[The Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations]
[Department of Interior Regulatory Plan]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (DOI)
Overview
Major Objectives
The Department of the Interior (DOI) is the Nation's principal 
conservation agency, responsible for the management of much of our 
public lands and resources. It also has major responsibility for 
actions involving American Indians, Alaska Natives, and residents of 
island territories under the administration of the United States. DOI's 
mission is to encourage the conservation and responsible management of 
the Nation's natural resources and to fulfill the trust 
responsibilities of the U.S. Government.
In carrying out these responsibilities, DOI pursues the following major 
objectives:

 Preserving the nation's national park, wilderness, and fish 
            and wildlife resources, and managing its public lands;
 Managing the supply of quality water resources;
 Improving the Federal Government's relationship with State, 
            local, tribal, and territorial governments;
 Promoting the economic and social well-being of American 
            Indians, Alaska Natives, and people of the U.S. 
            territories; and
 Enhancing America's ability to meet its needs for domestic 
            energy and mineral resources.
Major Regulatory Areas
Only one of DOI's ten bureaus--the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 
and Enforcement--is primarily engaged in activities most often 
considered ``regulatory.'' Its regulations set environmental standards 
for coal mining and reclamation operations and ensure that these 
standards are met through State programs.
A number of other bureau activities, however, have regulatory 
components. Those regulations serve primarily to facilitate DOI 
programs, which focus upon the management of public or trust lands and 
natural resources under U.S. ownership or control. Some of the major 
areas of these regulations include:

 Management of migratory birds and preservation of certain 
            marine mammals and endangered species;
 Management of dedicated lands, such as national parks, 
            wildlife refuges, and American Indian trust lands;
 Management of public lands open to multiple use;
 Leasing and oversight of development of Federal energy, 
            mineral, and renewable resources;
 Management of revenues from American Indian and Federal 
            minerals;
 Fulfillment of trust and other responsibilities pertaining to 
            American Indian tribes;
 Natural resource damage assessments; and
 Management of financial and nonfinancial assistance programs.
Regulatory Policy
DOI Regulatory Procedures and Consistency With the Administration's 
Regulatory Policies
Within the general requirements and guidance set forth in Executive 
Orders 12866, 12612, and 12630, DOI's regulatory program seeks to 
accomplish the following: (1) fulfill all legal requirements as 
specified by statutes or court orders; (2) perform essential functions 
that cannot be handled by non-Federal entities; (3) minimize regulatory 
costs to society while maximizing societal benefits; and (4) operate 
programs openly, efficiently, and in cooperation with Federal and non-
Federal entities.
To help meet these objectives, DOI has restructured its regulatory 
process. In mid-1993, it created the Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA) 
within the Office of the Secretary. A primary function of ORA is to 
help ensure that regulations are promulgated in a timely and efficient 
manner. As part of this task, ORA requires that all bureaus/offices 
establish realistic rulemaking schedules. ORA then monitors the 
development of all rulemakings to ensure that deadlines are met. This 
structure allows the public to plan more effectively for anticipated 
regulatory changes and helps regulators focus more clearly upon issues 
to be regulated.
ORA also coordinates the development of rules that cross bureau or 
departmental jurisdictional lines and helps ensure that agreements are 
reached on policy issues early in the rulemaking process. This system 
substantially reduces delays caused by the late intervention of 
interested parties.
Encouraging Responsible Management of the Nation's Resources
One of DOI's fundamental goals is to encourage the responsible 
management of the Nation's natural heritage. The regulatory program is 
designed to help achieve this by striking appropriate balances between 
the use and preservation of natural resources. For example, DOI is 
seeking ways to provide incentives for users of public resources to 
adopt long-term strategies designed to meet current needs, while 
preserving resources for future generations. DOI also is seeking to 
ensure that the Government receives fair prices for public resources. 
For instance, DOI is restructuring certain fee schedules so that 
resource consumption fees more accurately reflect value received, thus 
promoting responsible stewardship and management of public resources.
A specific example planned for fiscal 1995 is mining reform. If the 
Mining Law of 1872 is amended, DOI will develop regulatory policies to 
ensure, among other things, that: (1) the American people receive their 
fair share for the production of minerals from public lands; (2) mining 
operations are conducted, and abandoned mine sites are restored, in a 
more environmentally sound manner; (3) claims holdings fees are paid by 
those seeking to explore for minerals on public lands; and (4) the 
existing land patent system is eliminated.
Minimizing Regulatory Burdens
DOI has made a major effort to streamline its regulations and to reduce 
the burdens that they impose. Planning processes for land use and water 
development have been substantially modified to reduce unnecessary 
delays and paperwork associated with agency decisionmaking. Moreover, 
DOI currently is reviewing existing regulations to determine whether 
their benefits continue to outweigh their costs to society. Rules will 
continue to be reassessed periodically, and needed changes will be made 
as existing operations are evaluated.
DOI's review of potential rules focuses both on assuring consistency 
with broad regulatory policies and goals and on making certain that 
rules are technically feasible and understandable. DOI is encouraging 
the use of performance standards rather than traditional command-and-
control regulations, providing regulated entities with greater 
flexibility to develop more efficient and less burdensome compliance 
procedures.
The Department also has undertaken an intiative to reform the style in 
which regulations are drafted. Too often, rules are poorly written, 
unclear, and difficult to understand. This causes confusion for the 
public and the agencies responsible for implementng the regulations. To 
remedy this problem, the Department is encouraging the use of ``plain 
English'' in rulemakings. A number of seminars have been held on this 
rule-drafting technique, and several promising pilot projects are 
underway.
Encouraging Public Participation and Involvement in the Regulatory 
Process
One of the goals of Executive Order 12866 is to ensure that the public 
has full and adequate opportunities to participate in the development 
of regulations. Encouraging increased public participation in the 
regulatory process so as to make regulatory policies more responsive to 
our customers' needs is a priority under this Adminstration. DOI is 
reaching out to communities and seeking their input on a variety of 
regulatory issues. For example, the Secretary and other high-ranking 
Departmental officials have held numerous public meetings around the 
country to solicit views on grazing reform regulations. In conjunction 
with the Indian Health Service, three regional meetings and one 
national meeting have been held to solicit input on proposed 
regulations to implement amendments to the Indian Self-Determination 
and Education Assistance Act. Currently, DOI and the Indian Health 
Service are developing a process to permit tribes to continue working 
with the Departments to develop the final rule.
DOI also is encouraging the use of negotiated rulemaking to develop 
rules with the full participation of affected communities. Several 
bureaus currently are either employing negotiated rulemaking techniques 
or are exploring whether negotiated rulemaking is appropriate and 
feasible for particular rules.
Finally, Departmental policies are designed to delegate decisionmaking, 
including development and operation of DOI's regulatory programs, to 
the lowest appropriate level. With decentralization, management 
procedures can be developed that are sensitive to the various local 
needs and interests affected by DOI programs.
Bureaus and Offices Within DOI
The following are brief descriptions of the regulatory functions of 
DOI's major regulatory bureaus and offices.
Office of the Secretary, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance
The regulatory functions of the Office of Environmental Policy and 
Compliance (OEPC) stem from requirements under section 301(c) of the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 
of 1980, as amended (CERCLA). Section 301(c) requires the development 
of natural resource damage assessment rules and the biennial review and 
revision, as appropriate, of these rules. Rules have been promulgated 
for the optional use of natural resource trustees to assess 
compensation for damages to natural resources caused by oil or 
hazardous substances. OEPC is overseeing the study and possible 
promulgation of additional rules pursuant to section 301(c)(2) and the 
review and possible revision of the existing rules in compliance with 
section 301(c)(3).
In undertaking DOI's responsibilities under section 301(c), OEPC is 
striving to meet three regulatory objectives: (1) that the minimal 
amount of regulation necessary be developed; (2) that the assessment 
process provide for tailoring to specific discharges or releases; and 
(3) that the process not be considered punitive, but rather a system to 
achieve fair and just compensation for injuries sustained.
Bureau of Indian Affairs
The philosophy of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is to encourage 
the development and management of human and other resources among 
American Indians and Alaska Natives, to encourage tribal assumption of 
BIA programs, and to fulfill trust and other responsibilities of the 
U.S. Government. BIA regulatory actions serve to balance its dual role 
as (1) advocate in assisting tribes and encouraging their participation 
in BIA programs, and (2) trustee protecting and/or enhancing American 
Indian trust resources.
Important BIA programs are promulgated through regulations, rather than 
informal guidelines, so that American Indians are aware of, and have an 
opportunity to participate in, the development of standards and 
procedures affecting them. BIA regulatory policies seek to accomplish 
the following: (1) ensure consistent policies throughout American 
Indian Country; (2) promote American Indian involvement in the 
operation, management, planning, and evaluation of BIA programs and 
services; (3) provide guidance to applicants for BIA services; and (4) 
govern the development of American Indian lands and provide for the 
protection of American Indian treaty and statutory rights.
BIA's regulatory program is designed: (1) to promote American Indian 
self-determination; (2) to provide American Indians and Alaska Natives 
with high-quality education and tribal development opportunities; (3) 
to meet BIA's trust responsibilities; and (4) to meet the needs of 
tribes and their members.
Bureau of Land Management
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is responsible for the development, 
management, and protection of public land resources that traditionally 
have been subject to multiple use. The principal authorities for the 
BLM's activities are the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 
1976, the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, 
the Mining Law of 1872, the Wild and Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act, 
and the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. BLM's programs cover three 
main program areas: energy and minerals, renewable resources, and 
lands, including conducting Federal land surveys and maintaining the 
official records for all Federal and former Federal lands and minerals.
BLM's fundamental regulatory philosophy is that public resources should 
be managed responsibly, providing maximum benefits to the public, while 
conserving scarce resources for future generations. BLM's regulatory 
program is designed to ensure that:

 The resources in the Nation's lands are effectively and 
            efficiently managed in accordance with law;
 The public's concern for the resources will be reflected in 
            significant opportunity for participation in the 
            development of rules;
 The regulatory compliance burden on individuals, firms, and 
            other affected entities is kept to a minimum; and
 Individuals and firms operating under BLM regulations are 
            given the opportunity to respond to, and make decisions 
            based upon, assessments of market situations.
Minerals Management Service
The Minerals Management Service (MMS) has two major responsibilities: 
(1) timely and accurate collection, distribution, accounting for, and 
auditing of revenues owed by holders of Federal onshore, offshore, and 
tribal land mineral leases in a manner that meets or exceeds Federal 
financial integrity requirements and recipient expectations; and (2) 
management of the resources of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in a 
manner that provides for safety, protection of the environment, and 
conservation of natural resources. These responsibilities are carried 
out under the provisions of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management 
Act, the Minerals Leasing Act, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 
the Indian Mineral Leasing Act, and other related statutes.
The regulatory philosophy of MMS is to develop clear, enforceable rules 
that support the missions of each program. MMS will continue periodic 
reviews of offshore regulations to identify changes needed as a result 
of changes in technology, operating practices, or other factors. 
Specific revisions to rules to be pursued include ensuring ability of 
lessee to meet end-of-lease obligations, issuing final rules to 
implement authority pursuant to the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to 
require spill response plans in State and Federal waters, and 
development of regulations for certification of financial 
responsibility for offshore facilities. MMS also plans to continue its 
review and revision of existing regulations and to issue certain 
rulemakings designed to perform needed ``housekeeping'' and other 
refinements to the royalty management regulations (30 CFR chapter II, 
subchapter A).
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) was 
created by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 
(SMCRA) to ``strike a balance between protection of the environment and 
agricultural productivity and the Nation's need for coal as an 
essential source of energy.''
The principal regulatory provisions contained in Title V of SMCRA set 
minimum requirements for obtaining a permit for surface coal mining 
operations, set standards for surface coal mining operations, require 
land reclamation once mining ends, and require rules and enforcement 
procedures to ensure that the standards are met. Under SMCRA, OSM 
serves as the primary enforcer of SMCRA until the States achieve 
``primacy,'' that is, until they demonstrate that their regulatory 
program meets all the specifications in SMCRA and has regulations 
consistent with those issued by OSM.
A primacy State takes over the permitting, inspection, and enforcement 
activities of the Federal Government. OSM changes its role from 
regulating mining activities directly to overseeing and evaluating 
State programs. Today, 24 of the 27 key coal-producing States have 
primacy. In return for assuming primacy, States are entitled to 
regulatory grants and to grants for reclaiming abandoned mine lands. In 
addition, under cooperative agreements, some primacy States have agreed 
to regulate mining on Federal lands within their borders. Thus, OSM 
regulates mining directly only in nonprimacy States, on Federal lands 
in States where no cooperative agreements are in effect, and on 
American Indian lands.
SMCRA charges OSM with the responsibility of publishing rules and 
regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the Act. 
Clearly, the most fundamental mechanism for ensuring that the purposes 
of SMCRA are achieved is the basic policy and guidance established 
through OSM's permanent regulatory program and related rulemakings. Its 
regulatory framework is developed, reviewed, and applied according to 
policy directives and legal requirements.
Litigation by the coal industry and environmental groups is responsible 
for some of the rules now being considered by OSM. Others are the 
result of efforts by OSM to address areas of concern that have arisen 
during the course of implementing OSM's regulatory program.
OSM has strived to develop an economical, safe, and environmentally 
sound program for the surface mining of coal by providing a stable 
regulatory framework. To achieve stability, OSM has endeavored to 
create a regulatory program that provides a high degree of continuity 
in its requirements and creates minimal uncertainty concerning the 
nature and pace of changes to existing provisions.
OSM also has strived to create a consistent regulatory framework. At 
the same time, however, OSM has recognized the need: (1) to respond to 
local conditions; (2) to provide flexibility to react to technological 
change; (3) to be sensitive to geographic diversity; and (4) to 
eliminate burdensome recordkeeping and reporting requirements that over 
time have proved unnecessary to ensure an effective regulatory program.
Major regulatory objectives regarding the mining of surface coal 
include:

