[Senate Report 104-181]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                       Calendar No. 259
104th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE

 1st Session                                                    104-181
_______________________________________________________________________


 
                PUBLIC RANGELANDS MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1995

                                _______


                December 7, 1995.--Ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


  Mr. Murkowski, from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                         [To accompany S. 1459]

    The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, having 
considered the same, reports favorably thereon an original bill 
(S. 1459) to provide for uniform management of livestock 
grazing on Federal land, and for other purposes, and recommends 
that the bill do pass.
    The text of the bill is as follows:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    (a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the ``Public 
Rangelands Management Act of 1995.''

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    (a) In General.--This Act and the amendments and repeals 
made by this Act shall become effective on March 1, 1996.
    (b) Interim Provision.--Until the effective date specified 
in subsection (a), management of livestock grazing on Federal 
land shall be conducted in accordance with the law (including 
regulations) in effect on February 1, 1995: Provided, That 
subject to approval by the Secretary of Agriculture, membership 
of Resource Advisory Councils established by the Secretary of 
the Interior after August 21, 1995, shall be deemed to be in 
compliance with section 171(d) until March 1, 1997, or until 
such time as the Secretary determines otherwise, whichever 
occurs first: Provided further, That such resource advisory 
councils shall be authorized to continue in operation under 
current charters until the effective date specified in 
subsection (a).

SEC. 3. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS.

    (a) BLM Lands.--Except as otherwise provided by this Act, 
grazing of domestic livestock on lands administered by the 
Bureau of Land Management shall be in accordance with part 4, 
part 1780 and part 4100 of title 43, Code of Federal 
Regulations, as in effect on February 1, 1995.
    (b) Forest Service Lands.--Except as otherwise provided by 
this act, grazing of domestic livestock on lands administered 
by the Forest Service shall, to the extent possible, be in 
accordance with regulations, which the Secretary of Agriculture 
shall promulgate, which are substantially similar to the 
regulations referred to in subsection (a). Regulations 
promulgated under this subsection may differ from the 
regulations referred to in subsection (a) to the extent 
necessary to conform to the laws governing the National Forest 
System (other than title I).
    (c) Pursuant to title I, the Secretary of the Interior and 
the Secretary of Agriculture shall coordinate the promulgation 
of regulations that are substantially similar.

             TITLE I--MANAGEMENT OF GRAZING ON FEDERAL LAND

                     Subtitle A--General Provisions

SEC. 101. FINDINGS.

    (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
          (1) multiple use, as set forth in current law, has 
        been and continues to be a guiding principle in the 
        management of public lands and national forests;
          (2) through the cooperative and concerted efforts of 
        the Federal rangeland livestock industry, Federal and 
        State land management agencies, and the general public, 
        the Federal rangelands are in the best condition they 
        have been in during this century, and their condition 
        continues to improve;
          (3) as a further consequence of those efforts, 
        populations of wildlife are increasing and stabilizing 
        across vast areas of the West;
          (4) grazing preferences must continue to be 
        adequately safeguarded in order to promote the economic 
        stability of the western livestock industry;
          (5) it is in the public interest to charge a fee for 
        livestock grazing permits and leases on Federal land 
        that is based on a formula that--
                  (A) reflects a fair return to the Federal 
                Government and the true costs to the permittee 
                or lessee; and
                  (B) promotes continuing cooperative 
                stewardship efforts;
          (6) opportunities exist for improving efficiency in 
        the administration of the range programs on Federal 
        land by--
                  (A) reducing planning and analysis costs and 
                their associated paperwork, procedural, and 
                clerical burdens; and
                  (B) refocusing efforts to the direct 
                management of the resources themselves;
          (7) in order to provide meaningful review and 
        oversight of the management of the public rangelands 
        and the grazing allotment on those rangelands, 
        refinement of the reporting of costs of various 
        components of the land management program is needed;
          (8) greater local input into the management of the 
        public rangelands is in the best interests of the 
        United States;
          (9) the western livestock industry that relies on 
        Federal land plays an important role in preserving the 
        social, economic, and cultural base of rural 
        communities in the western States and further plays an 
        integral role in the economies of the 17 western States 
        with Federal rangelands;
          (10) maintaining the economic viability of the 
        western livestock industry is essential to maintaining 
        open space and fish and wildlife habitat;
          (11) since the enactment of the Federal Land Policy 
        and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and 
        the amendment of section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland 
        Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 
        1604) by the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 
        U.S.C. 472a et seq.), the Secretary of the Interior and 
        the Secretary of Agriculture have been charged with 
        developing land use plans that are consistent with land 
        use plans adopted by State, local, and tribal 
        governments, but to date the planning efforts have not 
        produced land use plans for Federal land that are in 
        fact consistent with State, local, or tribal planning; 
        and
          (12) the levels of livestock grazing that were 
        authorized to be permitted as of August 1, 1993 are 
        consistent with this title and may be increased or 
        decreased, as appropriate, consistent with this title.
    (b) Repeal of Earlier Findings.--Section 2(a) of the Public 
Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 1901(a)) is 
amended--
          (1) by striking paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4);
          (2) by redesignating paragraphs (5) and (6) as 
        paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively;
          (3) in paragraph (1) (as so redesignated), by adding 
        ``and'' at the end; and
          (4) in paragraph (2) (as so redesignated)--
                  (A) by striking ``harrassment'' and inserting 
                ``harassment''; and
                  (B) by striking the semicolon at the end and 
                inserting a period.

SEC. 102. APPLICATION OF ACT.

    (a) This Act applies to--
          (1) the management of grazing on Federal land by the 
        Secretary of the Interior under--
                  (A) the Act of June 28, 1934 (commonly known 
                as the ``Taylor Grazing Act'') (48 Stat. 1269, 
                chapter 865; 43 U.S.C. 315 et seq.);
                  (B) the Act of August 28, 1937 (commonly 
                known as the ``Oregon and California Railroad 
                and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act of 
                1937'') (50 Stat. 874, chapter 876; 43 U.S.C. 
                1181a et seq.);
                  (C) the Federal Land Policy and Management 
                Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); and
                  (D) the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 
                1978 (43 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.);
          (2) the management of grazing on Federal land by the 
        Secretary of Agriculture under--
                  (A) the 12th undesignated paragraph under the 
                heading ``SURVEYING THE PUBLIC LANDS.'' under 
                the heading ``UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF THE 
                INTERIOR.'' in the first section of the Act of 
                June 4, 1897 (commonly known as the ``Organic 
                Administration Act of 1897'') (30 Stat. 11, 35, 
                chapter 2; 16 U.S.C. 551);
                  (B) the Act of April 24, 1950 (commonly known 
                as the ``Granger-Thye Act of 1950'') (64 Stat. 
                85, 88, chapter 97; 16 U.S.C. 580g, 580h, 
                580l);
                  (C) the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act of 
                1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.);
                  (D) the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 
                Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1600 
                et seq.);
                  (E) the National Forest Management Act of 
                1976 (16 U.S.C. 472a et seq.);
                  (F) the Federal Land Policy and Management 
                Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); and
                  (G) the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 
                1978 (43 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.); and
          (3) management of grazing by the Secretary on behalf 
        of the head of another department or agency under a 
        memorandum of understanding.
    (b) Nothing is this title shall authorize grazing in any 
unit of the National Park System, National Wildlife Refuge 
System, or on any other Federal lands where such use is 
prohibited by statute, nor supersedes or amends any limitation 
on the levels of use for grazing that may be specified in other 
Federal law, nor expands or enlarges any such prohibition or 
limitation.
    (c) Nothing in this title shall limit or preclude the use 
of and access to Federal land for hunting, fishing, 
recreational, watershed management or other appropriate 
multiple use activities in accordance with applicable Federal 
and State laws and the principles of multiple use.

SEC. 103. OBJECTIVE.

    The objective of this title is to--
          (1) promote healthy, sustained rangeland;
          (2) enhance productivity of Federal land by 
        conservation of forage resources, reduction of soil 
        erosion, and proper management of other resources such 
        as control of noxious species invasion;
          (3) provide stability to the livestock industry that 
        utilizes the public rangeland;
          (4) emphasize scientific monitoring of trends and 
        condition to support sound rangeland management;
          (5) maintain and improve the condition of riparian 
        areas which are critical to wildlife habitat and water 
        quality; and
          (6) promote the consideration of wildlife populations 
        and habitat, consistent with land use plans, principles 
        of multiple-use, and other objectives stated in this 
        section.

SEC. 104. DEFINITIONS.

    In General.--In this title:
          (1) Active use.--The term ``active use'' means the 
        amount of authorized livestock grazing use made at any 
        time.
          (2) Actual use.--The term ``actual use'' means the 
        number and kinds or classes of livestock, and the 
        length of time that livestock graze on, an allotment.
          (3) Affected interest.--The term ``affected 
        interest'' means an individual or organization that has 
        expressed in writing to the authorized officer a desire 
        to be notified in writing of proposed decisions of the 
        authorized officer related to a specific grazing 
        allotment.
          (4) Allotment.--The term ``allotment'' means an area 
        of designated Federal land that includes management for 
        grazing of livestock.
          (5) Allotment management plan.--The term ``allotment 
        management plan'' has the same meaning as defined in 
        section 103(k) of Pub. L. 94-579 (43 U.S.C. 1702(k)).
          (6) Authorized officer.--The term ``authorized 
        officer'' means a person authorized by the Secretary to 
        administer this title, the Acts cited in section 102, 
        and regulations issued under this title and those Acts.
          (7) Base property.--The term ``base property'' 
        means--
                  (A) private land that has the capability of 
                producing crops or forage that can be used to 
                support authorized livestock for a specified 
                period of the year; or
                  (B) water that is suitable for consumption by 
                livestock and is available to and accessible by 
                authorized livestock when the land is used for 
                livestock grazing.
          (8) Cancel; cancellation.--The terms ``cancel'' and 
        ``cancellation'' refer to a permanent termination, in 
        whole or in part, of--
                  (A) a grazing permit or lease and grazing 
                preference; or
                  (B) other grazing authorization.
          (9) Consultation, cooperation, and coordination.--The 
        term ``consultation, cooperation, and coordination'' 
        means, for the purposes of this title and section 
        402(d) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 
        1976 (43 U.S.C. 1752(d)), engagement in good faith 
        efforts to reach consensus.
          (10) Coordinated Resource Management.--The term 
        ``coordinated resource management''--
                  (A) means the planning and implementation of 
                management activities in a specified geographic 
                area that require the coordination and 
                cooperation of the Bureau of Land Management or 
                the Forest Service with affected State 
                agencies, private land owners, and Federal land 
                users; and
                  (B) may include, but is not limited to 
                practices that provide for conservation, 
                resource protection, resource enhancement or 
                integrated management of multiple-use 
                resources.
          (11) Federal land.--The term ``Federal land''--
                  (A) means land outside the State of Alaska 
                that is owned by the United States and 
                administered by--
                          (i) the Secretary of the Interior, 
                        acting through the Director of the 
                        Bureau of Land Management; or
                          (ii) the Secretary of Agriculture, 
                        acting through the Chief of the Forest 
                        Service; but
                  (B) does not include land held in trust for 
                the benefit of Indians.
          (12) Grazing permit or lease.--The term ``grazing 
        permit or lease'' means a document authorizing use of 
        the Federal land--
                  (A) within a grazing district under section 3 
                of the Act of June 28, 1934 (commonly known as 
                the ``Taylor Grazing Act'') (48 Stat. 1270, 
                chapter 865; 43 U.S.C. 315b), for the purpose 
                of grazing livestock;
                  (B) outside grazing districts under section 
                15 of the Act of June 28, 1934 (commonly known 
                as the ``Taylor Grazing Act'') (48 Stat. 1275, 
                chapter 865; 43 U.S.C. 315m), for the purpose 
                of grazing livestock; or
                  (C) in a national forest under section 19 of 
                the Act of April 24, 1950 (commonly known as 
                the ``Granger-Thye Act of 1950'') (64 Stat. 88, 
                chapter 97; 16 U.S.C. 5801), for the purposes 
                of grazing livestock.
          (13) Grazing preference.--The term ``grazing 
        preference'' means the number of animal unit months of 
        livestock grazing on Federal land as adjudicated or 
        apportioned and attached to base property owned or 
        controlled by a permittee or lessee.
          (14) Land base property.--The term ``land base 
        property'' means base property described in paragraph 
        (7)(A).
          (15) Land use plan.--The term ``land use plan'' 
        means--
                  (A) with respect to Federal land administered 
                by the Bureau of Land Management, one of the 
                following developed in accordance with the 
                Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 
                (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)--
                          (i) a resource management plan; or
                          (ii) a management framework plan that 
                        is in effect pending completion of a 
                        resource management plan; and
                  (B) with respect to Federal land administered 
                by the Forest Service, a land and resource 
                management plan developed in accordance with 
                section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland Resources 
                Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604).
          (16) Livestock carrying capacity.--The term 
        ``livestock carrying capacity'' means the maximum 
        sustainable stocking rate that is possible without 
        inducing long-term damage to vegetation or related 
        resources.
          (17) Monitoring.--The term ``monitoring'' means the 
        orderly collection of data using scientifically-based 
        techniques to determine trend and condition of 
        rangeland resources. Data may include historical 
        information, but must be sufficiently reliable to 
        evaluate--
                  (A) effects of ecological changes and 
                management actions; and
                  (B) effectiveness of actions in meeting 
                management objectives.
          (18) Range improvement.--The term ``range 
        improvement''--
                  (A) means an authorized activity or program 
                on or relating to rangeland that is designed 
                to--
                          (i) improve production of forage;
                          (ii) change vegetative composition;
                          (iii) control patterns of use;
                          (iv) provide water;
                          (v) stabilize social and water 
                        conditions; or
                          (vi) provide habitat for livestock, 
                        wild horses and burros, and wildlife; 
                        and
                  (B) includes structures, treatment projects, 
                and use of mechanical means to accomplish the 
                goals described in subparagraph (A).
          (19) Rangeland study.--The term ``rangeland study'' 
        means a documented study or analysis of data obtained 
        in actual use, utilization, climatic conditions, other 
        special events, production trend, and rangeland 
        condition and trend to determine whether management 
        objectives are being met, that--
                  (A) relies on the examination of physical 
                measurements of range attributes and not on 
                cursory visual scanning of land, unless the 
                condition to be assessed is patently obvious 
                and requires no physical measurements;
                  (B) utilizes a scientifically based and 
                verifiable methodology; and
                  (C) is accepted by an authorized officer.
          (20) Secretary; secretaries.--The terms ``Secretary'' 
        or ``Secretaries'' mean--
                  (A) the Secretary of the Interior, in 
                reference to livestock grazing on Federal land 
                administered by the Director of the Bureau of 
                Land Management; and
                  (B) the Secretary of Agriculture, in 
                reference to livestock grazing on Federal land 
                administered by the Chief of the Forest Service 
                or the National Grasslands referred to in title 
                II.
          (21) Sublease.--The term ``sublease'' means an 
        agreement by a permittee or lessee that--
                  (A) allows a person other than the permittee 
                or lessee to graze livestock on Federal land 
                without controlling the base property 
                supporting the grazing permit or lease; or
                  (B) allows grazing on Federal lands by 
                livestock not owned or controlled by permittee 
                or lessee.
          (22) Suspend; suspension.--The terms ``suspend'' and 
        ``suspension'' refer to a temporary withholding, in 
        whole or in part, of a grazing preference from active 
        use, ordered by the Secretary or done voluntarily by a 
        permittee or lessee.
          (23) Utilization.--The term ``utilization'' means the 
        percentage of a year's forage production consumed or 
        destroyed by herbivores.
          (24) Water base property.--The term ``water base 
        property'' means base property described in paragraph 
        (7)(B).

