, provided the permittee,
lessee, or other applicant is found to be qualified under subpart 4110.
Additional forage shall be apportioned in the following priority:
(1) Permittees or lessees in proportion to their contribution or
stewardship efforts which result in increased forage production;
* * * * *
28. Section 4110.3-2 is amended by revising the section heading,
removing from paragraph (a) the term ``Active'' and adding in its place
the term ``Permitted'', removing paragraph (c) and revising paragraph
(b) to read as follows:
Sec. 4110.3-2 Decreasing permitted use.
* * * * *
(b) When monitoring or field observations show grazing use or
patterns of use are not consistent with the national requirements or
standards and guidelines, or grazing use is otherwise causing an
unacceptable level or pattern of utilization, or when use exceeds the
livestock carrying capacity as determined through monitoring,
ecological site inventory or other acceptable methods, the authorized
officer shall reduce authorized grazing use or otherwise modify
management practices.
29. Section 4110.3-3 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 4110.3-3 Implementing reductions in permitted use.
(a) After consultation with the affected permittee or lessee, the
State having lands or managing resources within the area, and the
interested public, reductions of permitted use shall be implemented
through a documented agreement or by decision of the authorized
officer. Decisions implementing Sec. 4110.3-2 shall be issued as
proposed decisions pursuant to Sec. 4160.1 except as provided in
paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) When the authorized officer determines that the soil,
vegetation, or other resources on the public lands require protection
because of conditions such as drought, fire, flood, or insect
infestation, or when continued grazing use poses a significant risk of
resource damage from these factors, after consultation with, or a
reasonable attempt to consult with, affected permittees or lessees, the
interested public, and the State having lands or responsible for
managing resources within the area, the authorized officer shall close
allotments or portions of allotments to grazing by any kind of
livestock or modify authorized grazing use notwithstanding the
provisions of paragraph (a) of this section. Notices of closure and
decisions requiring modification of authorized grazing use may be
issued as final decisions effective upon issuance or on the date
specified in the decision. Such decisions shall remain in effect
pending the decision on appeal unless a stay is granted by the Office
of Hearings and Appeals in accordance with 43 CFR 4.21.
30. Section 4110.4-2 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and
(a)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 4110.4-2 Decrease in land acreage.
(a) * * *
(1) Grazing permits or leases may be canceled or modified as
appropriate to reflect the changed area of use.
(2) Permitted use may be canceled in whole or in part.
Cancellations determined by the authorized officer to be necessary to
protect the public lands will be apportioned by the authorized officer
based upon the level of available forage and the magnitude of the
change in public land acreage available, or as agreed to among the
authorized users and the authorized officer.
* * * * *
Subpart 4120--Grazing Management
31. Section 4120.2 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 4120.2 Allotment management plans and resource activity plans.
Allotment management plans or other activity plans may be developed
by permittees or lessees, other Federal or State resource management
agencies, interested citizens, and the Bureau of Land Management. When
allotment management plans, or other activity plans affecting the
administration of grazing allotments, are developed, the following
provisions apply:
(a) An allotment management plan or other activity plan intended to
serve as the functional equivalent of allotment management plans shall
be prepared in careful and considered consultation, cooperation and
coordination with affected permittees or lessees, landowners involved,
the multiple resource advisory council, any State having lands or
responsible for managing resources within the area to be covered by
such a plan, and the interested public. The allotment management plan,
or functional equivalent, shall include terms and conditions under
Secs. 4130.6, 4130.6-1, 4130.6-2 and 4130.6-3, as well as standards and
guidelines. The plan shall prescribe the livestock grazing practices
necessary to meet specific resource condition objectives. The plan
shall specify the limits of flexibility, to be determined and granted
on the basis of the operator's demonstrated stewardship, within which
the permittee(s) or lessee(s) may adjust operations without prior
approval of the authorized officer. The plan shall provide for
monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of management actions in
achieving the specific resource condition objectives of the plan. The
plan shall become effective upon approval by the authorized officer.
(b) Private and State lands may be included in allotment management
plans or other activity plans dealing with rangeland management with
the consent or at the request of the parties who own or control those
lands.
(c) The authorized officer shall provide opportunity for public
participation in the planning and environmental analysis of proposed
allotment management plans or other activity plans affecting the
administration of grazing and shall give public notice concerning the
availability of environmental documents prepared as a part of the
development of an allotment management plan or other activity plan,
prior to implementing the plan. The decision document following the
environmental analysis shall be considered the proposed decision for
the purposes of subpart 4160 of this part.
(d) A requirement to conform with completed allotment management
plans or other applicable activity plans shall be incorporated into the
terms and conditions of the grazing permit or lease for the allotment.
(e) Allotment management plans may be revised or terminated by the
authorized officer after consultation with the permittee or lessee, the
interested public, and other involved parties.
32. A new paragraph (f) is added to Sec. 4120.3-1 to read as
follows:
Sec. 4120.3-1 Conditions for range improvements.
* * * * *
(f) Proposed range improvement projects shall be reviewed in
accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, and regulations promulgated thereunder. The decision
document following the environmental analysis shall be considered the
proposed decision under subpart 4160 of this part.
33. Section 4120.3-2 is revised as follows:
Sec. 4120.3-2 Cooperative range improvement.
(a) The BLM may enter into a cooperative range improvement
agreement with any person, organization, or other government entity for
the installation, use, maintenance, and/or modification of range
improvements or rangeland developments to achieve management or
resource condition objectives. The cooperative range improvement
agreement shall specify how the costs or labor, or both, shall be
divided between the United States and cooperator(s).
(b) Subject to valid rights existing on (The Effective Date of the
Final Rule will be Inserted here), the United States shall have title
to all permanent structural range improvements made on public lands.
(c) The permittee or lessee may retain title to temporary
structural range improvements such as loading chutes, corrals and water
troughs for hauled water if no part of the cost for improvement was
borne by the United States.
