[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 58 (Friday, March 25, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-7060]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: March 25, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part VI





Department of the Interior





_______________________________________________________________________



Bureau of Land Management



Office Hearings and Appeals



_______________________________________________________________________



43 CFR Part 4 et al.




Department Hearings and Appeals Procedures; Cooperative Relations; 
Grazing Administration--Exclusive of Alaska; Proposed Rule
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
Office of Hearings and Appeals

43 CFR Parts 4, 1780, and 4100

[WO-220-4320-02 24 1A]
RIN 1004-AB89

 
Department Hearings and Appeals Procedures; Cooperative 
Relations; Grazing Administration--Exclusive of Alaska

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Office of Hearings and Appeals, 
Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would amend the regulations that govern how 
the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, 
administers livestock grazing. This proposed rule would apply to all 
lands on which the Bureau of Land Management administers livestock 
grazing. This proposed rule would also amend the Department of the 
Interior's appeals regulations pertaining to livestock grazing to 
provide consistency with administrative remedies provided for in the 
grazing regulations, and would amend the regulations on cooperative 
relations to reflect changes in the organization of certain advisory 
committees. The proposed changes are a part of an overall effort to 
improve the management of the Nation's public rangeland resources. 
Public review and comment on this proposal is invited.
    An advance notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the 
Federal Register on August 13, 1993 (58 FR 43208). Comments received on 
the advance notice have been considered in identifying and refining key 
components of the rangeland reform effort and in preparing this 
proposed rule.
    Due to the great volume of comments anticipated on this proposed 
rule, the Department requests that reviewers identify the specific 
section and paragraph label for the regulatory text on which they are 
commenting. Specific statements of what regulatory text the reviewer 
feels should be modified, and the reasons for the recommended changes, 
are encouraged.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be submitted in writing by 
July 28, 1994. Comments postmarked after this date will not be 
considered in the preparation of the final rule.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposed rule to Rangeland Reform '94, 
P.O. Box 66300, Washington, D.C. 20035-6300. Comments delivered to an 
address other than above may not be considered in the preparation of 
the final rule.
    Comments on the proposed rule will be made available for public 
inspection during regular business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.), 
Monday through Friday. Viewing of the comments can be arranged by 
contacting the Bureau of Land Management at the telephone number 
provided below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark W. Stiles, Regulations Analyst, 
Division of Legislation and Regulatory Management, Bureau of Land 
Management, (202) 208-4256.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction

    This proposed amendment to 43 CFR parts 4, 1780, and 4100 is part 
of the Department of the Interior's Rangeland Reform '94 package. The 
provisions of this proposed rule are necessary to ensure proper 
administration of livestock grazing on the public rangelands and to 
bring about reform in the management of rangelands for the improvement, 
protection, and proper function of rangeland ecosystems. Many of the 
proposals would result in greater consistency between the 
administration of grazing on public rangelands by the Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM) and administration of grazing on National Forest 
System lands by the United States Forest Service (Forest Service). This 
proposed rule would govern the BLM's administration of livestock 
grazing on public rangelands. It is proposed under the principal 
authorities of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; FLPMA), the Taylor Grazing Act (43 U.S.C. 315 et 
seq.), and the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 
1901 et seq.)
    An advance notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the 
Federal Register on August 13, 1993 (58 FR 43208). The comment period 
on the advance notice ended September 13, 1993, and was subsequently 
reopened for a 30-day period that ended October 20, 1993. A notice of 
intent to prepare an associated environmental impact statement (EIS) 
was published in the Federal Register on July 13, 1993 (58 FR 37745), 
and August 13, 1993 (58 FR 43234). These notices requested public 
comment to assist in the scoping process for the EIS. The comment 
period on the second notice of intent closed September 13, 1993, and 
was subsequently reopened to correspond with the comment period on the 
advance notice of proposed rulemaking. A booklet entitled Rangeland 
Reform '94 was developed to describe the Secretary's proposal and 
approximately 35,000 copies were distributed to all BLM grazing 
permittees and lessees, interested Congressional staff, and other 
interested parties, in late August and September of 1993.
    Reviewers of this proposed rule may find it helpful to refer to the 
advance notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal 
Register, August 13, 1993, in their consideration of this proposed 
rule. The advance notice contains some background material that has not 
been reproduced in this proposed rule.
    During a three-month period beginning November 17, 1993, Secretary 
Babbitt met on 20 occasions around the West with groups which included 
western governors, State and local officials, ranchers, 
environmentalists and other public land users. He visited locations in 
Colorado, Wyoming, and Oregon where on-the-ground consensus groups were 
already engaged in addressing how land management decisions should be 
made, and participated in hundreds of hours of discussion about the 
components of rangeland reform. The meetings in Colorado, Idaho, 
Arizona, New Mexico, Wyoming, Oregon, Nevada and Utah resulted in many 
productive suggestions that are reflected in the new proposal.
    As a result of public comments on the various documents distributed 
in the summer of 1993 and the meetings attended by the Secretary, the 
Department has modified many of the initial proposals for reforming 
rangeland management. The modified Rangeland Reform '94 proposal is 
summarized below. Much of the reform package is reflected in the 
proposed regulatory text provided in this document. The public is asked 
to review this revised proposal and provide comments and 
recommendations for improvement. Due to the great volume of comment 
anticipated, the Department requests that reviewers specifically 
identify the section and paragraph labels for the proposed regulatory 
text on which they are providing comment. Reviewers are also asked to 
provide suggested wording changes whenever possible. Comments on this 
proposed rule will be analyzed in detail and considered in the 
preparation of a final rule. The Department also intends to hold public 
meetings or hearings in western grazing States to obtain input on this 
proposal. Announcement of the place and time for these meetings or 
hearings will be made in a separate notice. The Department anticipates 
publication of the final rule late in calendar year 1994.
    In addition to this proposed rule, the Bureau of Land Management 
and the Forest Service, as a cooperating agency, have prepared a draft 
EIS. The draft EIS is currently being printed and prepared for 
distribution, but advance copies are available for public review at the 
Department of the Interior Library, First Floor, 18th and C Streets NW, 
Washington, DC. Notice of availability of the draft EIS will be made 
through a separate publication in the Federal Register. The draft EIS 
analyzes in detail the proposed action and alternatives for improving 
the management of the Nation's public rangelands, including regulatory 
changes proposed in this rule. The draft EIS also invites public 
comment.

Rangeland Reform '94

    Rangeland Reform '94 is a proposal developed by the Department of 
the Interior through BLM, in close cooperation with the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture and the Forest Service, for effecting fundamental policy 
changes, including adjustment of the Federal grazing fee, in its 
rangeland management program. The purpose of the proposed changes is to 
make the BLM's rangeland management program more consistent with 
ecosystem management, to accelerate restoration and improvement of the 
public rangelands, to obtain for the public fair and reasonable 
compensation for the grazing of livestock on public lands, and to 
streamline certain administrative functions. As a result of public 
input on the initial proposal, and as a result of the BLM's preliminary 
analysis of rangeland reform, two additional goals have been included: 
to provide a mechanism for effective public participation in 
decisionmaking, and to focus Federal and non-Federal management efforts 
where they will result in the greatest benefit. In achieving these 
goals the Department also intends to make BLM's administration of 
livestock grazing more consistent with that of the Forest Service.
    There are five major categories of proposed management actions 
addressed in Rangeland Reform '94. These categories are (1) The Federal 
grazing fee and associated incentives, (2) effective public 
participation in rangeland management, (3) administrative practices, 
(4) range improvements and water rights, and (5) resource management 
requirements, including standards and guidelines. Proposed actions 
within each of these categories are discussed in detail elsewhere in 
this proposed rule.

Public Comment on the Initial Proposal

    A total of about 12,600 letters were received from about 8,000 
persons on the advance notice of proposed rulemaking, notice of intent 
to prepare an EIS, and the Rangeland Reform '94 summary booklet. These 
letters included over 56,000 individual comments. The specific aspects 
of the advance notice of proposed rulemaking generating the most 
comments were the grazing fee and water rights associated with range 
improvement projects. Initial proposals related to affected interests, 
grazing advisory boards, grazing permit and lease tenure, unauthorized 
subleasing, standards and guidelines and full force and effect also 
generated a great number of comments. Many letters expressed opinions 
that the overall rangeland reform proposal was a disincentive for good 
stewardship, would have major economic impacts on rural western 
communities, and would result in the ``taking'' of private property 
rights. A great number of comments supported the identified need for 
consistency between regulations of the BLM and the Forest Service.
    At the invitation of Colorado's Governor Roy Romer, Secretary 
Babbitt met on nine separate occasions with a group of State and local 
officials, ranchers, conservationists and other land users in Denver 
and Gunnison, Colorado, for discussions regarding a process for 
building a consensus-driven local approach to rangeland management. The 
Colorado Working Group also made suggestions to change or improve the 
advance Rangeland Reform '94 proposal introduced in August, 1993. 
Similar meetings and follow-up discussions were held in Idaho, Oregon, 
and Nevada, in addition to meetings in Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and 
Wyoming.
    These meetings with the Secretary involved hundreds of hours of 
discussion. Input from these meetings resulted in many of the changes 
and clarifications made in this proposed rule.
    As a result of public comment the Department has made a number of 
changes in the initial proposal. An attempt has been made to identify 
the most substantial changes in the section-by-section analysis 
provided in this proposed rule.

Brief Discussion of Major Elements of Rangeland Reform '94

    The following presents the general proposals of Rangeland Reform 
'94 and highlights significant changes made in response to public input 
on the advance notice of proposed rulemaking. Detailed descriptions of 
the specific regulatory changes being proposed are presented in the 
section-by-section analysis following this discussion.

The Federal Grazing Fee and Associated Incentives

    This proposed rule presents a formula that is intended to correct 
the fundamental problems of the present fee.
    The first problem is the wide disparity between rates charged for 
livestock forage on private and State lands versus the rate charged on 
Federal lands. In many western States, the fee for grazing on private 
nonirrigated lands is far greater than it is on Federal lands. As the 
following chart shows, in 1993, the private grazing land lease rates in 
most western States were several times the Federal fee.

1993 Private Nonirrigated Grazing Land Lease Rates Dollars per Animal 
Unit Month (National Agricultural Statistics Service)

Federal Fee
$1.86
Arizona
5.72
California
10.40
Colorado
9.70
Idaho
9.25
Kansas
11.30
Montana
11.40
Nebraska
17.00
Nevada
8.80
New Mexico
7.55
North Dakota
10.00
Oklahoma
7.10
Oregon
9.75
South Dakota
12.60
Texas
8.75
Utah
8.90
Washington
7.80
Wyoming
10.50

    There are similar disparities between grazing fees charged on State 
lands and the Federal fee. For grazing year 1994 the Federal grazing 
fee established under existing regulations in 43 CFR part 4100, is 
$1.98 per animal unit month (AUM). This fee compares to western State 
trust land fees of as low as $1.53 in Arizona to fees ranging from 
$4.00 to more than $20.00 in some of the western States for their 1994 
grazing year. The different formulas, and the use of competitive 
bidding in some States, make it difficult to present an average of the 
State trust land grazing fees, but in the States of Nevada, New Mexico, 
Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho, the largest States in terms of the number 
of BLM AUMs authorized, the State trust land fees per AUM range from a 
low of $3.00 in Wyoming to $4.53 in Idaho in 1994.
    A second problem of the current fee formula is that while forage 
value in the private market has increased substantially over time, the 
Federal grazing fee formula has produced relatively small increases 
and, in some years, decreases. In 1980, for example, the private 
grazing land lease rate for the 11 western States, weighted by survey 
weights as determined by the National Agricultural Statistics Service, 
was $7.53, while the Federal fee was $2.36; thus, the difference 
between the private and Federal rates in 1980 was $5.17. In 1993, the 
private grazing land lease rate for the 11 western States was $10.03, 
while the Federal fee was $1.86. Thus, the difference between the two 
figures had jumped to $8.17.
    The proposed formula would address the failure of the existing 
formula adequately to reflect private grazing land market conditions by 
including a base value that considers the cost differences of operating 
on public lands as compared to private leases, as well as appraisal 
data, and by annually adjusting the fee in proportion to changes in 
private grazing land lease rates. After an initial phase-in period, the 
fee would be adjusted annually to reflect the change in the private 
land lease rate in the 17 western States (i.e., forage value index). 
Although no explicit index based on production costs or value of 
products produced is used, both factors influence the prices paid for 
forage and so are, to some extent, implicit in the forage value index. 
The proposed formula is essentially a return to the simpler formula 
that was in effect before 1978 using an updated base value.
    While the proposed rule would move toward greater equity among 
fees, it would still result in a fee below the fees charged for grazing 
on State lands in most western States, and would fall well below 
private grazing land lease rates. The amount by which the fee would 
increase is similar to recent increases that have taken place at the 
State level; those increases have not led to noticeable shifts in the 
livestock industry or economic effects on communities in those States. 
This, when considered with the reasonableness of the proposed fee 
increase and the fact that more than 73 percent of BLM permittees and 
lessees would experience a fee increase of less than $1,000 per year, 
offers evidence that the proposed change in the fee would generally not 
have a significant impact on the stability of the dependent western 
livestock industry and would not have a serious detrimental effect on 
most permittees and lessees. Some permittees and lessees that are 
highly dependent on Federal forage, do not have off-ranch income, and 
have heavy debt loads may be required to make some financial 
adjustments. These adjustments, in some circumstances, may include sale 
of the ranch; however, it is expected that such sales will occur in 
limited circumstances. Such sales, it should be noted, are occurring 
and will continue to take place under current conditions, as well.
    The economic impact on western communities is expected to be 
localized and, in most areas, not significant because that portion of 
the local economy that depends upon the use of Federal forage is 
relatively minor.
    The initial proposal generated a great amount of public comment 
both for and against increasing the fee. Most of the comments related 
to the anticipated impacts to individual operators and to rural western 
economies. Many respondents suggested regional economic differences, 
the cost of investment in public lands, and overall rangeland resource 
conditions should be considered in determining grazing fees. Some felt 
the proposed fee would be economically devastating, and some felt that 
a fee increase was warranted, but the proposal represented too little 
or too great an increase.
    As a result of the public input gained following the advance notice 
of proposed rulemaking and through the scoping process for the 
environmental analysis of Rangeland Reform '94, the Department has 
determined that the fee formula initially proposed represents a 
reasonable and equitable method for calculating the fee. However, an 
adjustment in the forage value index is proposed in this draft. A 
provision for an incentive-based fee has also been added.
    A base value of $3.96 per AUM to be used in calculating the grazing 
fee is proposed in this rule. This value represents a midrange between 
the results obtained through the use of two methods for estimating a 
fair base value. Explanation of the methodology used in arriving at the 
$3.96 base value is presented in the discussion of section 4130.7-1. 
The proposed fee would be phased in over the years 1995 through 1997. 
Thereafter, annual increases or decreases in the grazing fee resulting 
from changes in the forage value index would be limited to 25 percent 
of the amount charged the previous year to provide for a measure of 
stability that would facilitate business planning.
    This proposed rule would establish 1996 as the base year for the 
forage value index used in the formula. The forage value index would 
not be used to adjust the fee annually in response to market conditions 
until the year 1997. This proposed rule would establish the 1995 
grazing fee at $2.75, and the 1996 grazing fee at $3.50. Thereafter the 
fee would be calculated, except as provided below, using the base value 
of $3.96 multiplied by the revised forage value index. By definition, 
the forage value index in the year 1997 would equal one; yielding a 
1997 grazing fee of $3.96. In subsequent years the calculated fee would 
depend on the changes in the market rate for private grazing land 
leases as reflected by the forage value index. By comparison, the 1994 
grazing fee established under the existing regulations is $1.98 per 
AUM.
    This change in the derivation of the forage value index is proposed 
to reduce the uncertainty in the fee in the immediate future that 
resulted from using a forage value index based on less current private 
land lease rate data. Under the proposal presented in the advance 
notice of proposed rulemaking, the fee would have been adjusted 
annually by a forage value index based on the average price paid for 
private grazing in the years 1990 through 1992. Assuming that forage 
value index would have remained constant until the end of the phase in 
period provided in the advance notice, the formula would have yielded a 
grazing fee of $4.28 per AUM as compared to a 1997 fee of $3.96 per AUM 
using the revised forage value index.
    The Department intends to examine the effect of the proposed 
grazing fee during the phase-in period to determine the need for any 
adjustment in the fee formula.
    New provisions have been added to the proposed rule that would 
provide for an incentive-based grazing fee and would restrict 
implementation of the $3.96 base value in the event a separate 
regulation setting forth eligibility criteria is not issued by 1997. In 
recent years the Department has considered several proposals for 
incentive-based grazing fees targeted at permittees and lessees who 
have improved rangelands, contributed to healthy, functional ecological 
conditions, and fostered the achievement of resource condition 
objectives. The Public Rangelands Improvement Act (43 U.S.C. 1901 et 
seq.) and the Taylor Grazing Act provide authority for the Department 
to implement incentive-based grazing fees. The Department recognizes 
that an incentive-based fee would be a valuable tool for encouraging 
stewardship. It was not possible to develop proposed eligibility 
criteria for the incentive-based fee in time to include them in 
Rangeland Reform '94. However, in anticipation of the issuance of a 
separate rule setting forth eligibility criteria, the Department has 
included in the proposed rule a 30 percent reduction in the grazing fee 
for permittees and lessees who meet the criteria. The 30 percent 
reduction would be implemented in the first grazing year after the 
Department issues a separate final rule setting forth the eligibility 
criteria. These criteria would focus primarily upon those permittees 
and lessees who agree to participate in special rangeland improvement 
programs characterized by best management practices, the furtherance of 
resource condition objectives, and comprehensive monitoring. The 
Department anticipates that eligibility criteria would require the 
permittee or lessee to undertake management practices beyond those 
otherwise required by law and regulation to benefit the ecological 
health of the public rangelands.
    To ensure timely development of that rule, this proposed rule would 
provide that an alternative base value of $3.50 would be implemented in 
1997 if the Department has not completed the eligibility criteria. The 
Department intends to use its best efforts to issue a final rule 
establishing incentive criteria in time to provide an opportunity for 
the reduced fee in grazing year 1996. Such a discount would result in a 
grazing fee of $2.77 per AUM in 1996 and 1997 for qualifying permittees 
and lessees. Reviewers are asked to provide suggested criteria for 
qualifying for the reduced fee that address the improvement and 
maintenance of rangeland health, the furtherance of resource condition 
objectives, and comprehensive monitoring.

Public Participation in Rangeland Management

    An important element of true rangeland reform involves allowing 
more Americans to have a say in the management of their public lands. 
The American rangelands can be--and are--used for far more than 
grazing. Hiking, birding, fishing, hunting, and mountain biking are 
among the activities that are compatible with sound grazing practices. 
All of the public interests will be served by the public lands as long 
as all of the public interests are represented when decisions are being 
made. Thus, increased public participation is essential to bringing 
lasting changes to management of our public lands.
    Included in this general category are proposals for the formation 
of multiple resource advisory councils in most BLM administrative 
districts and the involvement of the multiple resource advisory 
councils in the development of standards and guidelines for grazing, a 
provision allowing multiple resource advisory councils to establish and 
select members of rangeland resource teams and technical review teams 
for the purpose of providing input to be used by the resource advisory 
council in developing recommendations, removal of references to the 
National Public Lands Advisory Council, district advisory councils, and 
grazing advisory boards, and modification of how interested members of 
the public can become involved in specific grazing decisions.
    Most comments on the advance notice, and a great deal of the input 
gained through the Secretary's visits to western states, supported 
modification of the initial proposal to expand the definition of 
affected interests, eliminate grazing advisory boards and district 
advisory councils, and create an advisory mechanism with broader 
representation and much more direct involvement. Many comments 
expressed a concern that local input would be overshadowed by interests 
not directly affected by the decisions to be made while others asserted 
that all citizens should have an equal say in the management of public 
lands. There was also a great amount of interest in making public 
participation more effective by encouraging consensus-based forms of 
decisionmaking.
    During the period of November 1993, through January 1994, Governor 
Roy Romer of Colorado convened and conducted nine meetings of the 
Colorado working group on rangeland reform. Although this working group 
considered many of the proposals of Rangeland Reform '94, a key finding 
of the group was that the current framework employed by the Department 
and the BLM for encouraging community-based involvement was inadequate. 
This issue became the focus of much of the Working Group's efforts. The 
Working Group prepared a summary of their findings and a model for 
enhanced community-based involvement. The Department agrees with the 
findings of the group and has attempted to incorporate all key elements 
of the model for public involvement in this proposed rule. The Working 
Group's model is presented in its entirety below:

Models for Enhanced Community-Based Involvement in Rangeland Reform

January 20, 1994

    The Colorado Rangeland Reform Working Group (``working group'') 
is committed to these seven goals: (1) Healthy and sustainable 
rangeland ecosystems, (2) healthy, sustainable and diverse economies 
and communities (3) accountability of management and users of public 
lands to broad public goals, (4) efficient and effective management 
of our public lands, (5) fostering mutual respect among public land 
users, (6) encouraging the retention of private land open space, and 
(7) ensuring public lands are managed to comply with federal laws.
    Consistent with these goals, the Colorado working group has 
concluded that the current framework for public and community-based 
involvement in public lands management is inadequate. That framework 
could be significantly enhanced by experimenting with a bottom-up, 
grass roots model of public participation that includes multiple 
interests and some identified areas of responsibility for on-the-
ground rangeland management decisions, and ensures that all members 
of the public who wish to actively participate in public rangelands 
decisions, have a full opportunity to do so.
    These recommendations are based on two principles: (1) This is a 
Colorado model (the Colorado working group recognizes that this 
Colorado model may not be applicable to other western states, and 
that there may be other models that are better suited to those 
states); and (2) that this Colorado model represents a change from 
the current and/or traditional management and that this is an 
experimental approach.
    The working group has explored a number of different models 
based in part on the favorable experiences of community and 
ecosystem-based approaches like that underway in Gunnison, Colorado; 
the ``Owl Mountain'' example in Jackson, County, Colorado; the 
Coordinated Resource Management (CRM) experience near Craig, 
Colorado; and the Federal Lands Program in Montezuma County, 
Colorado. We recognize that these models may not be appropriate for 
other states.
    For purposes of discussion, the attached ``draft'' represents an 
experimental approach to reforming the governance structure for 
advisory boards and community-based rangeland decision-making. Based 
on the working group's discussions to date, there is consensus on 
the basic approach suggested by these models--and consensus on the 
value of having Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt share this draft 
with other states and experts in the Department of the Interior for 
their review. The group further agrees that many of the concepts and 
ideas described in this model could be useful and applicable to the 
U.S. Forest Service.

I. Multiple Resource Advisory Councils

    The working group recommends that Multiple Resource Advisory 
Councils be created in order to advise the BLM on a wide variety of 
public lands issues, including grazing.
    Group consensus exists that these councils should:
     Focus on the full array of ecosystem and multiple use 
issues associated with federal lands.
     Have up to 15 members appointed on a nonpartisan basis 
by the Interior Secretary. In making the appointments, the Secretary 
shall consider the recommendations of the Governor. Membership shall 
be self-nominated. Members could be nonresidents. Nominations will 
be accompanied by letters of recommendation from local interest 
groups which the nominee will be representing. At least one member 
will be a local elected official.
     Require that members bring to the table; (1) a 
commitment to collaborate, (2) relevant experience or expertise, and 
(3) a commitment to success and to apply the law.
     Require that, in the aggregate, council membership must 
represent the full array of issues and interests, custom and culture 
related to federal land use, management, protection, and a general 
understanding of the federal laws and regulations governing these 
lands.
     Participate directly and effectively in the preparation 
and amendment of resource management plans.
     Serve as a link between broad national policy direction 
and the more specific local, on-the-ground actions and public input.
     Have an effective role with respect to influencing or 
guiding decisions about the implementation of resource area plans.
     Require that all council members attend a ``rangeland 
ecosystem course of instruction'' within three months of their 
appointment. (The working group agreed to an acceptable standardized 
curriculum and process--such as the Rangeland Ecosystem Awareness 
Program developed by a subgroup--with a full understanding of the 
associated costs and a number of the details yet to be worked out.)
     Each council shall develop a policy on attendance to 
encourage full participation of all members.

Jurisdictional Level

    Since the purpose of Multiple Resource Advisory Councils is to 
foster broader public input in planning and management activities by 
federal public lands agencies, it makes sense for Councils to 
operate at a Jurisdictional level that is: (1) Close to local 
communities, and (2) close to the land planning decisions made by 
federal agencies while still ensuring that they are readily 
available and open to public comment.
    The Colorado working group believes that to be effective in the 
State of Colorado, these advisory bodies need to be created at the 
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) District level. As appropriate, the 
formation of these Councils should also allow for the integration of 
both BLM and Forest Service units into one Council, and as the 
respective agencies move toward management and planning on an 
ecosystem basis, the Councils should re-align accordingly.
    A governor or a Multiple Resource Advisory Council could 
petition the Secretary to authorize these Councils at a BLM Resource 
Area level if that was thought to be desirable. A Rangeland Resource 
Team (described below) could make such a request to the Multiple 
Resource Advisory Council.

Membership

    All interests, uses, and values should be represented to the 
extent possible, and a balanced composition should be achieved. The 
District BLM manager (or his/her designee) would be non-voting ex-
officio members of the Council. Members would not be required to 
reside in the counties served by the respective BLM District. 
Members would be required to demonstrate relevant experience and 
knowledge of the lands and communities in their Jurisdictional area. 
A single individual could serve on only one Council.

Functions

    The council would be advisory in nature. Council members would 
be involved in the preparation, amendment and implementation of 
federal agency land management plans in an advisory capacity. If the 
Council disagreed with a federal land manager's decision that 
relates to one of the Council's functions, the Council would have 
the authority to submit a request for review of the decision to the 
Secretary. The Secretary's office would have discretion on the 
timeliness of a response, although a date certain could be 
encouraged (20 to 30 days).
    A Council's opportunity to influence land management decisions 
shall be in compliance with the public participation process 
outlined by federal laws (The National Environmental Policy Act, the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, 
etc.) Opportunities to streamline and simplify these procedures need 
to be explored (perhaps by fully utilizing other authorities noted 
in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Public 
Rangelands Improvement Act).
    The Council would have the authority to designate Rangeland 
Resource Teams (described below) and Technical Review Teams to 
address specific issues or problems in the District and/or serve as 
fact-finding teams.
    Councils should work to promote better public participation and 
engagement in land management decisions, and to foster conflict 
resolution through open dialogue and collaboration instead of 
litigation and bureaucratic appeal.

Creation

    If it is thought to be desirable to authorize Multiple Resource 
Advisory Councils at other levels (i.e., below the BLM District 
level), a governor or Multiple Resource Advisory Council could make 
that request to the Secretary, or the Rangeland Resource Team could 
make such a request to a Multiple Resource Advisory Council. 
Multiple Resource Advisory Councils could be created or 
``chartered'' in one of three ways:

1. By local initiative and official appointment by the State BLM 
Director.
2. By local initiative and appointment by the Secretary.
3. By the Secretary with due consultation given to any 
recommendations offered by the Governor.

II. Rangeland Resource Teams

    Within each BLM District and administrative unit, local 
Rangeland Resource Teams could be formed for the purpose of 
enhancing public and community-based involvement in federal public 
lands decision-making.
    Rangeland Resource Teams are premised on the notion that 
rangeland decisions ought to be made with good stewardship, with 
appropriate multiple use and compliance with federal laws as guiding 
principles. They are also premised on the following principles:
     Permittees are in the best position over time to 
exercise good stewardship, and to ensure full compliance with 
federal laws, and that this opportunity is further enhanced by 
direct dialogue and full participation of community-based 
environmental and wildlife/sportsmen interests.
     Good stewardship and full compliance with federal law 
is enhanced and strengthened when community and public interests are 
empowered with permittees, members of the public and agency 
officials in making decisions.
     A substantial portion of the increase in grazing fee 
revenues from public lands should be retained and expended at the 
local level for the purpose of promoting the ecological health of 
the range and investing in good stewardship practices.
     There is value in empowering individuals no matter 
where they live to work in concert with federal and public interests 
in resolving local public lands/rangeland issues at the community 
level.
    It is expected that these community-based Rangeland Resource 
Teams will have a true ecosystem focus. With time and experience, 
this model could be organized around eco-regions rather than 
according to arbitrary land ownership and federal management 
boundaries.
    This vision cannot be achieved in one step. The opportunity 
presented by this model is to encourage good stewardship by 
permittees and other users, and to improve rangeland use, rangeland 
ecosystems and management. The Colorado working group believes this 
model is an important step toward enhancing these goals--while 
laying the foundation for this broader vision.