 Continuing outreach activities with interested groups during 
            the rulemaking process to increase the quality of the 
            rulemaking process, improve the substance of the rules, 
            and, to the greatest extent possible, reflect consensus on 
            regulatory issues;
 Minimizing the recordkeeping and regulatory compliance burden 
            imposed on the public by means of a review and, where 
            advisable, revision of unnecessary and burdensome 
            regulatory requirements; and
 Publishing final rules to implement the Energy Policy Act of 
            1992, Public Law 102-486.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the Service) has three basic 
mission objectives:

 To assist in the development and application of an 
            environmental stewardship ethic based on ecological 
            principles and scientific knowledge of fish and wildlife;
 To guide the conservation, development, and management of the 
            Nation's fish and wildlife resources; and
 To administer a national program to provide the public with 
            opportunities to understand, appreciate, and wisely use 
            fish and wildlife resources.
These objectives are met through the following regulatory programs:

 Management of Service lands, primarily national wildlife 
            refuges;
 Management of migratory bird resources;
 Conservation of certain marine mammals and endangered species;
 Allowing certain activities that would otherwise be prohibited 
            by law; and
 Administration of grant and assistance programs.
The Service maintains a comprehensive set of regulations in the first 
category--those that govern public access, use, and recreation on 
national wildlife refuges and in national fish hatcheries. As required 
by law, the Service is authorized to allow such uses only if they are 
compatible with the purpose for which each area was established. These 
regulations will be as consistent with State and local laws as 
practicable and will afford the public as much economic and 
recreational opportunity as possible. Consistent with the purposes for 
which those areas are established, with very few exceptions, the 
Service provides these types of opportunities on each of the more than 
500 refuges and hatcheries. These regulations are developed and 
continually reviewed for improvements, with a substantial amount of 
public input, and are typically of limited geographical interest.
 Management of migratory bird resources, covered by the second category 
of regulations, entails fulfilling U.S. obligations contained in 
various international treaties. This regulatory program entails an 
annual issuance on migratory bird hunting seasons and bag limits, 
developed in partnership with the States, American Indian tribal 
governments, and the Canadian Wildlife Service. Although these rules 
are issued annually, this regulatory program has been in existence for 
more than 50 years and has not significantly changed over that period 
of time. The regulations are necessary to permit migratory bird hunting 
that would otherwise be prohibited. Although recent declines in 
waterfowl populations have reduced the numbers of such birds that may 
be harvested, the regulations generally do not change significantly 
from one year to another.
The third category includes regulations to fulfill the statutory 
obligation to identify and conserve species faced with extinction. The 
basis for determining endangered species is limited by law to 
biological considerations, although priorities for allocating Service 
resources are established consistent with the President's policies (by 
directing the Service's efforts to species most threatened and those 
whose protection is of the most benefit to the natural resource). Also 
included in this program are regulations to enhance the conservation of 
listed species and of marine mammals for which DOI has management 
responsibility. This program also contains regulations that provide 
guidance to other Federal agencies to assist them in complying with 
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, which requires them not to 
conduct activities that would jeopardize the existence of endangered 
species.
When a species is listed as endangered or threatened, the Service may 
designate critical habitat to promote the recovery of the species. 
Under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, critical habitat 
designation limits activities carried out, funded, or authorized by 
Federal agencies within the critical habitat zone. In designating 
critical habitat, the Service considers biological information and 
economic and other impacts of the designation. Areas may be excluded 
from the designation where the benefits of exclusion outweigh the 
benefits of inclusion, provided that the exclusion will not result in 
the extinction of the species. For 1995, the Service is developing a 
number of proposed and final critical habitat rules, including: marbled 
murrlett (final); delta smelt (final); Alabama sturgeon (final); 
Louisiana black bear (final); Rio Grande silvery minnow (final); 
Arizona willow (final); two Klamath River fishes (proposed); Mexican 
spotted owl (proposed); and Pecos pupfish (proposed).
The fourth category--the Service's regulatory program that permits 
activities otherwise prohibited by law--entails regulating possession, 
sale or trade, scientific research, and educational activities 
involving fish and wildlife and their parts or products. Generally, 
these regulations are supplemental to State protective regulations, and 
cover activities that involve interstate or foreign commerce, which 
must comply with various laws and international obligations. The 
Service is continually working with foreign and State governments, the 
industry and individuals affected, and other interested parties to 
minimize the burdens associated with Service-related activities. The 
easing of such burdens through regulatory actions continues to balance 
the benefits that may be made available with the necessity to ensure 
adequate protection to the natural resource. Most of the regulatory 
activities are permissive in nature, and the concerns of the public 
generally center on technical issues.
The last category--the Service's assistance programs--includes a 
limited number of regulations necessary to ensure that assistance 
recipients comply with applicable laws and Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) Circulars. Regulations in this program help the affected 
parties to obtain assistance and to comply with requirements imposed by 
Congress and OMB.
Bureau of Reclamation
In the past couple of years, the Bureau of Reclamation's (Reclamation) 
mission and goals have substantially changed. Its new mission is to 
manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an 
environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the 
American public. To accomplish this mission, Reclamation applies 
management, engineering, and scientific skills that result in effective 
and environmentally sensitive solutions. Reclamation projects provide 
for some or all of the following concurrent purposes: irrigation water 
service, municipal and industrial water supply, hydroelectric power 
generation, water quality improvement, groundwater management, fish and 
wildlife enhancement, outdoor recreation, flood control, navigation, 
river regulation and control, system optimization, and related uses.
Reclamation's regulatory program is designed to ensure that 
Reclamation's mission is carried out in a timely and efficient manner.
_______________________________________________________________________
DOI--Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget (ASPMB)
            ___________________________________________________________
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
83. NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENTS
Legal Authority:


 42 USC 9651(c) CERCLA


CFR Citation:


 43 CFR 11


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Judicial, August 8, 1994, for a Type A procedure for Great Lakes 
environments under a settlement agreement.


NPRM, Judicial, October 27, 1994, for a Type A procedure for coastal 
and marine environments under a settlement agrement.


Final, Judicial, May 22, 1995, for a Type A procedure for Great Lakes 
environments under a settlement agreement.


Final, Judicial, July 17, 1995, for a Type A procedure for coastal and 
marine environments under a settlement agreement.


Abstract:


CERCLA and the Clean Water Act allow natural resource trustees to bring 
a claim against a potentially responsible party for resources that have 
been injured by a release of a hazardous substance or a discharge of 
oil. CERCLA calls for the promulgation of two types of natural resource 
damage assessment regulations: simplified ``type A'' assessment 
procedures involving minimal fieldwork; and ``type B'' procedures for 
more detailed, site-specific assessments. CERCLA requires that natural 
resource damage assessment regulations be promulgated and that the 
regulations be reviewed, and revised as appropriate, every 2 years.


The Department has issued regulations establishing an administrative 
process for assessing damages, a type A procedure for determining 
injury and damages from minor spills in coastal and marine 
environments, and site-specific type B procedures for determining 
injury and damages when the type A procedure is not applicable.


The type B procedures were challenged in State of Ohio v. United States 
Department of the Interior, 880 F.2d 432 (D.C. Cir. 1989). The court 
ordered the Department to revise the type B procedures, among other 
things, to allow for the assessment of all reliably calculated lost 
economic values. On April 29, 1991, the Department issued a proposed 
rule to comply with the court remand (56 FR 19752). On July 22, 1993, 
the Department reopened the comment period to allow for consideration 
of new information about the calculation of lost nonuse values of 
injured resources (58 FR 39328). Based on the comments received, the 
Department issued a new proposed rule containing standards to promote 
the reliability of nonuse value estimates (59 FR 23097, May 4, 1994). 
The proposed standards were developed in consultation with other 
Federal agencies and are identical to standards proposed by the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as part of its 
natural resource damage assessment rulemaking under the Oil Pollution 
Act. The Department issued a final rule addressing all aspects of the 
court remand other than the assessment of lost nonuse values on March 
25, 1994 (59 FR 14261).


The Department is also beginning the biennial review of the 
administrative process and the type B procedures. The Department is 
issuing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to assist in 
determining which aspects of the administrative process and type B 
procedures warrant revision. The Department will carefully analyze the 
comments received before developing a proposed rule. The Department is 
coordinating this rulemaking with NOAA's natural resource damage 
assessment rulemaking to ensure the maximum consistency appropriate 
between the two sets of rules.


In 1989, the Department began the biennial review of the type A 
procedure for coastal and marine environments. Subsequently, State of 
Colorado v. United States Department of the Interior, 880 F.2d 481 
(D.C. Cir. 1989), ordered the Department to revise the type A procedure 
to incorporate restoration costs as well as lost economic values. The 
type A procedure for coastal and marine environments incorporates a 
computer model capable of calculating damages based on a small number 
of user-supplied data inputs. The Department is revising the computer 
model to comply with the court remand as well as the biennial review 
requirement.


Finally, the Department is developing a new type A procedure for use in 
the Great Lakes. This procedure, like the type A procedure for coastal 
and marine environments, incorporates a computer model capable of 
calculating damages based on a small number of user-supplied data 
inputs. Both type A computer models have been subjected to extensive 
analysis and testing, which has resulted in multiple revisions and 
refinements.


Statement of Need:


These regulations are required by statute and judicial decree. 
Furthermore, development of standards for the assessment of lost nonuse 
values is necessary to ensure both that the public receives full 
compensation for its losses and that polluters are assessed accurate 
damages. The biennial review of the administrative process and type B 
procedures is necessary to account for experience gained as well as 
scientific advancements since the last biennial review. With regard to 
the type A procedures, use of site-specific type B procedures to assess 
damages from minor releases or discharges is usually not cost 
effective. Therefore, the revised type A procedure for coastal and 
marine environments and the new type A procedure for Great Lakes 
environments are needed to enable trustees to obtain funds to restore 
injured resources.