(d) The United States shall have title to nonstructural range
improvements such as seeding, spraying, and chaining.
(e) Range improvement work performed by a cooperator or permittee
on the public lands or lands administered by the Bureau of Land
Management does not confer the exclusive right to use the improvement
or the land affected by the range improvement work.
34. Section 4120.3-3 is amended by revising the first sentence of
paragraph (a), and paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 4120.3-3 Range improvement permits.
(a) Any permittee or lessee may apply for a range improvement
permit to install, use, maintain, and/or modify range improvements that
are needed to achieve management objectives established for the
allotment in which the permit or lease is held. * * *
(b) The permittee or lessee may hold the title to authorized
removable range improvements used as livestock handling facilities such
as corrals, creep feeders and loading chutes, and to temporary
improvements such as troughs for hauled water. Title to permanent range
improvements authorized after (The Effective Date of the Final Rule
will be Inserted here), will be in the United States. After (The
Effective Date of the Rule will be Inserted here), the authorization
for new permanent water developments such as spring developments,
wells, reservoirs, stock tanks, and pipelines shall be through
cooperative range improvement agreements. A permittee's or lessee's
interest for contributed funds, labor, and materials shall be
documented by the authorized officer to ensure proper credit for the
purposes of Secs. 4120.3-5 and 4120.3-6(c).
(c) Where a permittee or lessee cannot make use of the forage
available for livestock and an application for temporary nonuse or
conservation use has been denied or the opportunity to make use of the
available forage is requested by the authorized officer, the permittee
or lessee shall cooperate with the temporary authorized use of forage
by another operator, when it is authorized by the authorized officer
following consultation with the preference permittee(s) or lessee(s).
(1) A permittee or lessee shall be reasonably compensated for the
use and maintenance of improvements and facilities by the operator who
has an authorization for temporary grazing use.
(2) The authorized officer may mediate disputes about reasonable
compensation and, following consultation with the interested parties,
make a determination concerning the fair and reasonable share of
operation and maintenance expenses and compensation for use of
authorized improvements and facilities.
(3) Where a settlement cannot be reached, the authorized officer
shall issue a temporary grazing authorization including appropriate
terms and conditions and the requirement to compensate the preference
permittee or lessee for the fair share of operation and maintenance as
determined by the authorized officer under subpart 4160 of this part.
35. A new Sec. 4120.3-8 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 4120.3-8 Range improvement fund.
(a) In addition to range developments accomplished through other
resources management funds, authorized range improvement may be secured
through the use of the appropriated range improvement fund. One-half of
the available funds shall be expended in the State and district from
which they were derived. The remaining one-half of the fund shall be
allocated, on a priority basis, by the Secretary or designee for on-
the-ground rehabilitation, protection and improvements of public
rangeland ecosystems.
(b) Funds appropriated for range improvement are to be used for
investment in all forms of improvements that benefit rangeland
resources including riparian area rehabilitation, improvement and
protection, fish and wildlife habitat improvement or protection, soil
and water resource improvement, wild horse and burro habitat management
facilities, vegetation improvement and management, and livestock
grazing management. The funds may be used for activities associated
with on-the-ground improvements including the planning, design, layout,
contracting, modification, maintenance for which BLM is responsible,
and monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of specific range
improvement projects.
(c) During the planning of the range development or range
improvement programs, the authorized officer shall consult the multiple
resource advisory council, affected permittees, lessees, and members of
the interested public.
36. A new Sec. 4120.3-9 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 4120.3-9 Water rights for the purpose of livestock grazing on
public lands.
Any right acquired on or after (The Effective Date of the Rule
Would be Inserted here) to use water on public land for the purpose of
livestock watering on public land shall be acquired, perfected,
maintained and administered under the substantive and procedural laws
of the State within which such land is located. To the extent allowed
by the law of the State within which the land is located, any such
water right shall be acquired, perfected, maintained, and administered
in the name of the United States.
37. A new Sec. 4120.5 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 4120.5 Cooperation in management.
The authorized officer shall, to the extent appropriate, cooperate
with Federal, State, Indian tribal and local governmental entities,
institutions, organizations, corporations, associations, and
individuals to achieve the objectives of this part.
38. A new Sec. 4120.5-1 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 4120.5-1 Cooperation with State, county, and Federal agencies.
Insofar as the programs and responsibilities of other agencies and
units of government involve grazing upon the public lands and other
lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, or the livestock
which graze thereon, the Bureau of Land Management will cooperate, to
the extent consistent with applicable laws of the United States, with
the involved agencies and government entities. The authorized officer
shall cooperate with State, county, and Federal agencies in the
administration of laws and regulations relating to livestock, livestock
diseases, sanitation, and noxious weeds including:
(a) State cattle and sheep sanitary or brand boards in control of
stray and unbranded livestock, to the extent such cooperation does not
conflict with the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of December 15,
1971; and
(b) County or other local weed control districts in analyzing
noxious weed problems and developing control programs for areas of the
public lands and other lands administered by the Bureau of Land
Management.
Subpart 4130--Authorizing Grazing Use
39. Section 4130.1 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 4130.1 Applications.
Applications for grazing permits or leases (active grazing use and
conservation use), annual grazing authorizations (active grazing use
and temporary nonuse), free-use grazing permits and other grazing
authorizations shall be filed with the authorized officer at the local
Bureau of Land Management office having jurisdiction over the public
lands or other lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management.
40. Section 4130.1-1 is amended by adding 2 new sentences at the
end of the paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 4130.1-1 Changes in grazing use.