Jurisdictional Level

    In order to have credibility and to ensure that both community 
and public interests are represented, Rangeland Resource Teams 
should be allowed to spring up in as small an area as a single 
allotment but in no case to go beyond an area larger than that 
encompassed by the corresponding Multiple Resource Advisory Council 
for that area.

Creation

    They could be established and dissolved in any of the following 
ways:

1. By local initiative and petition to a respective Multiple 
Resource Advisory Council. If a petition is denied, the locals could 
petition to be a FACA (Federal Advisory Committee Act) body (see 
below).
2. By the Multiple Resource Advisory Council when deemed necessary 
by that Council.

    As a matter of formality, all appointments would be made by the 
Multiple Resource Advisory Council. The teams could be terminated by 
an affirmative act of the Council. Individual terms for team members 
would be established by the Council.

Membership

    Rangeland Resource Team membership would be limited to five 
members from the following interests: Two resident permittees who 
hold permits in the area, one resident at-large community 
representative, one environmental representative and one wildlife/
recreation representative. The environmental representative and the 
wildlife/recreation representative could be nonresidents; however, 
all members shall be required to demonstrate substantial knowledge 
and experience of the land and community where they serve. 
Nominations will be accompanied by letters of recommendation from 
local interest groups which the nominee will be representing.
    These members would be required to participate in a ``rangeland 
ecosystem course of instruction'' (the working group agreed to an 
acceptable standardized curriculum and process--such as the 
Rangeland Ecosystem Awareness Program developed by a subgroup--with 
a full understanding of the associated costs and a number of the 
details yet to be worked out), and would also be required to 
demonstrate knowledge of the local rangeland ecosystem.
    Under this alternative, at least one member of the resource team 
must also be a member of the Multiple Resource Advisory Council. 
Other team members could also serve as members of the Multiple 
Resource Advisory Council--but such dual appointment would not be 
required. For purposes of this section, residency means two years.

Functions

    The primary function of Rangeland Resource Teams is to encourage 
good stewardship, collaborative solutions and healthy rangeland 
ecosystem management through collaboration and by providing 
recommendations and information to the Multiple Resource Advisory 
Councils.
    These teams would encourage community and public participation 
and problem-solving on the ground. Rangeland Resource Teams could 
have authority to spend the 12.5% range improvement monies currently 
under the authority of grazing advisory boards, according to state 
law.
    Rangeland Resource Teams would also be empowered to develop 
proposed solutions for local rangeland problems and make 
recommendations to Multiple Resource Advisory Councils. These teams 
would participate in developing resource management plans, act as 
fact finding bodies and make recommendations on rangeland 
improvement monies.
    The Multiple Resource Advisory Councils shall give careful 
consideration to the recommendations, options and information 
provided by the Rangeland Resource Teams.
    Rangeland Resource Teams could be charged with assisting in 
monitoring rangeland health and reporting on the full scope of their 
activities to the Multiple Resource Advisory Councils on a regular 
basis. In addition, Rangeland Resource Teams could be charged with 
assisting in implementing programs such as the Rangeland Ecosystem 
Course of Instruction.
    In cases where Rangeland Resource Teams disagree with a 
management decision by the federal land manager, the team could 
petition the Multiple Resource Advisory Council for an opinion or 
create a Technical Review Team (see below) to make recommendations 
on specific issues. This does not preempt the ability of any citizen 
to challenge a management or planning decision through the existing 
administrative and legal appeal process.
    Although federal or state land managers would not be members of 
the Rangeland Resource Teams, open communication and collaboration 
with federal land managers would be expected and encouraged. Federal 
land managers should be ex-officio members of the boards.
    Rangeland Resource Teams could petition the Secretary for 
recognition as advisory bodies under FACA. In such cases, these 
teams would be authorized to directly advise federal land managers.

III. Technical Review Teams

    Technical Review Teams (TRTs) can be established on an as needed 
basis by Multiple Resource Advisory Councils or Rangeland Resource 
Teams if they are operating as a FACA body (see above). The 
Rangeland Resource Teams may request the Multiple Resource Advisory 
Councils to establish TRTs. In some instances, the need for the TRT 
may be negated by the Rangeland Resource Team performing a fact-
finding role. Bodies that create TRTs (Multiple Resource Advisory 
Councils or Rangeland Resource Teams that are functioning as FACA 
advisory bodies) must have at least one member on those TRTs.
    TRTs could be empowered to investigate and develop proposed 
solutions to specific resource issues which may arise in the local 
area. Such teams may also participate in the development of resource 
management plans by providing information and options to the 
Multiple Resource Advisory Councils. TRTs can function as ``fact 
finding'' teams. Selection of TRT members should be at the 
discretion of the Council and may be based on the recommendations of 
the Rangeland Resource Team, but members should possess sufficient 
knowledge and expertise about the resource issues in the area. 
Federal land managers as well as members of other governmental 
agencies could be ex-officio members of these teams.

    The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 directs the 
Secretary to establish advisory councils of not less than 10 and not 
more than 15 members appointed from among persons who are 
representative of the various major citizens' interests concerning the 
problems relating to land use planning or the management of the public 
lands located within the area for which an advisory council is 
established. To comply with this direction and to improve on current 
practices for obtaining advice on the management of public lands and 
resources, the Department has adopted the suggestions, with appropriate 
modifications, provided in the Colorado model for purposes of its 
proposed rule.
    The proposed rule would establish multiple resource advisory 
councils. These councils would be subject to the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix; FACA). The multiple resource advisory 
councils would focus on the full array of ecosystem and multiple use 
issues associated with BLM-administered public lands. However, the 
multiple resource advisory councils would not provide advice on 
internal BLM management concerns such as personnel or budget 
expenditures.
    A multiple resource advisory council would typically be established 
for each BLM administrative district, but under this proposed rule the 
area of jurisdiction could be modified to permit ecosystem-based 
management and planning. The Department intends that BLM State 
Directors would be encouraged to consider whether the formation of 
multiple resource advisory councils along ecoregion boundaries would be 
a more effective organization for obtaining advice on the management of 
public lands within their areas of responsibility. A governor or 
multiple resource advisory council could petition the Secretary to 
authorize these councils at a BLM resource area level.
    The multiple resource advisory councils would advise the Secretary 
of the Interior and Bureau of Land Management on matters relating to 
ecosystem and multiple use issues associated with public lands and 
resources under the administrative jurisdiction of the BLM. Multiple 
resource advisory councils would provide advice on preparation, 
amendment, and implementation of land use management plans and activity 
plans, and would be consulted in the planning for range development and 
improvement programs and the preparation of standards and guidelines 
for grazing administration. The multiple resource advisory councils 
would not be involved in matters such as personnel decisions, or the 
allocation of budget except to the extent of providing advice on the 
establishment of long-term plans and resource management priorities.
    Multiple resource advisory council members would be appointed by 
the Secretary or other Federal official designated by the Secretary. 
Governors of States in which the councils would be organized would be 
requested to provide a list of nominees for the Secretary's 
consideration. The Secretary would encourage Governors to formulate 
nominations through a process open to the public, and would consider 
whether such a process was undertaken in evaluating the nominations. In 
addition, a public call for nominations would be made through a notice 
in the Federal Register as is provided in the existing 43 CFR 1784.4-1. 
Persons could nominate themselves for membership. Nominations would be 
required to be accompanied by letters of recommendation from local 
interests that the nominee would be representing. The Department 
invites public comment on whether such letters should be required to 
come from individuals within the area to be served by the multiple 
resource advisory council.
    Membership of the multiple resource advisory council would reflect 
a balance of views to ensure that the council represents the full array 
of issues and interests associated with public land use, management, 
protection and an understanding of the Federal laws and regulations 
governing public lands. Individuals would qualify to serve on a 
multiple resource advisory council because they have a commitment to 
collaborative effort, possess relevant experience or expertise, and 
have a commitment to the successful resolution of resource management 
issues and to applying the relevant law. An individual may serve on 
only one multiple resource advisory council.
    Each of the multiple resource advisory councils would have 15 
members, selected by the Secretary, with criteria for membership 
clearly outlined. One third of the members of each multiple resource 
advisory council would be selected from persons representing commodity 
industries, developed recreational activities, or use of public lands 
by off-highway vehicles; one third would be selected from 
representatives of nationally or regionally recognized environmental or 
resource conservation groups and wild horse and burro interest groups, 
from representatives of archaeological and historical interests, and 
from representatives of dispersed recreational activities; and one 
third would be selected from persons who hold State, county, or local 
elected office, and representatives of the public-at-large, Indian 
tribes within or adjacent to the area, natural resource or natural 
science academia, and State agencies responsible for the management of 
fish and wildlife, water quality, water rights, and State lands. At 
least one member of each multiple resource advisory council would be 
required to be an elected official in the area covered by the council, 
in accordance with the requirements of section 309 of FLPMA. The 
proposed rule would require the Secretary or designee to provide for 
balanced and broad representation from within each of the three 
categories in appointing members of a multiple resource advisory 
council.
    All members of a multiple resource advisory council would be 
required to attend training in the management of rangeland ecosystems 
to ensure a common understanding of many of the scientific, economic, 
social and legal considerations involved in managing public lands. The 
Colorado working group developed a proposal for a ``Range Ecosystem 
Awareness Program'' that would establish a basic curriculum that would 
include: basic rangeland ecology, human resource development, the 
relationship of public land resources to private lands and communities, 
and the pertinent laws and regulations affecting rangeland management. 
The Department intends to consider the Working Group's proposal in 
developing the curriculum for the training of advisory council members 
and invites public comment and suggestions on the content and structure 
of this required training.
    The Department intends that multiple resource advisory councils 
would employ a consensus-building approach in developing 
recommendations for the BLM manager to whom they would report. To 
encourage this, the proposed rule would require that at least three 
council members from each of the three groupings of interests must be 
present to constitute an official meeting of a council, and at least 
three members from each of the three groupings of interest must be in 
agreement for a council to provide an official recommendation to the 
BLM official to whom the council reports.
    Where a multiple resource advisory council has concerns that its 
advice is being arbitrarily disregarded, the council, upon agreement of 
all members, could request that the Secretary respond to such concerns 
within 60 days. This opportunity for direct communication with the 
Secretary is separate and distinct from the administrative appeals 
process and the Secretary's response would not constitute a decision on 
the merits of any issue that is or might become the subject of an 
administrative appeal.
    Under this proposed rule the multiple resource advisory councils 
could establish rangeland resource teams to enhance public and 
community-based involvement in public lands decision-making pertaining 
to livestock grazing. Rangeland resource teams would provide local 
level input to the multiple resource advisory council and would serve 
as fact-finding teams. The rangeland resource teams may, among other 
functions, provide input to the multiple resource advisory councils for 
grazing-related portions of land use plans and the planned expenditure 
of range improvement moneys. At the direction of the multiple resource 
advisory councils, rangeland resource teams may provide input and 
recommendations to the multiple resource advisory council for an area 
ranging from a single grazing allotment to the entire area under the 
jurisdiction of the multiple resource advisory council.
    Under the proposed rule, local citizens could petition the multiple 
resource advisory council to establish a rangeland resource team, or a 
rangeland resource team could be established by the multiple resource 
advisory council on its own initiative. Rangeland resource teams would 
have a minimal core membership that would include two resident 
permittees who hold Federal grazing permits or leases within the area 
for which input is sought, one resident at-large community 
representative, one environmental representative and one wildlife/
recreation representative. For purposes of the proposal, in order to be 
a resident, an individual must have lived within the geographical area 
covered by the rangeland resource team for at least two years. The 
environmental representative and the wildlife/recreation representative 
could be nonresidents. However, all members would be required to 
demonstrate substantial knowledge and experience of the land and 
community where they serve. Nominations would be required to be 
accompanied by letters of recommendation from the local interests that 
the nominees will be representing. At least one member of the core 
group would also be a member of the multiple resource advisory council. 
All members of the rangeland resource team would be required to attend 
the training in the management of rangeland ecosystems required for 
members of the multiple resource advisory council.
    Since the rangeland resource teams would provide local-level input, 
perform a fact-finding role and provide options and recommendations to 
the multiple resource advisory council, as opposed to serving in an 
advisory capacity to Federal land managers, it is anticipated that 
these groups would not be subject to the requirements of FACA. However, 
rangeland resource teams could petition the Secretary for recognition 
as advisory bodies under FACA. In such cases, the rangeland resource 
teams would be authorized to directly advise Federal land managers on 
matters pertaining to livestock grazing.
    Rangeland resource teams would have opportunities to raise any 
matter of concern with the multiple resource advisory council and to 
request that the multiple resource advisory council form a technical 
review team, as described below, to provide information and options to 
the council for their consideration.
    The proposed rule provides that multiple resource advisory councils 
could establish technical review teams on an as-needed basis in 
response to requests of interested citizens, the authorized officer, or 
on their own motion. Technical review teams could also be established 
on an as needed basis by rangeland resource teams that have been 
chartered as FACA bodies. Technical review teams would be limited to 
tasks assigned by the multiple resource advisory council or chartered 
rangeland resource team and would report to the parent committee. The 
technical review teams would consider specific issues for the purpose 
of providing local level input and serving as fact-finding teams. The 
technical review teams would not be subject to FACA because they will 
not be advising Federal officials. A technical review team would be 
dissolved by the parent committee upon completion of the assigned task.
    The membership of a technical review team would be selected by the 
multiple resource advisory council, or rangeland resource team where 
chartered under FACA. The technical review team would be required to 
include at least one member of the multiple resource advisory council 
or chartered rangeland resource team.
    Rangeland resource teams and technical review teams serving in a 
fact-finding role for the purpose of providing input to the multiple 
resource advisory council would in no way preclude the collection and 
analysis of scientific data by BLM, or the BLM's use of technical 
experts from outside of the Bureau. To the contrary, information 
collected by the fact-finding teams and BLM should be complementary 
and, in combination, would provide a multiple resource advisory council 
with a solid basis from which to form a recommendation.
    An alternative concept for technical review teams is also under 
consideration. Under this alternative, technical review teams would be 
formed to address specific unresolved technical issues by the BLM 
authorized officer on the motion of the BLM or in response to a request 
by the multiple resource advisory council. Where the technical review 
team is requested by the multiple resource advisory council, the charge 
for the technical review team would be written jointly by the BLM and 
the advisory council. The purpose of the team would be to gather and 
analyze data and develop recommendations to aid the decisionmaking 
process, and functions of the team would be limited to tasks assigned 
by the authorized officer. Review team members would be composed of BLM 
or other government employees, with at least one member from a State 
agency or a Federal agency other than BLM. The authorized officer would 
also be allowed to employ and compensate private sector consultants who 
would function as team members, and to compensate team members for per 
diem and travel expenses. The authorized officer, in consultation with 
the multiple resource advisory council, would determine team 
membership, establish the task of the technical review team, appoint a 
team leader, provide administrative support, and determine when the 
team should be disbanded. In the selection of team members, preference 
will be given to scientific and technical experts who have experience 
in the bio-physiographic region of concern.
    The authorized officer would be required to specify a time period 
for the completion of the assigned task. Technical review teams would 
terminate upon completion of the task assigned, or the time period 
established by the authorized officer, whichever comes first.
    The alternative concept for technical review teams would not result 
in the formation of advisory committees under the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act because team members would either be Federal or other 
government agency employees, or paid consultants. The Department 
invites public review and comment on this alternative as well as the 
concept for technical review teams included in the proposed rule.
    While specific functions for rangeland resource teams and technical 
review teams are outlined in this proposed rule, there is another 
reason for their creation. The teams are designed to facilitate input 
from the many consensus groups that have formed--and will form--
throughout the West. Groups such as the Gunnison Group from Colorado, 
the Oregon Watershed Improvement Group and Wyoming's Sun Ranch 
Stewardship effort all took root voluntarily. These groups are proving 
that ranchers, environmentalists and others can come to agreement on 
land management practices. Rather than replace these kinds of groups, 
the new teams are designed to bring them closer to the process, to 
allow their influence to spread across the West.
    Although FLPMA requires that the Secretary establish advisory 
councils, there is no statutory requirement for the formation of 
rangeland resource teams and technical review teams. While the 
Department views the provisions for multiple resource advisory 
councils' use of rangeland resource teams and technical review teams as 
significant advances in the promotion of public participation and 
consensus-based decisionmaking, the Department recognizes that the 
success of the concept would hinge on many factors. Active 
participation, willingness to donate time and travel expenses, 
willingness to work collaboratively toward recommendations to the 
advisory councils, and knowledge of resource management principles are 
all critical to the success of the rangeland resource team and 
technical review team concept.
    In recognition of the demanding requirements for the success of the 
two forms of input teams, the Department is considering an alternative 
of proposing the use of rangeland resource teams and technical review 
teams on an experimental basis rather than adopting the proposal BLM-
wide. The Department invites the public to comment on the merits of 
providing for the use of rangeland resource teams and technical review 
teams on an experimental basis. Comments are specifically requested on 
the criteria for selecting areas for the experimental implementation of 
the rangeland resource teams and technical review teams. Criteria could 
include broad-based support for participation in a consensus-building 
approach among the interested parties, and interested parties having 
demonstrated the ability to work cooperatively and provide consensual 
advice on public rangeland issues.

Range Improvements and Water Rights

    The initial proposals pertaining to ownership of range improvements 
and water rights generated a great number of comments. Most of the 
comments were not opposed to the intent of the proposed changes to 
conform with the common practice of keeping title to permanent 
improvements in the name of the party holding title to the land. 
However, many respondents expressed concern that the wording suggested 
that the Federal government would take existing rights to range 
improvements and water. The text pertaining to range improvement 
ownership has been modified in this proposed rule and a new section has 
been added to clarify the provisions for water rights associated with 
livestock grazing on public lands.
    The proposed rule would require that title to all new grazing-
related improvements constructed on public lands, or made to the 
vegetation resource of public lands, except temporary or removable 
improvements, would be in the United States. Since the proposed change 
would be prospective, valid existing rights to range improvements and 
compensation therefor under section 402(g) of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1752(g)) 
would not be affected. The permittee or lessee may hold title to 
removable range improvements authorized as livestock handling 
facilities such as corrals, creep feeders and loading chutes, and to 
temporary improvements such as troughs for hauled water. With respect 
to new permanent improvements, a permittee's, lessee's, or cooperator's 
interest for contributed funds, labor, and materials would be 
documented. This documentation is necessary to ensure proper credit 
pursuant to section 402(g) of FLPMA, which provides compensation for 
the permittee's or lessee's authorized permanent improvements whenever 
a permit or lease is canceled, in whole or in part, in order to devote 
the lands to another public purpose. New permanent water improvement 
projects such as spring developments, wells, reservoirs, stock tanks, 
and pipelines, would be authorized through cooperative range 
improvement agreements.
    The proposed rule would carry forward the proposals in the advance 
notice regarding the distribution and use of range improvement funds 
and add a requirement to consult with multiple resource advisory 
councils during the planning of range development and improvement 
programs.
    The proposed rule provides consistent direction for the BLM 
regarding water rights on public lands for livestock watering purposes. 
It is intended to generally make BLM's policy consistent with Forest 
Service practice, and with BLM policy prior to being changed in the 
early 1980's.
    Under the proposed rule, any new rights to water on public land for 
livestock watering on such land would be acquired, perfected, 
maintained, and administered under State law. In all cases involving 
the development and registration, pursuant to State law, of new rights 
to water on public land for livestock watering, cooperative agreements 
will be used to provide that such livestock water rights are to be used 
and maintained in conjunction with the grazing permit or leases and do 
not give rise to a claim for compensation in the event the permit or 
lease to which it is attached is canceled in whole or in part to devote 
the lands to another public purpose.
    The proposal would not create any new Federal reserved water 
rights, nor would it affect valid existing water rights. Any right or 
claim to water on public land for livestock watering on public land by 
or on behalf of the United States would remain subject to the 
provisions of 43 U.S.C. 666 (the McCarran Amendment) and section 701 of 
FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1701 note; disclaimer on water rights). Finally, the 
proposal would not change existing BLM policy on water rights for uses 
other than public land grazing, such as irrigation, municipal, or 
industrial uses.
    With respect to new water rights, some comments have suggested that 
permittees and the United States file jointly for water rights on 
public lands associated with livestock watering on public lands. When 
permitted by State law or regulation, for ease of administration, co-
application with the lessee could be authorized, as it is in Wyoming. 
The proposed rule does not contain such a provision, although if joint 
filing is permitted under State law, and filing exclusively in the name 
of the United States is not, then the proposed language would permit 
joint filing. Comments are specifically sought on whether the rule 
should mandate joint filing to the extent consistent with or even if 
not permitted under, State law or if the current language in the 
proposed rule is preferable. Comments are sought in particular on 
whether co-applications should be allowed where it would not change the 
underlying ownership of the water right.

Administrative Practices

    Included in this category are disqualification of applicants for 
grazing permits and leases, expedited procedure for the review of 
administrative appeals and implementation of decisions, issuance of 
grazing preference, a surcharge for the authorized leasing or 
subleasing of grazing preference associated with base property or 
pasturing of livestock owned by other than the permittee or lessee, 
suspended nonuse, and unauthorized use.
    The Department has made several changes in the initial proposals 
affecting administrative practices in response to public input. Aspects 
of the initial proposals regarding administrative practices that 
received the greatest number of comments were adjustments in permit and 
lease tenure as a performance incentive, full force and effect of 
decisions, disqualification of applicants who have had permits or 
leases canceled for violation of terms and conditions of State and 
Federal grazing permits, authorized leasing and subleasing surcharges, 
and the elimination of suspended nonuse.
    The proposal to limit permit and lease tenure in some instances to 
5 years has not been carried forward from the advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking. Public comment on the advance notice suggested the 
proposal would do little to encourage stewardship and would 
inadvertently penalize operators new to public land grazing, especially 
those starting in the business, by inhibiting their ability to secure 
necessary financing. The Department agrees that the proposal in the 
advance notice related to permit and lease tenure could result in 
unacceptable impacts and has withdrawn that proposal.
    The proposal in the advance notice of proposed rulemaking to place 
grazing administration decisions in full force and effect generated 
some confusion and has been clarified in this proposed rule. The 
objective of placing decisions in full force and effect is to expedite 
placing decisions into effect to benefit resource conditions and to 
address administrative problems. The proposal would not take away the 
ability of affected parties to file an appeal or to request a stay of 
the decision until such time as the appeal is decided. The Department 
believes this is critical to meet the goals of streamlining 
administration and focusing limited resources where they can do the 
most good, and has retained the substance of the initial proposal. An 
attempt has been made to clarify the explanation of the proposed appeal 
provisions in this rule.
    Under the proposed rule, persons choosing to appeal a decision of 
the authorized officer would be provided a 30-day period in which to 
file an appeal. Appellants requesting a stay of the decision would be 
required to file a petition for stay with their appeal. In the instance 
where a petition for stay has been filed with an appeal, the Department 
of the Interior's Office of Hearings and Appeals would have 45 days 
from the expiration of the 30-day appeal period either to grant or deny 
the petition for stay, in whole or in part. Thus, where a person has 
filed a petition for stay of the decision of the authorized officer 
along with an appeal, and where the request for stay is denied, 
implementation of the decision could be delayed up to 75 days. In the 
event a stay of the decision is granted, the decision would be stayed 
until such time as a determination on the appeal is made.
    The initial proposal to disqualify applicants for grazing permits 
and leases as a result of cancellation of State or Federal grazing 
permits and leases during the 36 months preceding application has been 
modified in response to public comment. This proposed rule would limit 
the provision for disqualification on the basis of cancellation of 
grazing permits during the preceding 36 months to applications for new 
or additional permits and leases. Also, consideration of an applicant's 
history of compliance with the terms and conditions of State permits 
and leases has been limited to State permits and leases within the 
boundary of the Federal grazing allotment for which application has 
been made. Cancellation of such State permits or leases within 36 
months prior to application would disqualify applicants for new or 
additional Federal permits or leases. A new provision has been added 
that would make it clear that partial suspension of a Federal grazing 
permit or lease would not be grounds for disqualification. Partial 
suspension of a permit or lease is a measure used where actions of the 
permittee or lessee are not determined to justify cancellation. The 
Department feels that disqualification of applicants on the basis of 
partial suspension would result in excessive punitive action and would 
reduce the usefulness of partial suspension in addressing violations.
    The advance notice of proposed rulemaking provided for automatic 
disqualification on the basis of the suspension or cancellation of an 
applicant's other Federal or State grazing permits or leases during the 
36 months prior to application. Under the proposed rule, the 
consideration of an applicant's history of performance on other Federal 
or State grazing permits or leases would not apply to applicants for 
the renewal of a BLM grazing permit or lease. The Department invites 
comment on whether an applicant's history of performance on other 
Federal and State grazing permits and leases should be added as a 
discretionary, rather than automatic, basis for determining 
qualification for the renewal of a BLM grazing permit or lease. Also, 
the Department invites comment on whether a similar provision for a 
discretionary review of past performance should apply to applicants for 
new or additional BLM permits or leases, in addition to the automatic 
disqualification where an applicant has had a Federal or State permit 
canceled for violation during the 36 months prior to application.
    The proposal presented in the advance notice of proposed rulemaking 
to eliminate suspended nonuse generated concern that property rights 
and financing agreements would be affected. The Department does not 
agree with these comments. For the most part it appears that these 
suspended AUMs have no real impact on ranches or on the condition of 
public lands. The initial proposal was intended to remove all reference 
to suspended nonuse because only in rare instances has forage placed in 
this category been made available for livestock consumption. However, 
given the contentious nature of the issue and the fact that the 
Department views the matter as merely an administrative record-keeping 
issue, this proposed rule does not carry forward the elimination of 
suspended nonuse presented in the advance proposal.
    Numerous comments were received on the Department's proposal to 
levy a surcharge when the private property serving as a base for public 
land grazing is leased or when livestock owned by other than the 
grazing permittee or lessee are pastured on public lands. This proposal 
was made in response to findings of the General Accounting Office (see, 
e.g., RCED-86-168BR), the Office of the Inspector General (see report 
#92-1-1364) that permittees and lessees who sublease are unduly 
benefitting from their permits or leases. A major criticism of the 
initial proposal was that it would penalize leasing arrangements with 
sons and daughters of permittees and lessees who are grazing a few 
animals as part of an educational or group project, or sons and 
daughters who are trying to build a livestock herd in anticipation of 
assuming all or part of the family operation. The Department recognizes 
the need to avoid penalizing children of grazing permittees and lessees 
in these situations and has provided for an exemption from the 
authorized subleasing surcharge for sons and daughters of public land 
permittees and lessees. A broader criticism, which surfaced during 
meetings in Nevada, is that most pasturing agreements are a means of 
financing available to ranchers who might not be able to finance their 
own inventory, and that contrary to the findings of the General 
Accounting Office reports, they do not involve windfall profits taken 
by absentee landlords and permit or lease holders. Some Nevada 
participants also suggested that any surcharge on the subleasing of 
permits and leases should be formulated as a percentage of the return 
on the sublease rather than a percentage of the Federal grazing fee. 
The Department invites comment on these two considerations.
    Some of the comments received on the proposals relating to 
prohibited acts suggested that the proposed wording was subject to 
broad interpretation that could lead to punitive action in response to 
violations unrelated to grazing use. Subpart 4140, ``Prohibited Acts,'' 
would be amended to modify the list of acts that are prohibited on 
public lands that could result in the loss of grazing permits or leases 
under subpart 4170. Particular attention is invited to proposed section 
4140.1(b)(12), which refers to Federal or State laws or regulations 
concerning, among other things, conservation or protection of natural 
and cultural resources or environmental quality when public lands are 
involved or affected.
    There are, of course, a great many laws or regulations that might 
fit within this category. These laws have independent enforcement 
authority; that is, violations are dealt with under penalty provisions 
in these laws themselves. This section of the existing regulations 
provides the possibility, in addition to these penalty provisions, of 
loss of the grazing permit or lease for violations.
    It is not the intent of the proposal for the authorized officer to 
take enforcement steps involving the grazing permit or lease for any 
and all violations, no matter how de minimus or technical; or for 
violations of laws that, while they do deal with protection of natural 
and cultural resources or the environment, do not centrally reflect 
upon the ability of the permittee or lessee to be a good steward of the 
public lands.
    Rather, the intent is to provide the possibility of loss of the 
grazing permit or lease whenever more than de minimus violations of 
laws occur that do concern, in a more than remote way, the management 
of the public lands. Subsection (b)(12) (i) through (vi) contains a 
narrative description of the kind of laws that, in our judgment, do 
directly concern stewardship ability on the public lands. It is 
difficult to go beyond such a narrative description to list such laws 
with precision, particularly in the text of the regulation itself. If 
that were done, a new rulemaking would be necessitated each time a law 
were changed by the Congress, which happens not infrequently. 
Furthermore, a detailed list of laws, with statutory and section 
numbers, would be lengthy and probably require the assistance of a law-
trained person to decipher.
    A proposed list of such laws, more than de minimus violations of 
which could lead to loss of a grazing permit or lease, follows. Public 
comment is specifically invited on the list. Upon promulgation of the 
final rule, the final list of such laws would be made available to each 
authorized officer and each permittee and lessee.