Alternatives:


The only method currently available for the express purpose of 
calculating lost nonuse values is the contingent valuation (CV) 
methodology. The court ordered the Department to revise the regulations 
to allow for the calculation of all reliably calculated lost economic 
values. Therefore, the only alternative considered for the assessment 
of lost nonuse values was to determine which, if any, set of standards 
could be adopted to promote the reliable use of CV to calculate lost 
nonuse values.


With regard to the biennial review of the administrative process and 
type B procedures, four alternatives were considered. Alternative 1 was 
to take no action. Alternative 2 was to revise only the administrative 
process. Alternative 3 was to revise only the type B procedures. 
Alternative 4 was to revise both the administrative process and the 
type B procedures.


With regard to the type A procedure for coastal and marine 
environments, two alternatives were considered. Alternative 1 was to 
take no action, which would leave trustees with a type A procedure that 
calculates only lost economic values. Alternative 2 was to revise the 
type A procedure in compliance with the statutory biennial review 
requirement and the court remand to produce a computer model that 
calculates lost economic values as well as restoration costs.


With regard to the type A procedure for Great Lakes, two alternatives 
were considered. Alternative 1 was to take no action. Alternative 2 was 
to develop a type A procedure for minor releases and discharges in the 
Great Lakes that utilizes a computer model capable of calculating 
damages based on a small number of user-supplied data inputs.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The natural resource damage assessment regulations do not themselves 
authorize the assessment and recovery of damages; they simply provide 
guidance on how to perform assessments.


With regard to standards for assessing lost nonuse values, costs 
include the costs of preparing regulations, and the cost of performing 
an assessment using the regulations. Costs should be minimal because no 
new economic values or methodologies are being introduced; the existing 
regulations already provide for the use of CV and the assessment of 
lost nonuse values in certain cases. This rule would merely provide 
standards for using CV to assess lost nonuse values.


Benefits consist of increased damage recoveries available for 
restoration of injured resources. It is difficult to quantify the 
effect that the rulemaking will have on damage recoveries. However, the 
rulemaking is expected to have a positive effect on damage recoveries 
by promoting the reliable assessment of lost nonuse values. Benefits 
are expected to outweigh costs.


With regard to the biennial review of the administrative process and 
the type B procedures, costs include the costs of preparing 
regulations, and the cost of performing an assessment using the 
regulations. Streamlining the administrative process under Alternatives 
2 and 4 would reduce the costs associated with performing assessments.


Benefits consist of increased damage recoveries available for 
restoration of injured resources. Under Alternatives 1 and 2, damage 
recoveries would be the same as under the current regulations. Under 
Alternatives 3 and 4, revision of the type B procedures would result in 
increased damage recoveries due to the expansion of what constitutes an 
``actionable injury'' to reflect increases in scientific knowledge.


Alternative 1 would yield a net benefit of $89,756,000.


Alternative 2 would yield a net benefit of $91,016,000.


Alternative 3 would yield a net benefit of $93,386,000.


Alternative 4 would yield a net benefit of $94,955,000.


With regard to the type A procedure for coastal and marine environment, 
costs include the costs of preparing the regulation, the costs of 
revising computer model, and the cost of performing an assessment using 
the regulation.


Benefits consist of increased damage recoveries available for 
restoration of injured resources. Under Alternative 1, trustees would 
obtain damages only for lost economic values. Under Alternative 2, 
trustees would obtain damages for lost economic values as well as 
restoration costs.


Alternative 1 would yield a net benefit of $14,212,000.


Alternative 2 would yield a net benefit of $56,955,000.


With regard to the type A procedure for Great Lakes environments, costs 
include the costs of preparing the regulation, the costs of developing 
a computer model, and the cost of performing an assessment using the 
regulation. Without a simplified type A procedure, it is unlikely that 
natural resource trustees would attempt to recover damages for the 
minor releases or discharges that occur frequently in the Great Lakes. 
Therefore under Alternative 1, there would be no assessment costs. 
Under Alternative 2, assessment costs would consist solely of the 
expenses associated with developing model input data and applying the 
model.


Benefits consist of increased damage recoveries available for 
restoration of injured resources. The estimate under Alternative 1 
assumes that no damages would be recovered because no assessments would 
be performed.


Alternative 1 would yield a net cost of $14,294,000.


Alternative 2 would yield a net benefit of $14,294,000.


Risks:


Without appropriate standards to promote the reliability of lost nonuse 
value estimates, in some cases the public may not be able to obtain 
full compensation for its losses and in other cases polluters may be 
assessed damages in excess of actual public losses. Without the 
biennial review, trustees may be left without the best available 
assessment procedures, which could prevent trustees from recovering 
adequate funds to restore injured resources and result in excessive 
damage assessment costs. Without the new type A procedures, trustees 
are unlikely to seek compensation for injuries from minor discharges 
and releases in coastal and marine environments and Great Lakes 
environments, which would leave injured resources unrestored and 
prevent polluters from adequately internalizing costs.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Type A--Coastal and Marine Environments (RIN 1090-AA23)
ANPRM 09/22/89 (54 FR 39015)
ANPRM Comment Period End 10/23/89 (54 FR 39015)
NPRM 10/27/94
NPRM Comment Period End 01/27/95
Final Action 07/17/95
Final Action Effective 08/17/95
Type A--Great Lakes (RIN 1090-AA21)
ANPRM 09/22/89 (54 FR 39016)
ANPRM Comment Period End 10/23/89 (54 FR 39016)
NPRM 08/08/94 (59 FR 40319)
NPRM Comment Period End 11/07/94 (59 FR 40319)
Type B--Biennial Review (RIN 1090-AA29)
ANPRM 10/00/94
ANPRM Comment Period End 02/00/95
Type B--Nonuse Values (RIN 1090-AA43)
NPRM 05/04/94 (59 FR 23097)
NPRM Comment Period End 10/07/94 (59 FR 32175)
Final Action 05/00/95
Final Action Effective 06/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Jonathan P. Deason
Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance
Department of the Interior
Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget
Room 2340, MIB
1849 C Street NW.
Washington, DC 20240
202 208-3891
RIN: 1090-AA21
_______________________________________________________________________
DOI--Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
            ___________________________________________________________
FINAL RULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
84. REVISED PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INDIAN SELF-
DETERMINATION AND EDUCATION ASSISTANCE ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1988
Legal Authority:


 25 USC 450; 5 USC 5911; 43 USC 1396


CFR Citation:


 25 CFR 900; 25 CFR 272; 25 CFR 274; 25 CFR 275; 25 CFR 276; 25 CFR 
277; 25 CFR 278


Legal Deadline:


 NPRM, Statutory, August 5, 1989. Final, Statutory, October 5, 1989.