* * * * *
(b) * * * Permittees and lessees may apply to activate forage in
temporary nonuse or to place forage in temporary nonuse, and may apply
for the use of forage that is temporarily available on ephemeral or
annual ranges. Temporary increases or decreases in grazing use, not to
exceed the greater of 25 percent of the active grazing use or 100 AUMs,
may be authorized or required by the authorized officer following
consultation with the affected permittees or lessees and the State
having land or responsibility for managing resources within the
allotment, provided such changes comply with applicable land use plans
and standards and guidelines, and are within the scope of the terms and
conditions of the existing permits or leases.
41. Section 4130.1-2 is amended by revising paragraph (b), removing
the word ``and'' from paragraph (e) and adding new paragraphs (g) and
(h) to read as follows:
Sec. 4130.1-2 Conflicting applications.
* * * * *
(b) Proper use of rangeland resources;
* * * * *
(g) Demonstrated stewardship by the applicant to improve or
maintain and protect the rangeland ecosystem; and
(h) The applicant's and affiliate's history of compliance with the
terms and conditions of grazing permits and leases of the Bureau of
Land Management and any other Federal or State agency, including any
record of suspensions or cancellation of grazing use for violations of
terms and conditions of agency grazing rules.
42. Section 4130.2 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (b), (c),
(d) and (e) as paragraphs (c), (d), (e) and (i), respectively, revising
paragraphs (a) and newly redesignated paragraph (d), and adding new
paragraphs (b), (f), (g), and (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 4130.2 Grazing permits or leases.
(a) Grazing permits or leases shall be issued to qualified
applicants to authorize use on the public lands and other lands under
the administration of the Bureau of Land Management that are designated
as available for livestock grazing through land use plans. Authorized
use may include livestock grazing, temporary nonuse and conservation
use. These grazing permits and leases shall specify terms and
conditions pursuant to Secs. 4130.6, 4130.6-1, and 4130.6-2.
(b) The authorized officer shall consult with affected permittees
or lessees, the State having lands or responsible for managing
resources within the area, and the interested public prior to the
issuance or renewal of grazing permits and leases.
* * * * *
(d) The term of grazing permits or leases authorizing livestock
grazing on the public lands and other lands under the administration of
the Bureau of Land Management shall be 10 years unless:
(1) The land is being considered for disposal;
(2) The land will be devoted to a public purpose which precludes
grazing prior to the end of 10 years;
(3) The term of the base property lease is less than 10 years, in
which case the term of the Federal permit or lease shall coincide with
the term of the base property lease; or
(4) The authorized officer determines that a permit or lease for
less than 10 years is necessary or desirable to protect and conserve
the public lands and the resources thereon.
* * * * *
(f) The authorized officer will not offer, grant or renew grazing
permits or leases when the applicants, including permittees or lessees
seeking renewal, refuse to accept the proposed terms and conditions of
a permit or lease.
(g) Temporary nonuse and conservation use may be approved by the
authorized officer if such use is determined to be in conformance with
the applicable land use plan, AMP or other activity plan, and standards
and guidelines as follows:
(1) Conservation use may be approved for periods of up to 10 years
when, in the determination of the authorized officer, the proposed
nonuse will promote rangeland resource protection or enhancement of
resource values or uses, including more rapid progress toward resource
condition objectives; or
(2) Temporary nonuse for reasons including but not limited to
financial conditions or annual fluctuations of livestock, may be
approved on an annual basis for no more than 3 consecutive years.
Permittees or lessees applying for temporary nonuse shall state the
reasons supporting nonuse.
(h) Application for nonrenewable grazing permits and leases under
Secs. 4110.3-1 and 4130.4-2 for areas for which conservation use has
been authorized will not be approved. Forage made available as a result
of temporary nonuse may be made available to qualified applicants under
Sec. 4130.4-2.
* * * * *
43. Paragraph (a) of Sec. 4130.4-1 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 4130.4-1 Exchange-of-use grazing agreements.
(a) An exchange-of-use grazing agreement may be issued to an
applicant who owns or controls lands which are unfenced and
intermingled with public lands when use under such an agreement will be
in harmony with the management objectives for the allotment and will be
compatible with the existing livestock operations. The agreements shall
contain appropriate terms and conditions required under Sec. 4130.6 of
this title that ensure the orderly administration of the range,
including fair and equitable sharing of the operation and maintenance
of range improvements. The term of an exchange-of-use agreement may not
exceed the length of the term for any leased lands that are offered in
exchange-of-use.
* * * * *
44. Section 4130.4-3 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 4130.4-3 Crossing permits.
A crossing permit may be issued by the authorized officer to any
applicant showing a need to cross the public land or other land under
Bureau of Land Management control, or both, with livestock for proper
and lawful purposes. A temporary use authorization for trailing
livestock shall contain terms and conditions for the temporary grazing
use that will occur as deemed necessary by the authorized officer to
achieve the objectives of this part.
45. Section 4130.5 is amended by revising paragraph (d) and adding
a new paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 4130.5 Ownership and identification of livestock.
* * * * *
(d) Except as provided in paragraph (f) of this section, where a
permittee or lessee controls but does not own the livestock which graze
the public lands, the agreement that gives the permittee or lessee
control of the livestock by the permittee or lessee shall be filed with
the authorized officer and approval received prior to any grazing use.
The document shall describe the livestock and livestock numbers,
identify the owner of the livestock, contain the terms for the care and
management of the livestock, specify the duration of the agreement, and
shall be signed by the parties to the agreement.
* * * * *
(f) Livestock owned by sons and daughters of grazing permittees and
lessees may graze public lands included within the permit or lease of
their parents when the following conditions exist:
(1) The sons and daughters are participating in educational or
youth programs related to animal husbandry, agribusiness or rangeland
management, or
(2) The sons and daughters are actively involved in the family
ranching operation and are establishing a livestock herd with the
intent of assuming part or all of the family ranch operation, and
(3) The livestock owned by the sons and daughters to be grazed on
public lands do not comprise greater than 50 percent of the total
number authorized to occupy public lands under their parent's permit or
lease,
(4) The brands or other markings of livestock that are owned by
sons and daughters are recorded on the parent's permit, lease, or
grazing application,
(5) Use by livestock owned by sons and daughters, when considered
in addition to use by livestock owned or controlled by the permittee or
lessee, does not exceed authorized numbers and is consistent with other
terms and conditions of the permit or lease.