Animal Damage Control--7 U.S.C. 426
Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act--7 U.S.C. 1012
Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act, as amended--7 U.S.C. 136, 
et seq.
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide & Rodenticide Act--7 U.S.C. 135, et seq.
Airborne Hunting Act--16 U.S.C. 742j-1
Anadromous Fish Conservation Act--16 U.S.C. 757a, et seq.
Antiquities Act--16 U.S.C. 431, et seq.
Archeological Resources Protection Act--16 U.S.C. 470aa, et seq.
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act--16 U.S.C. 668
Endangered Species Act, as amended--16 U.S.C. 668aa, et seq.--16 U.S.C. 
1531, et seq.
Erosion Act (Soil Conservation)--16 U.S.C. 590a, et seq.
Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956--16 U.S.C. 742a, et seq.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act--16 U.S.C. 661, et seq.
Historic Sites, Buildings and Antiquities Act--16 U.S.C. 461, et seq.
Lacey Act, as amended--16 U.S.C. 851, et seq.
Migratory Bird Conservation Act--16 U.S.C. 751, et seq.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act--16 U.S.C. 703, et seq.
National Forest Management Act of 1976--16 U.S.C. 1600, et seq.
National Historic Preservation Act, as amended--16 U.S.C. 470, et seq.
National Trails System Act, as amended--16 U.S.C. 1241, et seq.
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended--16 
U.S.C. 668dd, 668ee
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act--16 U.S.C. 1271, et seq.
Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act--16 U.S.C. 1331, et seq.
Wilderness Act--16 U.S.C. 1131, et seq.
Wildlife Restoration Act--16 U.S.C. 669, et seq.
Clean Water Act, as amended--33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq.
Clean Air Act, as amended--42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 
as amended--42 U.S.C. 6911, et seq.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended--42 U.S.C. 6901, et 
seq.
Safe-Drinking Water Act, as amended--42 U.S.C. 201, et seq.
Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended--42 U.S.C. 6901, et seq.
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended--43 U.S.C. 
1701, et seq.
Public Lands Unlawful Enclosure Act--43 U.S.C. 1601, et seq.
Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978--43 U.S.C. 1901, et seq.
Taylor Grazing Act--43 U.S.C. 315, et seq.

    References to the term ``affected interests'' have been removed 
throughout the rule and replaced with the term ``interested public.'' 
The proposed rule would also remove the authorized officer's current 
discretion to determine whether an individual is an ``affected 
interest.'' These changes were not included in the advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking.
    The reason for the change is to provide a consistent standard for 
participation by the public. Any party who writes to the authorized 
officer to express concern for the management of livestock grazing on 
specific grazing allotments will be recognized as a member of the 
``interested public'' under the proposed rule. This allows the BLM to 
develop a record to assure notification of proposed and final decisions 
and to involve the ``interested public'' in the consultation process.
    Requirements for consultation with the interested public have been 
added in sections of the proposed rule that deal with the initial 
allocation of forage, development of activity plans and range 
improvement programs, the issuance or renewal of grazing permits or 
leases, and the establishment or adjustment of the terms and conditions 
of grazing permits and leases.
    The advance notice of proposed rulemaking included provisions that 
would allow the authorized officer to issue final decisions without 
first issuing a proposed decision in specified circumstances. This 
proposed rule would carry forward the provision that the authorized 
officer could directly issue final decisions when decisions are 
necessary to protect rangeland resources from damage in ``emergency'' 
situations under section 4110.3-3(b), and would add that decisions to 
close areas to certain forms of livestock use when necessary to abate 
unauthorized use, as provided in section 4150.2(d), could be issued as 
final decisions without first issuing proposed decisions. The 
provisions are necessary to provide responsive action in these 
circumstances. The other circumstances specified in the advance notice 
that would not have required a proposed decision were nondiscretionary 
decisions, decisions that were previously part of a broader final 
decision that was initially issued as a proposed decision, and 
decisions that involve the application of discretion within the 
established terms and conditions of grazing permits and leases. These 
categories have been removed in this proposed rule. However, there may 
be circumstances where resource protection and administrative 
efficiency could be enhanced by avoiding the delay of implementation 
that occasionally can result from the protracted resolution of protests 
of proposed decisions. In all cases, the right to appeal final 
decisions to the Office of Hearings and Appeals would be retained. The 
public is invited to comment on whether there should be additional 
circumstances where the authorized officer should have the ability to 
issue final decisions without first issuing a proposed decision.
    A new provision has been included in the proposed rule to eliminate 
the requirement for prolonged implementation of necessary reductions in 
permitted livestock use when data, including field observations, show 
grazing use or patterns of use are not consistent with standards and 
guidelines, are causing an unacceptable level or pattern of 
utilization, or grazing use exceeds the livestock carrying capacity of 
the area. Under the existing regulations, necessary reductions in 
livestock use of more than 10 percent have been phased in over a period 
of five years. Although that provision may, in the short term, mitigate 
some of the adverse effects on permittees and lessees, it has inhibited 
responsive action in situations where reductions in use are most 
needed. Under the proposed rule, the authorized officer, after 
consultation with the affected permittee or lessee, the State having 
lands or managing resources within the area, and the interested public, 
would take action to reduce grazing use either by reaching an agreement 
with the involved parties or by decision. The Department anticipates 
that, in many cases, agreements can be reached that would result in 
gradual reductions in use. However, the Department recognizes the need 
to provide for responsive action where rangeland health and function is 
not being maintained.
    Other proposals within the category of administrative practice have 
been modified somewhat in response to comments received, while 
attempting to retain the general substance of the proposed actions. 
Also, an attempt has been made to clarify many of the explanations of 
proposals, and to refine the regulatory text to more accurately achieve 
the objective of the initial proposal.

Resource Management Requirements, Including Standards and Guidelines

    Public comments on the standards and guidelines included as an 
appendix to the advance notice of proposed rulemaking generally 
expressed doubt that it is possible to develop a set of national 
standards and guidelines that could be universally applied to grazing 
administration on public lands. Many reviewers recommended that 
standards and guidelines should only be developed at a more local 
level. Many comments also expressed uncertainty regarding whether the 
standards and guidelines would have the effect of law given they were 
presented as an appendix rather than proposed regulatory text.
    The Department agrees that standards and guidelines prepared at a 
more local level would be better tailored to fit resource conditions 
and livestock management practices. Therefore, the Department has not 
carried forward the standards and guidelines as included with the 
advance notice. However, in order to promote greater administrative 
consistency, and to focus management attention and resources where they 
will result in the greatest environmental benefit, the Department 
recognizes a need to establish clear national requirements for grazing 
administration and guidance for the preparation of State or regional 
standards and guidelines. These national requirements and guiding 
principles for State or regional standards and guidelines have been 
included in the text of this proposed rule. In addition, the Department 
recognizes the importance of putting standards and guidelines in place 
in a timely manner, and has provided a mechanism for doing so in this 
proposal.
    The Department intends that State or regional standards and 
guidelines for grazing administration would be developed in 
consultation with multiple resource advisory councils, interested 
public, and others within 18 months following the effective date of the 
final rule. In the event State or regional standards and guidelines 
have not been completed and approved by the Secretary within 18 months 
of the effective date of the final rule, fallback standards and 
guidelines provided in this proposed rule would be implemented. The 
Department feels this provision for fallback standards and guidelines 
is needed to provide for necessary resource protection and to encourage 
prompt action toward the development of State or regional standards and 
guidelines. The fallback standards and guidelines would also provide a 
benchmark by which to measure the adequacy of State or regional 
standards and guidelines.
    The national requirements, guiding principles for the development 
of State or regional standards and guidelines, and the fallback 
standards and guidelines proposed in this rule all focus on attaining 
and maintaining healthy rangeland ecosystems, including riparian areas. 
The Department recognizes that achieving and maintaining properly 
functioning ecosystems is critical to the protection of public 
rangelands and resources, and resource uses. Achieving and maintaining 
healthy rangeland conditions greatly benefits resources and uses such 
as wildlife and fish habitat, water quality, and recreational 
activities. Although BLM land use plans and activity plans may provide 
for achieving resource conditions that go beyond the benchmarks for 
ecological health and functional condition proposed in this rule, 
achieving properly functioning ecosystems is prerequisite to the 
conservation of rangeland resources.
    The national requirements for all grazing-related plans and 
activities on public lands under this proposed rule include continuing 
or implementing grazing practices that maintain or achieve healthy, 
properly functioning ecosystems and riparian systems; continuing or 
implementing grazing practices that maintain, restore or enhance water 
quality and assist in the attainment of water quality that meets or 
exceeds State water quality standards; and continuing or implementing 
grazing management practices that assist in the maintenance, 
restoration, or enhancement of the habitat of threatened or endangered 
species, or species that are classified as candidates for threatened or 
endangered species listing. These requirements are intended to reflect 
the fundamental legal mandates for the management of public lands under 
the Taylor Grazing Act, FLPMA, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act 
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and other relevant authorities. Where 
existing management practices fail to meet these national requirements, 
the BLM authorized officer would be required to take action as soon as 
practicable but not later than the start of the next grazing year. This 
would include actions such as reducing livestock stocking rates, 
adjusting the season or duration of livestock use, or modifying or 
relocating range improvements.
    Standards and guidelines would be developed to provide further 
guidance, within the framework of the national requirements, in the 
administration of livestock grazing on public lands. Bureau of Land 
Management State Directors, in consultation with the affected multiple 
resource advisory councils, would be responsible for identifying the 
appropriate geographical area for which standards and guidelines would 
be developed. Standards and guidelines would be developed for an entire 
State or for an ecoregion encompassing portions of more than one State. 
Standards and guidelines would not be prepared for a smaller area 
totally within the boundaries of a single State except where the BLM 
State Director, in consultation with the multiple resource advisory 
councils, determines that the combination of the geophysical and 
vegetal character of an area is unique and the health of the rangelands 
within the area could not be adequately protected using standards and 
guidelines developed on a broader geographical scale. The intent of 
this limitation on the geographical scope of standards and guidelines 
is to provide for the development and application of uniform standards 
and guidelines across an area including public lands of similar 
character. This limitation would result in more consistent application 
of standards and guidelines, and would encourage collaboration between 
BLM offices, multiple resource advisory councils, and the public in 
addressing the resource management needs and concerns of an area. 
Standards and guidelines could be developed for ecoregions involving 
public lands within more than one State for the purpose of ensuring the 
consistent application of rangeland management measurements and 
practices across an identifiable ecoregion.
    This proposed rule would establish guiding principles to be 
addressed in the development of standards and guidelines. The guiding 
principles represent what the Department has identified as the resource 
concerns and types of management practices that must be considered in 
the development of standards and guidelines. The guiding principles for 
the development of standards are intended to provide focus on riparian 
area function and the minimum soil and vegetation conditions required 
for rangeland ecosystem health. The guiding principles for the 
development of guidelines for grazing administration provide focus on 
the consideration of management practices that assist in or do not 
inhibit meeting certain legal mandates and achieving and maintaining 
rangeland health. Included in these guiding principles are the 
requirements that State or regional guidelines address: grazing 
practices to be implemented to benefit threatened or endangered species 
and candidate species, and to maintain, restore or enhance water 
quality; critical periods of plant growth or regrowth and the need for 
rest from livestock grazing; situations in which continuous season-long 
grazing, or use of ephemeral rangelands, could be authorized; the 
allowable types and location of certain range improvements and 
management practices; and utilization or residual vegetation limits.
    The BLM State Director, in consultation with multiple resource 
advisory councils, the interested public, and others, would be required 
to develop standards and guidelines that are consistent with the 
national requirements and the guiding principles. It is anticipated 
that there may be a need to add additional standards and guidelines 
consistent with the national requirements to reflect the State or 
regional resources, the character of the public lands, local livestock 
management practices, and community interests. For example, State or 
regional guidelines may specify limitations on the season of livestock 
use or thresholds for utilization by livestock in crucial big game 
winter ranges. Multiple resource advisory councils, and their rangeland 
resource teams and technical review teams, would play an important role 
in designing standards and guidelines to meet conditions and concerns 
encountered within the specific State or region by facilitating open 
discussion and ensuring that the views of all interested parties are 
considered in preparing their recommendations for the BLM. The BLM 
would not implement State or regional standards or guidelines developed 
pursuant to this proposed rule prior to their approval by the 
Secretary.
    The proposed rule includes a provision for fallback standards and 
guidelines that would become effective 18 months after the effective 
date of the final rule in the event that State or regional standards 
and guidelines are not complete. The fallback standards and guidelines 
would remain in effect until State or regional standards and guidelines 
are completed and approved by the Secretary.
    The fallback standards are largely based on indicators of soil 
stability and watershed function, distribution of nutrients and energy, 
and the ability of plant communities to recover. The three categories 
of indicators, when considered in combination, have been found to be 
key in assessing rangeland health. The standards are generally based on 
the findings of the Committee on Rangeland Classification presented in 
``Rangeland Health'' (National Research Council 1994) and BLM's 
Riparian Area Management (TR1737-9, Process for Assessing Proper 
Functioning Condition, 1993). A fourth fallback standard addresses 
indicators of healthy flood plain structure and condition, a critical 
component of healthy rangeland ecosystems and riparian systems.
    The fallback guidelines would restrict management practices to 
those activities that assist in or do not hinder meeting certain legal 
mandates and achieving or maintaining rangeland health. The fallback 
guidelines include the requirement that grazing management practices be 
implemented that assist in or do not hinder the recovery of threatened 
or endangered species, or assist in preventing the listing of species 
identified as candidates for threatened or endangered species. This 
guideline is intended to avoid the impacts associated with the listing 
of more species as threatened or endangered. A second guideline would 
require that grazing practices be implemented that would assist in 
attaining and protecting water quality consistent with the Clean Water 
Act. The fallback guidelines would also require that grazing schedules 
include periods of rest during times of critical plant growth or 
regrowth, and that continuous season-long grazing be limited to 
instances where it has been demonstrated that such use would be 
consistent with achieving or maintaining rangeland health and riparian 
functioning condition, and with meeting established resource 
objectives. Under the fallback guidelines, development of springs or 
other projects affecting water would be designed to protect the 
ecological values of the affected sites. Livestock management practices 
or management facilities such as corrals, pipelines, or fences, would 
generally be required to be located outside of riparian-wetland areas, 
and where standards for these areas are not being met, the facilities 
could be removed or relocated, or the management practices modified. 
The fallback guidelines would require the establishment and application 
of utilization or residual vegetation limits that would benefit the 
diversity and vigor of woody and herbaceous species, maintain healthy 
age-class structure in riparian-wetland and aquatic plant communities, 
and would leave sufficient biomass and plant residue to provide for 
sediment filtering, the dissipation of stream energy, and streambank 
stability and shading. Finally, the fallback guidelines would require 
that allotment management plans and other activity plans addressing 
livestock grazing that are developed or amended after the fallback 
guidelines become effective specify desired plant communities, 
including minimum percentages of site vegetation cover, and incorporate 
utilization limits for both riparian and upland sites to assist in 
achieving or maintaining proper functioning condition.
    The Department recognizes that the proposed fallback standards and 
guidelines may not fit all situations. A provision has been included in 
the proposed rule that would allow BLM State Directors to adjust the 
fallback standards and guidelines, subject to approval of the 
Secretary, to fit State or local conditions. However, in tailoring the 
fallback standards and guidelines to more local conditions, the BLM 
State Directors must ensure that the general purpose of each of the 
fallback standards and guidelines is met.
    The national requirements proposed in this rule, and all standards 
and guidelines, whether fallback, State, or regional would be 
implemented subject to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(42 U.S.C. 4331 et seq.; NEPA) and applicable land use planning 
regulations. The national requirements and guiding principles for State 
and regional standards and guidelines are analyzed in the draft EIS for 
Rangeland Reform '94. The fallback standards and guidelines are also 
analyzed in the draft EIS. Any additional NEPA analysis required during 
development of State or regional standards and guidelines would tier to 
the analysis of national requirements and standards and guidelines 
presented in the EIS for Rangeland Reform '94.
    The BLM planning regulations direct that actions be in conformance 
with BLM land use plans. It is anticipated that in most instances, 
established standards and guidelines, and associated implementation 
actions, would be in conformance with existing land use plans, although 
in some cases land use plans may require modification.
    It is the Department's intent to develop State or regional 
standards and guidelines, complete plan conformance tests, and 
undertake necessary plan amendments within 18 months of the effective 
date of the final rule. Development of the State or regional standards 
and guidelines and any plan amendments that are necessary would occur 
simultaneously. Thus, State or regional standards and guidelines would 
be implemented as they are finalized and approved by the Secretary. If 
this has not occurred within 18 months of the effective date of the 
final rule, fallback standards and guidelines would be put in place 
until the State or regional standards and guidelines are completed. The 
Department envisions that all rangelands administered by the BLM under 
43 CFR part 4100 would have enforceable standards and guidelines by the 
end of the 18-month period.
    Implementation of the national requirements and the standards and 
guidelines for grazing administration would be accomplished by 
directing specific actions to promote or achieve the requirements and 
standards and guidelines. The specific actions needed to implement the 
requirements, standards, and guidelines would be incorporated in the 
terms and conditions of grazing permits and leases, and other grazing 
authorizations. Actions needed to implement the requirements, 
standards, and guidelines would also be incorporated in allotment 
management plans or other activity plans as they are prepared or 
amended.
    The proposed rule would require that the authorized officer specify 
terms and conditions that would ensure conformance with the national 
requirements, standards, and guidelines in all grazing leases and 
permits. These terms and conditions would be added at the time of 
permit or lease issuance, including the transfer or renewal of permits 
or leases. However, where the authorized officer determines that the 
national requirements or established standards and guidelines are not 
being met under existing terms and conditions, the terms and conditions 
of grazing permits and leases and other grazing authorizations would be 
modified as soon as practicable, but not later than the start of the 
next grazing year.
    Reflecting the national requirements and standards and guidelines 
in the terms and conditions of grazing permits and leases would provide 
the management mechanism to help achieve, to the extent practicable, 
healthy rangeland ecosystems. While grazing administration may not be 
the only factor affecting the health of rangeland ecosystems, it is the 
Department's intent to ensure improvement in the context of grazing 
management through the standards and guidelines for grazing 
administration.
    The Department intends that all high priority grazing allotments 
would be reviewed for the need to modify terms and conditions to ensure 
conformance with the national requirements, and standards and 
guidelines within three years of the effective date of this rule. 
Priority would be based largely on the review of riparian area 
conditions. This review, in combination with incorporating terms and 
conditions reflecting the national requirements and standards and 
guidelines as permits and leases are issued, renewed or transferred, 
should ensure that a large portion of BLM grazing allotments would be 
protected by the national requirements and the standards and 
guidelines. The public is invited to provide comments and suggestions 
on the structure of the review of grazing allotments and the criteria 
for determining the priority of allotments to be reviewed.

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Part 4 of Title 43--Department Hearings and Appeals Procedures

Section 4.477  Effect of Decision Suspended During Appeal

    The proposed rule would revise the heading of this section to 
reflect that grazing decisions would no longer automatically be 
suspended when an appeal is filed as provided in the proposed revision 
of 43 CFR subpart 4160. The proposed rule would also remove other 
references to suspension of the decision of the authorized officer upon 
appeal.

Part 1780--Cooperative Relations

Section 1784.0-5  Definitions

    The proposed rule would replace the term ``authorized 
representative'' with ``designated Federal Officer'' to make the 
terminology of the rule more consistent with the terminology of the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act and 41 CFR 101-6.1019.

Section 1784.2-1  Composition

    This section would be amended to remove the eligibility requirement 
for grazing advisory board members. This requirement would no longer be 
necessary with the discontinuance of the grazing advisory boards. 
Composition for multiple resource advisory councils and their rangeland 
resource teams and technical review teams would be provided for in the 
specific sections of the proposed rule pertaining to such councils and 
teams.

Section 1784.2-2  Avoidance of Conflict of Interest

    The proposed rule would clarify that permittees and lessees would 
be eligible for service on multiple resource advisory councils, 
rangeland resource teams, and technical review teams. This change is 
necessary to ensure that all stakeholders, including those with 
financial interests in the management of public lands, are able to 
provide input to multiple resource advisory councils so that resource 
advisory councils would be able to develop recommendations based on 
direct community and user input. The proposed rule would also provide 
that no advisory committee, rangeland resource team or technical review 
team member could participate in any matter in which such member is 
directly interested. Furthermore, members of multiple resource advisory 
councils would be required to disclose their direct or indirect 
interest in Federal grazing permits or leases administered by BLM.

Section 1784.3  Member Service

    The proposed rule would establish that appointments to advisory 
committees would be for two-year terms unless otherwise specified in 
the charter. Specific references to grazing advisory board, district 
advisory council and National Public Lands Advisory Council 
appointments, terms and election procedures, would be removed. Advisory 
committees are established through individual charters or by statute. 
Membership requirements, terms of appointments and election procedures 
must be prescribed in these charters and are, therefore, not necessary 
in this proposed rule.
    Also, the provisions for reimbursement of committee members' travel 
and per diem expenses would be modified to make clear that individuals 
selected by committees to provide input, but who themselves are not 
appointed committee members, shall not be eligible for reimbursement. 
Under the proposed rule the newly formed multiple resource advisory 
councils would play a greater role in advising BLM land managers than 
the district advisory councils and grazing advisory boards they 
generally replace. The Department expects that the expanded role of the 
councils would require more frequent council meetings, resulting in 
greater administrative, travel, and per diem expenses to be incurred by 
BLM. The provision that members of rangeland resource teams and 
technical review teams who are not also members of the parent advisory 
council would not be reimbursed for expenses is intended to limit the 
expenses to be incurred by the BLM. However, the limitation on 
reimbursements for travel and per diem could affect the ability of some 
persons to participate on the input teams. The public is asked to 
provide specific comments and suggestions on whether this limitation is 
appropriate or how it might be modified.

Section 1784.5-1  Functions and Section 1784.5-2  Meetings

    These sections would be amended by replacing the term ``authorized 
representative'' with the term ``designated Federal officer.'' These 
changes provide consistency with the terminology of FACA.

Section 1784.6-1  National Public Lands Advisory Council, Reserved 
Sections 1784.6-2 and 1784.6-3, Section 1784.6-4  District Advisory 
Councils, and Section 1784.6-5  Grazing Advisory Boards

    References to the National Public Lands Advisory Council, district 
advisory councils and grazing advisory boards are removed in their 
entirety and replaced with three new sections that would establish 
multiple resource advisory councils and associated input teams. 
Reserved sections 1784.6-2 and 1784.6-3 would be removed. The new 
sections are discussed separately below.

Section 1784.6-1  Multiple Resource Advisory Councils

    This section would provide for the establishment of multiple 
resource advisory councils. One multiple resource council would be 
established for each BLM administrative district except when prohibited 
by factors such as limited interest in participation, geographic 
isolation in terms of proximity to users and public lands, or where the 
configuration and character of the lands is such that organization of 
councils along BLM district boundaries is not the most effective means 
for obtaining advice for the management of the ecosystems or resources 
of the area. The exceptions are intended to provide for situations such 
as those encountered in Alaska where it is difficult for interested 
persons to participate because of extreme travel distances, or 
situations where management of neighboring BLM districts or portions of 
districts involving similar lands and ecosystems can best be served by 
organizing a multiple resource advisory council along boundaries other 
than BLM district administrative boundaries. The determination of the 
area for which a multiple resource advisory council would be organized 
would be the responsibility of the affected BLM State Director. 
Organization by ecoregion boundaries would be encouraged where 
appropriate. The Governors of the affected States and established 
multiple resource advisory councils could petition the Secretary to 
establish a multiple resource advisory council for a specific BLM 
resource area.
    Multiple resource advisory councils would provide advice to the 
Bureau of Land Management official to whom it reports regarding the 
preparation, amendment and implementation of land use plans. The 
councils would also assist in establishing other long-range plans and 
resource management priorities in an advisory capacity. The Department 
intends that this would include providing advice on the development of 
plans for range improvement or development programs and has included in 
the proposed amendments to 43 CFR subpart 4120 a requirement for 
consultation with multiple resource advisory councils in the planning 
of range improvement or development programs. Multiple resource 
advisory councils would not provide advice on personnel management, nor 
would they provide advice on the allocation and expenditure of funds 
subsequent to budget planning.
    Appointments to multiple resource advisory councils would be made 
by the Secretary. In making appointments, the Secretary would consider 
nominations from the Governor of the affected State and nominations 
received in response to a public call for nominations. The Secretary 
would encourage Governors to develop their nominations through an open 
public process. In reviewing nominations submitted by the Governors, 
the Secretary would consider whether an open public process was used. 
All nominations would be required to be accompanied by letters of 
recommendation from interests or organizations to be represented that 
are located within the area for which a council is organized.
    The Secretary would appoint 15 members to each multiple resource 
advisory council. Five members would be selected from persons 
representing commodity industries, developed recreational activities, 
or use of public lands by off-highway vehicles; five would be selected 
from representatives of nationally or regionally recognized 
environmental or resource conservation groups and wild horse and burro 
interest groups, from representatives of archeological and historical 
interests, and from representatives of dispersed recreational 
activities; and five would be selected from persons who hold State, 
county, or local elected office, and representatives of the public-at-
large, Indian tribes within or adjacent to the area, natural resource 
or natural science academia, and State agencies responsible for the 
management of fish and wildlife, water quality, water rights, and State 
lands. The proposed rule would require that at least one of the members 
appointed to each council must hold elected State, county, or local 
office. An individual would not be allowed to serve on more than one 
multiple resource advisory council at any given time.
    The proposed rule would require council members to have 
demonstrated experience or knowledge of the geographic area for which 
the council provides advice. The Department seeks comment as to the 
necessity of this requirement, particularly as it applies to experts.
    For purposes of the multiple resource advisory councils, the 
Secretary would rely on the provisions of the current regulations found 
at 43 CFR 1784.3(f), governing the removal of advisory council members.
    The proposed rule would require that all members of multiple 
resource advisory councils would attend a course of instruction in the 
management of rangeland ecosystems that has been approved by the BLM 
State Director. This requirement is intended to ensure a common general 
understanding of the resources management principles and concerns 
involved in management of the public lands. Public comment and 
suggestions are invited on the content and structure of this required 
training.
    The proposed rule provides that an official meeting of a multiple 
resource advisory council requires at least three members from each of 
the three broad categories of interests from which appointments were 
made. Formal recommendations of the council would require agreement by 
at least three members of each of the three broad categories of 
interests that attend an official meeting.
    Multiple resource advisory councils would be provided the option of 
requesting Secretarial review where the council believes its advice has 
been arbitrarily disregarded by the BLM manager. If requested, the 
Secretary would respond directly to a council's concerns within 60 
days. Such a request would require agreement by all 15 members of the 
council. The Secretary's response would not constitute a decision on 
the merits of any issue that is or might become the subject of an 
administrative appeal and would not preclude an affected party's 
ability to appeal a decision of the authorized officer.

