[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 92 (Friday, May 13, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-11364]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: May 13, 1994]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[WO-220-94-4320-01-241A]

 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Rangeland Reform '94 and 
Request for Public Comment

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 202 of the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969, the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 
Management (BLM), with the cooperation of the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, Forest Service, has prepared a draft environmental impact 
statement (EIS) for Rangeland Reform '94. BLM and the Forest Service 
are proposing to change policies and regulations within their Federal 
rangeland management programs. These actions are intended to improve 
and restore a significant portion of rangeland ecosystems and to 
improve and maintain biodiversity, while providing for sustainable 
development on lands administered by the two agencies. The two agencies 
are also proposing to revise the formula used to determine fees charged 
for grazing livestock on Federal lands in the 17 western states. By 
this notice, the public is informed that the draft EIS is available and 
that interested individuals may obtain copies by request.

DATES: Written comments on the draft EIS must be postmarked no later 
than August 11, 1994. Comments received after this date may not be 
considered in preparation of the final EIS. Oral and/or written 
comments may also be presented at public hearings to be held in the 
West during the public comment period. Dates and locations of public 
hearings on the draft EIS will be announced separately from this notice 
of availability.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the draft EIS should be sent to: Rangeland 
Reform '94, P.O. Box 66300, Washington, DC 20035-6300.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Write to the above address or call Jim 
Fox, Bureau of Land Management, (202) 452-7740, or Jerry McCormick, 
Forest Service, (202) 205-1457. To obtain a copy of the draft EIS, 
please call or visit your nearest BLM Resource Area office or Forest 
Service Forest office.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The last major revisions to 43 CFR part 
4100, including establishment of the current fee formula in 
regulations, occurred in 1988. Since then, new information on range 
practices and conditions has been generated by various studies and 
General Accounting Office audits. In response, the Departments of the 
Interior and Agriculture have initiated a proposal for rangeland 
reform, including specific regulatory language.
    The draft EIS addresses several areas of rangeland management 
reform, including, but not limited to: the Federal formula for 
calculating grazing fees, subleasing, unauthorized use (trespass), 
public participation, suspended and extended nonuse, appeals, 
disqualification, issuing grazing preference and permits, prohibited 
acts, permit or lease tenure, BLM grazing advisory boards, range 
improvement ownership, establishment of an ecosystem framework for 
rangeland management, and the establishment of standards and guidelines 
for grazing.
    The draft EIS is a national-level, programmatic EIS. It documents 
the ecological, economic, and social impacts that would result from 
alternative fee formulas and from reforming, or not reforming, other 
elements of the federal rangeland management program. Five management 
alternatives are considered in detail: Current Management (No Action), 
BLM-Forest Service Proposed Action, Livestock Production, Environmental 
Enhancement, and No Grazing. Seven grazing fee formula alternatives are 
also analyzed: Current Public Rangeland Improvement Act (PRIA) (No 
Action), Modified PRIA, BLM-Forest Service Proposed Action, Regional 
Fees, Federal Forage Fee, PRIA with Surcharges, and Competitive 
Bidding.
    Management Alternative 1, Current Management (No Action) would 
continue existing policies, regulations, and management practices 
within both BLM's and the Forest Service's rangeland management 
programs.
    Management Alternative 2, the BLM-Forest Service Proposed Action, 
would change many elements of the agencies' current rangeland policies, 
regulations, and management practices. The Proposed Action includes 
national requirements that provide the basis for developing state or 
regional standards and guidelines for managing livestock grazing in 
rangeland ecosystems administered by BLM. The Forest Service would 
continue to formulate standards and guidelines for rangeland management 
while it prepares national forest land and resource management plans. 
BLM would replace grazing advisory boards with resource advisory 
councils, which would address a broader range of concerns, while still 
ensuring local participation in rangeland management decisions. Both 
agencies would implement policies to manage rangeland resources using 
an ecosystem approach. The Proposed Action would also establish 
consistent BLM and Forest Service programs to improve ecological 
conditions while maintaining opportunities for long-term sustainable 
development.
    Management Alternative 3, Livestock Production, would place more 
control of rangeland management in local communities. Although BLM and 
the Forest Service would not give up their responsibilities under laws 
and regulations, local community involvement in grazing advisory boards 
would play a lead role in making decisions about public rangelands 
management planning, implementation, and evaluation. Under this 