46. Section 4130.6 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 4130.6 Terms and conditions.
Livestock grazing permits and leases shall contain terms and
conditions determined by the authorized officer to be appropriate to
achieve management and resource condition objectives for the public
lands and other lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management,
and to ensure conformance with the national requirements and
established standards and guidelines.
47. Section 4130.6-1 is amended by revising the second sentence of
paragraph (a) and adding a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 4130.6-1 Mandatory terms and conditions.
(a) * * * The authorized livestock grazing use shall not exceed the
livestock carrying capacity of the allotment.
* * * * *
(c) Permits and leases shall incorporate terms and conditions that
ensure conformance with the national requirements and standards and
guidelines pursuant to subpart 4180.
48. Section 4130.6-2 is amended by revising paragraph (f), removing
the period from the end of paragraph (g) and adding a ``; and'' and by
adding a new paragraph (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 4130.6-2 Other terms and conditions.
* * * * *
(f) Provision for livestock grazing to be temporarily delayed,
discontinued or modified to allow for the reproduction, establishment,
or restoration of vigor of plants, provide for the improvement of
riparian areas to achieve proper functioning condition or for the
protection of other rangeland resources and values consistent with
objectives of applicable land use plans, or to prevent compaction of
wet soils, such as where delay of spring turnout is required because of
weather conditions or lack of plant growth;
* * * * *
(h) A statement disclosing the requirement that permittees or
lessees shall provide reasonable access across private and leased lands
to the Bureau of Land Management for the orderly administration,
management and protection of the public lands.
49. Section 4130.6-3 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 4130.6-3 Modification.
Following consultation with the affected lessees or permittees,
other landowners involved, the interested public, and States having
lands or responsibility for managing resources within the affected
area, the authorized officer may modify terms and conditions of the
permit or lease when the present grazing use is not meeting the land
use plan, AMP or other activity plan, or management objectives, or is
not in conformance with the national requirements or the standards and
guidelines. To the extent practical, the authorized officer shall
provide to affected permittees or lessees, States having lands or
responsibility for managing resources within the affected area, and the
interested public an opportunity to review, comment and give input
during the preparation of reports that evaluate monitoring and other
data that are used as a basis for making decisions to increase or
decrease grazing use, or to change the terms and conditions of a permit
or lease.
50. Section 4130.7-1 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (c),
redesignating paragraphs (d) and (e) as (f) and (g), respectively,
adding new paragraphs (d), (e), and (h), and in newly redesignated
paragraph (f) adding a new sentence after the second sentence and a
sentence to the end of the paragraph to read as follows:
Sec. 4130.7-1 Payment of fees.
(a) Grazing fees shall be established annually by the Secretary.
(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3) and (a)(4) of
this section, and Sec. 4130.7-2, the grazing fee per AUM shall be equal
to the $3.96 base value multiplied by the Forage Value Index computed
annually from private grazing land lease rate data supplied by the
National Agricultural Statistics Service, as follows:
Grazing Fee per AUM=$3.96 x Forage Value Index
$3.96=The base value per AUM; and
Forage Value Index (FVI) = the weighted average of the prior year's
private grazing land lease rate per AUM for pasturing cattle on private
rangelands in each of the 17 contiguous western States (Arizona,
California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah,
Washington, and Wyoming) divided by the weighted average of the private
grazing land lease rate per AUM for pasturing cattle in the year 1996
in each of the 17 contiguous western States. The weighted averages are
calculated by multiplying the private grazing land lease rate for each
of the 17 States by the number of public AUMs sold on public lands,
National Forests and National Grasslands in each of the States during
the respective years and dividing by the total number of public AUMs
sold in the 17 western States in the respective years.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, and
Sec. 4130.7-2, the fee shall be phased in over the years 1995 through
1997 as follows:
Grazing Fee per AUM for 1995=$2.75
Grazing Fee per AUM for 1996=$3.50
Grazing Fee per AUM for 1997=$3.96 x FVI
Beginning in the year 1998 and thereafter the fee shall be computed
using the grazing fee formula specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section.
(3) In the absence of the issuance of criteria pertaining to
qualification for the incentive-based fee reduction provided in
Sec. 4130.7-2(b), and beginning with the start of grazing year 1997, a
base value of $3.50 shall be substituted in the formula provided in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section and the grazing fee shall be
calculated as follows:
Grazing Fee per AUM for 1997=$3.50 x FVI
Beginning in the year 1998, and until the first grazing year after
the issuance of final regulations prescribing criteria for qualifying
for an incentive based fee become effective, the grazing fee shall be
computed using the formula specified in this paragraph.
(4) Any annual increase or decrease in the grazing fee occurring
after the 3-year phase-in shall be limited to not more than 25 percent
of the fee in the previous year.
* * * * *
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (h) of this section, the full
fee shall be charged for each animal unit month of authorized grazing
use. For the purposes of calculating the fee, an animal unit month is
defined as a month's use and occupancy of range by one cow, bull,
steer, heifer, horse, burro, mule, 5 sheep, or 5 goats, over the age of
6 months at the time of entering the public lands or other lands
administered by BLM; for all such weaned animals regardless of age; and
for such animals that will become 12 months of age during the
authorized period of use. No charge shall be made for animals under 6
months of age, at the time of entering public lands or other lands
administered by the Bureau of Land Management, that are the natural
progeny of animals upon which fees are paid, provided they will not
become 12 months of age during the authorized period of use, nor for
progeny born during that period. In calculating the billing the grazing
fee is prorated on a daily basis and charges are rounded to reflect the
nearest whole number of AUMs.