Section 1784.6-2  Rangeland Resource Teams

    The proposed rule would provide for the formation of rangeland 
resource teams by a multiple resource advisory council on their own 
motion or in response to a petition by local citizens. Rangeland 
resource teams would be formed for the purpose of providing local level 
input and serving as fact-finding teams for issues pertaining to 
grazing administration. Rangeland resource teams would provide input 
and recommendations to the multiple resource advisory council on public 
land grazing management issues within the area for which the rangeland 
resource team is formed. The geographical scope of a rangeland resource 
team would not exceed the area for which the advisory council provides 
advice. Rangeland resource teams organized under a multiple resource 
advisory council would not provide advice to the Federal land manager.
    Rangeland resource teams would consist of five members selected by 
the multiple resource advisory council. Membership would include two 
persons holding Federal grazing permits or leases within the area for 
which the team is formed. Additional members would include one person 
representing the public-at-large, one person representing a nationally 
or regionally recognized environmental organization, and one person 
representing national, regional, or local wildlife or recreation 
interests. Members representing grazing permittees or lessees and the 
local public-at-large would be required to have resided within the area 
for which the team would provide advice for at least two years prior to 
their selection. Persons selected by the council to represent the 
public-at-large, environmental, and wildlife or recreation interests 
could not hold Federal grazing permits or leases. The proposed rule 
requires that at least one member of the rangeland resource team be 
selected from the membership of the parent multiple resource advisory 
council.
    The multiple resource advisory council would be required to select 
rangeland resource team members from nominees that qualify by virtue of 
their knowledge or experience of the lands, resources, and communities 
that fall within the area for which the team is formed. All nominations 
for membership would be required to be accompanied by letters of 
recommendation from the local interests to be represented. The 
membership provisions are intended to ensure that rangeland resource 
teams are able to represent key stakeholders and interests in providing 
input to the more broadly organized multiple resource advisory 
councils.
    The proposed rule would require that all members of rangeland 
resource teams would attend a course of instruction in the management 
of rangeland ecosystems that has been approved by the BLM State 
Director. The Colorado working group developed a proposal for a ``Range 
Ecosystem Awareness Program'' that would establish a basic curriculum 
that would include: basic rangeland ecology, human resource 
development, the relationship of public land resources to private lands 
and communities, and the pertinent laws and regulations affecting 
rangeland management. The Department intends to consider the Working 
Group's proposal in developing the curriculum for the training of 
rangeland resource team members and invites public comment and 
suggestions on the content and structure of this required training.
    Rangeland resource teams would have opportunities to raise any 
matter of concern with the multiple resource advisory council and to 
request that the multiple resource advisory council form a technical 
review team, as described below, to provide information and options to 
the council for their consideration.
    Although no specific provision has been made in the proposed rule, 
rangeland resource teams could petition the Secretary for chartered 
advisory committee status. Chartered rangeland resource teams would be 
subject to the general provisions of 43 CFR part 1780 and the 
provisions of the charter prepared pursuant to FACA.

Section 1784.6-3  Technical Review Teams

    Under the proposed rule a multiple resource advisory council could 
establish technical review teams, as needed, in response to a petition 
of an involved rangeland resource team or on their own motion. 
Rangeland resource teams chartered under FACA could also establish 
technical review teams. Technical review teams would conduct fact 
finding and provide input to the parent multiple resource advisory 
council or chartered rangeland resource team. Their function would be 
limited to specific assignments made by the parent committee, and would 
be limited to the geographical scope and scope of management actions 
for which the multiple resource advisory council or chartered rangeland 
resource team provides advice. Technical review teams would terminate 
upon completion of the assigned task.
    Members of technical review teams would be selected by the multiple 
resource advisory council or chartered rangeland resource team on the 
basis of their knowledge of resource management or their familiarity 
with the issues involved in the assigned task. At least one member of 
each technical review team would be required to be selected from the 
membership of the parent multiple resource advisory council or 
chartered rangeland resource team.

PART 4100--GRAZING ADMINISTRATION--EXCLUSIVE OF ALASKA

Subpart 4100--Grazing Administration--Exclusive of Alaska; General

Section 4100.0-2  Objectives

    The proposed rule would amend the objectives statement for part 
4100 by including as objectives the preservation of public land and 
resources from destruction and unnecessary injury, the enhancement of 
productivity for multiple use purposes, the maintenance of open spaces 
and integral ecosystems, and the maintenance of the stability of 
communities depending on the western livestock industry.

Section 4100.0-5  Definitions

    The proposed rule would remove two definitions, add five new 
definitions, and revise 10 definitions in section 4100.0-5. Generally 
these amendments would reduce redundancy and make the definitions more 
concise, germane, and understandable. Several changes were made to the 
definitions presented in the advance notice of proposed rulemaking, 
most notably, the removal of the definition for ``Affected interest'' 
and replacement with the term ``Interested public.'' This new term is 
used to recognize necessary public involvement in decisionmaking and to 
make 43 CFR part 4100 more consistent with other BLM rules and those of 
the Forest Service.
    The proposed rule would redefine Active use to include conservation 
use and exclude nonuse or suspended use.
    The proposed rule would add a definition of Activity plan to mean a 
plan for managing a use, or resource value or use, and would clarify 
that an AMP is one form of an activity plan.
    The definition of Actual use would be revised to clarify that the 
term may refer to all or just a portion (e.g., a pasture) of a grazing 
allotment.
    A new definition of Affiliate addresses the controlling interests 
of a permittee's business relationships. The term is used in 
determining whether applicants have satisfactory records of performance 
for receiving or renewing a permit or lease or in receiving additional 
forage that becomes available for allocation to livestock grazing.
    The definition of Allotment management plan (AMP) would be modified 
to describe more clearly the focus and purpose of the plan, and to make 
clear that an AMP is a form of activity plan.
    A definition of Conservation use would be added to mean an activity 
for the purpose of protecting the land and its resources from 
destruction or unnecessary injury. The term would include improving 
rangeland conditions and the enhancement of resource values or 
functions.
    The definition of Consultation, cooperation and coordination would 
be modified to reflect the proposed discontinuance of grazing advisory 
boards; to clarify that consultation, cooperation, and coordination 
apply to the development, revision, or termination of allotment 
management plans; and to include States having not only lands but also 
resource management responsibility (e.g., wildlife, water quality) in 
the subject allotment.
    The proposed rule would redefine the terms Grazing lease and 
Grazing permit to clarify what forms of use are authorized in leases 
and permits and to clarify that the documents specify a total number of 
AUMs apportioned.
    The definition of Grazing preference would be revised to mean the 
priority to have a Federal permit or lease for a public land grazing 
allotment that is attached to base property owned or controlled by a 
permittee or lessee, or applicant. The proposed revision would better 
match the language of section 3 of the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934. The 
definition would drop the reference to a specified quantity of forage, 
a practice that was adopted by the former Grazing Service during the 
adjudication of grazing privileges. Like the Forest Service, the BLM 
would identify the amount of grazing use (AUMs), consistent with land 
use plans, in grazing use authorizations to be issued under a lease or 
permit.
    A definition of Interested public would be added to mean an 
individual, group or organization that has submitted written comments 
to the authorized officer regarding the management of livestock grazing 
on specific grazing allotments.
    The definition of Land use plan would be revised to remove the 
inference that all management framework plans would be replaced by 
resource management plans.
    A definition of Permitted use would be added to define the amount 
of forage in an allotment that is allocated for livestock grazing and 
authorized for use, or included as suspended nonuse, under a grazing 
permit or lease. The definition was added to those included in the 
advance notice of proposed rulemaking. The term replaces the animal 
unit months of forage use previously associated with grazing 
preference.
    The definition of Range improvement would be expanded to include 
protection and improvement of rangeland ecosystems as a purpose of 
range improvements.
    The definition of Suspension would be revised to reflect the 
revision of the definition of the term ``preference.'' The term 
``preference'' would be replaced with ``permitted use.''
    A definition of Temporary nonuse would be added to refer to 
permitted use that may be temporarily made unavailable for livestock 
use in response to a request by the permittee or lessee.
    The term Unauthorized leasing and subleasing would be defined to 
mean leases or other agreements that have not been approved by the 
authorized officer.
    The definition of Utilization would be amended to mean the 
consumption of forage by all animals consistent with the definitions in 
the BLM Technical Reference 4400-3 and the Bureau Manual System for 
Inventory and Monitoring.

Section 4100.0-7  Cross-References

    This section would be amended to guide the public to the applicable 
sections of the 43 CFR part 4 when considering an appeal of a decision 
relating to grazing administration, and to 43 CFR part 1780 regarding 
advisory committees.

Section 4100.0-9  Information Collection

    This section would be added to conform to the requirements of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The section discloses 
to the public the estimated burden hours needed to comply with the 
information collection requirements in this proposed rule, why the 
information is being collected, and what the information will be used 
for by the BLM.

Subpart 4110--Qualifications and Preference

Sections 4110.1  Mandatory Qualifications

    Although most applicants for grazing use would be engaged in the 
livestock business, the proposed rule would clarify that mortgage 
insurers, natural resource conservation organizations, and private 
parties whose primary source of income is not the livestock business, 
could meet the criteria for qualification for a grazing permit or 
lease.
    The proposed rule would add requirements that applicants for the 
renewal or the issuance of new grazing permits or leases, and any 
affiliates, must be determined by the authorized officer to have a 
satisfactory record of performance based on specified standards. 
Applicants for renewal must be determined to be in substantial 
compliance with the terms and conditions of the expiring permit or 
lease. In assessing whether an applicant for renewal is in substantial 
compliance, the authorized officer would consider the number of prior 
incidents of noncompliance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4100, 
as well as the nature and seriousness of any single incident of 
noncompliance.
    The proposed rule would deny a new permit or lease to those 
applicants who have had Federal grazing leases or permits, or State 
grazing permits or leases within the Federal grazing allotment for 
which application is made, canceled due to violations of terms or 
conditions during the 36 months preceding application. Applicants and 
their affiliates that have been barred from holding a Federal grazing 
permit or lease by court order would also be determined to be 
disqualified.
    The provisions pertaining to disqualification include changes made 
to the provisions of the advance notice of proposed rulemaking. 
Restricting the scope of consideration of the applicant's history of 
performance under State leases to those State lands located within the 
Federal grazing allotment boundary for which application is made is 
intended to reduce the workload associated with obtaining and reviewing 
State records. Also, the inability of the applicant to make use of 
State lands within the Federal grazing allotment would often inhibit 
the orderly administration of the Federal permit or lease.
    The advance notice of proposed rulemaking provided for 
disqualification on the basis of suspension or cancellation of certain 
permits or leases. Under the proposed rule, suspension of grazing 
permits or leases, in whole or in part, would not result in 
disqualification.
    The provisions for disqualification would also affect the 
allocation of increased forage under Secs. 4110.2-3 and 4110.3-1 and 
conflicting applications under Sec. 4130.1-2. These three sections 
reference ``qualified applicants.''
    The amendments pertaining to the disqualification of applicants are 
intended to reflect the requirements of the Taylor Grazing Act and 
FLPMA that public lands be managed in a way that protects them from 
destruction or unnecessary injury and provides for orderly use, 
improvement, and development of resources, as well as provisions for 
renewing permits and leases except where violations of rules and 
regulations and terms and conditions of the permit or lease have 
occurred.

Section 4110.1-1  Acquired Lands

    The proposed rule would revise this section to clarify that 
existing grazing permits and leases on lands acquired by the BLM are 
subject to the permit or lease terms and conditions that were in effect 
at the time of acquisition. Upon expiration of the preexisting permit 
or lease, grazing management of the acquired lands would become subject 
to the provisions of 43 CFR part 4100.

Section 4110.2-1  Base Property

    This section would be amended by clarifying that base property is 
required to be capable of serving as a base for livestock operations 
but it need not be used for livestock production at the time the 
authorized officer finds it to be base property. A provision has been 
added to the amendments presented in the advance notice to make clear 
that the permittee's or lessee's interest in a base water previously 
recognized as base property shall qualify as base property. Where 
authorized water developments on public lands that have been previously 
recognized as base property require reconstruction or replacement in 
order to continue to service the same area, and the reconstructed or 
new development has been authorized through a range improvement permit 
or cooperative range improvement agreement, the permittee's or lessee's 
interest in the new or reconstructed water development would be 
recognized as base property.

Section 4110.2-2  Specifying Grazing Preference

    This section would be renamed ``Specifying permitted use'' to 
reflect the redefinition of the term ``grazing preference,'' and would 
be amended to replace the term ``grazing preference'' with ``permitted 
use.'' Also, the section would be amended to clarify that levels of 
grazing use on ephemeral or annual ranges are established on the basis 
of the amount of forage that is temporarily available pursuant to 
vegetation standards prescribed by land use plans or activity plans.

Section 4110.2-3  Transfer of Grazing Preference

    This section would be amended to reflect the new requirements of 
Sec. 4110.1-1 pertaining to the applicant's history of performance and 
by adding a new paragraph (f) to require that new permits or leases 
stemming from transfer of the base property be for a minimum time 
period of three years. These provisions are necessary to provide for 
stability in meeting the objectives of these regulations for protection 
and improvement of the rangelands and resources and to reduce the 
administrative work in processing transfers. Currently about 1,850 of 
the BLM leases or permits, approximately 10 percent of the total 
number, involve leased base property.

Section 4110.2-4  Allotments

    This section would be amended to clarify that designation and 
adjustment of allotment boundaries include the authority for, and the 
practice of, combining or dividing allotments when determined by the 
authorized officer to be necessary to achieve resource condition 
objectives or to enhance administrative efficiency. This section 
includes changes in addition to those presented in the advance notice 
of proposed rulemaking to clarify that modification of allotments must 
be done through agreement or decision of the authorized officer, and to 
make clear that the interested public would be involved in the 
designation or adjustment of allotment boundaries.

Section 4110.3  Changes in Permitted Use

    This section would be amended by replacing the term ``grazing 
preference'' with ``permitted use,'' and by clarifying that changes in 
permitted use shall be supported by monitoring data, field 
observations, land use planning decisions, or data collected through 
other studies. This section includes changes made in addition to those 
presented in the advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

Section 4110.3-1  Increasing Permitted Use

    This section would be revised by including the requirement that a 
permittee or lessee, or other applicant has been determined to be 
qualified under subpart 4110, by substituting the term ``permitted 
use'' in place of ``grazing preference,'' and by clarifying the 
requirements for consultation. Also, reference to a permittee's or 
lessee's demonstrated stewardship would be added to factors to be 
considered in allocating available forage. This section includes 
changes made in addition to those presented in the advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking.

Section 4110.3-2  Decreasing permitted grazing use

    This section would be amended by revising the heading, revising 
paragraph (b) to expand the list of methods for determining when a 
reduction in grazing use is necessary, and by deleting paragraph (c). 
The amendment would add to monitoring ecological site inventory and 
other recognized methods for determining forage production as methods 
of identifying when use exceeds the livestock carrying capacity of the 
area considered. The amendment would also add a reference to national 
requirements and standards and guidelines. Under this section the 
authorized officer would be required to take or approve corrective 
action when grazing use or patterns of use result in less than properly 
functioning conditions of the ecosystem, as established by the proposed 
national requirements and standards and guidelines and identified 
through monitoring or field observations, or when use exceeds the 
livestock carrying capacity. The BLM Technical Reference 4400-5 
(Rangeland Inventory and Monitoring Supplemental Studies) describes 
acceptable methodologies for estimating forage production. The revised 
section would allow the use of other acceptable methods to estimate 
rangeland carrying capacity to be used as the basis for making initial 
adjustments in grazing use. Subsequent adjustments could be made as 
monitoring data are collected and analyzed. The amendment would 
therefore allow more responsive action when use or patterns of use 
result in a failure to meet resource condition objectives.
    This section includes changes made in addition to those presented 
in the advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

Section 4110.3-3  Implementing reductions in Permitted Use

    The proposed rule would rename the section, would remove existing 
paragraph (a) and other requirements for phased-in reductions in 
grazing use, and would amend existing paragraph (b) to remove the terms 
``consultation, coordination and cooperation,'' and ``suspension of 
preference'' and add in their place the terms ``consultation'' and 
``reductions in grazing use,'' respectively, and provide, by way of 
reference to Sec. 4110.3-2, for the application of national 
requirements and standards and guidelines and the use of other methods, 
in addition to monitoring, for determining the need for an initial 
reduction. The change in the heading is intended to describe the 
section more accurately. The removal of existing paragraph (a) and 
other requirements for phased reductions in use would allow more 
responsive correction of situations where grazing use exceeds carrying 
capacity. Removing the phased implementation requirement would not 
prohibit agreements or decisions that would allow phased reductions in 
use. The cross reference to other methods of estimating forage 
production and identifying and the use of monitoring or field 
observations to identify when grazing use or patterns of use are not 
consistent with the national requirements or standards and guidelines, 
or grazing use is otherwise causing an unacceptable level or pattern of 
utilization, would also allow more responsive action to improve the 
rangeland condition. The Department does not intend that extended 
monitoring would be necessary to begin needed adjustment of use. The 
removal of the term ``coordination and cooperation'' would result in a 
more precise statement of the requirements placed on the authorized 
officer. The statutory requirement of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1752), as 
amended by section 8 of the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978, 
for consultation, coordination, and cooperation applies to the 
development, revision, and termination of allotment management plans. 
Existing paragraph (c) would be redesignated as paragraph (b) and would 
be amended to remove the word ``temporary'' because it implies only one 
season while the influences of natural events such as drought could 
significantly affect vegetation health and productivity for several 
months or years after a drought has passed. Other minor amendments 
clarify the action of the field manager and retain the special 
provisions for making ``emergency'' decisions effective. This section 
includes changes made in addition to those presented in the advance 
notice of proposed rulemaking.

Section 4110.4-2  Decrease in Land Acreage

    The proposed rule would amend paragraph (a) by removing the words 
``suspend'' and ``suspension.'' As explained above, reductions in 
authorized use under preference permits or leases would no longer be 
recognized as suspended use.

Subpart 4120--Grazing Management

Section 4120.2  Allotment Management and Resource Activity Plans

    The proposed rule would amend this section by revising the heading 
and by adding reference to other activity plans that may prescribe 
grazing management. It has been the BLM's policy to develop more 
integrated activity plans for managing resources of an allotment, such 
as coordinated resource management plans. The BLM strongly favors the 
development of integrated activity plans over single purpose plans such 
as allotment management plans (AMPs) because integrated plans allow 
BLM, permittees or lessees, and other affected persons to take a 
broader look at all of the management needs of an area while still 
addressing actions specific to the various uses and resource conditions 
of the area. The proposed rule would clarify that draft AMPs, or other 
draft activity plans, may be prepared by other agencies, or permittees 
or lessees. In addition to the initial proposal in the advance notice, 
a provision has been made for the preparation of draft allotment 
management plans by other interested parties. Allotment management 
plans or other activity plans would not become effective until approved 
by the authorized officer. Paragraph (a) would be amended by replacing 
the reference to district grazing advisory boards with multiple 
resource advisory councils and including State resource management 
agencies in the activity planning process as explained above. The 
amendment would also provide that plans shall include standards and 
guidelines that are not included as terms and conditions of the permit 
or lease. The amendment would provide that flexibility granted to 
permittees or lessees under a plan shall be determined on the basis of 
demonstrated stewardship. The requirement for earning flexibility is an 
incentive for cooperating grazing operators to manage for the 
improvement of rangeland conditions. The proposed rule would make the 
inclusion of other than public lands in an allotment management plan or 
other activity plan a discretionary action as opposed to a requirement 
as worded in the existing regulations. Finally, this section would 
reference the NEPA analysis and related public participation that is 
required for the planning and revision of allotment or activity plans, 
and would provide that the decision document following the 
environmental analysis would serve as the proposed decision for 
purposes of subpart 4160.

Section 4120.3-1  Conditions for Range Improvements

    This section would be amended by inserting a new paragraph (f) 
addressing reviews of decisions associated with range improvement 
projects. The amendment clarifies the process for administering 
protests and appeals of the decision and directs appeals through the 
administrative remedies process (43 CFR part 4160) provided for in 
grazing administration. At present, appeals of these decisions 
regarding range improvements go to the Interior Board of Land Appeals 
without an opportunity for a local field hearing on the facts of the 
case as is the practice with other rangeland grazing program decisions.

Section 4120.3-2  Cooperative Agreements

    The section heading would be revised to clarify that this section 
deals with cooperative range improvements as opposed to ``cooperative 
agreements'' with other Federal or State agencies. The proposed rule 
would amend this section to make it clear that the United States would 
have title to all new permanent grazing-related improvements 
constructed on public lands. Title to temporary grazing-related 
improvements used primarily for livestock handling or water hauling 
could be retained by the permittee or lessee. This change conforms with 
the common practice of keeping title of permanent improvements in the 
name of the party holding title to the land. The amendment would not 
change the agreements currently in effect.

Section 4120.3-3  Range Improvement Permits

    This section would be amended to make it clear that a permittee or 
lessee may apply for a range improvement permit to install, use, 
maintain, or modify range improvement projects, whether permanent or 
temporary, needed to meet management objectives established for the 
allotment. The permittee would hold title to removable livestock 
handling facilities and to temporary improvements such as troughs for 
hauled water or loading chutes. The amendment would also clarify that 
permanent water improvement projects would be authorized through 
cooperative range improvement agreements. The proposed rule would 
remove the provision that permittees or lessees would control the use 
of ponds or wells by livestock. Permittees and lessees would be the 
graziers and, therefore, would control livestock use of water sources. 
The proposed amendment will not affect ownership or rights currently 
held in a range improvement.
    A provision was added to those presented in the advance notice to 
make clear that the authorized officer would retain a record of 
permittee or lessee contributions to specific authorized range 
improvement projects. This record would be used in determining 
compensation due the permittee or lessee from the BLM in the event a 
permit or lease is canceled in order to devote the public lands to 
another public purpose, including disposal of the lands. The record 
would also be considered prior to the transfer of grazing preference.
    The rule would provide for the BLM to mediate disputes about 
reasonable compensation for the operation and maintenance of facilities 
when another operator is authorized temporary use of forage that the 
preference permit holder cannot use.

Section 4120.3-8  Range Improvement Fund

    The proposed rule would add a new section to this part that 
addresses the distribution and use of the ``range betterment'' funds 
appropriated by Congress through section 401(b) of FLPMA for range 
improvement expenditure by the Secretary of the Interior. The range 
betterment fund has been called the range improvement appropriation by 
Congress and is known by that title in the BLM. The proposed amendment 
would provide for distribution of the funds by the Secretary or 
designee. The proposed rule would provide that one-half of the range 
improvement fund would be made available to the State and District from 
which the funds were derived. The remaining one-half would be allocated 
by the Secretary or designee on a priority basis. All range improvement 
funds would be used for on-the-ground rehabilitation, protection and 
improvements of public rangeland ecosystems. Current policy requires 
the return of all range improvement funds to the District from which 
they were collected. The BLM has found this not to be in the best 
interest of the public because it prevents use of the funds in areas 
where they are most needed and results in some offices experiencing 
difficulty expending available funds efficiently. The proposed 
amendment would correct the imbalance by ensuring that the funds are 
distributed on a priority basis.
    The proposed rule would clarify that range improvement includes 
activities such as planning, design, layout, modification, and 
monitoring/evaluating the effectiveness of specific range improvements 
in achieving resource condition and management objectives. Maintenance 
of range improvements and costs associated with the contracting of 
range improvement was added to the list of activities included in the 
advance notice of proposed rulemaking for which range improvement funds 
may be used. Maintenance was an allowable use of range improvement 
funds prior to a policy change made in 1982.
    The proposed rule would require consultation with affected 
permittees, lessees, and the interested public during the planning of 
range development and improvement programs. Multiple resource advisory 
councils would also be consulted during the planning of range 
development and improvement programs, including the development of 
budgets for range improvement and the establishment of range 
improvement priorities.

Section 4120.3-9  Water Rights for the Purpose of Livestock Grazing on 
Public Lands

    This section was added in response to comments on language 
pertaining to water rights that was presented in the advance notice. 
This section would provide consistent direction for the BLM regarding 
water rights on public lands for livestock watering purposes. Under the 
proposed rule, any new rights to water on public land for livestock 
watering on such land would be acquired, perfected, maintained, and 
administered under State law, and in the name of the United States 
unless State law prohibits it.
    The proposal would not create any new Federal reserved water 
rights, nor would it affect valid existing water rights. Any right or 
claim to water on public land for livestock watering on public land by 
or on behalf of the United States would remain subject to the 
provisions of 43 U.S.C. 666 (the McCarran Amendment) and section 701 of 
FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1701 note; disclaimer on water rights). Finally, the 
proposal would not change existing BLM policy on water rights for uses 
other than public land grazing, such as irrigation, municipal, or 
industrial uses.

Section 4120.5  Cooperation in Management

    The proposed rule would add a new section on cooperation in 
management to recognize and regulate cooperation with, among others, 
State, county, Indian tribal, local government entities and Federal 
agencies.

Section 4120.5-1  Cooperation With State, County, and Federal Agencies

    This section would recognize existing cooperation with State cattle 
and sheep boards, county and local noxious weed control districts, and 
State agencies involved in environmental, conservation, and enforcement 
roles related to these cooperative relationships. The Taylor Grazing 
Act, Noxious Weed Control Act, FLPMA, Public Rangeland Improvement Act 
(43 U.S.C 1901 et seq.), and other statutes and agreements require 
cooperation with State, county and local governments, and Federal 
agencies.

Subpart 4130--Authorizing Grazing Use

Section 4130.1  Applications

    This section would make it clear that applications must contain the 
proposed active grazing use, temporary nonuse, and conservation use. 
This amendment is proposed to end confusion about the ``failure to 
use'' provisions of subpart 4170. The inadvertent loss of permitted use 
or preference due to punitive action in response to failure to make use 
is easily avoided by applying for nonuse and receiving approval from 
the authorized officer.

Section 4130.1-1  Changes in Grazing Use

    This section would provide for field managers to make temporary 
changes in authorized use, either increases or decreases, not to exceed 
25 percent of the authorized use or 100 AUMs, whichever is greater, 
following consultation with the affected permittees or lessees and the 
State having land or responsibility for resources management within the 
allotment. This would provide latitude to the authorized officer for 
authorizing minor or incidental adjustments in grazing use without 
extensive consultation, simplifying day-to-day administration. The 
provision for 25 percent or 100 AUMS, whichever is greater, is intended 
to specify what constitutes minor or incremental adjustments. The 
Department proposes the 100 AUM limitation to provide sufficient 
latitude in cases where minor adjustments, in terms of the total amount 
of forage, would constitute a large percentage of the permitted use 
(i.e., small permits or leases). Changes of a temporary nature could be 
made in a timely manner when the proposed changes conform with the 
applicable land use plan and standards and guidelines, and are within 
the terms and conditions of the existing permit or lease. Examples of 
the types of changes that would be considered under this section are 
the activation of previously approved temporary nonuse, placing 
permitted use in temporary nonuse, and the use of forage temporarily 
available on ephemeral or annual ranges.

Section 4130.1-2  Conflicting Applications

    This section would be amended by adding criteria to be considered 
in granting a use authorization or permit or lease. The proposed rule 
would incorporate the history of applicants' and affiliates' compliance 
with the terms and conditions of Federal and State grazing permits and 
leases and demonstrated stewardship of the public lands as criteria for 
granting permits or leases where there is more than one qualified 
applicant.

Section 4130.2  Grazing Permits or Leases

    The permit and lease tenure proposals included in the advance 
notice of proposed rulemaking have not been carried forward. Public 
comment on the advance notice suggested the permit and lease tenure 
provisions would result, among other things, in severe limitations on 
the ability of prospective permittees and lessees to secure financing 
for the purchase and operation of ranches. Under this proposed rule, 
permits and leases would continue to be offered for 10-year terms 
except in specified circumstances.
    The proposed rule would clarify that all grazing permits and leases 
issued, including the transfer or renewal of permits and leases, would 
include terms and conditions addressing the national requirements and 
standards and guidelines proposed under subpart 4180, as well as terms 
and conditions establishing allowable levels, seasons and duration of 
use, and other terms and conditions that would assist in achieving 
management objectives, provide for proper range management, or assist 
in the orderly administration of the public rangelands. Terms and 
conditions reflecting the national requirements proposed under subpart 
4180 would begin being incorporated in grazing permits and leases as 
permits and leases are issued, including transfer or renewal, upon the 
effective date of the rule. Standards and guidelines for grazing 
administration would be reflected in the terms and conditions of 
grazing permits and leases upon their completion or, in the absence of 
the completion of State or regional standards and guidelines, as the 
fallback standards and guidelines presented in section 4180.2 of this 
proposed rule become effective.
    A new paragraph has been added in addition to those presented in 
the advance notice to make clear the requirements for consultation with 
interested parties prior to the issuance or renewal of grazing permits 
and leases.
    The provision of the advance notice that would prevent the renewal 
of permits and leases when the permittees or lessees are found to be in 
repeated noncompliance with the terms and conditions of expiring 
grazing permits or leases has been removed from this section. Section 
4110.1--Mandatory qualifications, would require that applicants for 
renewal must be determined to be in substantial compliance with the 
terms and conditions of their grazing permit or lease. In assessing 
whether an applicant for renewal is in substantial compliance, the 
authorized officer would consider the number of prior incidents of 
noncompliance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 4100, as well as the 
nature and seriousness of any single incident of noncompliance. 
Therefore, a separate provision in this section is deemed to be 
unnecessary.
    The provision of the advance notice that applicants for renewal 
would be required to be found to not be in violation of the provisions 
of 43 CFR part 4100 has been removed. Section 4170.1-1--Penalty for 
violations, in the existing regulations provides for withholding 
issuance of permits and leases when applicants are in violation of the 
provisions of this part.
    The provision of the advance notice that would prohibit the offer 
or grant of permits and leases when the applicant refuses to accept the 
terms and conditions of the offered permit or lease has been amended to 
clarify that it would apply to applicants for renewal and new permits 
and leases.
    The proposed rule clarifies the application for and granting of 
conservation use and temporary nonuse. Conservation use would be 
established as one of the allowable uses a permittee or lessee may be 
granted. The existing regulations grant the authorized officer the 
discretion to place forage in nonuse for conservation purposes. The 
change from the term ``nonuse for conservation purposes'' to 
``conservation use'' is intended to clarify that conservation use is 
allowable, when in conformance with applicable land use plans, activity 
plans and standards and guidelines, and will allow the Department to 
fulfill one of the requirements of the Taylor Grazing Act, which is to 
``preserve land and its resources from destruction or unnecessary 
injury'' (43 U.S.C. 315a).
    Forage made available as a result of temporary nonuse may be 
authorized for temporary use by another operator. Forage used for 
conservation purposes would not be available to other livestock 
operators. The procedures guiding approval of nonuse are proposed in 
response to a recommendation from the March 19, 1986, Inspector 
General's review of the grazing management program.