SEC. 105. FUNDAMENTALS OF RANGELAND HEALTH.

    (a) Standards and Guidelines.--The Secretary shall 
establish standards and guidelines for addressing rangeland 
condition and trend on a State or regional level in 
consultation with the Resource Advisory Councils established in 
section 171 and in cooperation with the State departments of 
agriculture or other appropriate State agencies and academic 
institutions in each interested State.
    (b) Coordinated Resource Management.--The Secretary shall, 
where appropriate, authorize and encourage the use of 
coordinated resource management practices. Coordinated resource 
management practices shall be--
          (1) scientifically based;
          (2) consistent with goals and objectives of the 
        applicable land use plan;
          (3) for the purposes of promoting good stewardship of 
        multiple-use rangeland resources; and
          (4) authorized under a cooperative agreement with a 
        permittee or lessee, or an organized group of 
        permittees or lessees in a specified geographic area. 
        Such agreement may include other individuals, 
        organizations, or Federal land users.
    (c) Coordination of Federal Agencies.--Where coordinated 
resource management involves private land, State land, and 
Federal land managed by the Bureau of Land Management or the 
Forest Service, the Secretaries are hereby authorized and 
directed to enter into cooperative agreements to coordinate the 
associated activities of--
          (1) Bureau of Land Management;
          (2) the Forest Service; and
          (3) the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
    (d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this title or any 
other law implies that a minimum national standard or 
guidelines is necessary.

SEC. 106. LAND USE PLANS.

    (a) Principle of Multiple Use and Sustained Yield.--An 
authorized officer shall manage livestock grazing on Federal 
land under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield 
and in accordance with applicable land use plans.
    (b) Contents of Land Use Plan.--With respect to grazing 
administration, a land use plan shall--
          (1) consider the impacts of all multiple uses, 
        including livestock and wildlife grazing, on the 
        environment and condition of public rangelands, and the 
        contributions of these uses to the management, 
        maintenance and improvement of such rangelands;
          (2) establish allowable grazing use (in combination 
        with other multiple uses), related levels of production 
        or use to be maintained, areas of use, and resource 
        conditions goals and objectives to be obtained; and
          (3) set forth programs and general management 
        practices needed to achieve the purposes of this title.
    (c) Application of NEPA.--Land use plans, and amendments 
thereto, shall continue to be developed in conformance with the 
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
    (d) Conformance With Land Use Plan.--Livestock grazing 
activities and management actions approved by the authorized 
officer, including the issuance, renewal, or transfer of 
grazing permits or leases, shall not constitute major Federal 
actions requiring consideration under the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in 
addition to that which is necessary to support the land use 
plan, and amendments thereto.
    (e) Nothing in this section is intended to override the 
planning and public involvement processes of any other Federal 
law pertaining to Federal lands.

           Subtitle B--Qualifications and Grazing Preferences

SEC. 111. SPECIFYING GRAZING PREFERENCE.

    (a) In General.--A grazing permit or lease shall specify--
          (1) a historical grazing preference;
          (2) active use, based on the amount of forage 
        available for livestock grazing established in the land 
        use plan;
          (3) suspended use; and
          (4) voluntary and temporary nonuse.
    (b) Attachment of Grazing Preference.--A grazing preference 
identified in a grazing permit or lease shall attach to the 
base property supporting the grazing permit or lease.
    (c) Attachment of Animal Unit Months.--The animal unit 
months of a grazing preference shall attach to--
          (1) the acreage of land base property on a pro rata 
        basis; or
          (2) water base property on the basis of livestock 
        forage production within the service area of the water.

                     Subtitle C--Grazing Management

SEC. 121. ALLOTMENT MANAGEMENT PLANS.

    If the Secretary elects to develop an allotment management 
plan for a given area, he shall do so in careful and considered 
consultation, cooperation, and coordination with the lessees, 
permittees, and landowners involved, the resource advisory 
councils and grazing advisory councils established pursuant to 
section 171 and section 172, and any State or States having 
lands within the area to be covered by such allotment 
management plan.

SEC. 122. RANGE IMPROVEMENTS.

    (a) Range Improvement Cooperative Agreements.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary may enter into a 
        cooperative agreement with a permittee or lessee for 
        the construction, installation, modification, 
        maintenance, removal, or use of a permanent range 
        improvement of development of a rangeland to achieve a 
        management or resource condition objective.
          (2) Cost-sharing.--A range improvement cooperative 
        agreement shall specify how the costs or labor, or 
        both, shall be shared between the United States and the 
        other parties to the agreement.
          (3) Title.--
                  (A) In general.--Subject to valid existing 
                rights, title to an authorized permanent range 
                improvement under a range improvement 
                cooperative agreement shall be in the name of 
                the permittee or lessee and of the United 
                States, respectively, in proportion to the 
                value of the contributions (funding, material, 
                and labor) toward the initial cost of 
                construction by the United States and the 
                permittee or lessee, respectively.
                  (B) Value of federal land.--For the purpose 
                of subparagraph (A), only a contribution to the 
                construction, installation, modification, or 
                maintenance of a permanent rangeland 
                improvement itself, and not the value of 
                Federal land on which the improvement is 
                placed, shall be taken into account.
                  (C) Maintenance.--Maintenance of range 
                improvements in the form of time as labor or 
                monetary expenditures shall be applied to the 
                value and percentage of ownership proportionate 
                to the value of the contribution by a party to 
                the cooperative agreement.
          (4) Nonstructural range improvements.--A range 
        improvement cooperative agreement shall ensure that the 
        respective parties enjoy the benefits of any 
        nonstructural range improvement, such as seeding, 
        spraying, and chaining, in proportion to each party's 
        contribution to the improvement.
          (5) Incentive.--A range improvement cooperative 
        agreement shall contain terms and conditions that are 
        designed to provide a permittee or lessee an incentive 
        for investing in range improvements.
    (b) Range Improvement Permits.--
          (1) Application.--A permittee or lessee may apply for 
        a range improvement permit to construct, install, 
        modify, maintain, or use a range improvement that is 
        needed to achieve management objectives within the 
        permittee's or lessee's allotment.
          (2) Funding.--A permittee or lessee shall agree to 
        provide full funding for construction, installation, 
        modification, or maintenance of a range improvement 
        covered by a range improvement permit.
          (3) Authorized officer to issue.--A range improvement 
        permit shall be issued at the discretion of the 
        authorized officer.
          (4) Title.--Title to an authorized permanent range 
        improvement under a range improvement permit shall be 
        in the name of the permittee or lessee.
          (5) Control.--The use by livestock of stock ponds or 
        wells authorized by a range improvement permit shall be 
        controlled by the permittee or lessee holding a range 
        improvement permit.
    (c) Assignment of Range Improvements.--An authorized 
officer shall not approve the transfer of a grazing preference, 
or approve use by the transferee of existing range improvements 
unless the transferee has agreed to compensate the transferor 
for the transferor's interest in the authorized permanent 
improvements within the allotment as of the date of the 
transfer.

SEC. 123. MONITORING AND INSPECTION.

    (a) Monitoring.--Monitoring of a grazing allotment shall be 
performed by qualified Federal, State, or local agency 
personnel, qualified consultants as agreed to in an approved 
allotment management plan, or qualified range consultants 
retained by the United States. Any report on such monitoring 
shall include any comments from comparably qualified range 
consultants participating in the monitoring activities at the 
request of the permittee or lessee.
    (b) Inspection.--Inspection of a grazing allotment shall be 
performed by qualified Federal, State or local agency 
personnel, or qualified consultants retained by the United 
States.
    (c) Monitoring Criteria and Protocols.--Rangeland 
monitoring shall be conducted according to regional or State 
criteria and protocols that are scientifically based. Criteria 
and protocols shall be developed by the Secretary in 
consultation with the Resource Advisory Councils established in 
section 171, and in cooperation with State departments of 
agriculture or other appropriate State agencies and academic 
institutions in each interested State.
    (d) Permittee or Lessee Participation in Allotment 
Monitoring.--Except as provided in subsection (e), the affected 
permittee or lessee, or authorized representative thereof, 
shall be invited and allowed to participate in all inspections 
or activities in which information or data are gathered for 
consideration in management actions or decisions by the 
authorized officer. Information or data, in any form, gathered 
in violation of this subsection shall not be relied upon the 
authorized officer, and shall be excluded from the permittee's 
or lessee's allotment file.
    (e) Exceptions.--Notwithstanding the requirement of 
subsection (d), and provided that written notice of inspection 
or monitoring activities was provided to the permittee or 
lessee within 72 hours of the initial observation, inspection 
or monitoring documentation, data, information, or reports may 
be relied upon if--
          (1) the affected permittee or lessee declines the 
        invitation of the authorized officer to participate in 
        specific inspection or monitoring activities; or
          (2) at the time the inspection or monitoring data or 
        information were collected, the authorized officer had 
        substantial grounds to believe that a violation of 
        section 141 was occurring.

SEC. 124. WATER RIGHTS.

    (a) In General.--No water rights on Federal land shall be 
acquired, perfected, owned, controlled, maintained, 
administered, or transferred in connection with livestock 
grazing management other than in accordance with State law 
concerning the use and appropriation of water within the State.
    (b) State Law.--In managing livestock grazing on Federal 
land, the Secretary shall follow State law with regard to water 
right ownership and appropriation.
    (c) Authorized Use or Transport.--The Secretary may not 
impose or require any transfer, restriction, or limitation on 
the use of any water right as a term or condition of any 
permit, or as a requirement for approval of the transportation, 
storage, or conveyance of water on or across Federal land.
    (d) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this title shall be 
construed to create an expressed or implied reservation of 
water rights in the United States.