(d) A surcharge shall be added to the grazing fee billings for
authorized leasing of base property to which public land grazing
preference is attached, or for authorized grazing of livestock owned by
persons other than the permittee or lessee except where such use is
made by livestock owned by sons and daughters of permittees and lessees
as provided in Sec. 4130.5(f). The surcharge shall be over and above
any other fees that may be charged for using public land forage.
Surcharges shall be paid prior to grazing use being made as follows:
(1) 20 percent of the grazing bill for the permitted grazing use
that is attached to a leased base property by an approved transfer, or
that was leased and attached to another party's base property through
an approved transfer;
(2) 50 percent of the grazing bill for pasturing livestock owned by
persons other than the permittee or lessee under a grazing
authorization; and
(3) 70 percent of the grazing bill when base property is leased and
a transfer has been approved and livestock owned by persons other than
the permittee or lessee are pastured under a grazing authorization.
(e) The authorized officer may bill in advance for multiple-year
grazing use based on the grazing fee in the initial year of such
authorization, the results of annual fluctuations in the fee to be
reconciled through a supplemental billing at the end of the billing
period, when:
(1) The permittee or lessee has agreed to multiple-year billing;
(2) Annual authorized livestock use does not exceed 200 AUMs; and
(3) The multiple-year billing period does not exceed 5 years.
(f) * * * Grazing use that occurs prior to payment of a bill,
except where specified in an allotment management plan, is unauthorized
and may be dealt with under subparts 4150 and 4170 of this part when
permittees or lessees fail to comply with provisions of this section
(see Sec. 4130.7-1 (f)). * * * Repeated delays in payment of actual use
billings shall be cause to revoke provisions for after-the-grazing-
season billing.
* * * * *
(h) The authorized officer may authorize free use under the
following circumstances:
(1) The primary objective of authorized grazing use or conservation
use is the management of vegetation to meet resource objectives other
than the production of livestock forage and such use is in conformance
with the requirements of this part;
(2) The primary purpose of grazing use is for scientific research
or administrative studies; or
(3) The primary purpose of grazing use is the control of noxious
weeds.
Secs. 4130.7-2 and 4130.7-3 [Redesignated as Secs. 4130.7-3 and
4130.7-4]
51. Sections 4130.7-2 and 4130.7-3 are redesignated as
Secs. 4130.7-3 and 4130.7-4, respectively.
52. A new Sec. 4130.7-2 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 4130.7-2 Incentive-based grazing fee reduction.
(a) Where the authorized officer determines that the criteria
provided in paragraph (b) of this section have been satisfied, the
grazing fee shall be calculated, using the definition of forage value
index provided in Sec. 4130.7-1(a)(1), as follows:
Incentive-based grazing Fee per AUM for 1996=$3.96 x 0.70
Incentive-based grazing Fee per AUM for 1997 and
thereafter=$3.96 x Forage Value Index x 0.70
(b) Qualification criteria. [Reserved]
(c) In the absence of the issuance of criteria pertaining to
qualification for the incentive-based fee reduction in paragraph (b) of
this section, see Sec. 4130.7-1(a)(3).
(d) Any annual increase or decrease in the incentive-based grazing
fee shall be limited to not more than 25 percent of the incentive-based
fee in the previous year.
53. The first sentence of newly redesignated Sec. 4130.7-4 is
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 4130.7-4 Service charge.
A service charge shall be assessed for each crossing permit,
transfer of grazing preference, application solely for nonuse or
conservation use, and each replacement or supplemental billing notice
except for actions initiated by the authorized officer. * * *
Subpart 4140--Prohibited Acts
54. Section 4140.1 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2),
(b)(1)(i), (b)(5), (b)(7), and (b)(9); and adding new paragraphs
(b)(11), (b)(12), (b)(13), (b)(14), and (b)(15) to read as follows:
Sec. 4140.1 Acts prohibited on public lands.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(2) Failing to make substantial grazing use as authorized for 2
consecutive fee years, but not including approved temporary nonuse,
conservation use, or use temporarily suspended by the authorized
officer.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Without a permit or lease, and an annual grazing authorization.
For the purposes of this paragraph, grazing bills for which payment has
not been received do not constitute grazing authorization.
* * * * *
(5) Molesting, harassing, injuring, poisoning, or causing death of
livestock authorized to graze on these lands and removing authorized
livestock without the owner's consent;
* * * * *
(7) Interfering with lawful uses or users including obstructing
free transit through or over public lands by force, threat,
intimidation, signs, barrier or locked gates;
* * * * *
(9) Violating State livestock laws or regulations relating to the
branding of livestock; breed, grade, and number of bulls; health and
sanitation requirements; and laws regarding the stray of livestock from
permitted public land grazing areas that have been formally closed to
open range grazing through the application of State, county or local
laws;
* * * * *
(11) Violating any provision of part 4700 of this title concerning
the protection and management of wild free-roaming horses and burros;
(12) Violating Federal or State laws or regulations pertaining to
the:
(i) Placement of poisonous bait or hazardous devices designed for
the destruction of wildlife;
(ii) Application or storage of pesticides, herbicides, or other
hazardous materials;
(iii) Alteration or destruction of natural stream courses without
authorization;
(iv) Pollution of water sources;
(v) Illegal take, destruction or harassment, or aiding and abetting
in the illegal take, destruction or harassment of fish and wildlife
resources; and
(vi) Illegal removal or destruction of archeological resources.
(13) Failing to pay any fee required by the authorized officer
pursuant to this part, or making payment for grazing use of public
lands with insufficiently funded checks;
(14) Failing to reclaim and repair any lands, property, or
resources when required by the authorized officer;
(15) Failing to reclose any gate or other entry.