Section 4130.4-1  Exchange-of-Use Grazing Agreements

    This section would include needed requirements that the agreements 
for exchange of use will be in harmony with management objectives, and 
will be compatible with existing livestock operations. The agreements 
would be required to address the fair sharing of maintenance and 
operation of range improvements and would be approved for the same term 
as any leased lands that are offered.

Section 4130.4-3  Crossing Permits

    This section would provide for terms and conditions for crossing 
permits, a form of temporary use authorization. The proposed amendments 
are consistent with the customary practices of BLM field offices.

Section 4130.5  Ownership and Identification of Livestock

    This section would be amended to make it clear that, before grazing 
livestock owned by persons other than the permittee or lessee, the 
permittee or lessee is required to have an approved use authorization 
and have submitted a copy of the documented agreement or contract that 
includes information required for the BLM's administration of permits 
and leases and management of rangeland resources. This generally does 
not create a new requirement. Many field offices are currently 
requiring the information to document the legality of the pasturing of 
livestock owned by persons other than the permittees.
    In addition to the proposals of the advance notice, this proposed 
rule would add an exemption from some of the requirements for ownership 
of livestock for sons and daughters of permittees or lessees in 
specified circumstances. This modification is necessary to allow the 
exemption of sons and daughters, who are grazing livestock on public 
lands under their parents' permit or lease in specified circumstances, 
from the authorized leasing or subleasing surcharge provided in 
Sec. 4130.7.

Section 4130.6-1  Mandatory Terms and Conditions

    This section would be amended through minor additions and deletions 
that clarify that use shall not exceed the livestock carrying capacity 
of the allotment, and by removing unnecessary references to previous 
sections. The section would be further amended to add a paragraph (c) 
that would require that standards and guidelines be reflected in the 
terms and conditions of permits and leases.

Section 4130.6-2  Other Terms and Conditions

    This section would be amended to provide for proper rangeland 
management and to remove unnecessary language. The proposed amendment 
would allow terms and conditions to provide for improvement of riparian 
area functions and for protecting other rangeland resources and values 
consistent with applicable land use plans. The amendments are 
consistent with the themes of protection, improvement, and restoration 
of the rangelands to increase overall productivity, and will enhance 
multiple-use management as required by the applicable laws cited above. 
The addition of paragraph (h), a provision affirmatively stating that 
BLM shall have administrative access across the permittee's or lessee's 
owned or leased private lands, is intended to address attempts made to 
prevent the BLM from performing functions such as range use 
supervision, compliance checks, and trespass abatement.

Section 4130.6-3  Modification

    The proposed rule would amend this section to clarify consultation 
requirements in the modification of terms and conditions of permits. 
The amendment would identify the opportunity to be provided the public 
for review and comment, or to give input, during the evaluation of 
monitoring results or other data that provide a basis for decisions 
regarding grazing use or management.

Section 4130.7-1  Payment of Fees

    The proposed rule would amend this section by revising the grazing 
fee formula, adding a provision for phasing in the grazing fee over the 
years 1995 through 1997, providing for an adjustment of the fee formula 
in the event separate final regulations prescribing qualification 
criteria for an incentive-based fee are not completed, and providing 
for a 25 percent cap on changes in the calculated fee from year to 
year. The section would be further amended to make clear the definition 
of a billing unit, to provide for assessing a surcharge for the public 
landlord's share of authorized subleasing associated with Federal land 
grazing, to provide for multi-year billing in specified circumstances 
to reduce administrative workload associated with small grazing 
allotments, to clarify that grazing use that occurs before a bill is 
paid is an unauthorized use and may be dealt with under the settlement 
and penalties sections of these regulations and may result in the 
limitation of flexibility authorized under an allotment management 
plan, and to provide for free use where the primary objective of 
livestock use is to benefit resource conditions or management, such as 
scientific study or the control of noxious weeds. The advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking proposed to phase in the grazing fee over the 
grazing years of 1994 through 1996. This proposed rule would also phase 
in the revised grazing fee, but the initial phase would begin with 
grazing year 1995.
    The proposed amendment of the grazing fee formula has been prepared 
in cooperation with the Forest Service. In reviewing potential 
modification of the grazing fee formula the BLM and Forest Service 
identified criteria by which any new fee proposal should be measured. 
Those criteria are:
    1. The fee charged for livestock grazing should approximate market 
value. Using market value helps assure that the public receives a fair 
return for the private use of publicly owned resources.
    2. The fee should not cause unreasonable impacts on communities 
that are not economically diverse or to livestock operations that are 
greatly dependent on public land forage.
    3. The grazing fee should recover a reasonable amount of government 
costs involved in administering grazing permits and leases and should 
provide increased funds to improve ecological conditions.
    4. The fee system should be understandable and reasonably easy to 
administer.
    The present fee system, in effect since 1978, has been 
controversial and criticized for the wide disparity between rates 
charged for livestock grazing on private lands and those charged for 
Federal lands. While the forage value in the private market increased 
substantially over time, the Federal grazing fee has decreased during 
some periods or had relatively small increases.
    The proposed fee system would use a base value adjusted annually by 
the change in the private grazing land lease rate. The proposed base 
value was derived by using data from two different studies. The first 
study is the 1966 Western Livestock Grazing Survey (WLGS), where over 
10,000 individuals were interviewed to determine the costs of operating 
on Federal lands, as compared to operating on private land leases. 
Information on the private grazing land lease rate was also collected. 
The WLGS determined that the westwide value for grazing Federal lands 
equalled $1.23 per AUM for 1966. This value is updated to a 1991 base 
value of $3.25 per AUM by multiplying $1.23 by 264, the percentage 
change in the private grazing land lease rate from the base years 1964-
1968, and dividing by 100.
    The second study is the 1983 appraisal of the value of grazing on 
the BLM and Forest Service lands in the 16 western States. This 
appraisal involved interviews with approximately 100,000 persons and 
generated 7,246 usable records of fees paid for livestock grazing. The 
appraisal divided the 16 western States into 6 pricing regions.
    The appraisers concluded that the value of public land grazing 
ranged from $4.68 per head month (equivalent to BLM's AUM for billing 
purposes) in the southwest pricing region to $8.55 per head month in 
the northern plains pricing region. In 1992, the appraisal was updated, 
based on additional data for private grazing lease rates gathered 
during 1991. The update found no change in the $4.68 per head month 
value of grazing in the southwest pricing region, and found an increase 
to $10.26 per head month in the northern plains pricing region. The 
$4.68 appraisal value is the lowest of the appraised values and is 
considered a reasonable amount on which to base a westwide fee. Using 
the lowest of the appraised values would minimize the impact on 
livestock grazing permittee.
    This proposed rule would establish a new base value of $3.96 per 
AUM by averaging the results of the two studies ($3.25 plus $4.68 
divided by 2 equals $3.96). By averaging these two values the base 
value is established in consideration of the economic value of the 
forage and costs of production. After an initial phase-in period, the 
fee would be adjusted annually by multiplying the base value by the 
Forage Value Index (FVI), which reflects the change in the private 
grazing land lease rate in the 17 western States weighted by the number 
of public AUMs sold in each State. The private grazing land lease rate 
estimate is prepared annually by the USDA, National Agricultural 
Statistics Service. Although the FVI does not explicitly use indices 
based on production costs or on the value of the livestock produced, 
both of these factors influence the prices paid for grazing livestock 
on private lands and, therefore, are implicit in the forage value 
index.
    The definition of the FVI in this proposed rule has been changed 
from the definition presented in the advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking. In the advance notice the FVI was to be calculated by 
dividing the prior year weighted average AUM price on private grazing 
lands in the 17 western States by the weighted average AUM price on 
private grazing lands in the 17 western States during the years 1990 
through 1992. That method would have established 1990 through 1992 as 
the base years from which the Federal grazing fee would be indexed. 
Beginning in 1994, the FVI would have been used to calculate the 
Federal grazing fee under the advance proposal. In this proposed rule, 
the concept of the FVI has been retained but the FVI base year would be 
1996 and the FVI would not be used to calculate the Federal grazing fee 
until 1997.
    The intent of this change in the FVI base year is to address the 
concern that the FVI calculation proposed in the advance notice would 
have resulted in adjusting the Federal grazing fee by several years' 
worth of change in private grazing land lease rates, resulting in an 
uncertain and possibly significant jump or drop in the calculated fee. 
Under this proposed rule the FVI would first be used in calculating the 
1997 grazing fee and would be based on the 1996 private grazing land 
lease rates in each of the 17 western States. By definition, the FVI in 
the year 1997 would equal one, resulting in a 1997 grazing fee equal to 
the base value. In subsequent years the fee would reflect changes from 
the 1996 private grazing land lease rates. The Department recognizes 
that basing the FVI in a single year, as opposed to the three year 
average presented in the advance notice, could result in slightly 
greater volatility in the index. However, the Department feels this 
potential volatility in the index, given the relative stability in the 
private grazing land lease rates and the limitation on annual 
fluctuations discussed below, is overshadowed by the need to avoid some 
of the uncertainty associated with an FVI based on less current data.
    The grazing fee charged in 1994 is $1.98 per AUM. Under this 
proposed rule the formula would result in a grazing fee in 1997 of 
$3.96. The fee would be phased-in by establishing the 1995 grazing fee 
at $2.75, and the 1996 fee at $3.50. Thereafter, except as explained 
below, the fee would be calculated by multiplying the $3.96 base value 
by the FVI. After the phase-in, the grazing fee would be allowed to 
change by no more than 25 percent annually, plus or minus, from the 
amount charged the previous year. The phase-in and the 25 percent per 
year limit are intended to moderate the impact of fee changes on 
livestock operations and ranching communities.
    Two provisions have been added to the proposed rule regarding 
incentive-based grazing fees. First, the proposed rule provides for a 
30 percent reduction in the grazing fee to those permittees and lessees 
who meet the applicable eligibility criteria to be established in a 
separate rule. Second, the proposed rule provides that if separate 
final regulations necessary to implement the incentive-based fee are 
not issued prior to the start of grazing fee year 1997, implementation 
of the $3.96 base value would be delayed. The Department believes that 
a 30 percent reduction in the grazing fee would be a valuable tool in 
promoting good stewardship. However, the effectiveness of this 
incentive would rest on the criteria for qualification. These criteria 
would focus primarily upon those permittees and lessees who agree to 
participate in special rangeland improvement programs characterized by 
best management practices, the furtherance of resource condition 
objectives, and comprehensive monitoring. The Department has not found 
general agreement on the criteria necessary to qualify for the fee 
reduction and, accordingly, has decided to consider that aspect of the 
incentive-based fee through a separate rulemaking. The proposed delay 
in implementation of the $3.96 base value, in the event that final rule 
on these criteria has not been issued, is intended to demonstrate the 
Department's commitment to expeditious implementation of the incentive-
based fee. The Department anticipates that eligibility criteria would 
require the permittee or lessee to undertake management practices 
beyond those otherwise required by law and regulation to benefit the 
ecological health of the public rangelands.
    In the absence of completed regulations establishing the criteria 
for qualification for the reduced fee, and beginning in the grazing fee 
year 1997, a base value of $3.50 would be substituted in the formula. 
The $3.50 base value would continue until such time as the incentive-
based fee regulations are completed. This provision would not affect 
the phase-in of the fee in the grazing fee years 1995 and 1996, or the 
25 percent cap on annual changes in the calculated fee.
    The proposed rule would provide for collecting a surcharge for 
certain authorized leasing and subleasing activities associated with a 
Federal permit or lease attached to base property. It would retain the 
provision for legal transfer of base leases and permits and the 
pasturing of livestock owned by persons other than the permittee or 
lessee.
    The initial proposal in the advance notice has been modified to 
exclude from the surcharge sons and daughters of permittees or lessees 
grazing livestock on public lands as part of an educational or youth 
programs pertaining to livestock rangeland management, or when 
establishing a livestock herd in anticipation of assuming part or all 
of the family ranch operation. This change was made in recognition of 
the public concern that the surcharge could unduly restrict 
opportunities for young persons learning or entering the livestock 
business.
    The issue of subleasing or pasturing livestock owned by others in 
connection with public land grazing permits or leases has been 
controversial and there has been much concern expressed in the West by 
the livestock industry and conservation organizations, alike. The 
concern is easily understood when one considers that past Federal 
grazing fees have been sufficiently low as to present opportunities for 
substantial profit when a permittee or lessee pastures another party's 
livestock or leases the base property. Also, the short-term nature of 
agreements for pasturing livestock owned by persons other than the 
permittee or lessee presents less incentive for stewardship of the 
land.
    In developing an approach to address these concerns the BLM queried 
departments responsible for the management of State lands in most of 
the western States to determine how they were addressing this issue and 
if they were collecting a share of the lease or service fees being 
charged. The BLM found that most of the States that allow subleasing or 
pasturing of livestock owned by persons other than the permittee or 
lessee require the payment of a service fee or surcharge, or a portion 
of the amount in excess of the State's rental fee.
    Under the proposed rule the Department would recognize two types of 
authorized leasing or subleasing. The first is the lease or sublease of 
public land grazing privileges associated with the base property. Such 
a lease or sublease would be authorized so long as the associated base 
property is leased or subleased together with the public land grazing 
privileges and the BLM authorized officer approves the arrangement. The 
second is a pasturing agreement under which livestock not owned by the 
permittee or lessee but under the control of the permittee or lessee is 
allowed to graze on the permit or lease area. In order to be 
authorized, such a lease or sublease arrangement would require approval 
of the BLM authorized officer. Other types of subleasing arrangements 
would be unauthorized.
    The Department is proposing to charge a surcharge of 20 percent on 
all grazing fee billings for the authorized lease or sublease of public 
land grazing privileges associated with base property. An analysis of 
the costs and prices indicates that a 20 percent surcharge as applied 
by the State of New Mexico, the lowest of the States charging for 
subleasing, would be appropriate and is consistent with the approach 
used by other western States.
    The Department also proposes to follow the example of the western 
States subleasing charges to establish a surcharge for authorized 
leasing or subleasing arrangements constituting pasturing agreements, 
as described above. The Department proposes a surcharge of 50 percent 
for the forage used in pasturing livestock owned by other than the 
permittee or lessee under a BLM permit or lease where the livestock is 
under the control of the BLM permittee or lessee. This figure is 
comparable to the $1.00 per AUM sublease fee charged by the State of 
Utah and would capture the typically larger profit associated with 
pasturing livestock. The surcharge would be 70 percent of the grazing 
bill when there is both an authorized lease or sublease of grazing 
preference and an authorized pasturing agreement. Sons and daughters of 
permittees and lessees would be provided with an exemption from the 
surcharges under circumstances specified in the rule.
    The proposed rule includes a provision for multiple-year billing of 
grazing fees. This provision was not included in the advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking. It has been added in response to preliminary 
analyses of Rangeland Reform '94 that suggested a need to identify 
further opportunity for reductions in administrative expense and 
staffing needs. The proposed rule would allow the authorized officer to 
approve advance billing for up to 5 years where agreed to by the 
permittee or lessee and where annual authorized livestock use does not 
exceed 200 AUMs. At the end of the billing period or prior to any 
termination or transfer of the permit or lease, a separate billing 
would be issued to reconcile amounts owed or overpaid as a result of 
changes in the grazing fee. This provision focuses on smaller public 
land leases that result in disproportionately high administrative 
costs. Multiple-year billing would free limited staff and resources to 
work on higher priority resource concerns.
    The new provisions for free use provide for the authorized officer 
to approve free use under limited circumstances. Under this section, 
free use could be permitted where the primary objective of authorized 
grazing use or conservation use is the management of vegetation to meet 
resource objectives other than the production of livestock forage, to 
conduct scientific research or administrative studies, or to control 
noxious weeds.

Section 4130.7-2  Incentive-Based Grazing Fee Reduction

    Existing Secs. 4130.7-2 and 4130.7-3 would be redesignated as 
Secs. 4130.7-3 and 4130.7-4, respectively, and a new section 4130.7-2 
would be added to provide for the calculation of the incentive-based 
grazing fee and the criteria for qualifying for the fee reduction.
    This section would provide for a 30 percent reduction in the 
grazing fee where the criteria for qualification are met. However, the 
criteria for qualification are not included in this proposed rule. The 
Department intends to use its best efforts to complete a separate rule 
that will establish the criteria prior to the start of the 1996 grazing 
fee year, and has reserved a paragraph for the criteria in this 
proposed rule.
    This section would provide that the incentive-based fee for 
qualifying applicants in the grazing year 1996 would be calculated by 
multiplying the base value of $3.96 times 0.70 (70 percent). This would 
yield a 1996 incentive-based fee of $2.77. Beginning in grazing fee 
year 1997, the incentive-based fee would be calculated by multiplying 
the base value of $3.96 times the FVI and 0.70. This calculation would 
again yield an incentive-based fee of $2.77 for the grazing fee year 
1997 because the FVI, by definition, would equal one for grazing fee 
year 1997. In subsequent years the incentive-based fee would fluctuate 
in keeping with changes in the private grazing land lease rate as 
reflected by the FVI. Yearly increases and decreases would be limited 
to no more than 25 percent of the incentive-based fee in the prior 
year.
    This section would include a paragraph reserved for the 
qualification criteria that will be developed in a separate rulemaking.

Section 4130.7-4  Service Charge

    Section 4130.7-3 would be amended by redesignating the section as 
Sec. 4130.7-4, and by adding applications that are made solely for 
temporary nonuse or conservation use. The service fee would offset the 
costs of processing such applications.

Subpart 4140--Prohibited Acts

Section 4140.1  Prohibited Acts on Public Lands

    Paragraph (a)(2) of this section would be amended to end 
misunderstandings about approved temporary nonuse and failure to make 
substantial use as authorized. Once temporary nonuse is approved, it 
becomes an authorized action and is therefore not subject to penalty 
action under Sec. 4170.1. Other proposed amendments to this section 
would clarify paragraph (b)(1) to establish that the receipt of a 
grazing fee bill does not authorize grazing use of the range until the 
bill is paid. Paragraph (b)(9) would be amended to make it clear that 
the permittee is responsible for controlling livestock so they do not 
stray on to ``closed to range'' areas where grazing is prohibited by 
local laws, such as ``formally designated agriculture districts'' or 
municipalities. To be consistent with the Forest Service this section 
would restore two provisions that existed in this subpart prior to 
1984. These provisions would make subject to penalty permittee or 
lessee violations of the Wild and Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 
1971, the Endangered Species Act, and Federal or State laws or 
regulations concerning pest or animal damage control, and conservation 
or protection of natural and cultural resources or environmental 
quality when public lands are involved or affected. Under Sec. 4170.1-
3, no action could be taken in response to violations of State and 
Federal laws pertaining to pest or animal damage control, and 
conservation or protection of natural and cultural resources or 
environmental quality unless the permittee or lessee is convicted or 
otherwise determined by the appropriate authority to have been in 
violation, and there are no outstanding appeals.
    Several changes were made in addition to those presented in the 
advance notice of proposed rulemaking to enable BLM law enforcement 
personnel to assist in protection of authorized use of the public lands 
and to clarify the various acts committed against grazing animals. In 
addition some changes have been made to make clear that attempted 
payment by a check that is not honored by the bank does not constitute 
payment and would result in unauthorized use, and to provide for 
reclamation of lands, property or resources when damaged by 
unauthorized use or actions.
    A list of the types of violations of Federal and State laws and 
regulations concerning pest or predator control and conservation or 
protection of natural and cultural resources or the environment that 
would be prohibited acts where public lands are involved or affected 
has been added in this proposed rule. This change was made in response 
to comments on the advance notice of proposed rulemaking that suggested 
that this provision needed to be more explicit.

Subpart 4150--Unauthorized Grazing Use

Section 4150.1  Violations

    This section would be reorganized for readability and to add the 
requirement that the authorized officer shall determine whether a 
violation is nonwillful, willful, or repeated willful to clarify 
subsequent sections of the rule.

Section 4150.2  Notice and Order To Remove

    This section would be amended to grant the authorized officer 
authority and provide for determining if a nonwillful violation is 
incidental in nature, and to clarify actions for expedient resolution 
of these innocent or unintended trespasses. The ability to close areas 
for a period of up to 12 months to specified class and kinds of 
livestock for the sole purpose of abating unauthorized use was added in 
addition to the changes presented in the advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking. Reference to the agents of livestock owners has also been 
added. These changes will facilitate the process of identifying and 
removing unauthorized livestock from public rangelands.

Section 4150.3  Settlement

    This section would be amended to provide guidelines for considering 
nonmonetary settlement that waives fees for unintentional incidental 
trespasses in a fair manner while preventing needless expense in the 
best interest of the public. Key provisions of determination would be: 
the operator is not at fault, an insignificant amount of forage is 
consumed, no damage occurred, and nonmonetary settlement is in the best 
interest of the United States. The method for determining the 
settlement amounts would be amended to base the value of forage on the 
monthly rate per AUM for pasturing livestock on private, nonirrigated 
land in the 17 western States. This section includes changes made in 
addition to those presented in the advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking to reduce the potential for abuse of discretion by 
clarifying when a nonmonetary settlement for nonwillful violations may 
be made.

Subpart 4160--Administrative remedies

Section 4160  Administrative Remedies

    The proposed rule would amend this section to improve organization, 
clarify the process and requirements, and to provide for application of 
the Departmental rule located at section 4.21 of this title regarding 
full force and effect decisions and petitions for staying the effect of 
a decision pending determination on appeal.

Section 4160.1  Proposed Decisions

    This section would be amended to provide clarification that a final 
decision may be issued without first issuing a proposed decision when 
action under paragraph 4110.3-3(b) of this part is necessary to stop 
resource damage, or when action is taken under paragraph 4150.2(d) to 
close an area to unauthorized grazing use. This proposed amendment does 
not limit appeal rights provided in Sec. 4160.3. It would serve to 
expedite the decision process where immediate action is necessary.
    This section includes changes made in addition to those presented 
in the advance notice of proposed rulemaking to clarify, primarily, 
what information must be contained in a proposed decision.

Section 4160.3  Final Decisions

    This section would be amended to clarify the process for filing an 
appeal and a petition for a stay of the decision. Under the proposed 
rule, decisions would be implemented at the end of the 30-day appeal 
period except where a petition for stay has been filed with the Office 
of Hearings and Appeals, in which case the Office of Hearings and 
Appeals has, under Sec. 4.21 of this title, a period of 45 days from 
the end of the appeal period in which to decide on the petition for 
stay. This process would temporarily stay the decision up to 75 days if 
a stay is not granted. A stay, if granted, would suspend the effect of 
the decision pending final disposition of the appeal. Under the present 
grazing administration appeals process, decisions other than those 
pertaining to emergency action are automatically stayed upon the timely 
filing of an appeal. This has resulted in delays of up to two years 
before necessary corrective action can be taken.
    This proposal would protect the public's rights to an appeal and 
would provide a method for staying decisions where the Office of 
Hearings and Appeals determines it would be appropriate to do so. At 
the same time this section would prevent unnecessary delays in action. 
The advance notice stated that when no protest is received on a 
proposed decision it shall become the final decision and will be 
appealable for a period of 30 days. Clarification of the wording 
relating to this point in the advance notice of proposed rulemaking has 
been made in this proposed rule.
    The proposed revisions would make 43 CFR part 4100 more consistent 
with the Department's Sec. 4.21 of this title. Several changes were 
made in addition to those presented in the advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking to make clear how the Departmental rule would apply.
    The proposed rule also clarifies the amount of grazing use that 
would be allowable when a decision has been stayed by the Office of 
Hearings and Appeals or by order of a Federal Court. Where an appellant 
had no authorized grazing use the preceding year, the authorized 
grazing use would be required to be consistent with the decision 
pending a final determination on appeal. Appellants affected by this 
provision would include persons that are applicants for permit or lease 
transfers. Where a decision proposes to change the amount of authorized 
grazing use, the permitted grazing use would remain at no more than the 
appellant's previously determined permitted use during the time an 
appeal is pending. Reference to ephemeral use has been added to the 
amendments included in the advance notice of proposed rulemaking which 
pertain to levels of use pending determination on appeal. This 
amendment would provide for making decisions immediately effective when 
it is necessary to protect the rangeland resources or to facilitate 
abatement of unauthorized use by closing an area to grazing use under 
sections 4110.3-3 and 4150.2 of this part.

Section 4160.4  Appeals

    This section would be amended to make it clear that any party whose 
interest is adversely affected may appeal the final decision of the 
authorized officer. The amendment would also provide instructions 
regarding the filing of appeals and petitions to stay decisions. When a 
final decision is issued, all parties whose interests have been 
adversely affected may file an appeal and a petition for stay of the 
decision within 30 days from the date of receipt of a final decision, 
or 30 days from the date a proposed decision becomes final in the 
absence of a protest. Under the process of Sec. 4.21 of this title, the 
Office of Hearings and Appeals would be allowed 45 days from the end of 
the appeal period to review the petition and issue a determination. A 
decision would not be in effect during the consideration of a petition 
for stay unless it was made effective for reasons under Sec. 4110.3-
3(b) or 4150.2(d) of this subpart. The determination of who qualifies 
as an affected party is made by OHA.
    This section includes changes made in addition to those presented 
in the advance notice of proposed rulemaking, including a requirement 
for prompt transmittal by the authorized officer of appeals and 
petitions for stay to the Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Subpart 4170--Penalties

Section 4170.1-1  Penalty for Violations

    This section would be amended to provide for a penalty for 
unauthorized leasing and subleasing in the amount of two times the 
private grazing land lease rate for the 17 western States as supplied 
annually by the National Agricultural Statistics Service, and all 
reasonable expenses incurred by the United States in detecting, 
investigating, and resolving the violation. This penalty would be more 
consistent with the penalties provided for unauthorized use and would 
be simpler to administer than the penalty provided in the existing 
regulations. This provision was not included in the advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking.

Section 4170.1-2  Failure to Use

    This section would be amended to clarify the consultation 
requirements when considering taking action to cancel, in whole or in 
part, a permit or lease in response to failure to use, and to clarify 
that the failure to make substantial grazing use as authorized means 
the failure to make active grazing use as approved on a grazing use 
authorization. Permittees and lessees would be required to apply and 
receive approval for nonuse or conservation use. This section also 
would include failure to maintain or use water base property in the 
grazing operation. The failure to make authorized use may result in 
monitoring studies providing false information which could cause 
decisions to overobligate the forage resource of the rangeland. The 
failure to apply for conservation use or nonuse prevents the BLM from 
having an opportunity to determine if conservation use or nonuse is in 
conformance with applicable plans and if it will aid in achieving 
resource condition objectives. Review by the authorized officer of 
applications for nonuse is also necessary to determine if forage left 
unused should be allocated to another party through a temporary permit. 
Finally, water property is crucial to the proper use and operation of 
livestock grazing in water base areas. If base property waters are not 
kept in serviceable condition, livestock are forced to overuse the 
service areas of the remaining waters.