                Subtitle D--Authorization of Grazing Use

SEC. 131. GRAZING PERMITS OR LEASES.

    (a) Term.--A grazing permit or lease shall be issued for a 
term of 15 years unless--
          (1) the land is pending disposal;
          (2) the land will be devoted to a public purpose that 
        precludes grazing prior to the end of 15 years; or
          (3) the Secretary determines that it would be in the 
        best interest of sound land management to specify a 
        shorter term, if the decision to specify a shorter term 
        is supported by appropriate and accepted resource 
        analysis and evaluation, and a shorter term is 
        determined to be necessary, based upon monitoring 
        information, to achieve land management goals and 
        objectives.
    (b) Renewal.--A permittee or lessee holding a grazing 
permit or lease shall be given first priority at the end of the 
term for renewal of the grazing permit or lease if--
          (1) the land for which the grazing permit or lease is 
        issued remains available for domestic livestock 
        grazing;
          (2) the permittee or lessee is in compliance with 
        this title and the terms and conditions of the grazing 
        permit or lease; and
          (3) the permittee or lessee accepts the terms and 
        conditions included by the authorized officer in the 
        new grazing permit or lease.

SEC. 132. SUBLEASING.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary shall only authorize 
subleasing of a Federal grazing permit or lease, in whole or in 
part--
          (1) if the permittee or lessee is unable to make full 
        grazing use due to ill health or death; or
          (2) under a cooperative agreement with a grazing 
        permittee or lessees (or group of grazing permittees or 
        lessees), pursuant to section 105(b).
    (b) Considerations.--
          (1) Livestock owned by a spouse, child, or grandchild 
        of a permittee or lessee shall be considered as owned 
        by the permittee or lessee for the sole purposes of 
        this title.
          (2) Leasing or subleasing of base property, in whole 
        or in part, shall not be considered as subleasing of a 
        Federal grazing permit or lease: Provided, That the 
        grazing preference associated with such base property 
        is transferred to the person controlling the leased or 
        subleased base property.

SEC. 133. OWNERSHIP AND IDENTIFICATION OF LIVESTOCK.

    (a) In General.--A permittee or lessee shall own or control 
and be responsible for the management of the livestock that 
graze the Federal land under a grazing permit or lease.
    (b) Marking or Tagging.--An authorized officer shall not 
impose any marking or tagging requirement in addition to the 
requirement under State law.

SEC. 134. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

    (a) In General.--
          (1) A grazing permit or lease shall be subject to 
        such reasonable terms or conditions as may be required 
        by this Act or as contained in an approved allotment 
        management plan developed pursuant to section 121.
          (2) No term or condition of a grazing permit or lease 
        shall be imposed pertaining to past practice or present 
        willingness of an applicant, permittee or lessee to 
        relinquish control of public access to Federal land 
        across private land.
    (b) Modification.--Following careful and considered 
consultation, cooperation, and coordination with permittees and 
lessees, an authorized officer may modify the terms and 
conditions of a grazing permit or lease if monitoring data show 
that the grazing use is not meeting the land use plan or 
management objectives.

SEC. 135. FEES AND CHARGES.

    (a) Grazing Fees.--The fee for each animal unit month in a 
grazing fee year to be determined by the Secretary shall be 
equal to the three-year average of the total gross value of 
production for beef cattle for the three years preceding the 
grazing fee year, multiplied by the 10-year average of the 
United States Treasury Securities 6-month bill ``new issue'' 
rate, and divided by 12. The gross value of production for beef 
cattle shall be determined by the Economic Research Service of 
the Department of Agriculture in accordance with subsection 
(e)(1).
    (b) Definition of Animal Unit Month.--For the purposes of 
billing only, the term ``animal unit month'' means one month's 
use and occupancy of range by--
          (1) one cow, bull, steer, heifer, horse, burro, or 
        mule, seven sheep, or seven goats, each of which is six 
        months of age or older on the date on which the animal 
        begins grazing on Federal land;
          (2) any such animal regardless of age if the animal 
        is weaned on the date on which the animal begins 
        grazing on Federal land; and
          (3) any such animal that will become 12 months of age 
        during the period of use authorized under a grazing 
        permit or lease.
    (c) Livestock Not Counted.--There shall not be counted as 
an animal unit month the use of Federal land for grazing by an 
animal that is less than six months of age on the date on which 
the animal begins grazing on Federal land and is the natural 
progeny of an animal on which a grazing fee is paid if the 
animal is removed from the Federal land before becoming 12 
months of age.
    (d) Other Fees and Charges.--
          (1) Crossing permits, transfers, and billing 
        notices.--A service charge shall be assessed for each 
        crossing permit transfer of grazing preference, and 
        replacement or supplemental billing notice except in a 
        case in which the action in initiated by the authorized 
        officer.
          (2) Amount of flpma fees and charges.--The fees and 
        charges under section 304(a) of the Federal Land Policy 
        and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1734((a)) shall 
        reflect processing costs and shall be adjusted 
        periodically as costs change.
          (3) Notice of change.--Notice of a change in a 
        service charge shall be published in the Federal 
        Register.
    (e) Criteria for ERS.--
          (1) The Economic Research Service of the Department 
        of Agriculture shall continue to compile and report the 
        gross value of production of beef cattle, on a dollars-
        per-bred-cow basis for the United States, as is 
        currently published by the Service in: ``Economic 
        Indicators of the Farm Sector: Cost of Production--
        Major Field Crops and Livestock and Dairy'' (Cow-calf 
        production cash costs and returns).
          (2) For the purposes of determining the grazing fee 
        for a given grazing fee year, the gross value of 
        production (as described above) for the previous 
        calendar year shall be made available to the Secretary 
        of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, and 
        published in the Federal Register, on or before 
        February 15 of each year.

        Subtitle E--Civil Violations and Failures of Compliance

SEC. 141. CIVIL VIOLATIONS AND FAILURES OF COMPLIANCE.

    (a) In General.--A person that knowingly and willfully does 
one of the following shall be subject to a civil sanction under 
subsection (b):
          (1) Fails to make grazing use under the terms and 
        conditions of a grazing permit or lease, or under a 
        cooperative agreement pursaunt to section 105(b).
          (2) Places supplemental feed on land covered by a 
        grazing permit or lease without authorization.
          (3) Fails to comply with a term, condition, or 
        stipulation of a range improvement cooperative 
        agreement or range improvement permit.
          (4) Enters into an unauthorized sublease.
          (5) Allows unauthorized livestock or other privately 
        owned or controlled animals to graze on or be driven 
        across Federal land.
    (b) Penalties.--
          (1) In general.--In a case of a violation or failure 
        of compliance described in subsection (a), an 
        authorized officer may--
                  (A) withhold issuance of a grazing permit or 
                lease;
                  (B) suspend the grazing use authorized under 
                a grazing permit or lease, in whole or in part; 
                or
                  (C) cancel a grazing permit or lease and 
                grazing preference, or other grazing 
                authorization, in whole or in part.
          (2) Cancellation, suspension or modification.--A 
        grazing lease or permit may be canceled, suspended, or 
        modified for--
                  (A) any violation of this title, or for
                  (B) any violation of a term or condition of 
                the permit or lease, or for
                  (C) conviction for failure to comply with 
                Federal laws or regulations relating to 
                protection of air, water, soil and vegetation, 
                fish and wildlife, and other environmental 
                values when exercising the grazing use 
                authorized by the permit or lease.
          (3) Second or subsequent willful violation.--In a 
        case of a second or subsequent willful civil violation 
        described in subsection (a), an authorized officer 
        shall--
                  (A) suspend the grazing use authorized under 
                a grazing permit or lease, in whole or in part; 
                or
                  (B) cancel a grazing permit or lease and 
                grazing preference, in whole or in part.
          (4) Consideration of severity.--The duration of a 
        violation, failure to comply with a notice of 
        violation, and the extent of damage to resources caused 
        by such violation shall be considered in determining 
        any penalty under this section.
          (5) Subleases.--
                  (A) In general.--A person who violates 
                subsection (a)(4) shall be required to pay to 
                the United States the dollar equivalent value, 
                as determined by the authorized officer, of all 
                compensation received for the sublease that is 
                in excess of the sum of the established grazing 
                fee and the cost incurred by the person for the 
                installation and maintenance of authorized 
                range improvements.
                  (B) Failure to pay.--If the dollar equivalent 
                value is not received by the authorized officer 
                within 30 days of receipt of a final decision, 
                the grazing permit or lease shall be canceled.
                  (C) Additional penalty.--Payment under this 
                paragraph shall be in addition to any other 
                penalties the authorized officer may impose 
                under this subsection.
          (6) Failure to use.--After consultation, cooperation, 
        and coordination with the permittee or lessee, the 
        authorized officer may cancel a grazing preference, in 
        whole or in part, when a permittee or lessee has failed 
        to make grazing use under the terms and conditions of a 
        grazing permit or lease, or under a cooperative 
        agreement pursuant to section 105(b).

                  Subtitle F--Unauthorized Grazing Use

SEC. 151. NONMONETARY SETTLEMENT.

    An authorized officer may approve a nonmonetary settlement 
of a case of a violation described in section 141 if the 
authorized officer determines that each of the following 
conditions is satisfied:
          (1) No fault.--Evidence shows that the unauthorized 
        use occurred through no fault of the livestock 
        operator.
          (2) Insignificance.--The forage use is insignificant.
          (3) No damage.--Federal land has not been damaged.
          (4) Best interests.--Nonmonetary settlement is in the 
        best interests of the United States.

SEC. 152. IMPOUNDMENT AND SALE.

    Any impoundment and sale of unauthorized livestock on 
Federal land shall be conducted in accordance with State law.

                         Subtitle G--Procedure

SEC. 161. PROPOSED DECISIONS.

    (a) Service on Applicants, Permittees, Lesees, and 
Lienholders.--The authorized officer shall serve, by certified 
mail or personal delivery, a proposed decision on any 
applicant, permittee, lessee, or lienholder (or agent of record 
of the applicant, permittee, lessee, or lienholder) that is 
affected by--
          (1) a proposed action on an application for a grazing 
        permit or lease, or range improvement permit; or
          (2) a proposed action relating to a term or condition 
        of a grazing permit or lease, or a range improvement 
        permit.
    (b) Notification of Affected Interests.--The authorized 
officer shall send copies of a proposed decision to affected 
interests.
    (c) Contents.--A proposed decision described in subsection 
(a) shall--
          (1) state reasons for the action, including reference 
        to applicable law (including regulations); and
          (2) be based upon, and supported by rangeland 
        studies, where appropriate, and;
          (3) state that any protest to the proposed decision 
        must be filed not later than 30 days after service.

SEC. 162. PROTESTS.

    An applicant, permittee, or lessee may protest a proposed 
decision under section 161 in writing to the authorized officer 
within 30 days after service of the proposed decision.

SEC. 163. FINAL DECISIONS.

    (a) No Protest.--In the absence of a timely filed protest, 
a proposed decision described in section 161(a) shall become 
the final decision of the authorized officer without further 
notice.
    (b) Reconsideration.--If a protest is timely filed, the 
authorized officer shall reconsider the proposed decision in 
light of the protestant's statement of reasons for protest and 
in light of other information pertinent to the case.
    (c) Service and Notification.--After reviewing the protest, 
the authorized officer shall serve a final decision on the 
parties to the proceeding, and notify affected interests of the 
final decision.

SEC. 164. APPEALS.

    (a) In General.--
          (1) After a final decision takes effect, a period of 
        30 days shall be provided for filing an appeal. A 
        person who is adversely affected within the meaning of 
        5 U.S.C. 702 may appeal the decision, pursuant to 
        applicable laws and regulations governing the 
        administrative appeals process of the agency serving 
        the decision.
          (2) When a grazing decision is appealed under 
        administrative procedures, the burden of proof shall be 
        on the proponent of the rule or order. The standard of 
        proof shall be by a preponderance of the evidence in 
        the record as a whole.
    (b) Suspension Pending Appeal.--
          (1) In general.--An appeal of a final decision shall 
        suspend the effect of the decision pending final action 
        on the appeal unless the decision is made effective 
        pending appeal under paragraph (2).
          (2) Effectiveness pending appeal.--The authorized 
        officer may, on the basis of substantial information, 
        order a final decision to remain in full force and 
        effect when failure to act would result in imminent and 
        irreversible resource damage. Full force and effect 
        decisions shall take effect on the date specified, 
        regardless of an appeal.
    (c) In the case of an appeal under this section, the 
authorized officer shall, within 30 days of receipt, forward 
the appeal, all documents and information submitted by the 
applicant, permittee, lessee, or lienholder, and any pertinent 
information that would be useful in the rendering of a decision 
on such appeal, to the appropriate authority responsible for 
issuing the final decision on the appeal.