Abstract:


In the mid-1970s, Congress recognized the obligation of the United 
States to respond to the American Indian peoples' strong desire for 
self-determination and ensured maximum American Indian participation in 
the provision of Federal services to American Indian communities. In 
1975, the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (the 
Act) was enacted to help facilitate an orderly transition from Federal 
domination to effective and meaningful participation by the American 
Indian people in the planning, conduct, and administration of American 
Indian programs and services. The Act permitted tribes to take over, by 
contracting with the BIA, the administration and operation of Federal 
programs designed for the benefit of American Indians. Although the 
tribes welcomed this opportunity to administer and govern their own 
programs, the methods and procedures that have been used by BIA used to 
implement the Act generally have been met with much resistance from 
tribes and tribal organizations.


The Act was amended in 1988 to eliminate problems and obstacles 
experienced under the original Act of 1975. For example, the amendments 
were designed, among other things, to help tribes with administrative 
and operating costs under contracts and reduce delays in the contract 
award process. The amendments also provided for improved technical 
assistance and increases in planning activities.


DOI and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a 
joint rulemaking on January 20, 1994. During the comment period, DOI 
and HHS held three regional and one national meeting with tribes to 
discuss their concerns with the proposed rule. DOI and HHS currently 
are examining options and planning procedures to promote tribal 
participation throughout the development of the final rule. For 
example, DOI and HHS have extended the comment period for 90 days, and 
a process is being developed under the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
to ensure that tribes can participate in the development of the final 
rule. Participation by American Indians should result, over the long 
term, in a less burdensome rule for tribal contractors and improved 
relationships between the Federal agencies and their American Indian 
constituencies.


Statement of Need:


The 1988 amendments required DOI to promulgate regulations implementing 
the amendments. Moreover, the legislative history accompanying the 
amendments suggests that these regulations be developed jointly with 
HHS.


Alternatives:


This regulation is required by statute. Alternative approaches were 
considered for many of the provisions, however, and discussions of some 
of these can be found in the proposed regulation.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


A provision in the Act states that the amount of funds provided under 
the terms of self-determination contracts shall not be less than the 
appropriate Secretary would have provided for the operation of the 
programs. Consequently, cost savings are generally indirect and are 
derived from the benefits to tribes of contracting under the Act.


The benefits of contracting by tribes include allowing tribes to plan 
and conduct programs based on tribal priorities, needs and desires 
resulting in improved programs, and programs more responsive to tribal 
members; providing the opportunity for tribal leadership to serve in a 
substantive or meaningful manner, and so promoting stability of tribal 
governments that serve well; and increased employment opportunities for 
tribal members and upgraded skill levels on the reservations.


The cost savings resulting from improved program operations is likely 
to be more service per dollar spent, a reduction in unemployment rates 
and welfare or general assistance rolls. Moreover, good program 
operations reduce the need for training and technical assistance to 
tribes, especially those with stable tribal governments and good 
program management and administration.


Risks:


Not applicable.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            59 FR 3166                                     01/20/94
NPRM Comment Period End                                        08/20/94
Final Action                                                   06/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


None


Government Levels Affected:


Tribal, Federal


Additional Information:


This rule combined the current 25 CFR parts 271, 272, 274, 275, 276, 
277 and 278. Comment period for proposed rule was extended from 5/20/94 
to 8/20/94 to accommodate national and tribal meetings.


Agency Contact:
Jim Thomas
Chief, Indian Self Determination
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Room 4627-MIB
1849 C Street NW.
Washington, DC 20240
202 208-5727
RIN: 1076-AC20
_______________________________________________________________________
DOI--Bureau of Reclamation (RB)
            ___________________________________________________________
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
85. REGULATIONS FOR ADMINISTERING ENTITLEMENTS TO COLORADO RIVER WATER 
IN THE LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
Legal Authority:


 31 USC 1535; 31 USC 1536; 31 USC 6505


CFR Citation:


 43 CFR 415


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Colorado River water has been apportioned for consumptive use among 
water users with valid water rights within the States of Arizona, 
California, and Nevada. This rule would amend current rules for 
apportioning water from the lower Colorado River basin. The principal 
data analyzed prior to writing the rule were the records of diversions, 
return flow, and consumptive use of Colorado River water. Reclamation 
is obligated to prepare and maintain records of this information 
pursuant to a 1964 decree by the U.S. Supreme Court in Arizona v. 
California. Reclamation determined what information is necessary and 
obtained approval from Office of Management and Budget for the 
collection of this information. Reclamation also reviewed each lower 
basin State's water use and projected future use and concluded that a 
failure by the United States to take action to eliminate diversion of 
water by illegal diverters would harm legal entitlement holders. Thus, 
the initial purpose of the rule was to establish a method to eliminate 
illegal diversion of Colorado River water.


The Lower Colorado Region began compiling a mailing list of known and 
potentially interested parties when the rule was in preliminary draft 
stage. The draft rule has been distributed to water users and all then-
known and potentially interested parties on three occasions: May 1991, 
December 1992, and May 1994. The region held a series of public 
meetings at nine locations in Arizona, Nevada, and California from June 
14-30, 1994. Advance notice of the meetings was sent to all known and 
potentially interested parties. The list of parties includes both 
traditional and nontraditional constituents. These meetings were held 
to tell the public why the rule is needed, summarize the major 
provisions, and explain how they would be able to review and comment on 
it when the rulemaking process advances to the stage of a proposed 
rule.