Subpart 4150--Unauthorized Grazing Use
55. Section 4150.1 is amended by designating the second sentence as
paragraph (b) and adding a new paragraph (a) following the undesignated
first sentence to read as follows:
Sec. 4150.1 Violations.
* * * * *
(a) The authorized officer shall determine whether a violation is
nonwillful, willful, or repeated willful.
* * * * *
56. Section 4150.2 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (a) and
(b) as (b) and (c), respectively, and adding a new paragraph (a) and
(d) to read as follows:
Sec. 4150.2 Notice and order to remove.
(a) Whenever a violation has been determined to be nonwillful and
incidental, and the owner of the unauthorized livestock, or agent, is
known, the authorized officer shall notify the alleged violator that a
violation has been reported, that the violation must be corrected, and
how it can be settled, based upon the discretion of the authorized
officer.
* * * * *
(d) The authorized officer may temporarily close areas to grazing
by specified kinds or class of livestock for a period not to exceed 12
months when necessary to abate unauthorized grazing use. Such notices
of closure may be issued as final decisions effective upon issuance or
on the date specified in the decision and shall remain in effect
pending the decision on appeal unless a stay is granted by the Office
of Hearings and Appeals in accordance with 43 CFR 4.21.
57. Section 4150.3 is amended by removing the first sentence and
revising the sentence following the new first sentence of the
introductory text, revising paragraph (a), and removing the quotation
mark, semicolon, and the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph (c) to
read as follows:
Sec. 4150.3 Settlement.
* * * The amount due for settlement shall include the value of
forage consumed as determined in accordance with paragraph (a), (b), or
(c) of this section. * * *
(a) For nonwillful violations: The value of forage consumed as
determined by the average monthly rate per AUM for pasturing livestock
on privately owned land (excluding irrigated land) for the 17 western
States as published annually by the Department of Agriculture. The
authorized officer may approve nonmonetary settlement of unauthorized
use only when the authorized officer determines that each of the
following conditions is satisfied:
(1) Evidence shows that the unauthorized use occurred through no
fault of the livestock operator;
(2) The forage use is insignificant;
(3) the public lands have not been damaged; and
(4) Nonmonetary settlement is in the best interest of the United
States.
* * * * *
Subpart 4160--Administrative Remedies
58. Section 4160.1 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 4160.1 Proposed decisions.
(a) Proposed decisions shall be served on any affected applicant,
permittee or lessee, and any agent and lien holder of record, who is
affected by the proposed actions, terms or conditions, or modifications
relating to applications, permits and agreements (including range
improvement permits) or leases, by certified mail or personal delivery.
Copies of proposed decisions shall also be sent to the interested
public.
(b) Proposed decisions shall state the reasons for the action and
shall reference the pertinent terms, conditions and the provisions of
applicable regulations. As appropriate, decisions shall state the
alleged violations of specific terms and conditions and provisions of
these regulations alleged to have been violated, and shall state the
amount due under Sec. 4130.7 and Sec. 4150.3 and the action to be taken
under Sec. 4170.1.
(c) The authorized officer may elect not to issue a proposed
decision prior to a final decision where the authorized officer has
made a determination in accordance with Sec. 4110.3-3(b) or
Sec. 4150.2(d).
59. Section 4160.3 is amended by removing from paragraph (b) the
words ``on other affected interests'' and adding in their place the
words ``the interested public'', revising paragraphs (a) and (c), and
adding new paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 4160.3 Final decisions.
(a) In the absence of a protest, the proposed decision will become
the final decision of the authorized officer without further notice
unless otherwise provided in the proposed decision.
* * * * *
(c) A period of 30 days following receipt of the final decision, or
30 days after the date the proposed decision becomes final as provided
in paragraph (a) of this section, is provided for filing an appeal and
petition for stay of the decision pending final determination on
appeal. A decision will not be effective during the 30-day appeal
period, except as provided in paragraph (f) of this section. See
Sec. 4.21 of this title for general provisions of the appeal process.
(d) When the Office of Hearings and Appeals stays a final decision
of the authorized officer regarding an application for grazing
authorization, an applicant who was granted grazing use in the
preceding year may continue at that level of authorized grazing use
during the time the decision is stayed, except where grazing use in the
preceding year was authorized on a temporary basis under Sec. 4110.3-
1(a). Where an applicant had no authorized grazing use during the
previous year, or the application is for ephemeral grazing use, the
authorized grazing use shall be consistent with the decision pending
final determination on an appeal.
(e) When the Office of Hearings and Appeals stays a final decision
of the authorized officer to change the authorized grazing use, the
grazing use authorized to the permittee or lessee shall not exceed the
permittee's or lessee's previously permitted use during the time that
the decision is stayed.
(f) Notwithstanding the provisions of Sec. 4.21(a) of this title,
the authorized officer may provide that the final decision shall be
effective upon issuance or on a date established in the decision and
shall remain in effect pending the decision on appeal unless a stay is
granted by the Office of Hearings and Appeals when the authorized
officer has made a determination in accordance with Sec. 4110.3-3(b) or
Sec. 4150.2(d). Nothing in this section shall affect the authority of
the Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals or the Interior
Board of Land Appeals to place decisions in full force and effect as
provided in Sec. 4.21(a)(1) of this title.
60. Section 4160.4 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 4160.4 Appeals.
(a) Any person whose interest is adversely affected by a final
decision of the authorized officer may appeal the decision for the
purpose of a hearing before an administrative law judge under
Sec. 4.470 of this title by filing a notice of appeal in the office of
the authorized officer within 30 days after receipt of the final
decision or within 30 days after the date the proposed decision becomes
final as provided in Sec. 4160.3(a). Appeals and petitions for a stay
of the decision shall be filed at the office of the authorized officer.
The authorized officer shall promptly transmit the appeal and petition
for stay to ensure their timely arrival at the appropriate Office of
Hearings and Appeals.