alternative, both agencies would have grazing advisory boards. BLM 
standards and guidelines would be developed at the local level by 
grazing advisory boards, while the Forest Service would continue to 
formulate standards and guidelines when it prepares national forest 
land and resource management plans. Goals and objectives for rangeland 
ecosystems would be set at the local level through consultation with 
grazing advisory boards. As under other alternatives, regulation 
changes would make BLM and Forest Service program administration more 
efficient and consistent.
    Management Alternative 4, Environmental Enhancement, would 
authorize livestock grazing only in areas where enough data shows 
resource condition standards and goals are being met. This alternative 
places greater emphasis on managing all uses, including livestock 
grazing, to sustain ecosystem biodiversity and ecological processes. 
Some areas would be closed to grazing: wilderness, designated critical 
habitat for threatened and endangered species, developed recreation 
sites, and areas of unacceptable rangeland health. Under this 
alternative, BLM and the Forest Service would adopt and implement 
national standards and guidelines aimed at maintaining ecosystem 
health. Joint BLM-Forest Service advisory councils would be set up on 
an ecoregion basis. As under other alternatives, regulation changes 
would make BLM and Forest Service program administration more efficient 
and consistent.
    Management Alternative 5, No Grazing, would eliminate grazing on 
public lands over a 3-year phase-out period. BLM and the Forest Service 
would continue developing policies and procedures for promoting 
ecosystem management. Where needed, the agencies could use livestock to 
manage vegetation to achieve resource objectives. None of the other 
livestock grazing management measures considered in the other four 
alternatives would be needed.
    Fee Alternative 1, Current PRIA (No Action), consists of a base 
value of $1.23 per animal unit month (AUM) that is updated annually 
using three indexes: change in forage value, change in beef cattle 
prices, and prices paid for selected items purchased by permittees. The 
annual fee would not differ by more than 25 percent from the fee 
charged in the previous year.
    Fee Alternative 2, Modified PRIA, would use the same base as PRIA, 
$1.23, but would differ in using an index for all production costs 
rather than selected production costs. The annual fee would not differ 
by more than 25 percent from the fee charged in the previous year.
    Fee Alternative 3, BLM-Forest Service Proposed Action, would adopt 
a fee formula using a base value ($3.96) updated annually by a Forage 
Value Index. The $3.96 base value represents a midrange between the 
results obtained through the use of two methods for estimating a fair 
base value. 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 proposal would establish 1996 as the base year for the forage 
value index. The forage value index would not be used to annually 
adjust the fee 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, 
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.
    Fee incentive criteria would be developed during the first 2 years 
of a 3-year fee phase-in period. The third year of the phase-in would 
not be implemented until the incentive criteria are developed. Instead 
a base value of $3.50 would be substituted in 1997. Fee Alternative 4, 
Regional Fees, is the same as the proposed action fee, except that a 
different base value would be applied to six pricing regions. The 
regional base values would be derived from the 1983 Federal Land Forage 
Appraisal (updated in 1992). The regional base values would be annually 
updated using the Forage Value Index. The annual fee would not differ 
by more than 25 percent from the fee charged in the previous year.
    Fee Alternative 5, Federal Forage Fee Formula, was developed by the 
Western Livestock Producers Alliance. It is based on a 3-year average 
of private grazing land lease rates for 16 western states. The formula 
uses multipliers of private land lease rates and deducts the updated 
1966 nonfee costs described in the proposed fee alternative. That 
amount is multiplied by the percentage difference of cash receipts per 
cow for federal and nonfederal livestock producers. The annual fee 
would not differ by more than 25 percent from the fee charged in the 
previous year.
    Fee Alternative 6, PRIA with Surcharges, would use the fee under 
the PRIA fee alternative ($1.86 for 1993) and add a surcharge to cover 
the cost of administering the grazing program at the local Forest 
Service and BLM administrative level. Each year the fee would be 
limited to twice the fee produced by the PRIA formula. After a 1-year 
phase-in, the surcharge would not differ by more than 10 percent from 
the previous year's surcharge.
    Fee Alternative 7, Competitive Bidding System, would use 
competitive bidding to set grazing fees. The successful bidder would be 
required to adhere to the terms of the permit and perform specific 
management practices and facilities maintenance. The terms of the 
permit would be part of the bid process, allowing bidders themselves to 
estimate the market value of the forage.
    Public participation has occurred throughout the EIS process. A 
Notice of Intent was filed in the Federal Register on July 13, 1993. 
The scoping period was reopened for an additional 60 days through 
August 13 and September 20, 1993, Federal Register notices.

    Dated: May 5, 1994.
Jonathan P. Deason,
Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 94-11364 Filed 5-12-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-84-P