                    Subtitle H--Advisory Committees

SEC. 171. RESOURCE ADVISORY COUNCILS.

    (a) Establishment.--the Secretary of Agriculture and the 
Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Governors 
of the affected States, shall establish and operate joint 
Resource Advisory Councils on a State or regional level to 
provide advice on management issues for all lands administered 
by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service within 
such State or regional area, except where the Secretaries 
determine that there is insufficient interest in participation 
on a council to ensure that membership can be fairly balanced 
in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to 
be performed.
    (b) Duties.--Each Resource Advisory Council shall advise 
the Secretaries and appropriate State officials on--
          (1) matters regarding the preparation, amendment, and 
        implementation of land use and activity plans for 
        public lands and resources within its area;
          (2) major management decisions while working within 
        the broad management goals established for the district 
        or national forest; and on
          (3) matters relating to the development of allotment 
        management plans developed pursuant to section 121.
    (c) Disregard of Advice.--
          (1) Request for response.--If a Resource Advisory 
        Council becomes concerned that its advice is being 
        arbitrarily disregarded, the Resource Advisory Council 
        may, by majority vote of its members, request that the 
        Secretaries respond directly to the Resource Advisory 
        Council's concerns within 60 days after the Secretaries 
        receive the request.
          (2) Effect of response.--The response of the 
        Secretaries to a request under paragraph (1) shall 
        not--
                  (A) constitute a decision on the merits of 
                any issue that is or might become the subject 
                of an administrative appeal; or
                  (B) be subject to appeal.
    (d) Membership.--
          (1) The Secretaries, in consultation with the 
        governor of the affected State or States, shall appoint 
        the members of each Resource Advisory Council. A 
        council shall consist of not less than nine members and 
        not more than fifteen members.
          (2) In appointing members to a Resource Advisory 
        Council, the Secretaries shall provide for balanced and 
        broad representation from among various groups, 
        including but not limited to, permittees and lessees, 
        other commercial interests, recreational users, 
        representatives of recognized local environmental or 
        conservation organizations, educational, professional, 
        or academic interests, representatives of State and 
        local government or governmental agencies, Indian 
        tribes, and other members of the affected public.
          (3) The Secretaries shall appoint at least one 
        elected official of general purpose government serving 
        the people of the area of each Resource Advisory 
        Council.
          (4) No person may serve concurrently on more than one 
        Resource Advisory Council.
          (5) Members of a Resource Advisory Council must 
        reside in one of the States within the geographic 
        jurisdiction of the council.
    (e) Subgroups.--A Resource Advisory Council may establish 
such subgroups as the council deems necessary, including but 
not limited to working groups, technical review teams, and 
rangeland resource groups.
    (f) Terms.--Resource Advisory Council members shall be 
appointed for two-year terms. Members may be appointed to 
additional terms at the discretion of the Secretaries.
    (g) Federal Advisory Committee Act.--Except to the extent 
that it is inconsistent with this subtitle, the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act shall apply to the Resource Advisory 
Councils established under this section.
    (h) Other FLPMA Advisory Councils.--Nothing in this section 
shall be construed as modifying the authority of the 
Secretaries to establish other advisory councils under section 
309 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 
U.S.C. 1739).

SEC 172. GRAZING ADVISORY COUNCILS.

    (a) Establishment.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
Governor of the affected State and with affected counties, 
shall appoint not fewer than five nor more than nine persons to 
serve on a Grazing Advisory Council for each district and each 
national forest within the 17 contiguous western States having 
jurisdiction over more than 500,000 access of public lands 
subject to commercial livestock grazing. The Secretaries may 
establish joint Grazing Advisory Councils wherever practicable.
    (b) Duties.--The duties of Grazing Advisory Councils 
established pursuant to this section shall be to provide advice 
to the Secretary concerning management issues directly related 
to the grazing of livestock on public lands, including--
          (1) range improvement objectives;
          (2) the expenditure of range improvement or 
        betterment funds under the Public Rangelands 
        Improvement Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) or the 
        Taylor Grazing Act (43 U.S.C. 315 et seq.);
          (3) development and implementation of grazing 
        management programs; and
          (4) range management decisions and actions at the 
        allotment level.
    (c) Disregard of Advice.--
          (1) Request for response.--If a Grazing Advisory 
        Council becomes concerned that its advice is being 
        arbitrarily disregarded, the Grazing Advisory Council 
        may, by unanimous vote of its members, request that the 
        Secretary respond directly to the Grazing Advisory 
        Council's concerns within 60 days after the Secretary 
        receives the request.
          (2) Effect of response.--The response of the 
        Secretary to a request under paragraph (1) shall not--
                  (A) constitute a decision on the merits of 
                any issue that is or might become the subject 
                of an administrative appeal; or
                  (B) be subject to appeal.
    (d) Membership.--The members of a Grazing Advisory Council 
established pursuant to this section shall represent 
permittees, lessees, affected landowners, social and economic 
interests within the district or national forest, and elected 
State or county officers. All members shall have a demonstrated 
knowledge of grazing management and range improvement practices 
appropriate for the region, and shall be residents of a 
community within or adjacent to the district or national 
forest, or control a permit or lease within the same area. 
Members shall be appointed by the Secretary for a term of two 
years, and may be appointed for additional consecutive terms. 
The membership of Grazing Advisory Councils shall be equally 
divided between permittees or lessees, and other interests: 
Provided, That one elected State or county officer representing 
the people of an area within the district or national forest 
shall be appointed to create an odd number of members.
    (e) Federal Advisory Committee Act.--Except to the extent 
that it is inconsistent with this subtitle, the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act shall apply to the Grazing Advisory 
Councils established pursuant to this section.

SEC. 173. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

    (a) Definition of District.--For the purposes of this 
subtitle, the term ``district'' means--
          (1) a grazing district administered under section 3 
        of the Act of June 28, 1934 (commonly known as the 
        ``Taylor Grazing Act'') (48 Stat. 1270, chapter 865; 43 
        U.S.C. 315b); or
          (2) other lands within a State boundary which are 
        eligible for grazing pursuant to section 15 of the Act 
        of June 28, 1934 (commonly known as the ``Taylor 
        Grazing Act'') (48 Stat. 1270, chapter 865; 43 U.S.C. 
        314m).
    (b) Termination of Service.--The Secretary may, after 
written notice, terminate the service of a member of an 
advisory committee if--
          (1) the member--
                  (A) no longer meets the requirements under 
                which appointed;
                  (B) fails or is unable to participate 
                regularly in committee work; or
                  (C) has violated Federal law (including a 
                regulation); or
          (2) in the judgment of the Secretary, termination is 
        in the public interest.
    (c) Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses.--A member 
of an advisory committee established under sections 171 or 172 
shall not receive any compensation in connection with the 
performance of the member's duties as a member of the advisory 
committee, but shall be reimbursed for travel and per diem 
expenses only while on official business, as authorized by 5 
U.S.C. 5703.

SEC. 174. CONFORMING AMENDMENT AND REPEAL.

    (a) Amendment.--The third sentence of section 402(d) of the 
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 
1752(d)) is amended by striking ``district grazing advisory 
boards established pursuant to section 403 of the Federal Land 
Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1753)'' and inserting 
``Resource Advisory Councils and Grazing Advisory Councils 
established under section 171 and section 172 of the Public 
Rangelands Management Act of 1995''.
    (b) Repeal.--Section 403 of the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1753) is repealed.

                          Subtitle I--Reports

SEC. 181. REPORTS.

    (a) In General.--Not later than March 1, 1997, and annually 
thereafter, the Secretaries shall submit to Congress a report 
that contains--
          (1) an itemization of revenues received and costs 
        incurred directly in connection with the management of 
        grazing on Federal land; and
          (2) recommendations for reducing administrative costs 
        and improving the overall efficiency of Federal 
        rangeland management.
    (b) Itemization.--If the itemization of costs under 
subsection (a)(1) includes any costs incurred in connection 
with the implementation of any law other than a statute cited 
in section 102, the Secretaries shall indicate with specificity 
the costs associated with implementation of each such statute.

              TITLE II--MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL GRASSLANDS

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

    This title may be cited as the ``National Grasslands 
Management Act of 1995''.

SEC. 202. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

    (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
          (1) the inclusion of the National Grasslands within 
        the National Forest System has prevented the Secretary 
        of Agriculture from effectively administering and 
        promoting grassland agriculture on National Grasslands 
        as originally intended under the Bankhead-Jones Farm 
        Tenant Act;
          (2) the National Grasslands can be more effectively 
        managed by the Secretary of Agriculture if administered 
        as a separate entity outside of the National Forest 
        System; and
          (3) a grazing program on National Grasslands can be 
        responsibly carried out while protecting and preserving 
        recreational, environmental, and other multiple uses of 
        the National Grasslands.
    (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to provide for 
improved management and more efficient administration of 
grazing activities on National Grasslands while preserving and 
protecting multiple uses of such lands, including but not 
limited to preserving hunting, fishing, and recreational 
activities, and protecting wildlife habitat in accordance with 
applicable laws.

SEC. 203. DEFINITIONS.

    As use in this title, the term--
          (1) ``National Grasslands'' means those areas managed 
        as National Grasslands by the Secretary of Agriculture 
        under title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act 
        (7 U.S.C. 1010-1012) on the day before the date of 
        enactment of this title; and
          (2) ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Agriculture.

SEC. 204. REMOVAL OF NATIONAL GRASSLANDS FROM NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM.

    Section 11(a) of the Forest Rangeland Renewable Resource 
Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)) is amended by striking 
the phrase ``the national grasslands and land utilization 
projects administered under title III of the Bankhead-Jones 
Farm Tenant Act (50 Stat. 525, 7 U.S.C. 1010-1012),''.

SEC. 205. MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL GRASSLANDS.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary shall manage the National 
Grasslands as a separate entity in accordance with this title 
and the provisions and multiple use purposes of title III of 
the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C. 1010-1012).
    (b) Grazing Activities.--In furtherance of the purposes of 
this title, the Secretary shall administer grazing permits and 
implement grazing management decisions in consultation, 
cooperation, and coordination with local grazing associations 
and other grazing permit holders.
    (c) Regulations.--The Secretary shall promulgate 
regulations to manage and protect the National Grasslands, 
taking to account the unique characteristics of the National 
Grasslands and grasslands agricultural conducted under the 
Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C. 1010). Such 
regulations shall facilitate the efficient administration of 
grazing and provide protection for the environmental, wildlife, 
wildlife habitat, and Federal lands in a manner that is 
consistent with that on the National Grasslands on the May 25, 
1995.
    (d) Conforming Amendment to Bankhead-Jones Act.--Section 31 
of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C. 1010) is 
amended to read as follows:
    ``To accomplish the purposes of title III of this Act, the 
Secretary is authorized and directed to develop a separate 
program of land conservation and utilization for the National 
Grasslands, in order thereby to correct maladjustments in land 
use, and thus assist in promoting grassland agriculture and 
secure occupancy and economic stability of farms and ranches, 
controlling soil erosion, reforestation, preserving and 
protecting natural resources, protecting fish and wildlife and 
their habitat, developing and protecting recreational 
opportunities, and facilities, mitigating floods, preventing 
impairment of dams and reservoirs, developing energy resources, 
conserving surface and subsurface moisture, protecting the 
watersheds of navigable streams, and protecting the public 
lands, health, safety and welfare, but not to build industrial 
parks or commercial enterprises.''.
    (e) Hunting Fishing, and Recreational Activities.--Nothing 
in this title shall be construed as limiting or precluding 
hunting or fishing activities on National Grasslands in 
accordance with applicable Federal and State laws, nor shall 
appropriate recreational activities be limited or preclude.
    (f) Valid Existing Rights--
          (1) In general.--Nothing in Act title shall affect 
        valid existing rights, reservations, agreements, or 
        authorizations. Section 1323(a) of Public Law 96-487 
        shall continue to apply to nonfederal land and 
        interests therein within the boundaries of the National 
        Grasslands.
          (2) Interim use and occupancy.--
                  (A) Until such time as regulations concerning 
                the use and occupancy of the National 
                Grasslands are promulgated pursuant to this 
                title, the Secretary shall regulate the use and 
                occupancy of such lands in accordance with 
                regulations applicable to such lands on May 25, 
                1995, to the extent practicable and consistent 
                with the provisions of this Act.
                  (B) Any applications for National Grasslands 
                use and occupancy authorizations submitted 
                prior to the date of enactment of this Act, 
                shall continue to be processed without 
                interruption and without reinitiating any 
                processing activity already completed or begun 
                prior to such date.