(b) A petition for a stay of the decision, if any, shall be filed
with the authorized officer together with a notice of appeal. The
authorized officer shall ensure prompt transmittal of appeals and
petitions for stay and the accompanying administrative record to the
Office of Hearings and Appeals.
Subpart 4170--Penalties
61. Section 4170.1-1 is amended by revising the first sentence of
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 4170.1-1 Penalty for violations.
* * * * *
(d) Any person found to have violated the provisions of
Sec. 4140.1(a)(6) after (Effective Date of Final Rule to be Inserted
Here), shall be required to pay twice the value of forage consumed as
determined by the average monthly rate per AUM for pasturing livestock
on privately owned land (excluding irrigated land) for the 17 western
States as supplied annually by the National Agricultural Statistics
Service, and all reasonable expenses incurred by the United States in
detecting, investigating, and resolving violations.* * *
62. Section 4170.1-2 is revised as follows:
Sec. 4170.1-2 Failure to use.
After consultation with the permittee or lessee and any lienholder
of record, the authorized officer may cancel permitted use to the
extent of failure to use when a permittee or lessee has failed to make
substantial use as authorized, or fails to maintain or use water base
property in the grazing operation for 2 consecutive grazing fee years.
63. Section 4170.1-3 is amended by revising the section heading,
the introductory text of the section, and paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 4170.1-3 Federal or State animal control and environmental
protection or resources conservation regulations or laws.
Violation of the Bald Eagle Protection Act, Endangered Species Act,
Wild and Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act, or other Federal and State
pest or animal damage control, natural and cultural resource
protection, conservation or environmental laws or regulations,
referenced under Sec. 4140.1 may result in penalty under Sec. 4170.1-1
where:
* * * * *
(c) The permittee or lessee has been convicted or otherwise found
to be in violation of any of these laws or regulations by a court or by
final determination of any agency charged with the administration of
animal control, conservation or environmental laws or regulations where
no further appeals are outstanding.
64. Section 4170.2-1 is revised to read as follow:
Sec. 4170.2-1 Penal provisions under the Taylor Grazing Act.
Under section 2 of the Act any person who willfully commits an act
prohibited under Sec. 4140.1(b), or who willfully violates approved
special rules and regulations is punishable by a fine of not more than
$500.
65. Section 4170.2-2 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 4170.2-2 Penal provisions under the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act.
Under section 303(a) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), any person who knowingly and
willfully commits an act prohibited under Sec. 4140.1(b) or who
knowingly and willfully violates approved special rules and regulations
may be brought before a designated U.S. magistrate and is punishable by
a fine in accordance with the applicable provisions of Title 18 of the
United States Code, or imprisonment for no more than 12 months, or
both.
66. A new subpart 4180 is added to read as follows:
Subpart 4180--National Requirements and Standards and Guidelines for
Grazing Administration
Sec. 4180.1 National requirements for Grazing Administration.
Sec. 4180.2 Standards and guidelines for Grazing Administration.
Subpart 4180--National Requirements and Standards and Guidelines
for Grazing Administration
Sec. 4180.1 National Requirements for Grazing Administration.
(a) Permits and leases, and grazing-related plans and activities on
public lands shall incorporate, as applicable, the following:
(1) Grazing practices that maintain or achieve healthy, properly
functioning ecosystems;
(2) Grazing practices that maintain or achieve properly functioning
riparian systems;
(3) Grazing practices that maintain, restore or enhance water
quality and ensure to the extent practicable the attainment of water
quality that meets or exceeds State standards; and
(4) Grazing management practices that ensure to the extent
practicable in the maintenance, restoration and enhancement of the
habitat of threatened or endangered, and Category 1 or 2 candidate
species.
(b) The authorized officer shall take appropriate action pursuant
to subparts 4110, 4120, 4130, and 4160 of this part as soon as
practicable but not later than the start of the next grazing year where
existing management practices fail to meet the requirements of this
section.
Sec. 4180.2 Standards and guidelines for Grazing Administration
(a) Each Bureau of Land Management State Director shall determine
the appropriate geographical area for which such standards and
guidelines shall be developed and implemented. Standards and guidelines
shall be developed for an entire State, or for an ecoregion
encompassing portions of more than one State, except where the State
Director determines that the combination of the geophysical and vegetal
character of an area is unique and the health of the rangelands within
the area will not be adequately protected using standards and
guidelines developed on a broader geographical scale. The State
Director shall consult with the multiple resource advisory councils,
where they exist, in making these determinations.
(b) The Bureau of Land Management State Director shall provide the
opportunity to the public for involvement in the development of State
or regional standards and guidelines.
(c) The Bureau of Land Management State Director shall develop and
amend State or regional standards and guidelines in consultation with
the relevant Bureau of Land Management multiple resource advisory
councils, Indian tribes, and other Federal land management agencies
responsible for the management of lands and resources within the region
or area under consideration, and the interested public.
(d) At a minimum, State or regional standards for rangeland health
developed pursuant to paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section,
shall address indicators of the following:
(1) Soil stability and watershed function;
(2) The distribution of nutrients and energy;
(3) Recovery mechanisms; and
(4) Riparian functioning condition.
(e) At a minimum, State or regional guidelines for grazing
administration developed pursuant paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this
section, shall address the following:
(1) Grazing management practices to be implemented to assist the
recovery of threatened or endangered species, and prevent species
listed as Category 1 or 2 from becoming threatened or endangered.
(2) Grazing management practices to be implemented to maintain,
restore or enhance water quality, and assist in attaining water quality
which is necessary to meet or exceed State standards.
(3) Periods of critical plant growth and regrowth and the need for,
and the general timing and duration of, periods of rest from livestock
grazing.