Reclamation will expand the outreach program during the public comment 
period that may be extended to 6 months. A series of public hearings on 
the rule will be held during the public comment period and Reclamation 
will meet with interested water districts, cities, other water users, 
or public interest groups.


As a result of the outreach, Reclamation has broadened its perspective 
to take other interests into consideration. For example, Reclamation 
has agreed to do a programmatic environmental impact statement, rather 
than a less extensive environmental assessment, on the effect of the 
draft rule. Portions of the draft rule, such as criteria for water 
conservation plans, will be reviewed and may be revised to accommodate 
specific needs of water users. Provisions such as nonuse of 
entitlements and the leasing, marketing and banking of saved water are 
being revaluated based on comments from the lower basin States, water 
users, and environmental interests.


Reclamation is committed to fulfilling the Secretary's obligations as 
water master of the lower Colorado River but will keep a flexible 
approach in the rulemaking process and seek to obtain a consensus among 
the lower basin States to the extent possible.


Statement of Need:


The Secretary of the Interior is obligated, by the Boulder Canyon 
Project Act and a 1963 opinion and 1964 decree of the Supreme Court in 
Arizona v. California, to manage the Colorado River in the lower 
Colorado River basin (Lower Basin) and administer Lower Basin water 
entitlements. Demand for scarce Colorado River water is expected to 
exceed supply in the near future and not all water use is in compliance 
with the Supreme Court's decree. The rule will provide the United 
States the legal framework to enforce actions to eliminate unauthorized 
water use and provide maximum flexibility for entitlement holders to 
negotiate voluntary water transfers for the resolution of local water 
resource problems and demands.


The regulation will benefit the public several ways. Persons or 
entities with legal water entitlements will have their rights protected 
by the elimination of illegal diversions. A more secure water supply 
will provide a major economic benefit to the lower basin States and 
give communities and individual landowners more reliable water supplies 
that will provide a more secure basis on which to make economic 
decisions. Water users with increasing water demands will have a means 
to obtain increased water supplies to meet those demands through 
voluntary water transactions under which water may be transferred to a 
higher value use. Public interest will be protected by ensuring that 
any proposed transfer of water to a different place of use will be 
analyzed, prior to approval by Reclamation, to ensure mitigation for 
impacts on the environment or third parties. Water saved through 
conservation or land fallowing may be purchased by Federal, State, or 
private parties for environmental purposes. The rule will also require 
water users to advance funds to cover the cost of operation and 
maintenance (O&M) services now performed by the Bureau of Reclamation 
through use of appropriated funds.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


DOI is required to manage the lower Colorado River pursuant to, among 
other authorities, the Colorado River Compact of 1922, the Boulder 
Canyon Project Act of 1929, and the Supreme Court opinion in Arizona v. 
California, et al., 373 U.S. 546 (1963) and supplemental decrees 
related to that opinion.


Alternatives:


This regulation documents existing criteria for obtaining entitlements 
to, and making beneficial consumptive use of, Colorado River water. 
Some of these criteria are contained in court orders and statutes. The 
rule is designed to provide a uniform system of structure and control 
to help eliminate prohibited uses and, with the exception of a few 
provisions, does not contain new requirements. Alternatives to the rule 
would be no action, a simpler rule, or a different rulemaking approach.


No action was not a realistic alternative because the Secretary of the 
Interior is responsible for managing Colorado River water entitlements 
in the lower basin. The U.S. Supreme Court obligated the Secretary to 
prepare and maintain records of diversions, return flow, and 
consumptive use of Colorado River water. The Secretary would be unable 
to responsibly manage this resource if a procedure is not established 
to eliminate illegal diversions and thereby protect the rights of 
junior right holders. Without a rule, the United States would incur 
greater costs in trying to eliminate illegal diversions of water and 
may not be able to enforce actions that would need to be taken to 
protect legitimate entitlement holders.


A simpler rule would ignore issues that need to be addressed. At 
present, there is no formal written statement of existing management 
and operational requirements and guidelines for use of Colorado River 
water in the lower Colorado River basin. The rule will provide the 
equivalent of a State water code that addresses such basic water issues 
as how to obtain, transfer, or assign a water entitlement. It will 
provide guidance for the development of voluntary water transactions 
such as leases, wheeling, water banking, and marketing that will enable 
water resource and supply problems to be resolved on a local basis.


Another alternative is a negotiated rulemaking approach. Reclamation 
did not choose this approach because of the large number of parties 
involved and a history of the lower basin States being unable to agree 
on key river management issues for over 70 years. Nevertheless, 
Reclamation is making the current rulemaking procedure more flexible by 
allowing time for the lower basin States and Indian tribes with 
reserved water rights to meet and try to work out alternative solutions 
to some of the more controversial issues.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The estimated cost of developing and implementing the rule is $200,000. 
The total cost as of July 14, 1994, is $119,786.07. The estimated cost 
for continued development and implementation of a final rule by the end 
of fiscal year 1995 is $80,000. Annual costs to administer the rule, 
beginning in fiscal year 1996, are estimated to be $40,000 and will 
increase to $60,000 after 10-15 years due to increased involvement by 
the water conservation center at that time.


The primary economic benefit of the rule will be the collection of 
funds advanced to the United States by water users to cover the cost of 
O&M services performed by the Bureau of Reclamation for the benefit of 
the water users. Reclamation will collect $11 million annually from the 
water users and the funds advanced will be deposited in the Reclamation 
Fund for O&M to the credit of the O&M appropriation. Reclamation's 
expectation is that funds advanced by water users may be expended by 
Reclamation for the same purposes and in the same manner as funds 
appropriated under the O&M appropriation, and will reduce the need for 
appropriations from Congress to fund these activities.