Section 4170.1-3  Bald Eagle Protection Act and Endangered Species Act

    The proposed rule would amend this section to include Federal or 
State predator animal and pest control and protection of the natural 
environment, wild free-roaming horses and burros, natural and cultural 
resources, or resource conservation regulations or laws. The heading of 
this section would be amended to reflect the change in scope. These 
proposed amendments are also made in the section on prohibited acts, 
Sec. 4140(b) of this part, and discussed earlier. The proposed 
amendments would adopt language of the grazing administration 
regulations that existed before 1984.

Section 4170.2-2  Penal Provisions Under the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act

    The proposed rule would amend this section to adopt the alternative 
fines provisions of title 18 U.S.C. 3571, current language that has 
been enacted since enactment of FLPMA to strengthen the protection of 
natural or cultural resources.

Subpart 4180--National Requirements and Standards and Guidelines for 
Grazing Administration

    This subpart would be added to establish national requirements for 
the administration of grazing on public lands. It would also include a 
provision for the development of State or regional standards and 
guidelines for grazing administration. These requirements, standards, 
and guidelines are proposed to establish clear direction for managing 
rangelands in a manner that would achieve or maintain ecological 
health, including the protection of habitats of threatened or 
endangered species and candidate species, and the protection of water 
quality.

Section 4180.1  National Requirements for Grazing Administration

    This new section would establish national requirements for grazing 
administration on public rangelands. The national requirements would 
include the requirement for maintaining or achieving healthy, properly 
functioning ecosystems and riparian areas and instituting measures to 
further the purposes of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) 
and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). All 
grazing-related actions on public lands would be required to conform 
with the national requirements. Where the national requirements are not 
being met, the authorized officer would be required to take corrective 
action prior to the start of the next grazing season. This would 
include actions such as reducing livestock stocking rates, adjusting 
the season or duration of livestock use, or modifying or relocating 
range improvements.
    Nothing in the national requirements relating to riparian systems 
would be construed to create a water right based on Federal law.

Section 4180.2  Standards and Guidelines for Grazing Administration

    This new section would establish the requirements for the 
development of standards and guidelines, and guiding principles for the 
development of standards and guidelines for grazing administration on 
public lands. All grazing related actions within the affected area 
would be required to conform with the standards and guidelines. The 
geographical area to be covered by the standards and guidelines 
developed pursuant to this section would be determined by the BLM State 
Director. Standards and guidelines would be required to be developed 
for an entire State, or for an ecoregion including portions of more 
than one State, except where the geophysical or vegetal character of an 
area is unique and the health of the rangelands could not be ensured by 
using standards and guidelines developed for a larger geographical 
area. The preparation of standards and guidelines would involve public 
participation and consultation with multiple resource advisory 
councils, Indian tribes, and Federal agencies responsible for the 
management of lands within the affected area. Public participation 
would include the involvement of the interested public.
    The proposed rule would establish guiding principles to be 
addressed in the development of standards and guidelines. The guiding 
principles for standards to be developed pertain to the minimum soil, 
water and vegetation conditions required for rangeland ecosystem 
health. All standards for grazing administration would be required to 
address factors relating to soil stability and watershed function, the 
distribution of nutrients and energy, and the recovery mechanisms of 
plant communities and riparian functioning conditions. The proposed 
guiding principles for the development of guidelines for grazing 
administration pertain to the types of management actions necessary to 
ensure that the standards can be met. Included in these guiding 
principles are the requirements that State or regional guidelines 
address grazing practices to be implemented to benefit threatened or 
endangered species and candidate species, and to maintain, restore or 
enhance water quality; critical periods of plant growth or regrowth and 
the need for rest from livestock grazing; situations in which 
continuous season-long grazing, or use of ephemeral rangelands, could 
be authorized; the allowable types and location of certain range 
improvements and management practices; and utilization or residual 
vegetation limits.
    The proposed rule provides that where State or regional standards 
and guidelines are not developed within 18 months of the effective date 
of the proposed rule, fallback standards and guidelines included in the 
text of the rule would be implemented. The fallback standards address 
the same factors relating to soil stability and watershed function, the 
distribution of nutrients and energy, the recovery mechanisms of plant 
communities, and riparian functioning condition as provided for under 
the guiding principles. However, the fallback standards include more 
detail as to the conditions that would exist under each of the factors 
when rangelands are in healthy, functional condition. Under the 
fallback standards, rangelands would be measured against benchmarks for 
the presence and development of top soils, evidence of active soil 
erosion, distribution of plants and nutrients in both space and time, 
distribution of plant litter, rooting throughout the available soil 
profile, the growth forms of plants, plant vigor, the presence of a 
range of age classes for the vegetation on site, presence and 
development of flood plains, and channel sinuosity, width-to-depth 
ratio, and gradient in relation to the landscape setting. Individual 
sites may be in healthy, functional condition even though they do not 
meet all of these measures; however, the Department feels that 
generally failing to meet the benchmarks across an area the size of a 
typical grazing pasture or allotment would be reliable evidence that 
the specific area is not in healthy, functional condition.
    Fallback guidelines for grazing administration would restrict 
management practices to those activities that assist in or do not 
hinder meeting certain legal mandates and achieving or maintaining 
rangeland health. The fallback guidelines address the same types of 
actions and practices that are considered under the guiding principles 
for the development of State or regional guidelines, but present these 
actions and practices as guidance for management. The fallback 
guidelines include the requirement that grazing management practices be 
implemented that assist in or do not hinder the recovery of threatened 
or endangered species, or assist in, or do not hinder, preventing the 
listing of species identified as candidates for threatened or 
endangered species. The fallback guidelines would also require that 
grazing practices be implemented that would assist in attaining and 
protecting water quality consistent with the Clean Water Act. Other 
fallback guidelines would require that grazing schedules include 
periods of rest during times of critical plant growth or regrowth, 
limit the authorization of continuous season-long grazing to instances 
where it has been demonstrated to be consistent with achieving or 
maintaining rangeland health and meeting established resource 
objectives. Spring developments or other projects affecting water would 
be required to be designed to protect the ecological values of the 
affected sites. Livestock management practices or management facilities 
would generally be required to be located outside of riparian-wetland 
areas, and where standards for these areas are not being met, the 
facilities could be removed or relocated, or the management practices 
modified. The fallback guidelines would also require the establishment 
and application of utilization or residual vegetation targets.
    Fallback standards and guidelines could be tailored by the BLM 
State Director better to fit local ecosystems and management practices. 
Modifications of the fallback standards and guidelines would require 
the approval of the Secretary.
    Standards and guidelines would be adhered to in the development of 
grazing-related portions of activity plans, and would be reflected in 
permits and leases as terms and conditions. Where data, including field 
observations, found acceptable to the authorized officer indicate that 
the standards and guidelines are not being met, the authorized officer 
would be required to take appropriate action, such as adjusting 
numbers, seasons, or duration of use by livestock, or modifying other 
management practices or range improvements, as soon as practicable but 
not later than the start of the next grazing year. Standards and 
guidelines would not be implemented prior to approval by the Secretary.
    The principal author of this proposed rule is George W. Ramey, 
Range Conservationist, BLM Washington Office (WO) Division of Rangeland 
Resources, assisted by other members of the WO Division of Rangeland 
Resources, numerous BLM field office personnel, personnel from the 
Washington Office and various field offices of the Forest Service, and 
Mark W. Stiles of the BLM WO Division of Legislation and Regulatory 
Management.
    The BLM and the Forest Service, as a cooperating agency, are 
preparing a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) on rangeland 
reform as announced in the Federal Register on July 13, 1993, and 
August 13, 1993. A notice of availability of the draft EIS will be 
published in the Federal Register. The draft EIS will invite public 
comment. Following the comment period on the draft EIS, a final EIS 
will be developed.
    This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866.
    The Department has prepared an initial Small Entities Flexibility 
Assessment analyzing the economic impact of this rulemaking on small 
entities pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605 et 
seq.). The initial assessment found that although some marginally 
profitable small livestock businesses that are highly dependent on 
public land grazing could experience significant economic impacts, most 
small businesses, organizations, and governments would not experience 
significant economic effects. The initial assessment is available at 
the address provided above.
    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12630, 
the Attorney General Guidelines, Department of the Interior Guidelines, 
and the Attorney General Supplemental Guidelines to determine the 
takings implications of the proposed rule if it were promulgated as 
currently drafted. Because the relevant statutes and regulations 
governing grazing on Federal land and case law interpreting said 
statutes and regulations have consistently recognized grazing on 
Federal land as a revocable license and not a property interest, it has 
been determined that this proposed rule does not present a risk of a 
taking.
    The Department has certified to the Office of Management and Budget 
that these regulations meet the applicable standards provided in 
sections 2(a) and 2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778.
    The collections of information contained in this rule have been 
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 44 U.S.C. 
3501, et seq. and assigned clearance numbers: 1004-0005, 1004-0019, 
1004-0020, 1004-0041, 1004-0047, 1004-0051, and 1004-0068.
    Public reporting burden for the information collections are as 
follows: clearance number 1004-0005 is estimated to average 0.33 hours 
per response, clearance number 1004-0019 is estimated to average 0.33 
hours per response, clearance number 1004-0020 is estimated to average 
0.33 hours per response, clearance number 1004-0041 is estimated to 
average 0.25 hours per response, clearance number 1004-0047 is 
estimated to average 0.25 hours per response, clearance number 1004-
0051 is estimated to average 0.3 hours per response, and clearance 
number 1004-0068 is estimated to average 0.17 hours per response, 
including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data 
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and 
reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this 
burden estimate or any other aspect of these collections of 
information, including suggestions for reducing the burden to the 
Information Collection Clearance Officer (873), Bureau of Land 
Management, Washington, DC 20240, and the Office of Management and 
Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, 1004-0005, 1004-0019, 1004-0020, 
1004-0041, 1004-0047, 1004-0051, or 1004-0068, Washington, DC 20503.

List of Subjects

43 CFR Part 4

    Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Claims, Equal 
access to justice, Government contracts, Grazing lands, Indians, 
Interior Department, Lawyers, Mines, Penalties, Public lands, Surface 
mining

43 CFR Part 1780

    Administrative practice and procedure, Advisory committees, Land 
Management Bureau, Public lands

43 CFR Part 4100

    Administrative practice and procedure, Grazing lands, Livestock, 
Penalties, Range management, Reporting and record keeping requirements.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble and under the authority of 
43 U.S.C. 1201, the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix), 
section 2 of the Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1950 (5 U.S.C. Appendix), 
the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (43 U.S.C. 315 et seq.), the Federal 
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and 
the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.), 
it is proposed to amend part 4 of subtitle A of title 43 and part 1780, 
group 1700, subchapter A and part 4100, group 4100, subchapter D of 
chapter II of subtitle B of title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
as set forth below:

PART 4--DEPARTMENT HEARINGS AND APPEALS PROCEDURES

    1. The authority for 43 CFR part 4 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: R.S. 2478, as amended, 43 U.S.C. sec. 1201, unless 
otherwise noted.

Subpart E--Special Rules Applicable to Public Land Hearings and 
Appeals

    2. The authority citation for subpart E of part 4 continues to read 
as follows:

    Authority: Sections 4.470 to 4.478 also issued under authority 
of sec. 2, 48 Stat. 1270; 43 U.S.C. 315a.

    3. Section 4.477 is amended by revising the heading, removing 
paragraph (a), removing the paragraph designation from paragraph (b), 
and revising the first sentence of the paragraph to read as follows:


Sec. 4.477  Effect of decision during appeal.

    Notwithstanding the provisions of Sec. 4.21(a) of this part and 
consistent with the provisions of Sec. 4160.3 of this title, the 
authorized officer may provide in his decision that it shall be in full 
force and effect pending decision on an appeal therefrom. * * *

PART 1780--COOPERATIVE RELATIONS

    4. The authority citation for part 1780 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. Appendix I, 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.

Subpart 1784--Advisory Committees


Sec. 1784.0-5  [Amended]

    5. Section 1784.0-5 is amended by removing from paragraph (d) the 
term ``Authorized representative'' and adding in its place the words 
``Designated Federal officer''.
    6. Section 1784.2-1 is amended by removing paragraph (b), 
redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (b), and revising the newly 
redesignated paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec. 1784.2-1  Composition.

* * * * *
    (b) Individuals shall qualify to serve on an advisory committee 
because their education, training, or experience enables them to give 
informed and objective advice regarding an industry, discipline, or 
interest specified in the committee's charter; they have demonstrated 
experience or knowledge of the geographical area under the purview of 
the advisory committee; and they demonstrated a commitment to 
collaborate in seeking solutions to resource management issues.
    7. Section 1784.2-2 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), and 
(b), and by adding a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec. 1784.2-2  Avoidance of conflict of interest.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Holders of grazing permits and leases may serve on advisory 
committees, including multiple resource advisory councils, and may 
serve on rangeland resource teams and technical review teams;
* * * * *
    (b) No advisory committee member, including members of multiple 
resource advisory committees, and no member of a rangeland resource 
team or technical review team, shall participate in any matter in which 
the member has a direct interest.
    (c) Members of multiple resource advisory councils shall, at a 
minimum, be required to disclose their direct or indirect interest in 
Federal grazing permits or leases administered by the Bureau of Land 
Management. For the purposes of this paragraph, indirect interest 
includes holdings of a spouse or a dependent child.
    8. Section 1784.3 is amended by removing paragraph (a), (b)(3), 
(b)(4), (b)(5), (c), (d) and (g); redesignating paragraphs (b)(1) and 
(b)(2) as paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2), respectively; adding 
introductory text to newly redesignated paragraph (a); removing from 
newly redesignated paragraph (a)(1) the word ``district'' and adding in 
its place the words ``geographical area''; removing paragraph (b) and 
redesignating paragraphs (e) and (f) as paragraphs (b) and (c), 
respectively; removing the words ``his authorized representative'' from 
newly redesignated paragraph (c) and adding in its place the words 
``the designated Federal officer''; and adding a new paragraph (d) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 1784.3  Member service.

    (a) Appointments to advisory committees shall be for 2-year terms 
unless otherwise specified in the charter or the appointing document. 
Terms of service normally coincide with duration of the committee 
charter. Members may be appointed to additional terms at the discretion 
of the authorized appointing official.
* * * * *
    (d) For purposes of compensation, members of advisory committees 
shall be reimbursed for travel and per diem expenses when on advisory 
committee business, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5703. Except for members 
of a multiple resource advisory committee who are also resource or 
technical review team members as provided in Secs. 1784.6-2 and 1784.6-
3, no reimbursement shall be made for expenses incurred by teams or 
individuals selected by established committees for the purpose of 
providing input.
    9. Sections 1784.5-1 and 1784.5-2 are amended by removing the term 
``authorized representative'' and adding in its place the term 
``designated Federal officer'', and removing the word ``his'' and 
adding in its place the word ``the''.


Secs. 1784.6-4 and 1784.6-5  [Removed]

    10. Sections 1784.6-4 and 1784.6-5 are removed.
    11. Section 1784.6 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 1784.6  Membership and functions of multiple resource advisory 
councils, rangeland resource teams, and technical review teams.

    12. Section 1784.6-1 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 1784.6-1  Multiple resource advisory councils.

    (a) One multiple resource advisory council shall be established for 
each Bureau of Land Management administrative district except when the 
relevant Bureau of Land Management State Director determines one or 
more of the following conditions exist:
    (1) There is insufficient interest in participation to ensure that 
membership can be fairly balanced in terms of the points of view 
represented and the functions to be performed;
    (2) The location of the public lands with respect to the population 
of users and other interested parties precludes effective 
participation; or
    (3) The configuration and character of the public lands and 
resources, and the juxtaposition of these lands and resources to 
affected communities, are such that a separate multiple resource 
advisory council for each Bureau of Land Management district in which 
the lands are situated is not the most effective means for obtaining 
consensual advice for the management of ecosystems and resources 
present, in which case a multiple resource advisory council may be 
established to correspond with ecoregion boundaries.

The Governor of the affected States or existing multiple resource 
advisory councils may petition the Secretary to establish a multiple 
resource advisory council for a specified Bureau of Land Management 
resource area.

    (b) A multiple resource advisory council advises the Bureau of Land 
Management official to whom it reports regarding the preparation, 
amendment and implementation of land use plans for public lands and 
resources within its area. Except for the purposes of long-range 
planning and the establishment of resource management priorities, a 
multiple resource advisory council shall not provide advice on the 
allocation and expenditure of funds. A multiple resource advisory 
council shall not provide advice regarding personnel actions.
    (c) The Secretary or designee shall appoint 15 members to serve on 
each multiple resource advisory council. The Secretary or designee 
shall appoint at least one elected State, county or local government 
official to each council. An individual may not serve concurrently on 
more than one multiple resource advisory council.
    (1) 5 members of each council shall be appointed from nominees who:
    (i) Hold Federal grazing permits or leases within the area for 
which the council is organized;
    (ii) Represent interests associated with transportation or rights-
of-way;
    (iii) Represent developed outdoor recreation, off-highway vehicle 
users, or commercial recreation activities;
    (iv) Represent timber harvest; or
    (v) Represent energy and mineral development.
    (2) 5 members of each council shall be appointed from nominees 
representing:
    (i) Nationally or regionally recognized environmental 
organizations;
    (ii) Dispersed recreational activities;
    (iii) Archeological and historical interests; or
    (iv) Nationally or regionally recognized wild horse and burro 
interest groups.
    (3) 5 members of each council shall be appointed, except as 
provided in paragraph (c) of this section, from nominees that:
    (i) Hold State, county or local elected office;
    (ii) Are employed by the State agency responsible for the 
management of fish and wildlife;
    (iii) Are employed by the State agency responsible for the 
management of water quality;
    (iv) Are employed by the State agency responsible for water 
allocations or the establishment of priorities for use of ground water;
    (v) Are employed by the State agency responsible for the management 
of State lands;
    (vi) Represent Indian tribes within or adjacent to the area for 
which the council is organized;
    (vii) Are employed as academicians in natural resource management 
or the natural sciences; or
    (viii) Represent the affected public-at-large.
    (4) In appointing members of a multiple resource advisory council 
from the 3 categories set forth in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and 
(c)(3) of this section, the Secretary or designee shall provide for 
balanced and broad representation from within each category.
    (d) In making appointments to multiple resource advisory councils 
the Secretary shall consider nominations made by the Governor of the 
State or States affected and nominations received in response to public 
calls for nominations pursuant to Sec. 1784.4-1. Persons interested in 
serving on multiple resource advisory councils may nominate themselves. 
All nominations shall be accompanied by letters of reference from 
interests or organizations to be represented that are located within 
the area for which the specific council is organized.
    (e) Persons appointed to multiple resource advisory councils shall 
attend a course of instruction in the management of rangeland 
ecosystems that has been approved by the responsible Bureau of Land 
Management State Director.
    (f) A multiple resource advisory council shall meet at the call of 
the designated Federal officer and elect their own officers. The 
designated Federal officer shall attend all meetings of the council.
    (g) At least 3 council members from each of the 3 categories of 
interest from which appointments are made pursuant to paragraph (c) of 
this section must be present to constitute an official meeting of the 
council. Formal recommendations shall require agreement of at least 3 
council members from each of the 3 categories of interest from which 
appointments are made. Requests for Secretarial review provided for in 
paragraph (h) of this section shall require agreement of the 15 council 
members.
    (h) Where the multiple resource advisory council becomes concerned 
that its advice is being arbitrarily disregarded, the council may 
request that the Secretary respond directly to such concerns within 60 
days of receipt. Such a request can be made only upon the agreement of 
all council members. The Secretary's response shall not constitute a 
decision on the merits of any issue that is or might become the subject 
of an administrative appeal, and shall not be appealable.
    (i) Administrative support for a multiple resource advisory council 
shall be provided by the office of the designated Federal officer.
    13. A new Sec. 1784.6-2 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 1784.6-2  Rangeland resource teams.

    Multiple resource advisory councils may form rangeland resource 
teams for the purposes of providing local level input and serving as 
fact-finding teams in response to a petition from local citizens or on 
the motion of the council. Rangeland resource teams provide input and 
recommendations to the multiple resource advisory council on concerns 
pertaining to grazing administration on public lands within the area 
for which the rangeland resource team is formed, not to exceed the 
geographical area or scope of management actions for which the multiple 
resource advisory council provides advice.
    (a) Rangeland resource teams shall consist of 5 members selected by 
the multiple resource advisory council. Membership shall include 2 
persons holding Federal grazing permits or leases within the area for 
which input is sought and who have resided within the jurisdiction of 
the rangeland resource team for at least two years prior to their 
selection, 1 representative of the local public-at-large who has 
resided within the jurisdiction of the rangeland resource team for at 
least two years prior to selection who is not a Federal grazing 
permittee or lessee, 1 representative of a nationally or regionally 
recognized environmental organization who is not a Federal grazing 
permittee or lessee, and 1 representative of national, regional or 
local wildlife or recreation interests who is not a Federal grazing 
permittee or lessee. At least one rangeland resource team member must 
also be a member of the multiple resource advisory council. Persons may 
qualify for selection as rangeland resource team members by virtue of 
their knowledge or experience of the lands, resources, and communities 
that fall within the area for which they are formed. Nominations for 
membership shall be accompanied by letters of recommendation from local 
interests which the nominee will be representing.
    (b) Members of rangeland resource teams shall attend a course of 
instruction in the management of rangeland ecosystems that has been 
approved by the responsible Bureau of Land Management State Director.
    (c) Established rangeland resource teams shall remain intact until 
such time as they are terminated by the multiple resource advisory 
council, or until the charter of the multiple resource advisory council 
expires.
    (d) Rangeland resource teams shall have opportunities to raise any 
matter of concern with the multiple resource advisory council and to 
request that the multiple resource advisory council form a technical 
review team pursuant to Sec. 1784.6-3 to conduct fact-finding and to 
prepare options for the council's consideration.
    14. A new Sec. 1784.6-3 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 1784.6-3  Technical review teams.

    (a) A multiple resource advisory council may establish, on an as 
needed basis, a technical review team in response to a petition of an 
involved rangeland resource team or on their own motion. Technical 
review teams may also be established by a rangeland resource team 
chartered as an advisory committee. The function of technical review 
teams shall be limited to tasks assigned by the parent advisory 
committee relating to fact finding within the geographical area and 
scope of management actions for which the parent advisory committee 
provides advice.
    (b) Members of technical review teams shall be selected by the 
multiple resource advisory council on the basis of their knowledge of 
resource management or their familiarity with the specific issues for 
which the technical review team has been formed. The technical review 
team shall include at least 1 member of the parent advisory committee.
    (c) Technical review teams shall terminate upon completion of the 
task assigned by the parent advisory committee.

PART 4100--GRAZING ADMINISTRATION--EXCLUSIVE OF ALASKA

    15. The authority citation for part 4100 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 43 U.S.C. 315, 315a-315r, 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq., 43 
U.S.C. 1901 et seq., 43 U.S.C. 1181d.

Subpart 4100--Grazing Administration--Exclusive of Alaska, General

    16. Section 4100.0-2 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 4100.0-2  Objectives.

    The objectives of these regulations are: to promote the orderly 
use, improvement and development of the public lands; to preserve their 
resources from destruction and unnecessary injury; to maintain the 
public values provided by open spaces and integral ecosystems; to 
enhance the productivity of public lands for multiple use purposes by 
preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration; to stabilize the western 
livestock industry and dependent communities; and to provide for the 
inventory and categorization of public lands on the basis of range 
conditions and trends. These objectives shall be realized in a manner 
that is consistent with land use plans, multiple use, sustained yield, 
environmental values, economic and other objectives stated in 43 CFR 
part 1720, subpart 1725; the Taylor Grazing Act of June 28, 1934, as 
amended (43 U.S.C. 315, 315a-315r); section 102 of the Federal Land 
Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and the 
Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.).
    17. Section 4100.0-5 is amended by removing the definition of 
``Affected interests'' ``Grazing preference'', and ``Subleasing''; 
revising the definitions of ``Active use'', ``Actual use'', ``Allotment 
management plan (AMP)'', ``Consultation, cooperation and 
coordination'', ``Grazing lease'', ``Grazing permit'', ``Land use 
plan'', ``Range improvement'', Suspension'', and ``Utilization''; and 
by adding in alphabetical order the definitions of ``Activity plan'', 
``Affiliate'', ``Conservation use'', ``Grazing preference or 
preference'', ``Interested public'', ``Permitted use'', ``Temporary 
nonuse'', and ``Unauthorized leasing and subleasing'' to read as 
follows:


Sec. 4100.0-5  Definitions

* * * * *
    Active use means the current authorized use, including livestock 
grazing and conservation use. Active use may constitute a portion, or 
all, of permitted use. Active use does not include temporary nonuse or 
suspended use of forage within all or a portion of an allotment.
    Actual use means where, how many, what kind or class of livestock, 
and how long livestock graze on an allotment, or on a portion or 
pasture of an allotment.
* * * * *
    Activity plan means a plan for managing a resource use or value to 
achieve specific objectives. For example, an allotment management plan 
is an activity plan for managing livestock grazing use to improve or 
maintain rangeland conditions.
    Affiliate means an entity or person that controls or has the power 
to control a permittee or lessee. The term ``control'' means any one or 
a combination of the following relationships:
    (1) With regard to an entity, based on instruments of ownership or 
voting securities, owning of record in excess of 50 percent of the 
entity, or having any other relationship which gives a person authority 
directly or indirectly to determine the manner in which the entity 
conducts grazing operations;
    (2) Having any other relationship which gives a person authority 
directly or indirectly to determine the manner in which an applicant, 
permittee or lessee conducts grazing operations; or
    (3) Presumptively in the following relationships, unless a person 
can demonstrate that he does not in fact have the authority directly or 
indirectly to determine the manner in which the relevant grazing 
operation is conducted: being an officer, director, or general partner 
of the entity; having the ability to commit the financial or real 
property assets or working resources of the entity; or based on 
instruments of ownership or voting securities, owning of record 10 
through 50 percent of an entity.
* * * * *
    Allotment management plan (AMP) means a documented program 
developed as an activity plan that focuses on, and contains the 
necessary instructions for, the management of livestock grazing on 
specified public lands to meet resource condition, sustained yield, 
multiple use, economic and other objectives.
* * * * *
    Conservation use means an activity, excluding livestock grazing, 
for purposes of:
    (1) Protecting the land and its resources from destruction or 
unnecessary injury;
    (2) Improving rangeland conditions; or
    (3) Enhancing resource values, uses, or functions.
    Consultation, cooperation, and coordination means an interactive 
process for obtaining advice, or exchanging opinions on the 
development, revision or termination of allotment management plans or 
other activity plans affecting the administration of grazing on public 
lands, from other agencies and affected permittee(s) or lessee(s), 
landowners involved, advisory committees where established, any State 
having lands or responsible for managing resources within the area and 
other interested public.
* * * * *
    Grazing lease means a document authorizing use of the public lands 
outside an established grazing district. Grazing leases specify all 
authorized use including livestock grazing, suspended use, and 
conservation use. Leases specify the total number of AUMs apportioned.
    Grazing permit means a document authorizing use of the public lands 
within an established grazing district. Grazing permits specify all 
authorized use including livestock grazing, suspended use, and 
conservation use. Permits specify the total number of AUMs apportioned.
    Grazing preference or preference means a superior or priority 
position against others for the purpose of receiving a grazing permit 
or lease. This priority is attached to base property owned or 
controlled by the permittee or lessee.
    Interested public means an individual, group or organization that 
has submitted a written request to the authorized officer to be 
provided an opportunity to be involved in the decisionmaking process 
for the management of livestock grazing on specific grazing allotments 
or has submitted written comments to the authorized officer regarding 
the management of livestock grazing on a specific allotment.
    Land use plan means a resource management plan or management 
framework plan. These plans are developed through public participation 
in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act of 1976 and establish management direction for resource 
uses of public lands.
* * * * *
    Permitted use means the forage allocated by, or under the guidance 
of, an applicable land use plan for livestock grazing in an allotment 
under a permit or lease and is expressed in AUMs.
    Range improvement means an authorized physical modification or 
treatment which is designed to improve production of forage; change 
vegetation composition; control patterns of use; provide water; 
stabilize soil and water conditions; restore, protect and improve the 
condition of rangeland ecosystems; or provide habitat for livestock, 
wild horses and burros, and fish and wildlife. The term includes, but 
is not limited to, structures, treatment projects, and use of 
mechanical devices or modifications achieved through mechanical means.
* * * * *
    Suspension means the temporary withholding from active use, through 
a decision issued by the authorized officer or by agreement, of part or 
all of the permitted use in a grazing permit or lease.
    Temporary nonuse means the authorized withholding, on an annual 
basis, of all or a portion of permitted livestock use in response to a 
request of the permittee or lessee.
* * * * *
    Unauthorized leasing and subleasing means:
    (1) The assignment of base property and the associated Federal 
grazing permit or lease to another party without a required transfer 
approved by the authorized officer,
    (2) The assignment of public land grazing privileges to another 
party without the assignment of the associated base property,
    (3) Allowing another party to graze on public lands livestock that 
are not owned or controlled by the permittee or lessee, or
    (4) Allowing another party to graze livestock on public lands under 
a pasturing agreement without the approval of the authorized officer.
    Utilization means the percentage of forage that has been consumed 
by livestock, wild horses and burros, wildlife and insects during a 
specified period. The term is also used to refer to the pattern of such 
use.
    18. Section 4100.0-7 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 4100.0-7  Cross reference.