(4) Situations in which continuous season-long grazing would be
consistent with achieving healthy, properly functioning ecosystems and
riparian systems.
(5) Selection criteria and general design standards for the
development of springs, seeps, and other projects affecting water and
associated resources, that will protect the ecological values of those
sites.
(6) Situations in which grazing will be authorized on designated
ephemeral (annual and perennial) rangelands, including the
establishment of criteria for minimum levels of production, minimum
residual growth to remain at the end of the grazing season, and the
protection of perennial vegetation.
(7) Criteria for the protection of riparian-wetland areas,
including the location, or need for relocation or removal, of livestock
management facilities (corrals or holding facilities, wells, pipelines,
fences) outside riparian-wetland areas, or the modification of
livestock management practices (e.g., salting and supplement feeding).
(8) Grazing management practices or utilization or residual
vegetation limits in riparian and wetland areas that will:
(i) Maintain, improve, or restore both herbaceous and woody species
(where present or potential exists) to a healthy and vigorous condition
and facilitate reproduction and maintenance of diverse age classes in
the desired plant communities; and
(ii) Leave sufficient vegetation biomass and plant residue
(including woody debris) to provide for adequate sediment filtering,
dissipation of stream energy, streambank stability and stream shading.
(f) In the event standards are not developed pursuant to this
section prior to (The Date 18 Months After the Effective Date of the
Final Rule), the standards provided in this paragraph shall apply until
such time as standards are developed pursuant to paragraph (d) of this
section:
(1) The soil A-horizon is present and unfragmented, and the soil is
developed or accumulating on site. Rills and gullies are absent, or if
present, they have blunted and muted features. There is no visible
scouring, sheet erosion, and/or soil sediment deposition.
(2) Plants are well distributed across the site, and photosynthetic
activity occurs throughout the growing season. A uniform distribution
of litter is evident. The plant community structure results in rooting
throughout the available soil profile.
(3) Plants display normal growth forms and vigor. The plant
communities display a diverse range of age classes.
(4) Flood plains are present and well developed and channel
sinuosity, width-to-depth ratio, and gradient are in balance with the
landscape setting.
The authorized officer shall take appropriate action under subparts
4110, 4120, 4130, and 4160 of this part, where a preponderance of
evidence, collected through field observations, monitoring, site
inventory, or other acceptable study methods, indicates that the
standards are not being met.
(g) In the event guidelines are not developed and approved by the
Secretary pursuant to this section prior to (The Date 18 Months After
the Effective Date of the Final Rule), and until such time as
guidelines are developed pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section and
approved by the Secretary, the authorized officer shall take
appropriate action under subparts 4110, 4120, 4130, and 4160 of this
part to ensure that all grazing-related activities conform with the
following:
(1) Grazing management practices will ensure to the extent
practicable in the recovery of threatened or endangered species, and
prevent candidate species, Category 1 or 2, from becoming threatened or
endangered. Emphasis will be toward maintaining or improving plant and
animal habitat to avoid future listing.
(2) Grazing practices will maintain, restore or enhance water
quality and ensure to the extent practicable the attainment of water
quality which meets or exceeds State standards.
(3) Grazing schedules will include periods of rest during times of
critical plant growth or regrowth. The timing and duration of rest
periods will be determined by the local authorized officer
administering the grazing authorization.
(4) Continuous season-long grazing will be authorized only when it
has been demonstrated to be consistent with achieving healthy, properly
functioning ecosystems and riparian systems, and with meeting
identified resource objectives.
(5) Development of springs and seeps or other projects affecting
water and associated resources will be designed to protect the
ecological values of those sites.
(6) Grazing will be authorized on designated ephemeral (annual and
perennial) rangeland only if reliable estimates of production have been
made, an identified level of annual growth or residue to remain on site
at the end of the grazing season has been established, and adverse
effects on perennial species will be avoided.
(7) Livestock management facilities (corrals or holding facilities,
wells, pipelines, fences) or livestock management practices (salting
and supplement feeding) will be located outside riparian-wetland areas
wherever possible. Appropriate action, which may include the relocation
or removal of the facilities or modification of the practices, will be
taken where standards are not being met.
(8) Grazing management practices and utilization or residual
vegetation limits will be established and applied in riparian and
wetland areas that will:
(i) Maintain, improve, or restore a diversity of both herbaceous
and woody species (where such species are present or would be present
under normal conditions) to a healthy and vigorous condition and
facilitate reproduction and maintenance of diverse age classes in the
desired plant communities, and
(ii) Leave sufficient vegetation biomass and plant residue
(including woody debris) to provide for adequate sediment filtering,
dissipation of stream energy, streambank stability and stream shading.
(9) Allotment management plans and other activity plans addressing
livestock grazing that are developed or amended after (The Date 18
Months After the Effective Date of the Final Rule will be Inserted
here), will specify desired plant communities that will include minimum
percentages of site vegetation cover, and will establish utilization
limits for riparian and upland sites that will contribute to
maintaining or achieving proper functioning condition.
(h) Standards provided in paragraph (f) of this section and
guidelines provided in paragraph (g) of this section may be modified by
the Bureau of Land Management State Director, with approval of the
Secretary, to address local ecosystems and management practices.
(i) No State or regional standards or guidelines developed by the
Bureau of Land Management State Director pursuant to this section shall
be implemented prior to their approval by the Secretary.
(j) Standards and guidelines for grazing administration shall be
adhered to in the development of grazing-related portions of activity
plans, and shall be reflected in the terms and conditions of permits
and leases and grazing authorizations. The authorized officer shall
take appropriate action pursuant to subparts 4110, 4120, 4130, and 4160
of this part as soon as practicable but not later than the start of the
next grazing year where existing grazing management practices fail to
meet the standards and guidelines.
Bruce Babbitt,
Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 94-7060 Filed 3-22-94; 4:46 pm]
BILLING CODE 4310-84-P