SEC. 206. FEES AND CHARGES.

    The fee provided for in section 135 of title I shall be 
applicable to the lands subject to the provisions of this 
title.

                         Purpose of the Measure

    S. 1459, as reported by the Committee, would provide for 
the uniform management of livestock grazing on Federal land and 
establish a formula for determining the fee to be assessed for 
grazing livestock thereon. Provisions in title II of the bill 
would remove the National Grasslands from the National Forest 
System and require that they be administered by the Forest 
Service as a separate entity under the Bankhead-Jones Farm 
Tenant Act.

                          Background and Need

    Much of the grazing heritage of the Western United States 
is an outgrowth of the period when settlers migrated there to 
grow crops and raise animals on ``homesteads.'' Those settlers 
established a way of life that continues today. Their 
descendants still attempt to make a living from ranching and 
livestock grazing, but under different and difficult 
circumstances. Some of the challenges are the same as those of 
a century ago: adequate water supplies, disease, and predators. 
However, the government atmosphere regarding the availability 
of public land for livestock grazing and attitude toward 
rangeland management have changed dramatically.
    In the early years, as livestock grazing became a part of 
the West and its economic base, ranchers grazed animals on 
their own land, and on neighboring land--Federal land--as well. 
Congress did nothing to legislate against this practice and 
States encouraged the full and free use of Federal land for 
livestock grazing.
    In the late 1890's and early 1900's, however, the Federal 
lands were divided through the creation of national forest 
reserves, and the Forest Service derived authority to manage 
grazing on national forest lands from its 1897 Organic Act. The 
unreserved Federal lands, however, remained subject to free and 
uncontrolled grazing.
    Only when it became apparent during the Depression that the 
rangeland could not continue to support the large number of 
animals being grazed and that the livestock industry itself was 
in dire need of assistance, did Congress act. The Taylor 
Grazing Act, enacted in 1934, was significant in many respects. 
It was one of the first major conservation laws, and it 
accomplished several other important objectives.
    First, it ended free access to and use of the public range. 
Second, it established grazing districts on unappropriated and 
unreserved public lands and ended large-scale disposition of 
public lands. Third, it provided authority to classify lands 
according to their best use for the first time. And, finally, 
it recognized that the Federal Government has a responsibility 
to care for Federal land and take into account the people who 
use it.
    Subsequently, the Grazing Service was created to implement 
the Taylor Grazing Act. It was merged with the General Land 
Office in 1946--97 years after the creation of the Department 
of the Interior--to form the Bureau of Land Management.
    Hence, for almost 50 years livestock grazing has been 
administered by two different land management agencies under 
two different statutory regimes. This has caused confusion and 
inconsistencies in areas where grazing allotments consist of 
intermingled parcels of Forest Service, BLM, and private or 
State lands.
    On March 25, 1994, the Department of the Interior published 
proposed regulations governing grazing on lands administered by 
the Bureau of Land Management (58 Fed. Reg. 14314). The 
proposed rules were the subject of an initial 120-day comment 
period that was scheduled to close on July 28, 1994. The 
comment period was extended to run through September 9, 1994. 
Numerous public meetings were held by the Department on the 
proposed regulations.
    The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held a series 
of hearings on the proposed regulations in Washington, D.C. on 
April 20, 1994; in Albuquerque, New Mexico on May 14, 1994; in 
Twin Falls, Idaho on July 8, 1994; in Richfield, Utah on July 
11, 1994; and in Casper, Wyoming on July 15, 1994 (S. Hrg. 103-
655).
    Final grazing regulations were promulgated by the 
Department on February 22, 1995 (60 Fed. Reg. 9894). As a 
result of an informal agreement reached with several members of 
Congress, the regulations did not take effect until August 21, 
1995.
    Based on concerns about the sweeping nature of the new 
Interior Department grazing management regulations, several 
Western members of Congress prepared legislation to assure that 
livestock grazing could continue to be a part of the economic 
base of the West and the culture that has been handed down from 
generation to generation. There also were concerns about the 
scope of grazing regulations the Forest Service is developing. 
To address those concerns, the sponsors sought to develop 
legislation that would adopt portions of the BLM grazing 
regulations, as well as elements of the new rules.
    Legislation (S. 852) taking a different tack from the 
Interior Department's regulations was introduced on May 25, 
1995, by Senators Domenici, Craig, Brown, Campbell, Hatch, 
Bennett, Burns, Simpson, Thomas, Kyl, Pressler, Kempthorne, 
Conrad, Dorgan, Dole, and Gramm. Senators Baucus, Nickles, and 
Inhofe subsequently joined as co-sponsors of the measure.
    A companion bill, H.R. 1713, was introduced in the House 
the same day and a hearing was held on July 11, 1995 by the 
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands of the 
House Resources Committee.
    A hearing was held on S. 852 on June 22, 1995, by the 
Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management. At the 
business meeting on July 19, 1995, the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources ordered the measure favorably reported, as 
amended (Report No. 104-123). Thereafter, S. 852 was placed on 
the Calendar (No. 158) but has not been considered by the 
Senate. It is generally conceded that S. 852 has several 
shortcomings.
    Following the reporting of S. 852 in July, a bi-partisan 
effort was mounted to craft new legislation that would not 
contain the same deficiencies as S. 852 and that would address 
issues of concern to members from Western grazing States. That 
effort culminated in the presentation of text for the Committee 
to consider reporting as an original bill at the November 30, 
1995 business meeting of the Committee.

                          Legislative History

    At the business meeting on November 30, 1995, legislative 
text was offered by Sens. Domenici, Craig, Kyl, Thomas, Burns, 
and Campbell of the Committee and were joined by Sens. Bennett, 
Hatch, Kempthorne, Simpson, Pressler, Baucus, and Dole, who are 
not members of the Committee, and the Committee ordered an 
original bill favorably reported.

            Committee Recommendations and Tabulation of Vote

    The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in 
open business session on Thursday, November 30, 1995, by voice 
vote of a quorum present, recommends that the Senate pass S. 
1459 as described herein.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

                        Section 1.--Short Title

    The title of the Act is the ``Public Rangelands Management 
Act of 1995.''

                       Section 2.--Effective Date

    This section states that the Act and its amendments and 
repeals are effective on March 1, 1996. That date marks the 
beginning of the grazing season in 1996. Until then, management 
of livestock grazing shall be conducted pursuant to the law and 
regulations in effect on February 1, 1995. The section further 
provides that membership of the resource advisory councils 
established by the Secretary of the Interior after August 21, 
1995 shall be deemed to be in compliance with the provisions of 
section 171(d) until March 1, 1997, and authorizes the councils 
to continue under their current charters until March 1, 1996.

                   Section 3.--Applicable Regulations

    This section requires livestock grazing on lands 
administered by the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM) to be conducted in accordance with federal 
regulations in effect on February 1, 1995. It also requires 
grazing on lands administered by the Forest Service to be 
conducted according to regulations that are substantially 
similar to the BLM regulations. The Secretary of Agriculture is 
required to promulgate regulations applicable to Forest Service 
lands which can deviate from the rules applicable to BLM to the 
extent necessary to conform to National Forest System laws. The 
Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture are required to 
coordinate the promulgation of substantially similar 
regulations.

                         Section 101.--Findings

    This section provides Congressional findings, of which 
several are worth emphasis. Multiple use, as set forth in 
current law, has been and will continue to be a guiding 
principle in the management of public lands and national 
forests. Through cooperative and concerted efforts, the Federal 
rangelands are in the best condition they have been in during 
this century and their condition continues to improve. As a 
result, wildlife populations are increasing and stabilizing in 
vast areas of the West. Grazing preferences must continue to be 
adequately safeguarded in order to promote the economic 
stability of the Western livestock industry. It is in the 
public interest to charge a fee for livestock grazing that 
reflects a fair return to the Federal Government and promotes 
continuing cooperative stewardship efforts. Greater local input 
into the management of the public rangelands is in the best 
interests of the United States. Maintaining the economic 
viability of the western livestock industry is essential to 
maintaining open space and fish and wildlife habitat. The 
levels of livestock that were authorized to be permitted as of 
August 1, 1993, are consistent with title I and may be 
increased or decreased, as appropriate, consistent with title 
I.
    The remaining findings are self-explanatory.

                    Section 102.--Application of Act

    This section states that the Act applies to the management 
of grazing on lands administered by the Secretaries of Interior 
and Agriculture under various statutes and laws.
    The section clarifies that nothing in the Act authorizes 
grazing in any unit of the National Park System, National 
Wildlife Refuge System, or on any other Federal lands where 
such use is prohibited by statute, nor supersedes or amends any 
limitation on the levels of use for grazing that may be 
specified in other Federal law, nor expands or enlarges any 
such prohibition or limitation.
    The section also declares that nothing in title I shall 
limit or preclude the use of and access to Federal land for 
fishing, hunting, recreational, watershed management or other 
appropriate multiple use activities in accordance with 
applicable Federal and State laws and the principles of 
multiple use.

                        Section 103.--Objective

    The statement of objectives is self-explanatory.

                       Section 104.--Definitions

    The term ``Affected interest'' means an individual or 
organization that has expressed in writing to the authorized 
officer a desire to be notified in writing of proposed 
decisions of the authorized officer related to a specific 
grazing allotment.
    ``Coordinated resource management'' means the planning and 
implementation of management activities in a specified 
geographic area that require the coordination and cooperation 
of the BLM and Forest Service with affected State agencies, 
private land owners and federal land users. It may include, but 
is not limited to, practices that provide for conservation, 
resource protection, resource enhancement or integrated 
management of multiple-use resources.
    The term ``grazing permit or lease'' means a document 
authorizing the use of the Federal land: within a grazing 
district under section 3 of the Taylor Grazing Act; outside 
grazing districts under section 15 of the Taylor Grazing Act; 
and in a national forest under section 19 of the Granger-Thye 
Act of 1950.
    ``Service Area'' means the area that can be properly grazed 
by livestock watering at a certain water.
    the term ``monitoring'' means the orderly collection of 
data using scientifically-based techniques to determine trend 
and condition of rangeland resources. Data collected may 
include historical information, but must be statistically 
reliable to evaluate effects of ecological changes and 
management actions and effectiveness of actions in meeting 
management objectives.
    ``Rangeland study'' means a documented study or analysis of 
data obtained on actual use, utilization, climatic conditions, 
other special events, production trend, and rangeland condition 
and trend to determine whether management objectives are being 
met that: rely on examination of physical measurements of range 
attributes and not on cursory visual scanning of land, unless 
the condition to be assessed is patently obvious and requires 
no physical measurements; utilize scientifically based and 
statistically verifiable methodology; and are accepted by an 
authorized officer.
    ``Utilization'' means the percentage of a year's forage 
production consumed or destroyed by herbivores.
    The remaining definitions are self-explanatory.

             section 105.--fundamentals of rangeland health

    This section is self-explanatory. Subsection (a) requires 
the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to establish 
standards and guidelines for addressing rangeland condition and 
trend on a State or regional basis in consultation with the 
Resource Advisory Committees established in section 171 and in 
cooperation with State departments of agriculture or other 
appropriate State agencies and academic institutions in each 
interested State.
    Subsection (b) requires the Secretaries, where appropriate, 
to authorize and encourage use of coordinated resource 
management practices that are: scientifically based; consistent 
with the goals and objectives of the applicable land use plan; 
for the purposes of promoting good stewardship of multiple-use 
rangeland resources; and authorized under a cooperative 
agreement with a permittee or lessee, or an organized group of 
permittees or lessees in a specified geographic area. Such 
agreements can include other individuals, organizations, or 
Federal land users.
    Subsection (c) authorizes and directs the Secretaries to 
enter into cooperative agreements to coordinate the activities 
of the BLM, Forest Service and the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service where coordinate resources management 
involves private, State and Federal land managed by the BLM and 
Forest Service.
    Subsection (d) declares that nothing in title I or any 
other law should be construed to imply that minimum national 
standards or guidelines are necessary.

                      section 106.--land use plans

    This section is self-explanatory.
    Subsection (a) requires an authorized officer to manage 
livestock grazing on Federal land under the principles of 
multiple-use and sustained yield and in accordance with 
applicable land use plans.
    Subsection (b) declares that land use plans shall: consider 
the impacts of all multiple uses, including livestock and 
wildlife grazing, on the environment and the condition of the 
public rangelands as well as the contributions of these uses to 
the management, maintenance and improvement of the rangelands; 
establish allowable grazing use in combination with other 
multiple uses, related levels of production or use to be 
maintained, areas of use, and resource condition goals and 
objectives to be obtained; and set forth programs and general 
management practices needed to achieve the purposes of title I.
    Subsection (c) provides that land use plans and amendments 
thereto shall continue to be developed in accordance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
    Subsection (d) declares that livestock grazing activities 
and management actions approved by an authorized officer, 
including the issuance, renewal or transfer of grazing permits 
or leases, shall not constitute major Federal actions requiring 
consideration under NEPA in addition to that which is necessary 
to support the land use plan and amendments thereto.
    Subsection (e) clarifies that nothing in this section is 
intended to override the planning and public involvement 
processes of any other federal law pertaining to federal lands, 
including public participation in the NEPA process itself.

              section 111.--specifying grazing preference

    This section is self-explanatory.

                section 121.--Allotment Management Plans

    This section is self-explanatory.

