[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