    The regulations at part 1600 of this chapter govern the development 
of land use plans; the regulations at part 1780, subpart 1784 of this 
chapter govern advisory committees; and the regulations at subparts B 
and E of part 4 of this title govern appeals and hearings.
    19. A new Sec. 4100.0-9 is added as follows:


Sec. 4100.0-9  Information collection.

    (a) The information collection requirements contained in Group 4100 
have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and assigned clearance numbers 1004-0005, 1004-
0019, 1004-0020, 1004-0041, 1004-0047, 1004-0051, and 1004-0068. The 
information would be collected to permit the authorized officer to 
determine whether an application to utilize public lands for grazing or 
other purposes should be approved. Response is required to obtain a 
benefit.
    (b) Public reporting burden for the information collections are as 
follows: clearance number 1004-0005 is estimated to average 0.33 hours 
per response, clearance number 1004-0019 is estimated to average 0.33 
hours per response, clearance number 1004-0020 is estimated to average 
0.33 hours per response, clearance number 1004-0041 is estimated to 
average 0.25 hours per response, clearance number 1004-0047 is 
estimated to average 0.25 hours per response, clearance number 1004-
0051 is estimated to average 0.3 hours per response, and clearance 
number 1004-0068 is estimated to average 0.17 hours per response, 
including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data 
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and 
reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this 
burden estimate or any other aspect of these collections of 
information, including suggestions for reducing the burden to the 
Information Collection Clearance Officer (873), Bureau of Land 
Management, Washington, DC 20240, and the Office of Management and 
Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, 1004-0005, 1004-0019, 1004-0020, 
1004-0041, 1004-0047, 1004-0051, or 1004-0068, Washington, DC 20503.

Subpart 4110--Qualifications and Preference

    20. In Sec. 4110.1, the introductory text of the section, and 
paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) are redesignated as paragraphs (a) 
introductory text, (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3), respectively, newly 
redesignated paragraph (a) introductory text is revised, and a new 
paragraph (b) is added to read as follows:


Sec. 4110.1  Mandatory qualifications.

    (a) Except as provided under Secs. 4110.1-1, 4130.3, and 4130.4-3, 
to qualify for grazing use on the public lands an applicant must own or 
control land or water base property, and must be:
* * * * *
    (b) Applicants for the renewal or issuance of new permits and 
leases and any affiliates must be determined by the authorized officer 
to have a satisfactory record of performance.
    (1) The applicant for renewal of a grazing permit or lease, and any 
affiliate, shall be deemed to have a satisfactory record of performance 
if the authorized officer determines the applicant and affiliates to be 
in substantial compliance with the terms and conditions of the existing 
Federal grazing permit or lease for which renewal is sought, and with 
the rules and regulations applicable to the permit or lease. The 
authorized officer may take into consideration circumstances beyond the 
control of the applicant or affiliate in determining whether the 
applicant and affiliates are in substantial compliance with permit or 
lease terms and conditions and applicable rules and regulations.
    (2) Applicants for new permits or leases, and any affiliates, shall 
be deemed not to have a record of satisfactory performance when:
    (i) The applicant or affiliate has had any Federal grazing permit 
or lease canceled for violation of the permit or lease within the 36 
calendar months immediately preceding the date of application,
    (ii) The applicant or affiliate has had any State grazing permit or 
lease, for lands within the grazing allotment for which a Federal 
permit or lease is sought, canceled for violation of the permit or 
lease within the 36 calendar months immediately preceding the date of 
application, or
    (iii) The applicant or affiliate has been barred from holding a 
Federal grazing permit or lease by order of a court of competent 
jurisdiction.
    (3) In determining whether affiliation exists, the authorized 
officer shall consider all appropriate factors, including, but not 
limited to, common ownership, common management, identity of interests 
among family members, and contractual relationships.
    (4) Applicants shall submit an application and any other 
information requested by the authorized officer in order to determine 
that all qualifications have been met.
    21. Section 4110.1-1 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 4110.1-1  Acquired lands.

    Where lands have been acquired by the Bureau of Land Management 
through purchase, exchange, act of Congress or executive order, and an 
agreement or the terms of the act or executive order provide that the 
Bureau of Land Management shall honor existing grazing permits or 
leases, such permits or leases are governed by the terms and conditions 
in effect at the time of acquisition by the Bureau of Land Management, 
and are not subject to the requirements of Sec. 4110.1.
    22. Section 4110.2-1 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), 
(a)(2) and (c) to read as follows:


Sec. 4110.2-1  Base property.

    (a) * * *
    (1) It is capable of serving as a base of operation for livestock 
use of public lands within a grazing district; or
    (2) It is contiguous land, or, when no applicant owns or controls 
contiguous land, noncontiguous land that is capable of being used in 
conjunction with a livestock operation which utilizes public lands 
outside a grazing district.
* * * * *
    (c) An applicant shall provide a legal description, or plat, of the 
base property and shall certify to the authorized officer that this 
base property meets the requirements under paragraphs (a) and (b) of 
this section. A permittee's or lessee's interest in water previously 
recognized as base property on public land shall be deemed sufficient 
in meeting the requirement that the applicant control base property. 
Where such waters become unusable and are replaced by newly constructed 
or reconstructed water developments that are the subject of a range 
improvement permit or cooperative range improvement agreement, the 
permittee's or lessee's interest in the replacement water shall be 
deemed sufficient in meeting the requirement that the applicant control 
base property.
    23. Section 4110.2-2 is amended by revising the section heading and 
paragraph (a), and in paragraph (c) removing the term ``grazing 
preference'' and adding in its place the term ``permitted use'' to read 
as follows:


Sec. 4110.2-2  Specifying permitted use.

    (a) Permitted use is granted to holders of grazing preference and 
shall be specified in all grazing permits and leases. Permitted use 
shall encompass all authorized use including livestock use, any 
suspended use, and conservation use, except for permits and leases for 
designated ephemeral rangelands, or annual rangelands where livestock 
use is occasionally authorized based upon forage availability. 
Authorized livestock use shall be based upon the amount of forage 
available for livestock grazing as established in the land use plan, 
except, in the case of ephemeral or annual rangelands, a land use plan 
or activity plan may alternatively prescribe vegetation standards to be 
met in the occasional use of such rangelands.
* * * * *
    24. Section 4110.2-3 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1), 
redesignating paragraph (f) as (g), removing from paragraph (b) the 
term ``grazing preference'' and adding in its place the term 
``permitted use'', and adding a new paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec. 4110.2-3  Transfer of grazing preference.

    (a) * * *
    (1) The transferee shall meet all qualifications and requirements 
of Secs. 4110.1 and 4110.2.
* * * * *
    (f) Transfers shall be for a period of not less than 3 years unless 
a shorter term is determined by the authorized officer to be consistent 
with management and resource condition objectives.
* * * * *
    25. Section 4110.2-4 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 4110.2-4  Allotments.

    After consultation with the affected grazing permittees or lessees, 
the State having lands or responsible for managing resources within the 
area, and the interested public, the authorized officer may designate 
and adjust grazing allotment boundaries. The authorized officer may 
combine or divide allotments, through an agreement or by decision, when 
necessary for the proper and efficient management of public rangelands.
    26. Section 4110.3 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 4110.3  Changes in permitted use.

    The authorized officer shall periodically review the permitted use 
specified in a grazing permit or lease and shall make changes in the 
permitted use as needed to manage, maintain or improve rangeland 
productivity, to restore ecosystems to properly functioning condition, 
or to comply with the national requirements and standards and 
guidelines pursuant to subpart 4180. These changes must be supported by 
monitoring, field observations, ecological site inventory or other data 
acceptable to the authorized officer.
    27. Section 4110.3-1 is amended by revising the section heading and 
paragraph (a), removing the words ``grazing preferences'' from 
paragraph (b) and adding in their place the words ``suspended permitted 
use'', revising the introductory text of paragraph (c), revising 
paragraph (c)(1), and in paragraph (c)(2) removing the term ``grazing 
preference'' and adding in its place the term ``permitted use'' and 
removing the words ``and/or'' and adding in their place the word 
``and'' to read as follows:


Sec. 4110.3-1  Increasing permitted use.

* * * * *
    (a) Additional forage temporarily available for livestock grazing 
use may be apportioned on a nonrenewable basis.
* * * * *
    (c) After consultation with the affected permittees or lessees, the 
State having lands or managing resources within the area, and the 
interested public, additional forage on a sustained yield basis 
available for livestock grazing use in an allotment may be apportioned 
to permittees or lessees or other applicants, provided the permittee, 
lessee, or other applicant is found to be qualified under subpart 4110. 
Additional forage shall be apportioned in the following priority:
    (1) Permittees or lessees in proportion to their contribution or 
stewardship efforts which result in increased forage production;
* * * * *
    28. Section 4110.3-2 is amended by revising the section heading, 
removing from paragraph (a) the term ``Active'' and adding in its place 
the term ``Permitted'', removing paragraph (c) and revising paragraph 
(b) to read as follows:


Sec. 4110.3-2  Decreasing permitted use.

* * * * *
    (b) When monitoring or field observations show grazing use or 
patterns of use are not consistent with the national requirements or 
standards and guidelines, or grazing use is otherwise causing an 
unacceptable level or pattern of utilization, or when use exceeds the 
livestock carrying capacity as determined through monitoring, 
ecological site inventory or other acceptable methods, the authorized 
officer shall reduce authorized grazing use or otherwise modify 
management practices.
    29. Section 4110.3-3 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 4110.3-3  Implementing reductions in permitted use.

    (a) After consultation with the affected permittee or lessee, the 
State having lands or managing resources within the area, and the 
interested public, reductions of permitted use shall be implemented 
through a documented agreement or by decision of the authorized 
officer. Decisions implementing Sec. 4110.3-2 shall be issued as 
proposed decisions pursuant to Sec. 4160.1 except as provided in 
paragraph (b) of this section.
    (b) When the authorized officer determines that the soil, 
vegetation, or other resources on the public lands require protection 
because of conditions such as drought, fire, flood, or insect 
infestation, or when continued grazing use poses a significant risk of 
resource damage from these factors, after consultation with, or a 
reasonable attempt to consult with, affected permittees or lessees, the 
interested public, and the State having lands or responsible for 
managing resources within the area, the authorized officer shall close 
allotments or portions of allotments to grazing by any kind of 
livestock or modify authorized grazing use notwithstanding the 
provisions of paragraph (a) of this section. Notices of closure and 
decisions requiring modification of authorized grazing use may be 
issued as final decisions effective upon issuance or on the date 
specified in the decision. Such decisions shall remain in effect 
pending the decision on appeal unless a stay is granted by the Office 
of Hearings and Appeals in accordance with 43 CFR 4.21.
    30. Section 4110.4-2 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and 
(a)(2) to read as follows:


Sec. 4110.4-2  Decrease in land acreage.

    (a) * * *
    (1) Grazing permits or leases may be canceled or modified as 
appropriate to reflect the changed area of use.
    (2) Permitted use may be canceled in whole or in part. 
Cancellations determined by the authorized officer to be necessary to 
protect the public lands will be apportioned by the authorized officer 
based upon the level of available forage and the magnitude of the 
change in public land acreage available, or as agreed to among the 
authorized users and the authorized officer.
* * * * *

Subpart 4120--Grazing Management

    31. Section 4120.2 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 4120.2  Allotment management plans and resource activity plans.

    Allotment management plans or other activity plans may be developed 
by permittees or lessees, other Federal or State resource management 
agencies, interested citizens, and the Bureau of Land Management. When 
allotment management plans, or other activity plans affecting the 
administration of grazing allotments, are developed, the following 
provisions apply:
    (a) An allotment management plan or other activity plan intended to 
serve as the functional equivalent of allotment management plans shall 
be prepared in careful and considered consultation, cooperation and 
coordination with affected permittees or lessees, landowners involved, 
the multiple resource advisory council, any State having lands or 
responsible for managing resources within the area to be covered by 
such a plan, and the interested public. The allotment management plan, 
or functional equivalent, shall include terms and conditions under 
Secs. 4130.6, 4130.6-1, 4130.6-2 and 4130.6-3, as well as standards and 
guidelines. The plan shall prescribe the livestock grazing practices 
necessary to meet specific resource condition objectives. The plan 
shall specify the limits of flexibility, to be determined and granted 
on the basis of the operator's demonstrated stewardship, within which 
the permittee(s) or lessee(s) may adjust operations without prior 
approval of the authorized officer. The plan shall provide for 
monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of management actions in 
achieving the specific resource condition objectives of the plan. The 
plan shall become effective upon approval by the authorized officer.
    (b) Private and State lands may be included in allotment management 
plans or other activity plans dealing with rangeland management with 
the consent or at the request of the parties who own or control those 
lands.
    (c) The authorized officer shall provide opportunity for public 
participation in the planning and environmental analysis of proposed 
allotment management plans or other activity plans affecting the 
administration of grazing and shall give public notice concerning the 
availability of environmental documents prepared as a part of the 
development of an allotment management plan or other activity plan, 
prior to implementing the plan. The decision document following the 
environmental analysis shall be considered the proposed decision for 
the purposes of subpart 4160 of this part.
    (d) A requirement to conform with completed allotment management 
plans or other applicable activity plans shall be incorporated into the 
terms and conditions of the grazing permit or lease for the allotment.
    (e) Allotment management plans may be revised or terminated by the 
authorized officer after consultation with the permittee or lessee, the 
interested public, and other involved parties.
    32. A new paragraph (f) is added to Sec. 4120.3-1 to read as 
follows:


Sec. 4120.3-1  Conditions for range improvements.

* * * * *
    (f) Proposed range improvement projects shall be reviewed in 
accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy 
Act of 1969, and regulations promulgated thereunder. The decision 
document following the environmental analysis shall be considered the 
proposed decision under subpart 4160 of this part.
    33. Section 4120.3-2 is revised as follows:


Sec. 4120.3-2  Cooperative range improvement.

    (a) The BLM may enter into a cooperative range improvement 
agreement with any person, organization, or other government entity for 
the installation, use, maintenance, and/or modification of range 
improvements or rangeland developments to achieve management or 
resource condition objectives. The cooperative range improvement 
agreement shall specify how the costs or labor, or both, shall be 
divided between the United States and cooperator(s).
    (b) Subject to valid rights existing on (The Effective Date of the 
Final Rule will be Inserted here), the United States shall have title 
to all permanent structural range improvements made on public lands.
    (c) The permittee or lessee may retain title to temporary 
structural range improvements such as loading chutes, corrals and water 
troughs for hauled water if no part of the cost for improvement was 
borne by the United States.
    (d) The United States shall have title to nonstructural range 
improvements such as seeding, spraying, and chaining.
    (e) Range improvement work performed by a cooperator or permittee 
on the public lands or lands administered by the Bureau of Land 
Management does not confer the exclusive right to use the improvement 
or the land affected by the range improvement work.
    34. Section 4120.3-3 is amended by revising the first sentence of 
paragraph (a), and paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:


Sec. 4120.3-3  Range improvement permits.

    (a) Any permittee or lessee may apply for a range improvement 
permit to install, use, maintain, and/or modify range improvements that 
are needed to achieve management objectives established for the 
allotment in which the permit or lease is held. * * *
    (b) The permittee or lessee may hold the title to authorized 
removable range improvements used as livestock handling facilities such 
as corrals, creep feeders and loading chutes, and to temporary 
improvements such as troughs for hauled water. Title to permanent range 
improvements authorized after (The Effective Date of the Final Rule 
will be Inserted here), will be in the United States. After (The 
Effective Date of the Rule will be Inserted here), the authorization 
for new permanent water developments such as spring developments, 
wells, reservoirs, stock tanks, and pipelines shall be through 
cooperative range improvement agreements. A permittee's or lessee's 
interest for contributed funds, labor, and materials shall be 
documented by the authorized officer to ensure proper credit for the 
purposes of Secs. 4120.3-5 and 4120.3-6(c).
    (c) Where a permittee or lessee cannot make use of the forage 
available for livestock and an application for temporary nonuse or 
conservation use has been denied or the opportunity to make use of the 
available forage is requested by the authorized officer, the permittee 
or lessee shall cooperate with the temporary authorized use of forage 
by another operator, when it is authorized by the authorized officer 
following consultation with the preference permittee(s) or lessee(s).
    (1) A permittee or lessee shall be reasonably compensated for the 
use and maintenance of improvements and facilities by the operator who 
has an authorization for temporary grazing use.
    (2) The authorized officer may mediate disputes about reasonable 
compensation and, following consultation with the interested parties, 
make a determination concerning the fair and reasonable share of 
operation and maintenance expenses and compensation for use of 
authorized improvements and facilities.
    (3) Where a settlement cannot be reached, the authorized officer 
shall issue a temporary grazing authorization including appropriate 
terms and conditions and the requirement to compensate the preference 
permittee or lessee for the fair share of operation and maintenance as 
determined by the authorized officer under subpart 4160 of this part.
    35. A new Sec. 4120.3-8 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 4120.3-8  Range improvement fund.

    (a) In addition to range developments accomplished through other 
resources management funds, authorized range improvement may be secured 
through the use of the appropriated range improvement fund. One-half of 
the available funds shall be expended in the State and district from 
which they were derived. The remaining one-half of the fund shall be 
allocated, on a priority basis, by the Secretary or designee for on-
the-ground rehabilitation, protection and improvements of public 
rangeland ecosystems.
    (b) Funds appropriated for range improvement are to be used for 
investment in all forms of improvements that benefit rangeland 
resources including riparian area rehabilitation, improvement and 
protection, fish and wildlife habitat improvement or protection, soil 
and water resource improvement, wild horse and burro habitat management 
facilities, vegetation improvement and management, and livestock 
grazing management. The funds may be used for activities associated 
with on-the-ground improvements including the planning, design, layout, 
contracting, modification, maintenance for which BLM is responsible, 
and monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of specific range 
improvement projects.
    (c) During the planning of the range development or range 
improvement programs, the authorized officer shall consult the multiple 
resource advisory council, affected permittees, lessees, and members of 
the interested public.
    36. A new Sec. 4120.3-9 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 4120.3-9  Water rights for the purpose of livestock grazing on 
public lands.

    Any right acquired on or after (The Effective Date of the Rule 
Would be Inserted here) to use water on public land for the purpose of 
livestock watering on public land shall be acquired, perfected, 
maintained and administered under the substantive and procedural laws 
of the State within which such land is located. To the extent allowed 
by the law of the State within which the land is located, any such 
water right shall be acquired, perfected, maintained, and administered 
in the name of the United States.
    37. A new Sec. 4120.5 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 4120.5  Cooperation in management.

    The authorized officer shall, to the extent appropriate, cooperate 
with Federal, State, Indian tribal and local governmental entities, 
institutions, organizations, corporations, associations, and 
individuals to achieve the objectives of this part.
    38. A new Sec. 4120.5-1 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 4120.5-1  Cooperation with State, county, and Federal agencies.

    Insofar as the programs and responsibilities of other agencies and 
units of government involve grazing upon the public lands and other 
lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, or the livestock 
which graze thereon, the Bureau of Land Management will cooperate, to 
the extent consistent with applicable laws of the United States, with 
the involved agencies and government entities. The authorized officer 
shall cooperate with State, county, and Federal agencies in the 
administration of laws and regulations relating to livestock, livestock 
diseases, sanitation, and noxious weeds including:
    (a) State cattle and sheep sanitary or brand boards in control of 
stray and unbranded livestock, to the extent such cooperation does not 
conflict with the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of December 15, 
1971; and
    (b) County or other local weed control districts in analyzing 
noxious weed problems and developing control programs for areas of the 
public lands and other lands administered by the Bureau of Land 
Management.

Subpart 4130--Authorizing Grazing Use

    39. Section 4130.1 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 4130.1  Applications.

    Applications for grazing permits or leases (active grazing use and 
conservation use), annual grazing authorizations (active grazing use 
and temporary nonuse), free-use grazing permits and other grazing 
authorizations shall be filed with the authorized officer at the local 
Bureau of Land Management office having jurisdiction over the public 
lands or other lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management.
    40. Section 4130.1-1 is amended by adding 2 new sentences at the 
end of the paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec. 4130.1-1  Changes in grazing use.

* * * * *
    (b) * * * Permittees and lessees may apply to activate forage in 
temporary nonuse or to place forage in temporary nonuse, and may apply 
for the use of forage that is temporarily available on ephemeral or 
annual ranges. Temporary increases or decreases in grazing use, not to 
exceed the greater of 25 percent of the active grazing use or 100 AUMs, 
may be authorized or required by the authorized officer following 
consultation with the affected permittees or lessees and the State 
having land or responsibility for managing resources within the 
allotment, provided such changes comply with applicable land use plans 
and standards and guidelines, and are within the scope of the terms and 
conditions of the existing permits or leases.
    41. Section 4130.1-2 is amended by revising paragraph (b), removing 
the word ``and'' from paragraph (e) and adding new paragraphs (g) and 
(h) to read as follows:


Sec. 4130.1-2  Conflicting applications.

* * * * *
    (b) Proper use of rangeland resources;
* * * * *
    (g) Demonstrated stewardship by the applicant to improve or 
maintain and protect the rangeland ecosystem; and
    (h) The applicant's and affiliate's history of compliance with the 
terms and conditions of grazing permits and leases of the Bureau of 
Land Management and any other Federal or State agency, including any 
record of suspensions or cancellation of grazing use for violations of 
terms and conditions of agency grazing rules.
    42. Section 4130.2 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (b), (c), 
(d) and (e) as paragraphs (c), (d), (e) and (i), respectively, revising 
paragraphs (a) and newly redesignated paragraph (d), and adding new 
paragraphs (b), (f), (g), and (h) to read as follows:


Sec. 4130.2  Grazing permits or leases.

    (a) Grazing permits or leases shall be issued to qualified 
applicants to authorize use on the public lands and other lands under 
the administration of the Bureau of Land Management that are designated 
as available for livestock grazing through land use plans. Authorized 
use may include livestock grazing, temporary nonuse and conservation 
use. These grazing permits and leases shall specify terms and 
conditions pursuant to Secs. 4130.6, 4130.6-1, and 4130.6-2.
    (b) The authorized officer shall consult with affected permittees 
or lessees, the State having lands or responsible for managing 
resources within the area, and the interested public prior to the 
issuance or renewal of grazing permits and leases.
* * * * *
    (d) The term of grazing permits or leases authorizing livestock 
grazing on the public lands and other lands under the administration of 
the Bureau of Land Management shall be 10 years unless:
    (1) The land is being considered for disposal;
    (2) The land will be devoted to a public purpose which precludes 
grazing prior to the end of 10 years;
    (3) The term of the base property lease is less than 10 years, in 
which case the term of the Federal permit or lease shall coincide with 
the term of the base property lease; or
    (4) The authorized officer determines that a permit or lease for 
less than 10 years is necessary or desirable to protect and conserve 
the public lands and the resources thereon.
* * * * *
    (f) The authorized officer will not offer, grant or renew grazing 
permits or leases when the applicants, including permittees or lessees 
seeking renewal, refuse to accept the proposed terms and conditions of 
a permit or lease.
    (g) Temporary nonuse and conservation use may be approved by the 
authorized officer if such use is determined to be in conformance with 
the applicable land use plan, AMP or other activity plan, and standards 
and guidelines as follows:
    (1) Conservation use may be approved for periods of up to 10 years 
when, in the determination of the authorized officer, the proposed 
nonuse will promote rangeland resource protection or enhancement of 
resource values or uses, including more rapid progress toward resource 
condition objectives; or
    (2) Temporary nonuse for reasons including but not limited to 
financial conditions or annual fluctuations of livestock, may be 
approved on an annual basis for no more than 3 consecutive years. 
Permittees or lessees applying for temporary nonuse shall state the 
reasons supporting nonuse.
    (h) Application for nonrenewable grazing permits and leases under 
Secs. 4110.3-1 and 4130.4-2 for areas for which conservation use has 
been authorized will not be approved. Forage made available as a result 
of temporary nonuse may be made available to qualified applicants under 
Sec. 4130.4-2.
* * * * *
    43. Paragraph (a) of Sec. 4130.4-1 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 4130.4-1  Exchange-of-use grazing agreements.

    (a) An exchange-of-use grazing agreement may be issued to an 
applicant who owns or controls lands which are unfenced and 
intermingled with public lands when use under such an agreement will be 
in harmony with the management objectives for the allotment and will be 
compatible with the existing livestock operations. The agreements shall 
contain appropriate terms and conditions required under Sec. 4130.6 of 
this title that ensure the orderly administration of the range, 
including fair and equitable sharing of the operation and maintenance 
of range improvements. The term of an exchange-of-use agreement may not 
exceed the length of the term for any leased lands that are offered in 
exchange-of-use.
* * * * *
    44. Section 4130.4-3 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 4130.4-3  Crossing permits.

    A crossing permit may be issued by the authorized officer to any 
applicant showing a need to cross the public land or other land under 
Bureau of Land Management control, or both, with livestock for proper 
and lawful purposes. A temporary use authorization for trailing 
livestock shall contain terms and conditions for the temporary grazing 
use that will occur as deemed necessary by the authorized officer to 
achieve the objectives of this part.
    45. Section 4130.5 is amended by revising paragraph (d) and adding 
a new paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec. 4130.5  Ownership and identification of livestock.

* * * * *
    (d) Except as provided in paragraph (f) of this section, where a 
permittee or lessee controls but does not own the livestock which graze 
the public lands, the agreement that gives the permittee or lessee 
control of the livestock by the permittee or lessee shall be filed with 
the authorized officer and approval received prior to any grazing use. 
The document shall describe the livestock and livestock numbers, 
identify the owner of the livestock, contain the terms for the care and 
management of the livestock, specify the duration of the agreement, and 
shall be signed by the parties to the agreement.
* * * * *
    (f) Livestock owned by sons and daughters of grazing permittees and 
lessees may graze public lands included within the permit or lease of 
their parents when the following conditions exist:
    (1) The sons and daughters are participating in educational or 
youth programs related to animal husbandry, agribusiness or rangeland 
management, or
    (2) The sons and daughters are actively involved in the family 
ranching operation and are establishing a livestock herd with the 
intent of assuming part or all of the family ranch operation, and
    (3) The livestock owned by the sons and daughters to be grazed on 
public lands do not comprise greater than 50 percent of the total 
number authorized to occupy public lands under their parent's permit or 
lease,
    (4) The brands or other markings of livestock that are owned by 
sons and daughters are recorded on the parent's permit, lease, or 
grazing application,
    (5) Use by livestock owned by sons and daughters, when considered 
in addition to use by livestock owned or controlled by the permittee or 
lessee, does not exceed authorized numbers and is consistent with other 
terms and conditions of the permit or lease.
    46. Section 4130.6 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 4130.6  Terms and conditions.

    Livestock grazing permits and leases shall contain terms and 
conditions determined by the authorized officer to be appropriate to 
achieve management and resource condition objectives for the public 
lands and other lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, 
and to ensure conformance with the national requirements and 
established standards and guidelines.
    47. Section 4130.6-1 is amended by revising the second sentence of 
paragraph (a) and adding a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec. 4130.6-1  Mandatory terms and conditions.

    (a) * * * The authorized livestock grazing use shall not exceed the 
livestock carrying capacity of the allotment.
* * * * *
    (c) Permits and leases shall incorporate terms and conditions that 
ensure conformance with the national requirements and standards and 
guidelines pursuant to subpart 4180.
    48. Section 4130.6-2 is amended by revising paragraph (f), removing 
the period from the end of paragraph (g) and adding a ``; and'' and by 
adding a new paragraph (h) to read as follows:


Sec. 4130.6-2  Other terms and conditions.