                    Section 122.--Range improvements

    This section is self-explanatory.

                Section 123.--Monitoring and Inspection

    Subsection (a) requires that monitoring be performed by 
qualified Federal, State, or local agency personnel, qualified 
consultants as agreed to in an approved allotment management 
plan, or qualified range consultants retained by the United 
States. The subsection further provides that any report on such 
monitoring must include any comments from comparably qualified 
range consultants participating in such monitoring activities 
at the request of the permittee or lessee.
    Subsection (b) is self-explanatory.
    Subsection (c) states that rangeland monitoring shall be 
conducted according to scientifically based regional or State 
criteria and protocols that shall be developed in consultation 
with the Resource Advisory Committees established in section 
171 and in cooperation with State departments of agriculture or 
other appropriate State agencies and academic institutions.
    Subsection (d) requires that the affected permittee or 
lessee, or authorized representative, be invited and allowed to 
participate in inspections or activities in which information 
or data are gathered for consideration in management decisions 
by the authorized officer. Information or data gathered in 
violation of this requirement shall not be relied upon and 
shall be excluded from the permittee's or lessee's allotment 
file.
    Subsection (e) provides exceptions to the requirements of 
subsection (d) that are self-explanatory.

                       section 124.--water rights

    Subsection (a) declares that no water rights on Federal 
land shall be acquired, perfected, owned, controlled, 
maintained, administered, or transferred in connection with 
livestock grazing management other than in accordance with 
State law concerning use and appropriation of water within the 
State.
    Subsection (b) requires the Secretary, in managing 
livestock grazing on Federal land, to follow State law with 
regard to water right ownership and appropriation.
    Subsection (c) prohibits the Secretary from imposing or 
requiring any transfer, restriction, or limitation on the use 
of any water right as a term or condition of any permit, or as 
a requirement for approval of the transportation, storage, or 
conveyance of water on or across Federal land.
    Subsection (d) declares that nothing in title I shall be 
construed to create an express or implied reservation of water 
rights in the United States.

            section 131.--Grazing Permits or Grazing Leases

    This section is self-explanatory.

                        section 132.--Subleasing

    This section is self-explanatory.

          section 133.--Ownership and Identification of Stock

    This section is self-explanatory.

                   Section 134.--Terms and conditions

    This section is self-explanatory.

                     Section 135.--fees and charges

    The term ``animal unit month'' (AUM) means one month's use 
and occupancy of the range by (1) one cow, bull, steer, heifer, 
horse, burro, or mule, seven sheep, or seven goats, each of 
which is six months of age or older on the date on which the 
animal begins grazing on Federal land; (2) any such animal 
regardless of age if the animal is weaned on the date on which 
the animal begins grazing on Federal land; and (3) any such 
animal that will become 12 months of age during the period of 
use authorized under a grazing permit or lease.
    The fee for each AUM to be determined by the Secretaries of 
the Interior and Agriculture shall be equal to the three-year 
average of the total gross value of production of beef cattle 
for the three years preceding the grazing fee year, multiplied 
by the 10-year average of the United States Treasury Securities 
6-month bill ``new issue'' rate, and divided by 12. The gross 
value of production of beef cattle shall be determined by the 
Economic Research Service (ERS) of the Department of 
Agriculture.
    The remaining provisions of the section are self-
explanatory.

       Section 141.--civil violations and failures of compliance

    This section is self-explanatory.

                  Section 151.--nonmonetary settlement

    This section is self-explanatory.

                   Section 152.--impoundment and sale

    This section is self-explanatory.

                    Section 161.--proposed decisions

    This section is self-explanatory. Subsection (a) requires 
that the authorized officer serve, by certified mail or 
personal delivery, a proposed decision on any applicant, 
permittee, lessee, or lienholder that is affected by a proposed 
action on an application for a grazing permit or lease, or 
range improvement permit, or by a proposed action relating to a 
term or condition of a grazing permit or lease, or a range 
improvement permit.
    Subsection (b) requires the authorized officer to send 
copies of proposed decisions to affected interests.
    Subsection (c) requires that a proposed decision: state the 
reasons for the action, including reference to applicable law; 
be based upon and supported by rangeland studies, where 
appropriate; and state that any protest of a proposed decision 
must be filed not later than 30 days after service.

                         Section 162.--Protests

    This section requires that an applicant, permittee, or 
lessee protest a proposed decision under section 161 within 30 
days after service of the proposed decision.

                     Section 163.--final decisions

    Subsection (a) declares that, absent a timely filed 
protest, a proposed decision shall become final without further 
notice.
    Subsection (b) states that a timely filed protest requires 
the authorized officer to reconsider the proposed decision in 
light of a protestant's statement of reasons for protest and 
other pertinent information.
    Subsection (c) requires the authorized officer, after 
reviewing the protest, to serve a final decision on parties to 
a proceeding and notify affected interests of the final 
decision.

                         Section 164.--appeals

    Subsection (a) provides a period of 30 days for filing an 
appeal after a final decision takes effect. A person who is 
adversely affected within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 702 may 
appeal a final decision, pursuant to applicable laws and 
regulations governing the administrative appeals process of the 
agency serving the decision. When an appeal is taken, the 
burden of proof shall be by a preponderance of the evidence and 
shall be on the proponent of the rule or order.
    Subsection (b) An appeal of a final decision shall suspend 
the effect of a decision pending final action unless it is made 
effective pending appeal. The authorized officer may, on the 
basis of substantial information, order a final decision to 
remain in full force and effect pending appeal, effective on 
the date specified, when failure to act would result in 
imminent and irreversible resource damage.
    Subsection (c) requires the authorized officer, when an 
appeal is taken, to forward the appeal and all documents and 
information supplied by the appellant, as well as any pertinent 
information that would be useful in rendering a decision, to 
the authority responsible for issuing the final decision on the 
appeal.

                Section 171.--resource advisory councils

    This section directs the establishment of Resource Advisory 
Councils (RACs) by the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture 
on a State or regional level to advise on management issues for 
all lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management and the 
Forest Service. The section also sets forth the duties and 
membership of RACs, subgroups, terms, and other provisions 
relating to the RACs.

                Section 172.--grazing advisory councils

    This section directs the establishment of Grazing Advisory 
Councils (GACs) by the Secretaries of the Interior and 
Agriculture for each district and national forest within the 17 
contiguous Western States to advise on management issues 
related to livestock grazing on public lands. The Secretaries 
are authorized to establish joint GACs wherever practicable. 
The section also sets forth the duties and membership of the 
GACs.

                    Section 173.--general provisions

    The provisions of this section are self-explanatory.

             Section 174.--conforming amendment and repeal

    This section conforms the Resource Advisory Council and 
Grazing Advisory Council provisions of the bill to the Federal 
Land Policy and Management Act.

                         Section 181.--reports

    This section is self-explanatory.

              TITLE II. MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL GRASSLANDS

                       Section 201.--short title

    This section is self-explanatory.

                   Section 202.--findings and purpose

    This section is self-explanatory.

                       Section 203.--definitions

    This section is self-explanatory.

   Section 204.--removal of national grasslands from national forest 
                                 system

    This section is self-explanatory.

             Section 205.--This section is self-explanatory

    Subsection (f) states that nothing in title II shall affect 
valid existing rights, reservations, agreements, or 
authorizations. The Committee intends that use and occupancy on 
National Grasslands remain in effect under current rules until 
new programs, plans and rules are implemented, and that 
processing activities for any such authorizations should not be 
interrupted or be repeated. The subsection also specifies that 
section 1323(a) of the Alaska National Interest Lands 
Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3210(a)) shall continue to apply to 
nonfederal land and interests therein within the boundaries of 
the National Grasslands upon their removal from the National 
Forest System.

                   Cost and Regulatory Considerations

    The Congressional Budget Office estimate of the costs of 
this measure has been requested but was not received at the 
time the report was filed. When the report is available, the 
Chairman will request that it be printed in the Congressional 
Record for the advice of the Senate.

                      Regulatory Impact Evaluation

    In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following 
evaluation of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in 
implementing S. 1459. The bill is not a regulatory measure in 
the sense of imposing Government-established standards or 
significant economics responsibilities on private individuals 
and businesses.
    No personal information would be collected in administering 
the program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal 
privacy.
    There are likely to be significant paperwork requirements 
for the Forest Service.

                        Executive Communications

    On November 17, 1995, Senator Murkowski requested the views 
of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the 
Interior on a November 14, 1995 Staff Draft of S. 1459. The 
responses follow:

                    U.S. Department of Agriculture,
                                            Forest Service,
                                  Washington, DC, December 4, 1995.
Hon. Frank H. Murkowski,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your request for the views 
of the Forest Service on the November 14, 1995, Staff Draft 
bill, the Public Rangelands Management Act of 1995. I 
understand that your Committee marked up this bill on November 
30, 1995.
    Secretary Glickman sent you a letter expressing the 
Administration's official position on this legislation. Since 
the bill would have major impacts on the Forest Service and the 
resources we manage, I want to provide our technical view to 
you and members of the Committee.
    The original version of S. 852, the Livestock Grazing Act, 
only included two areas of direct concern to the Forest 
Service--the sections dealing with grazing fees and management 
of the National Grasslands. Therefore, my testimony of June 22, 
1995, was limited to those items. The Forest Service has a 
number of major concerns with the provisions of this new bill 
in its present form. These specific concerns are spelled out in 
the enclosed technical line-by-line analysis.
    I assure you that if the original bill in its entirety has 
applied to the Forest Service, my testimony would have been 
much more expansive. As the bill has now been modified to 
include the 191 million acres of land managed by the Forest 
Service, I would appreciate a chance to testify at another 
hearing on this matter. The bill would make massive changes on 
how grazing would be administered on lands managed by the 
Forest Service.
    Please let me know if I or my staff can be of any further 
assistance as you consider this bill.
            Sincerely,
                                           Jack Ward Thomas, Chief.
    Enclosure.

                Public Rangelands Management Act of 1995

                            P. 2, lines 2-16

    This provision would require the Forest Services to conduct 
costly, time-consuming rulemaking less than 2 years after 
conducting a similar rulemaking. Additionally, tying the 
management of grazing to the regulations in effect on a 
specific date would limit the Secretary's discretion to manage 
grazing on National Forest System lands.

                           P. 2, lines 23-26

    This statement, though true, is misleading. There are still 
significant problems with range conditions on 8.2 million acres 
of Federal land. There are significant problems with the 
riparian zones. Such problems should be acknowledged.

                            P. 3, lines 1-2

    This statement is only partially true. Some species, 
particularly those that are not habitat generalists, have 
declined markedly. Others, such as mule deer, have also been in 
decline. Aquatic species have declined dramatically and 
continue to decline with approximately 85 species listed as 
threatened or endangered and 46 species considered at risk. 
Land use practices, including grazing, are major contributors 
to the decline of aquatic species.

                           P. 3, lines 10-17

    The cost and complexity of administering range programs as 
specified in this bill would be dramatically increased. For 
example, the monitoring requirements would be prohibitively 
expensive. Congress will need to provide funds and personnel to 
cover these increases.

                            P. 4. lines 5-6

    This language does not accurately state Section 6(a) of the 
National Forest Management Act which requires the coordination 
of, not consistency with, the land use planning processes of 
state, local, and Tribal governments.

                            P. 4, lines 7-9

    This legislatively recognizes grazing stocking rates at the 
August 1, 1993, level as acceptable and does not take into 
account the need for land managers to adjust use patterns as 
necessary to protect basic resources.