Risks:


The Secretary would not be able to fulfill his obligation to manage the 
lower Colorado River and protect legitimate water entitlements if there 
is no formal rule to prevent illegal diversions. An inability to stop 
unauthorized use of water may subject the United States to claims for 
damages from legitimate entitlement holders who are prevented from 
using all water to which they are legally entitled.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           56 FR 16291                                    04/22/91
NPRM                                                           10/00/94
NPRM Comment Period End                                        03/00/95
Final Action                                                   09/00/95
Final Action Effective                                         10/00/95
Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Federal


Agency Contact:
Dale Ensminger
Repayment Specialist
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Reclamation
P.O. Box 61470
Attn: LC-449
Boulder City, NV 89006-1470
702 293-8659
RIN: 1006-AA24
_______________________________________________________________________
DOI--Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
            ___________________________________________________________
FINAL RULE STAGE
            ___________________________________________________________
86. GRAZING ADMINISTRATION EXCLUSIVE OF ALASKA
Legal Authority:


 43 USC 315; 43 USC 1701 et seq


CFR Citation:


 43 CFR 4100; 43 CFR 4; 43 CFR 1784


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule will amend many of the current provisions for the management 
of the public rangelands, including establishing appropriate fees for 
livestock grazing, providing for nonmonetary settlement for 
unauthorized grazing use determined by the BLM to have resulted from 
circumstances beyond the control of the permittee or lessee, providing 
for public participation in management of public rangelands, and 
providing for the development of standards and guidelines to be met in 
the administration of livestock grazing. The rule also will amend many 
of the current provisions for the formation, structure, and roles of 
advisory councils.


Statement of Need:


The intent of the proposed changes is to make the BLM's rangeland 
management program more consistent with that of the Forest Service, 
make BLM grazing administration more compatible with ecosystem 
management, accelerate restoration and improvement of public rangelands 
to proper functioning condition, obtain for the public a fair payment 
for grazing livestock on the public lands, streamline administrative 
functions, and consider the needs of local communities for open space 
and their dependence on livestock grazing.


The need for these actions has been identified in various BLM reviews 
and numerous audits performed by the Interior Office of the Inspector 
General and the General Accounting Office. These reviews and audits 
have found that rangeland ecosystems are not functioning properly in 
many areas of the West, riparian areas are depleted, some upland areas 
produce far below their potential, and the public is not receiving its 
fair share for grazing upon Federal lands.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


BLM is responsible under section 303(a) of FLPMA for the management, 
use, and protection of the public lands and their resources, including 
public lands and minerals open to mining claim location under the 
Mining Law of 1872. With respect to these public lands and resources, 
no other agency or entity is authorized to undertake these actions on 
behalf of the United States.


Alternatives:


In developing the proposed rule, five management and seven fee options 
were examined. A detailed discussion of these alternatives is available 
in the draft environmental impact statement accompanying the rule. The 
management alternatives include: No action or the continuation of 
current management; the proposed action, much of which is incorporated 
in the proposed rule; livestock production; environmental enhancement; 
and no grazing. The fee options include: the current formula; two 
modifications of the current formula; the proposed formula of a $3.96 
base value adjusted annually by an index reflecting the market value of 
forage, plus a provision for a 30 percent reduction to recognize 
instances of exemplary stewardship; a formula based on suggestions of 
the Western Livestock Producers Alliance and High Country Citizens 
Alliance, regionally set fees based on the 1983 federal land forage 
appraisal, and competitive bidding. The fee options considered range 
from an estimated $1.86 per animal unit month (AUM) under the current 
formula, to $11.08 per animal unit month for the highest regional fee.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Under the rule as proposed, the current forage fee of $1.98 per AUM 
would increase to $3.96 per AUM. This increase would be phased in over 
3 years. Thereafter, changes in the grazing fee would be linked to 
changes in the forage value index, and these changes would be limited 
to plus or minus 25 percent of the previous year's fee. It is estimated 
that funds available for the Rangeland Betterment Fund would increase 
by 82 percent under the proposed rule, whereas the funds available 
would decrease by 21 percent if the grazing fee remains constant.


Under the proposed rule, authorized livestock forage would be 3 percent 
less after 20 years than under the current rules. This decline is based 
upon trends during the past 10 years and upon specific actions in the 
proposed rule, which would reduce allocated forage in the short term. 
In the long term, however, forage reduction under the proposed rule and 
under current management practices would be virtually identical. 
Consequently, impacts on employment and income under the proposed rule 
would be greater in the short term than under current rules, but would 
be the same as under current rules in the long term. Ranch employment 
and income, which has been declining as the Western economy evolves and 
grows, could continue to decline under the proposed rule, but this 
decline should be relatively minor compared to growth in other sectors.


Upland acres in functioning condition would increase by about 55 
percent whereas, under the current rules, functioning upland acreage 
would increase by about 30 percent. Roughly 43 percent of BLM riparian 
areas would be functioning--an increase of 27 percent from 1993. Under 
current rules, functioning riparian areas would decrease by 3 percent. 
The proposed rule also would substantially improve upland watershed, 
vegetation, and wildlife conditions. This, in turn, would improve 
recreational opportunities for fishing, boating, swimming, wildlife 
observation, and wilderness studies.


Risks:


Although there is a potential for some decline in employment and income 
in the ranching industry, these have been on the decline already, and 
the rapidly changing Western economy generally overshadows these 
declines. In the absence of reforms, there is risk that unhealthy 
rangelands will not improve--resulting in increased costs for 
rehabilitation and the protection of critical resources (e.g., 
threatened or endangered species habitat). Also, in the absence of 
reforms, the public will not receive fair payment for the use of its 
public lands by livestock producers.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           58 FR 43208                                    08/13/93
ANPRM Comment Pe58 FR 43208                                    09/13/93
NPRM            59 FR 14314                                    03/25/94
NPRM Comment Per59 FR 38153                                    09/09/94
Final Action                                                   12/00/94
Small Entities Affected:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
George Ramey
Range Conservationist
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
1849 C Street NW.
Washington, DC 20240
202 452-7740
RIN: 1004-AB89
BILLING CODE 4310-RK-F