* * * * *
    (f) Provision for livestock grazing to be temporarily delayed, 
discontinued or modified to allow for the reproduction, establishment, 
or restoration of vigor of plants, provide for the improvement of 
riparian areas to achieve proper functioning condition or for the 
protection of other rangeland resources and values consistent with 
objectives of applicable land use plans, or to prevent compaction of 
wet soils, such as where delay of spring turnout is required because of 
weather conditions or lack of plant growth;
* * * * *
    (h) A statement disclosing the requirement that permittees or 
lessees shall provide reasonable access across private and leased lands 
to the Bureau of Land Management for the orderly administration, 
management and protection of the public lands.
    49. Section 4130.6-3 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 4130.6-3  Modification.

    Following consultation with the affected lessees or permittees, 
other landowners involved, the interested public, and States having 
lands or responsibility for managing resources within the affected 
area, the authorized officer may modify terms and conditions of the 
permit or lease when the present grazing use is not meeting the land 
use plan, AMP or other activity plan, or management objectives, or is 
not in conformance with the national requirements or the standards and 
guidelines. To the extent practical, the authorized officer shall 
provide to affected permittees or lessees, States having lands or 
responsibility for managing resources within the affected area, and the 
interested public an opportunity to review, comment and give input 
during the preparation of reports that evaluate monitoring and other 
data that are used as a basis for making decisions to increase or 
decrease grazing use, or to change the terms and conditions of a permit 
or lease.
    50. Section 4130.7-1 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (c), 
redesignating paragraphs (d) and (e) as (f) and (g), respectively, 
adding new paragraphs (d), (e), and (h), and in newly redesignated 
paragraph (f) adding a new sentence after the second sentence and a 
sentence to the end of the paragraph to read as follows:


Sec. 4130.7-1  Payment of fees.

    (a) Grazing fees shall be established annually by the Secretary.
    (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3) and (a)(4) of 
this section, and Sec. 4130.7-2, the grazing fee per AUM shall be equal 
to the $3.96 base value multiplied by the Forage Value Index computed 
annually from private grazing land lease rate data supplied by the 
National Agricultural Statistics Service, as follows:

Grazing Fee per AUM=$3.96 x Forage Value Index
$3.96=The base value per AUM; and

    Forage Value Index (FVI) = the weighted average of the prior year's 
private grazing land lease rate per AUM for pasturing cattle on private 
rangelands in each of the 17 contiguous western States (Arizona, 
California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New 
Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, 
Washington, and Wyoming) divided by the weighted average of the private 
grazing land lease rate per AUM for pasturing cattle in the year 1996 
in each of the 17 contiguous western States. The weighted averages are 
calculated by multiplying the private grazing land lease rate for each 
of the 17 States by the number of public AUMs sold on public lands, 
National Forests and National Grasslands in each of the States during 
the respective years and dividing by the total number of public AUMs 
sold in the 17 western States in the respective years.
    (2) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, and 
Sec. 4130.7-2, the fee shall be phased in over the years 1995 through 
1997 as follows:

Grazing Fee per AUM for 1995=$2.75
Grazing Fee per AUM for 1996=$3.50
Grazing Fee per AUM for 1997=$3.96  x  FVI

    Beginning in the year 1998 and thereafter the fee shall be computed 
using the grazing fee formula specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section.
    (3) In the absence of the issuance of criteria pertaining to 
qualification for the incentive-based fee reduction provided in 
Sec. 4130.7-2(b), and beginning with the start of grazing year 1997, a 
base value of $3.50 shall be substituted in the formula provided in 
paragraph (a)(1) of this section and the grazing fee shall be 
calculated as follows:

Grazing Fee per AUM for 1997=$3.50 x FVI

    Beginning in the year 1998, and until the first grazing year after 
the issuance of final regulations prescribing criteria for qualifying 
for an incentive based fee become effective, the grazing fee shall be 
computed using the formula specified in this paragraph.
    (4) Any annual increase or decrease in the grazing fee occurring 
after the 3-year phase-in shall be limited to not more than 25 percent 
of the fee in the previous year.
* * * * *
    (c) Except as provided in paragraph (h) of this section, the full 
fee shall be charged for each animal unit month of authorized grazing 
use. For the purposes of calculating the fee, an animal unit month is 
defined as a month's use and occupancy of range by one cow, bull, 
steer, heifer, horse, burro, mule, 5 sheep, or 5 goats, over the age of 
6 months at the time of entering the public lands or other lands 
administered by BLM; for all such weaned animals regardless of age; and 
for such animals that will become 12 months of age during the 
authorized period of use. No charge shall be made for animals under 6 
months of age, at the time of entering public lands or other lands 
administered by the Bureau of Land Management, that are the natural 
progeny of animals upon which fees are paid, provided they will not 
become 12 months of age during the authorized period of use, nor for 
progeny born during that period. In calculating the billing the grazing 
fee is prorated on a daily basis and charges are rounded to reflect the 
nearest whole number of AUMs.
    (d) A surcharge shall be added to the grazing fee billings for 
authorized leasing of base property to which public land grazing 
preference is attached, or for authorized grazing of livestock owned by 
persons other than the permittee or lessee except where such use is 
made by livestock owned by sons and daughters of permittees and lessees 
as provided in Sec. 4130.5(f). The surcharge shall be over and above 
any other fees that may be charged for using public land forage. 
Surcharges shall be paid prior to grazing use being made as follows:
    (1) 20 percent of the grazing bill for the permitted grazing use 
that is attached to a leased base property by an approved transfer, or 
that was leased and attached to another party's base property through 
an approved transfer;
    (2) 50 percent of the grazing bill for pasturing livestock owned by 
persons other than the permittee or lessee under a grazing 
authorization; and
    (3) 70 percent of the grazing bill when base property is leased and 
a transfer has been approved and livestock owned by persons other than 
the permittee or lessee are pastured under a grazing authorization.
    (e) The authorized officer may bill in advance for multiple-year 
grazing use based on the grazing fee in the initial year of such 
authorization, the results of annual fluctuations in the fee to be 
reconciled through a supplemental billing at the end of the billing 
period, when:
    (1) The permittee or lessee has agreed to multiple-year billing;
    (2) Annual authorized livestock use does not exceed 200 AUMs; and
    (3) The multiple-year billing period does not exceed 5 years.
    (f) * * * Grazing use that occurs prior to payment of a bill, 
except where specified in an allotment management plan, is unauthorized 
and may be dealt with under subparts 4150 and 4170 of this part when 
permittees or lessees fail to comply with provisions of this section 
(see Sec. 4130.7-1 (f)). * * * Repeated delays in payment of actual use 
billings shall be cause to revoke provisions for after-the-grazing-
season billing.
* * * * *
    (h) The authorized officer may authorize free use under the 
following circumstances:
    (1) The primary objective of authorized grazing use or conservation 
use is the management of vegetation to meet resource objectives other 
than the production of livestock forage and such use is in conformance 
with the requirements of this part;
    (2) The primary purpose of grazing use is for scientific research 
or administrative studies; or
    (3) The primary purpose of grazing use is the control of noxious 
weeds.


Secs. 4130.7-2 and 4130.7-3  [Redesignated as Secs. 4130.7-3 and 
4130.7-4]

    51. Sections 4130.7-2 and 4130.7-3 are redesignated as 
Secs. 4130.7-3 and 4130.7-4, respectively.
    52. A new Sec. 4130.7-2 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 4130.7-2  Incentive-based grazing fee reduction.

    (a) Where the authorized officer determines that the criteria 
provided in paragraph (b) of this section have been satisfied, the 
grazing fee shall be calculated, using the definition of forage value 
index provided in Sec. 4130.7-1(a)(1), as follows:

Incentive-based grazing Fee per AUM for 1996=$3.96 x 0.70
Incentive-based grazing Fee per AUM for 1997 and 
thereafter=$3.96 x Forage Value Index  x  0.70

    (b) Qualification criteria. [Reserved]
    (c) In the absence of the issuance of criteria pertaining to 
qualification for the incentive-based fee reduction in paragraph (b) of 
this section, see Sec. 4130.7-1(a)(3).
    (d) Any annual increase or decrease in the incentive-based grazing 
fee shall be limited to not more than 25 percent of the incentive-based 
fee in the previous year.
    53. The first sentence of newly redesignated Sec. 4130.7-4 is 
revised to read as follows:


Sec. 4130.7-4  Service charge.

    A service charge shall be assessed for each crossing permit, 
transfer of grazing preference, application solely for nonuse or 
conservation use, and each replacement or supplemental billing notice 
except for actions initiated by the authorized officer. * * *

Subpart 4140--Prohibited Acts

    54. Section 4140.1 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2), 
(b)(1)(i), (b)(5), (b)(7), and (b)(9); and adding new paragraphs 
(b)(11), (b)(12), (b)(13), (b)(14), and (b)(15) to read as follows:


Sec. 4140.1  Acts prohibited on public lands.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) Failing to make substantial grazing use as authorized for 2 
consecutive fee years, but not including approved temporary nonuse, 
conservation use, or use temporarily suspended by the authorized 
officer.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Without a permit or lease, and an annual grazing authorization. 
For the purposes of this paragraph, grazing bills for which payment has 
not been received do not constitute grazing authorization.
* * * * *
    (5) Molesting, harassing, injuring, poisoning, or causing death of 
livestock authorized to graze on these lands and removing authorized 
livestock without the owner's consent;
* * * * *
    (7) Interfering with lawful uses or users including obstructing 
free transit through or over public lands by force, threat, 
intimidation, signs, barrier or locked gates;
* * * * *
    (9) Violating State livestock laws or regulations relating to the 
branding of livestock; breed, grade, and number of bulls; health and 
sanitation requirements; and laws regarding the stray of livestock from 
permitted public land grazing areas that have been formally closed to 
open range grazing through the application of State, county or local 
laws;
* * * * *
    (11) Violating any provision of part 4700 of this title concerning 
the protection and management of wild free-roaming horses and burros;
    (12) Violating Federal or State laws or regulations pertaining to 
the:
    (i) Placement of poisonous bait or hazardous devices designed for 
the destruction of wildlife;
    (ii) Application or storage of pesticides, herbicides, or other 
hazardous materials;
    (iii) Alteration or destruction of natural stream courses without 
authorization;
    (iv) Pollution of water sources;
    (v) Illegal take, destruction or harassment, or aiding and abetting 
in the illegal take, destruction or harassment of fish and wildlife 
resources; and
    (vi) Illegal removal or destruction of archeological resources.
    (13) Failing to pay any fee required by the authorized officer 
pursuant to this part, or making payment for grazing use of public 
lands with insufficiently funded checks;
    (14) Failing to reclaim and repair any lands, property, or 
resources when required by the authorized officer;
    (15) Failing to reclose any gate or other entry.

Subpart 4150--Unauthorized Grazing Use

    55. Section 4150.1 is amended by designating the second sentence as 
paragraph (b) and adding a new paragraph (a) following the undesignated 
first sentence to read as follows:


Sec. 4150.1  Violations.

* * * * *
    (a) The authorized officer shall determine whether a violation is 
nonwillful, willful, or repeated willful.
* * * * *
    56. Section 4150.2 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (a) and 
(b) as (b) and (c), respectively, and adding a new paragraph (a) and 
(d) to read as follows:


Sec. 4150.2  Notice and order to remove.

    (a) Whenever a violation has been determined to be nonwillful and 
incidental, and the owner of the unauthorized livestock, or agent, is 
known, the authorized officer shall notify the alleged violator that a 
violation has been reported, that the violation must be corrected, and 
how it can be settled, based upon the discretion of the authorized 
officer.
* * * * *
    (d) The authorized officer may temporarily close areas to grazing 
by specified kinds or class of livestock for a period not to exceed 12 
months when necessary to abate unauthorized grazing use. Such notices 
of closure may be issued as final decisions effective upon issuance or 
on the date specified in the decision and shall remain in effect 
pending the decision on appeal unless a stay is granted by the Office 
of Hearings and Appeals in accordance with 43 CFR 4.21.
    57. Section 4150.3 is amended by removing the first sentence and 
revising the sentence following the new first sentence of the 
introductory text, revising paragraph (a), and removing the quotation 
mark, semicolon, and the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph (c) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 4150.3  Settlement.

    * * * The amount due for settlement shall include the value of 
forage consumed as determined in accordance with paragraph (a), (b), or 
(c) of this section. * * *
    (a) For nonwillful violations: The value of forage consumed as 
determined by the average monthly rate per AUM for pasturing livestock 
on privately owned land (excluding irrigated land) for the 17 western 
States as published annually by the Department of Agriculture. The 
authorized officer may approve nonmonetary settlement of unauthorized 
use only when the authorized officer determines that each of the 
following conditions is satisfied:
    (1) Evidence shows that the unauthorized use occurred through no 
fault of the livestock operator;
    (2) The forage use is insignificant;
    (3) the public lands have not been damaged; and
    (4) Nonmonetary settlement is in the best interest of the United 
States.
* * * * *

Subpart 4160--Administrative Remedies

    58. Section 4160.1 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 4160.1  Proposed decisions.

    (a) Proposed decisions shall be served on any affected applicant, 
permittee or lessee, and any agent and lien holder of record, who is 
affected by the proposed actions, terms or conditions, or modifications 
relating to applications, permits and agreements (including range 
improvement permits) or leases, by certified mail or personal delivery. 
Copies of proposed decisions shall also be sent to the interested 
public.
    (b) Proposed decisions shall state the reasons for the action and 
shall reference the pertinent terms, conditions and the provisions of 
applicable regulations. As appropriate, decisions shall state the 
alleged violations of specific terms and conditions and provisions of 
these regulations alleged to have been violated, and shall state the 
amount due under Sec. 4130.7 and Sec. 4150.3 and the action to be taken 
under Sec. 4170.1.
    (c) The authorized officer may elect not to issue a proposed 
decision prior to a final decision where the authorized officer has 
made a determination in accordance with Sec. 4110.3-3(b) or 
Sec. 4150.2(d).
    59. Section 4160.3 is amended by removing from paragraph (b) the 
words ``on other affected interests'' and adding in their place the 
words ``the interested public'', revising paragraphs (a) and (c), and 
adding new paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) to read as follows:


Sec. 4160.3  Final decisions.

    (a) In the absence of a protest, the proposed decision will become 
the final decision of the authorized officer without further notice 
unless otherwise provided in the proposed decision.
* * * * *
    (c) A period of 30 days following receipt of the final decision, or 
30 days after the date the proposed decision becomes final as provided 
in paragraph (a) of this section, is provided for filing an appeal and 
petition for stay of the decision pending final determination on 
appeal. A decision will not be effective during the 30-day appeal 
period, except as provided in paragraph (f) of this section. See 
Sec. 4.21 of this title for general provisions of the appeal process.
    (d) When the Office of Hearings and Appeals stays a final decision 
of the authorized officer regarding an application for grazing 
authorization, an applicant who was granted grazing use in the 
preceding year may continue at that level of authorized grazing use 
during the time the decision is stayed, except where grazing use in the 
preceding year was authorized on a temporary basis under Sec. 4110.3-
1(a). Where an applicant had no authorized grazing use during the 
previous year, or the application is for ephemeral grazing use, the 
authorized grazing use shall be consistent with the decision pending 
final determination on an appeal.
    (e) When the Office of Hearings and Appeals stays a final decision 
of the authorized officer to change the authorized grazing use, the 
grazing use authorized to the permittee or lessee shall not exceed the 
permittee's or lessee's previously permitted use during the time that 
the decision is stayed.
    (f) Notwithstanding the provisions of Sec. 4.21(a) of this title, 
the authorized officer may provide that the final decision shall be 
effective upon issuance or on a date established in the decision and 
shall remain in effect pending the decision on appeal unless a stay is 
granted by the Office of Hearings and Appeals when the authorized 
officer has made a determination in accordance with Sec. 4110.3-3(b) or 
Sec. 4150.2(d). Nothing in this section shall affect the authority of 
the Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals or the Interior 
Board of Land Appeals to place decisions in full force and effect as 
provided in Sec. 4.21(a)(1) of this title.
    60. Section 4160.4 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 4160.4  Appeals.

    (a) Any person whose interest is adversely affected by a final 
decision of the authorized officer may appeal the decision for the 
purpose of a hearing before an administrative law judge under 
Sec. 4.470 of this title by filing a notice of appeal in the office of 
the authorized officer within 30 days after receipt of the final 
decision or within 30 days after the date the proposed decision becomes 
final as provided in Sec. 4160.3(a). Appeals and petitions for a stay 
of the decision shall be filed at the office of the authorized officer. 
The authorized officer shall promptly transmit the appeal and petition 
for stay to ensure their timely arrival at the appropriate Office of 
Hearings and Appeals.
    (b) A petition for a stay of the decision, if any, shall be filed 
with the authorized officer together with a notice of appeal. The 
authorized officer shall ensure prompt transmittal of appeals and 
petitions for stay and the accompanying administrative record to the 
Office of Hearings and Appeals.

Subpart 4170--Penalties

    61. Section 4170.1-1 is amended by revising the first sentence of 
paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec. 4170.1-1  Penalty for violations.

* * * * *
    (d) Any person found to have violated the provisions of 
Sec. 4140.1(a)(6) after (Effective Date of Final Rule to be Inserted 
Here), shall be required to pay twice the value of forage consumed as 
determined by the average monthly rate per AUM for pasturing livestock 
on privately owned land (excluding irrigated land) for the 17 western 
States as supplied annually by the National Agricultural Statistics 
Service, and all reasonable expenses incurred by the United States in 
detecting, investigating, and resolving violations.* * *
    62. Section 4170.1-2 is revised as follows:


Sec. 4170.1-2  Failure to use.

    After consultation with the permittee or lessee and any lienholder 
of record, the authorized officer may cancel permitted use to the 
extent of failure to use when a permittee or lessee has failed to make 
substantial use as authorized, or fails to maintain or use water base 
property in the grazing operation for 2 consecutive grazing fee years.
    63. Section 4170.1-3 is amended by revising the section heading, 
the introductory text of the section, and paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 4170.1-3  Federal or State animal control and environmental 
protection or resources conservation regulations or laws.

    Violation of the Bald Eagle Protection Act, Endangered Species Act, 
Wild and Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act, or other Federal and State 
pest or animal damage control, natural and cultural resource 
protection, conservation or environmental laws or regulations, 
referenced under Sec. 4140.1 may result in penalty under Sec. 4170.1-1 
where:
* * * * *
    (c) The permittee or lessee has been convicted or otherwise found 
to be in violation of any of these laws or regulations by a court or by 
final determination of any agency charged with the administration of 
animal control, conservation or environmental laws or regulations where 
no further appeals are outstanding.
    64. Section 4170.2-1 is revised to read as follow:


Sec. 4170.2-1  Penal provisions under the Taylor Grazing Act.

    Under section 2 of the Act any person who willfully commits an act 
prohibited under Sec. 4140.1(b), or who willfully violates approved 
special rules and regulations is punishable by a fine of not more than 
$500.
    65. Section 4170.2-2 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 4170.2-2  Penal provisions under the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act.

    Under section 303(a) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), any person who knowingly and 
willfully commits an act prohibited under Sec. 4140.1(b) or who 
knowingly and willfully violates approved special rules and regulations 
may be brought before a designated U.S. magistrate and is punishable by 
a fine in accordance with the applicable provisions of Title 18 of the 
United States Code, or imprisonment for no more than 12 months, or 
both.
    66. A new subpart 4180 is added to read as follows:
Subpart 4180--National Requirements and Standards and Guidelines for 
Grazing Administration
Sec. 4180.1  National requirements for Grazing Administration.
Sec. 4180.2  Standards and guidelines for Grazing Administration.

Subpart 4180--National Requirements and Standards and Guidelines 
for Grazing Administration


Sec. 4180.1  National Requirements for Grazing Administration.

    (a) Permits and leases, and grazing-related plans and activities on 
public lands shall incorporate, as applicable, the following:
    (1) Grazing practices that maintain or achieve healthy, properly 
functioning ecosystems;
    (2) Grazing practices that maintain or achieve properly functioning 
riparian systems;
    (3) Grazing practices that maintain, restore or enhance water 
quality and ensure to the extent practicable the attainment of water 
quality that meets or exceeds State standards; and
    (4) Grazing management practices that ensure to the extent 
practicable in the maintenance, restoration and enhancement of the 
habitat of threatened or endangered, and Category 1 or 2 candidate 
species.
    (b) The authorized officer shall take appropriate action pursuant 
to subparts 4110, 4120, 4130, and 4160 of this part as soon as 
practicable but not later than the start of the next grazing year where 
existing management practices fail to meet the requirements of this 
section.


Sec. 4180.2  Standards and guidelines for Grazing Administration

    (a) Each Bureau of Land Management State Director shall determine 
the appropriate geographical area for which such standards and 
guidelines shall be developed and implemented. Standards and guidelines 
shall be developed for an entire State, or for an ecoregion 
encompassing portions of more than one State, except where the State 
Director determines that the combination of the geophysical and vegetal 
character of an area is unique and the health of the rangelands within 
the area will not be adequately protected using standards and 
guidelines developed on a broader geographical scale. The State 
Director shall consult with the multiple resource advisory councils, 
where they exist, in making these determinations.
    (b) The Bureau of Land Management State Director shall provide the 
opportunity to the public for involvement in the development of State 
or regional standards and guidelines.
    (c) The Bureau of Land Management State Director shall develop and 
amend State or regional standards and guidelines in consultation with 
the relevant Bureau of Land Management multiple resource advisory 
councils, Indian tribes, and other Federal land management agencies 
responsible for the management of lands and resources within the region 
or area under consideration, and the interested public.
    (d) At a minimum, State or regional standards for rangeland health 
developed pursuant to paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section, 
shall address indicators of the following:
    (1) Soil stability and watershed function;
    (2) The distribution of nutrients and energy;
    (3) Recovery mechanisms; and
    (4) Riparian functioning condition.
    (e) At a minimum, State or regional guidelines for grazing 
administration developed pursuant paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this 
section, shall address the following:
    (1) Grazing management practices to be implemented to assist the 
recovery of threatened or endangered species, and prevent species 
listed as Category 1 or 2 from becoming threatened or endangered.
    (2) Grazing management practices to be implemented to maintain, 
restore or enhance water quality, and assist in attaining water quality 
which is necessary to meet or exceed State standards.
    (3) Periods of critical plant growth and regrowth and the need for, 
and the general timing and duration of, periods of rest from livestock 
grazing.
    (4) Situations in which continuous season-long grazing would be 
consistent with achieving healthy, properly functioning ecosystems and 
riparian systems.
    (5) Selection criteria and general design standards for the 
development of springs, seeps, and other projects affecting water and 
associated resources, that will protect the ecological values of those 
sites.
    (6) Situations in which grazing will be authorized on designated 
ephemeral (annual and perennial) rangelands, including the 
establishment of criteria for minimum levels of production, minimum 
residual growth to remain at the end of the grazing season, and the 
protection of perennial vegetation.
    (7) Criteria for the protection of riparian-wetland areas, 
including the location, or need for relocation or removal, of livestock 
management facilities (corrals or holding facilities, wells, pipelines, 
fences) outside riparian-wetland areas, or the modification of 
livestock management practices (e.g., salting and supplement feeding).
    (8) Grazing management practices or utilization or residual 
vegetation limits in riparian and wetland areas that will:
    (i) Maintain, improve, or restore both herbaceous and woody species 
(where present or potential exists) to a healthy and vigorous condition 
and facilitate reproduction and maintenance of diverse age classes in 
the desired plant communities; and
    (ii) Leave sufficient vegetation biomass and plant residue 
(including woody debris) to provide for adequate sediment filtering, 
dissipation of stream energy, streambank stability and stream shading.
    (f) In the event standards are not developed pursuant to this 
section prior to (The Date 18 Months After the Effective Date of the 
Final Rule), the standards provided in this paragraph shall apply until 
such time as standards are developed pursuant to paragraph (d) of this 
section:
    (1) The soil A-horizon is present and unfragmented, and the soil is 
developed or accumulating on site. Rills and gullies are absent, or if 
present, they have blunted and muted features. There is no visible 
scouring, sheet erosion, and/or soil sediment deposition.
    (2) Plants are well distributed across the site, and photosynthetic 
activity occurs throughout the growing season. A uniform distribution 
of litter is evident. The plant community structure results in rooting 
throughout the available soil profile.
    (3) Plants display normal growth forms and vigor. The plant 
communities display a diverse range of age classes.
    (4) Flood plains are present and well developed and channel 
sinuosity, width-to-depth ratio, and gradient are in balance with the 
landscape setting.
    The authorized officer shall take appropriate action under subparts 
4110, 4120, 4130, and 4160 of this part, where a preponderance of 
evidence, collected through field observations, monitoring, site 
inventory, or other acceptable study methods, indicates that the 
standards are not being met.
    (g) In the event guidelines are not developed and approved by the 
Secretary pursuant to this section prior to (The Date 18 Months After 
the Effective Date of the Final Rule), and until such time as 
guidelines are developed pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section and 
approved by the Secretary, the authorized officer shall take 
appropriate action under subparts 4110, 4120, 4130, and 4160 of this 
part to ensure that all grazing-related activities conform with the 
following:
    (1) Grazing management practices will ensure to the extent 
practicable in the recovery of threatened or endangered species, and 
prevent candidate species, Category 1 or 2, from becoming threatened or 
endangered. Emphasis will be toward maintaining or improving plant and 
animal habitat to avoid future listing.
    (2) Grazing practices will maintain, restore or enhance water 
quality and ensure to the extent practicable the attainment of water 
quality which meets or exceeds State standards.
    (3) Grazing schedules will include periods of rest during times of 
critical plant growth or regrowth. The timing and duration of rest 
periods will be determined by the local authorized officer 
administering the grazing authorization.
    (4) Continuous season-long grazing will be authorized only when it 
has been demonstrated to be consistent with achieving healthy, properly 
functioning ecosystems and riparian systems, and with meeting 
identified resource objectives.
    (5) Development of springs and seeps or other projects affecting 
water and associated resources will be designed to protect the 
ecological values of those sites.
    (6) Grazing will be authorized on designated ephemeral (annual and 
perennial) rangeland only if reliable estimates of production have been 
made, an identified level of annual growth or residue to remain on site 
at the end of the grazing season has been established, and adverse 
effects on perennial species will be avoided.
    (7) Livestock management facilities (corrals or holding facilities, 
wells, pipelines, fences) or livestock management practices (salting 
and supplement feeding) will be located outside riparian-wetland areas 
wherever possible. Appropriate action, which may include the relocation 
or removal of the facilities or modification of the practices, will be 
taken where standards are not being met.
    (8) Grazing management practices and utilization or residual 
vegetation limits will be established and applied in riparian and 
wetland areas that will:
    (i) Maintain, improve, or restore a diversity of both herbaceous 
and woody species (where such species are present or would be present 
under normal conditions) to a healthy and vigorous condition and 
facilitate reproduction and maintenance of diverse age classes in the 
desired plant communities, and
    (ii) Leave sufficient vegetation biomass and plant residue 
(including woody debris) to provide for adequate sediment filtering, 
dissipation of stream energy, streambank stability and stream shading.
    (9) Allotment management plans and other activity plans addressing 
livestock grazing that are developed or amended after (The Date 18 
Months After the Effective Date of the Final Rule will be Inserted 
here), will specify desired plant communities that will include minimum 
percentages of site vegetation cover, and will establish utilization 
limits for riparian and upland sites that will contribute to 
maintaining or achieving proper functioning condition.
    (h) Standards provided in paragraph (f) of this section and 
guidelines provided in paragraph (g) of this section may be modified by 
the Bureau of Land Management State Director, with approval of the 
Secretary, to address local ecosystems and management practices.
    (i) No State or regional standards or guidelines developed by the 
Bureau of Land Management State Director pursuant to this section shall 
be implemented prior to their approval by the Secretary.
    (j) Standards and guidelines for grazing administration shall be 
adhered to in the development of grazing-related portions of activity 
plans, and shall be reflected in the terms and conditions of permits 
and leases and grazing authorizations. The authorized officer shall 
take appropriate action pursuant to subparts 4110, 4120, 4130, and 4160 
of this part as soon as practicable but not later than the start of the 
next grazing year where existing grazing management practices fail to 
meet the standards and guidelines.
Bruce Babbitt,
Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 94-7060 Filed 3-22-94; 4:46 pm]
BILLING CODE 4310-84-P