                            P. 5, lines 2-16

    When the Chief of the Forest Service testified before the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on 
Forests and Public Land Management, on June 22, 1995, only two 
provisions in S. 852 affected programs under the jurisdiction 
of the Secretary of Agriculture: Title I, Section 137, 
concerning grazing fees, and Title II, Section 201, which would 
remove National Grasslands from the National Forest System. If 
the Forest Service had been included in the remaining 
provisions of the bill, the Chief's testimony would have voiced 
strong opposition to a number of provisions. Adding the Forest 
Service's 191,000,000 acres to the bill is a dramatic change. 
This should, in and of itself, justify a new round of hearings.

                            P. 6, lines 7-8

    The bill does provide stability to the livestock industry 
(line 7). This comes largely from prescribing monitoring 
standards that would be so expensive and times consuming that 
monitoring could not be accomplished given current resources.

                           P. 6, lines 20-23

    The definition of ``Affected Interest'' is far too 
constraining a term and is designed to dramatically reduce the 
ability of citizens of the United States to influence the 
management of lands that they own in common.

                           P. 8, lines 21-23

    This changes the definition of ``grazing preference'' from 
priority for renewal of a term grazing permit to the number of 
AUM's attached to base property. This is a dramatic change 
which would further restrict the ability of managers to adjust 
animal numbers and use patterns as necessary to protect basic 
resources.

                            P. 9, lines 9-11

    The term ``long-term damage'' needs to be defined. As 
defined, ``Livestock Carrying Capacity'' will necessitate 
establishing stocking rates that will result in damage to 
rangeland resources.

                P. 9, lines 12-17 and P. 10, lines 2-10

    The requirement for ``statistically reliable'' data is 
dramatic in terms of costs and feasibility. ``Statistically 
reliable'' begs definition. Reliable at what levels of 
confidence? Such a requirement for every allotment draws 
resources and personnel away from on-the-ground resource 
management. The time frames within which ``ecological changes'' 
(which is underfined) occur can be very long. Some changes (or 
problems) are so glaringly obvious that no such measurements 
are needed. Unless Congress intends to fund the costs of such a 
requirement this is a prescription for no change.

                           P. 10, lines 18-24

    This is a dramatic change in (present and traditional) 
Forest Service policy. Such a dramatic change should be the 
subject of hearings.

                            P. 11, line 6-10

    Having ``science'' don on a state or regional basis and 
involving two additional sets of ``experts'' is a prescription 
for confusion. States (and Universities) are not staffed or 
funded to do this work. Who pays? How much will it cost? Do the 
states and academics want to take on the chore? What if they 
decline?

                             P. 11, line 14

    The term ``scientifically based'' should be defined.

                           p. 11, lines 18-19

    Why only authorize cooperative agreements with permittees 
or lessees as part of ``Coordinated Resource Management''? Who 
are the other players? Why are they not specifically 
identified?

                             p. 12, line 9

    ``Rangelands'' needs to be defined. Much of the grazing on 
National Forests takes place on ``forest lands''.

                           p. 12, lines 8-15

    Are these activities to be achieved using the same high 
standards of science and statistical reliability required to 
adjust a grazing permit? If not, why not? These are the 
critical decisions that will stand until modified by rigorous 
monitoring.

                           p. 12, lines 19-13

    This is inconsistent with meeting the ongoing obligations 
of the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Forest 
Management Act, the Endangered Species Act, and other 
environmental laws. A change between a plan and permit or lease 
could well have a significant impact on the environment, or 
there could be a significant impact on a listed species.

                           p. 14, lines 6-19

    This is a dramatic change in Forest Service policy and 
affords an ``ownership'' interest in permanent structural 
improvements on public lands. Such a change warrants a hearing. 
The ramifications of these provisions should be fully examined.

                           p. 14, lines 24-27

    This provides an ``incentive'' to obtain ownership. This 
exacerbates the potential problems put forward in P. 14, lines 
6-19.

                           p. 15, lines 5-19

    Why is such a provision offered to grazing interests and 
not to other users of public lands?

                           p. 15, lines 11-13

    This gives the permittee total control over stock ponds and 
wells. The permittee could prevent the use of that water by 
other ungulates--deer, elk, antelope, wild horses. On some 
ranges, water is critical to such animals. Such rights should 
never be so assigned.

                           p. 15, lines 14-17

    Why should the Federal Government be involved in a deal 
between willing buyers and sellers?

                           p. 15, lines 19-26

    What is the standard for determining ``scientifically 
qualified'' personnel?

                  p. 15, line 27 and p. 16, lines 1-4

    Ecological protocols are not limited to state lines. If 
such ``protocols'' are ``scientifically based'' they would not 
differ except in race causes. The development of 25-35 
different sets of protocols in consultation with all those 
described would likely produce a tangle that would lead to 
technically ludicrous results. Who pays for the participation 
of the State Department of Agriculture and State Agencies and 
``academic'' institutions?

                           p. 16, lines 5-10

    Why is only the permittees provided such a privilege? 
Should this not be extended to all parties with a vested 
interest such as State Wildlife Departments, concerned 
citizens, etc.?

                p. 16, lines 25-27 and p. 17, lines 1-3

    This section appears to give control over the exercise of 
water rights to the permittee. This could allow the permittee 
to exclude wildlife, and the public, from any water. Because 
the water could be transported across Federal land to private 
land, any lack of control over the exercise of water rights on 
Federal Land could allow the Federal Land to be ``locked up'' 
by the specific permittee. Many western lands exist in such a 
state that control of water is essential for the proper 
management and control of the land. Does this provision 
override the Endangered Species Act? This provision appears to 
give virtually total control of water on arid rangelands to 
permittees.

                           p. 17, lines 12-14

    Define ``appropriate and accepted resource analysis and 
evaluation''--judged ``appropriate'' by whom, ``accepted'' by 
whom?

                p. 17, lines 24-27 and p. 18, lines 1-9

    This is a dramatic change in Forest Service policy. This is 
``subleasing'' pure and simple and implies an ownership right 
because it authorizes the conveyance of grazing privileges 
between private parties.

                           p. 18, lines 13-14

    There are sometimes excellent reasons for requiring marking 
or tagging livestock beyond that required by State law. This is 
an opening for permit violations. Has an analysis of the 
various state laws marking requirements been done?

                           p. 18, lines 23-26

    ``Modifications'' would be unlikely because of the cost and 
complexity of monitoring required. The monitoring requirements 
would make it virtually impossible for the authorizing official 
to deal with ``bad stewards.''

                            p. 19, lines 1-8

    The language on fees has changed. What is the derivation of 
this grazing fees formula? This should be carefully reviewed 
and be the subject of a hearing.

                           p. 19, lines 18-19

    This would mean that the permittee could bring 5-6 month 
old calves onto the allotment. This provides a ``bonus'' of 
grazing of an animal between the ages of 6 and 12 months. Who 
would know if the calf is the ``progeny'' of what or whose cow?

                           p. 20, lines 18-19

    The ``knowing and willful'' standard would make it 
difficult, if not impossible, to prove a violation or non-
compliance.

                           p. 21, lines 18-19

    Again, the burden of proof is to prove ``willful'' 
violations. The same concern applies to the second violation.

                           p. 21, lines 23-24

    This provision could diminish the Agency's ability to 
impose meaningful penalties for intentional violations.

                             p. 22, line 22

    How could there be a knowing and willful violation of 
Section 141 if there is no fault of the livestock operator?

                           p. 24, lines 11-13

    This provision is a departure from the Administrative 
Procedures Act under which the standard of proof is arbitrary 
and capricious and the burden of proof is on the appellant.

                           p. 24, lines 5-26

    This provision should provide the Secretary with more 
discretion for lifting the automatic stay, if needed to protect 
the forest resources.

                             p. 25, line 2

    Resource Advisory Councils are a new concept for the Forest 
Service. This should justify a full hearing as to consequences 
and costs of such an enormous change in operating procedures. 
Can the Forest Service absorb the per diem and travel costs 
involved? Funding available for range programs is already 
severely inadequate.

                           p. 25, lines 12-15

    To advise on all listed matters, the Advisory Committee 
would need to examine hundreds of such items per year. It does 
not seem likely that such a group could possibly operate 
without significant professional staff.

                           p. 26, lines 5-11

    Why should ``permittees and lessees'' and ``other 
commercial interests'' receive designated positions?

                            p. 27, lines 2-7

    Why do grazing interests have special influence in the form 
of ``Grazing Advisory Councils''? Why are there no ``Advisory 
Councils'' for fish and wildlife, recreation, timber, mining, 
water, etc.? This is a dominant use provision. This could 
involve nearly 1,000 persons. Can the Forest Service absorb the 
per diem and travel costs involved? Funding available for range 
programs is already severely inadequate.

                           p. 27, lines 27-28

    The membership is designed to insure that Grazing Advisory 
Councils are dominated by livestock interests. ``Grazing'' is a 
use that has dramatic impacts on the land and the ecology of an 
area.

                            p. 28, lines 6-7

    The requirement that the Councils be one-half permittees 
also assures that the Councils will be dominated by grazing 
interests. This is a dominant use provision.

                                p. 30-31

    Removal of the National Grasslands from the National Forest 
System weakens the multiple-use management of these lands. 
Further, such divisions seems likely to produce significant 
inefficiencies in management by requiring additional separate 
management units. Further, the requirement to prepare separate 
management plans and new regulations for National Grasslands is 
duplicative and inefficient. This change would likely require 
amendments to affected land and resource management plans. It 
would appear prudent in these times of significant downsizing 
in Forest Service personnel and resources to carefully consider 
costs and benefits of such organizational change prior to 
enactment of this bill.

                         Department of Agriculture,
                                   Office of the Secretary,
                                 Washington, DC, November 30, 1995.
Hon. Frank Murkowski,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Washington, DC.
    Dear Frank: I appreciate your November 17, 1995, invitation 
to comment on the November 14, 1995, proposed substitute of the 
Public Rangelands Management Act of 1995, to which I will refer 
to simply as the substitute. Unfortunately, this version of the 
legislation fails to remedy both the concerns the Chief of the 
Forest Service presented on the Subcommittee on Forests and 
Public Lands during its June 22, 1995, hearing and I stated in 
my July 18, 1995, letter to you. I have very strong objections 
to the substitute and many of its provisions. In this letter, I 
wanted to highlight those which cause me the gravest concern.
    In sum, the substitute establishes barriers that could 
restrict or prevent the public from participating fully in 
making decisions over the use of the public lands. While the 
substitute states that public lands are to be dedicated to 
multiple uses, its overall effect would shift the balance in 
favor of selected purposes, favoring relatively few uses at the 
expense of the pubic at large.
    Not only do I object to the limits section 3 would place on 
the Department's discretion in managing grazing on national 
forest system lands, I object to replacing current regulations 
the Department has developed, with full public participation, 
with regulations substantially similar to the same as those 
another Federal land management agency rejected as outdated and 
out of touch with how the public wants its resources managed.
    I believe that section 123, could, in the end, seriously 
impede the Department's ability to monitor the use and 
condition of its public lands. Rather than improving the 
present system, these prohibitively expensive, cumbersome to 
implement, and unattainable requirements would make it 
virtually impossible for land managers to adjust use patterns 
to protect the resource for multiple purposes.
    Section 124 is another extremely troublesome congressional 
attempt to restrict the Forest Service's ability to manage 
water rights for multiple uses and vests, as do so many other 
provisions of the substitute, primacy of consideration in a 
select, narrow range of uses. While the provision would appear 
to codify existing Forest Service policy on stock watering 
rights, it would in fact apply limits much more restrictive 
than those applied to many state land management agencies and 
in some states, the Forest Service would be precluded 
altogether from obtaining water rights to manage its lands 
effectively. By prohibiting the Forest Service from 
conditioning grazing permits with terms related to associated 
water rights, the substitute could transfer virtually complete 
control of water on Federal land to the permittee, possible to 
the exclusion of all public uses, including wildlife 
management.
    I cannot support the creation, in section 172, of nearly 
100 advisory councils dedicated primarily to grazing interest. 
This is yet another example of the imbalance underlying the 
draft.
    While section 204 maintains this Department's authority to 
manage the National Grasslands, separating them from the 
National Forest System does not achieve improved management and 
imposes and unnecessary, time-consuming, and costly process to 
revise land and resource management plans and regulations.
    While the substitute claims that rangelands are in very 
good condition, in fact over eight million acres of the 
public's rangeland remain in unsatisfactory condition. Unless 
we continue a balanced, prudent approach to managing these 
lands, they will deteriorate, losing value and utility to 
everyone, including livestock ranchers and operators, whose 
interests the Administration wants to protect as much as the 
interests of other important users of these public resources. 
Unfortunately, the substitute fails to meet this standard.
    I am sending a similar letter to Senator Johnston and 
copies to other members of the Committee.
    With best personal regards, I am.
            Sincerely,
                                           Dan Glickman, Secretary.
                                ------                                

                             The Secretary of the Interior,
                                 Washington, DC, November 29, 1995.
Hon. Frank Murkowski,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, 
        Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I appreciate the opportunity to comment 
on Senator Domenici's proposed substitute version of S. 852, 
the Public Rangelands Management Act.
    The most recent version of S. 852 still fails to address 
the problems the Department had with the previous bill--lack of 
public involvement, tying the hands of land managers, and 
elevating grazing to the dominant use of public land.
    The Administration is therefore strongly opposed to 
enactment of this legislation.
    This version introduces radical new concepts of water 
rights, hobbles the Department's ability to manage and protect 
western rangelands, and, in doing so, creates more bureaucracy, 
more red tape, and more delay.
    Since the original bill was reported out of Committee, the 
Department of the Interior's grazing regulations have gone into 
effect. The Resource Advisory Councils are up and running and 
have begun to provide the positive cooperative results we 
expected. None of the doom and gloom predicted by the opponents 
of rangeland reform has occurred or appears likely to occur. 
The substitute bill would set us back to the beginning of the 
rule-making process; it would delay by another three years 
getting on with the business of improving grazing management on 
public lands.
    While some efforts have been made to sand off the rough 
edges of S. 852, this new version still fails to address 
adequately the three major areas of concern that led us to 
oppose the original bill. Like its predecessor, this bill:
          Continues to exclude the public from appropriate 
        public lands decision-making processes.--Although the 
        term ``affected interests'' is used, it provides no 
        meaningful opportunity for those interests to 
        participate in formulating multiple-use decisions on 
        grazing issues. If, as the bill claims, multiple use is 
        its guiding principle, it is critical to allow 
        participation from all perspectives when making 
        multiple-use decisions. Merely serving notice of 
        proposed and final decisions while excluding parties 
        from meaningful allotment planning and dialogue 
        virtually assures lengthy administrative appeals and 
        public anger.
          Limits land managers' ability to protect the 
        environment and the health of public lands.--The bill 
        exempts grazing activities and management actions at 
        site-specific and allotment management plan levels from 
        consideration under the National Environmental Policy 
        Act (NEPA); it establishes prohibitively strict 
        standards for conducting monitoring and rangeland 
        studies; it requires unnecessary and complex monitoring 
        procedures to change permit terms and conditions; it 
        requires detailed allocation and grazing management 
        decisions to be made as part of land use plans. All of 
        these elements will result in unnecessary delays of 
        land management decisions. The bill also automatically 
        stays grazing decisions pending appeal except when 
        failure to act would result in irreversible resource 
        damage.
          Elevates livestock grazing to a dominant use of 
        public lands by granting special considerations and 
        privileges.--The bill establishes grazing advisory 
        councils, although no other group of land users enjoys 
        its own single-purpose advisory group. It authorizes 
        sub-leasing while providing no return to the taxpayer 
        for this use, contrary to recent GAO recommendations.
    Added to these problems left over from the original bill 
are two very serious new issues that make this bill much worse 
than its predecessor:
          The Bureau of Land Management's old grazing 
        regulations are frozen, except for the changes in this 
        bill, as of February 1, 1995.--This radical idea strips 
        the Secretary of his long-established authority to 
        regulate use of public land for, among other purposes, 
        livestock grazing and to adjust regulations over time 
        to protect the health of the land. This authority has 
        been confirmed by Congress in the Taylor Grazing Act of 
        1934 and many subsequent laws. The effect would be to 
        require Congress to micro-manage livestock grazing 
        regulations by approving all future changes.
          The substitute bill introduces radical new water 
        rights concepts in relation to the multiple use 
        mandate.--Section 124 of the bill fails to recognize 
        valid existing rights to use water on public lands that 
        have long been recognized in the Western states. Its 
        sweeping language, affecting water rights that have any 
        ``connection with livestock grazing management,'' could 
        adversely impact all kinds of public land water uses, 
        such as for fish, wildlife, wild horses and burros, 
        firefighting, erosion control and for securing Indian 
        water rights. It introduces a potentially radical new 
        concept of ``water ownership'' that flies in the face 
        of long-established principles of Western water law 
        which grant the right to use water rather than 
        ownership of water. Finally, it could strip away a 
        significant portion of the Secretary's existing 
        authority to protect multiple uses of federal lands by 
        putting inappropriate conditions on mineral leases, 
        rights of way grants and other public land use permits.
    Our regulations were developed in the belief that most 
livestock operators are good stewards with whom federal land 
managers can work cooperatively to assure healthy sustainable 
rangelands, but that there are still problem areas and problem 
operators. In those cases, the land manager must be able to 
take timely action to protect resource values. Our land 
managers must be able to address these needs without the 
excessive costs, long delays, and additional red-tape that 
would be imposed by is bill.
            Sincerely,
                                                     Bruce Babbitt.
             MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATORS BUMPERS AND BRADLEY

    The Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service 
currently charge $1.61 per AUM. This fee is far less than the 
grazing fees charged on state and private lands. For instance, 
grazing fees on state lands range from $10.92 to $1.98 per AUM 
(excluding Arizona which sets its fees as a percentage of the 
Federal fee). Private land holders impose a fee averaging 
$10.00 per AUM.
    The Committee bill would establish a new fee formula that 
would primarily be based on the value of beef production. 
According to the testimony of the National Agricultural 
Statistics Service and the Economic Research Service of the 
Department of Agriculture (the two agencies that would 
administer the new fee), ``there appears to be no rationale for 
the proposed fee formula.'' The fee formula in the Committee 
bill would increase the fee at best to $2.10 per AUM and could 
very well actually produce less in revenues than the current 
fee. If this formula had been in effect between 1975 and 1991, 
the Federal government would have received $100 million less.
    Some of the proponents of the Committee bill seem to 
believe that the only people that have an interest in the 
legislation are those that own animals which graze on federal 
land. However, the federal government is supposed to act as the 
guardian of the public lands for all citizens. That includes 
ensuring that the environment is adequately protected and that 
the taxpayers are adequately compensated for the use of the 
public lands just as they would be if they owned the land 
directly. The current grazing fee and the fee proposed in the 
Committee bill fall far short of this principle.
    At the same time Congress is struggling to balance the 
budget and is looking to make substantial cuts in spending on 
Medicaid, Medicare and education, the Committee bill proposes 
that the federal government continue to receive far less than 
fair market value for grazing fees. This is unacceptable and 
must be changed.

                                   Dale Bumpers.
                                   Bill Bradley.
             MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATORS BINGAMAN AND DORGAN

    On July 19, 1995, the Committee reported S. 852, the 
previous version of the grazing bill, by a vote of 11-8. At the 
time, we filed minority views outlining our concerns with S. 
852. While this successor bill to S. 852 was ordered reported 
on a voice vote, we want to make clear that most of our major 
concerns with S. 852 have not been adequately addressed.
    In some areas, this bill is an improvement over S. 852. 
However, in our opinion, many of S. 852's fundamental problems 
still exist in this bill. We will continue to work with the 
bill's proponents in an effort to resolve these concerns before 
the bill is considered by the Senate.
    Like S. 852, this bill goes too far in limiting public 
participation and involvement in the management and use of 
public lands with respect to grazing, and it places unnecessary 
burdens on integrating grazing activities on public lands 
within a ``multiple use'' framework. We remain concerned that 
this bill would dramatically alter grazing management practices 
on National Forest lands, without the Committee having a 
complete understanding of the consequences of those changes. 
And as we have noted previously, we think it is not good policy 
to legislatively codify administrative regulations. Such an 
approach severely limits responsible and effective 
administration of public lands by requiring Congressional 
approval for future changes.
    Finally, we are concerned with the changes made to title 
II, relating to management of grazing on National Grasslands. 
Specifically, we are troubled by the removal of the public 
consultation provision and the elimination of the requirement 
that environmental protections on National Grasslands be 
equivalent to protections applicable to National Forest System 
lands. We will seek to restore these important provisions when 
the Senate considers this legislation.
                                   Jeff Bingaman.
                                   Byron L. Dorgan.
                        Changes in Existing Law

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by 
the bill S. 1459, as ordered reported, are shown as follows 
(existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black 
brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing law in 
which no change is proposed is shown in roman):

    Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 1901-1908)

Sec. 2. Congressional findings and declaration of policy

    (a) The Congress finds and declares that--
          [(1) vast segments of the public rangelands are 
        producing less than their potential for livestock, 
        wildlife habitat, recreation, forage, and water and 
        soil conservation benefits, and for that reason are in 
        an unsatisfactory condition;]
          [(2) such rangelands will remain in unsatisfactory 
        condition and some areas may decline further under 
        present levels of, and funding for, management;]
          [(3) unsatisfactory conditions on public rangelands 
        present a high risk of soil loss, decertification, and 
        a resultant under productivity for large acreage of the 
        public lands; contribute significantly to unacceptable 
        levels of siltation and salinity in major western 
        watersheds including the Colorado River; negatively 
        impact the quality and availability of scarce western 
        water supplies; threaten important and frequently 
        critical fish and wildlife habitat; prevent expansion 
        of the forage resource and resulting benefits to 
        livestock and wildlife production; increase surface 
        runoff and flood danger; reduce the value of such lands 
        for recreational and esthetic purposes; and may 
        ultimately lead to unpredictable and undesirable long-
        term local and regional climatic and economic changes;]
          [(4) The above-mentioned conditions can be addressed 
        and corrected by an intensive public rangelands 
        maintenance, management, and improvement program 
        involving significant increases in levels of rangeland 
        management and improvement funding for multiple-use 
        values;]
          [(5)(1) to prevent economic disruption and harm to 
        the western livestock industry, it is in the public 
        interest to charge a fee for livestock grazing permits 
        and leases on the public lands which is based on a 
        formula reflecting annual changes in the costs of 
        production; and
          [(6)(2) the Act of December 15, 1971 (85 Stat. 649, 
        16 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.), continues to be successful in 
        its goal of protecting wild free-roaming horses and 
        burros from capture, branding [harassment] harassment, 
        and death, but that certain amendments are necessary 
        thereto to avoid excessive costs in the administration 
        of this Act, and to facilitate the humane adoption or 
        disposal of excess wild free-roaming horses and burros 
        which because they exceed the carrying capacity of the 
        range, pose a threat to their own habitat, fish, 
        wildlife, recreation, water and soil conservation, 
        domestic livestock grazing, and other rangeland 
        values[;].
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 6(a). [Repealed]

  Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et. 
                                 seq.)

Sec. 402. Grazing leases and permits.

    (d) Allotment management plan requirements
    * * * If the Secretary concerned elects to develop an 
allotment management plan for a given area, he shall do so in 
careful and considered consultation, cooperation and 
coordination with the lessees, permittees, and landowners 
involved, the [district grazing advisory boards established 
pursuant to section 1753 of this title] Resource Advisory 
Councils and Grazing Advisory Councils established under 
section 171 and section 172 of the Public Rangelands Management 
Act of 1995 * * *
          * * * * * * *

Sec. 6(a). [Repealed]

          * * * * * * *

  Forest Rangeland Renewable Resource Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 
                                1609(a))

Sec. 11. National Forest System

    (a) Congressional declaration of constituent elements and 
purposes; lands etc., included within; return of lands to 
public domain.
    * * * [the national grasslands and land utilization 
projects administered under title III of the Bankhead-Jones 
Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C. 1010 et seq.)] * * *
          * * * * * * *

         Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C. 1010 et seq.)

Sec. 31.

    To accomplish the purposes of title III of this Act, the 
[The] Secretary is authorized and directed to develop a 
separate program of land conservation and [land] utilization 
for the National Grasslands, in order thereby to correct 
maladjustments in land use, and thus assist in promoting 
grassland agriculture and secure occupancy and economic 
stability of farms and ranches, controlling soil erosion, 
reforestation, preserving and protecting natural resources, 
protecting fish and wildlife and their habitat, developing and 
protecting recreational opportunities and facilities, 
mitigating floods, preventing impairment of dams and 
reservoirs, developing energy resources, conserving surface and 
subsurface moisture, protecting the watersheds of navigable 
streams, and protecting the public lands, health, safety and 
welfare, but not to build industrial parks or commercial 
enterprises.