Management of Grazing Use Within Rangeland Ecosystems

SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture proposes to revise the National

Forest System rangeland management regulations to update direction for

management of domestic livestock, to place grater emphasis on

stewardship of the rangeland resource, to clarify the link between the

livestock grazing permit and forest plans, and to clarify the range

management planning and decisionmaking process. In addition, the

Department proposes to improve administration of livestock grazing

permits, and to achieve greater consistency between the grazing

management regulations of the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land

Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. The intended effect of

this proposed rule is to provide for healthy, diverse, sustainable

rangeland ecosystems on National Forest System lands.

By separate rule published elsewhere in this separate part of the

Federal Register, the Forest Service is proposing a revised system for

determining livestock grazing fees on National Forest System lands and

other lands under Forest Service control.

DATES: Comments must be received in writing by July 28, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Rangeland Reform '94, P.O. Box

66300, Washington, DC 20035-6300.

Comments on the proposed rule will be made available for public

inspection during the 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 Forest Service.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David M. Stewart, Range Management Staff, (202) 205-1746.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The existing rule governing rangeland management and livestock use

on National Forest System lands and other lands under Forest Service

control (36 CFR part 222, subpart A) provides guidance for management

of the range environment and addresses the issuance and modification of

grazing and livestock use permits, compensation for permittees'

interest in authorized permanent improvements, cooperation in

management, rangeland improvements, the use of the range betterment

fund, and grazing advisory boards. The current rule was adopted October

28, 1977 (42 FR 56732).

As required by Departmental Regulation 1512-1, Forest Service

personnel involved with rangeland management participated in a review

of the existing grazing regulations in 1987. This review identified

some parts of the existing regulations that required revision and

clarification, and other parts that were outdated and required removal.

In addition, several issues not covered by the regulations were

identified that need to be addressed in the rules. The Forest Service

published a proposed rule responding to the findings of the review on

August 16, 1988 (53 FR 30954). That proposed rule was not finalized,

but principal features of and comments received on that proposed rule

have been considered in the current effort to identify needed changes

to the rangeland management and grazing regulations.

The 1990 RPA Program, entitled ``The Forest Service Program for

Forest and Rangeland Resource,'' states the following: ``The condition

of public rangeland is better today than it has been at any other time

this century. However, the Forest Service is deeply concerned about

those rangelands in unsatisfactory condition, which, in 1989, consisted

of 27 percent of all suitable National Forest System rangeland acres.''

The 1990 RPA Program further discussed the role of rangelands in

providing forage, habitat, water, recreational opportunities, and open

space and signaled the agency's commitment to improve rangeland

conditions and management.

More recently, the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of

the Interior sponsored a series of public meetings on livestock grazing

on federal lands. Issues and concerns raised at those meetings have

provided additional momentum to develop grazing regulations that are

more responsive to the current need for improved management of

rangeland resources.

Accordingly, on Friday, August 13, 1993, an advance notice of

proposed rulemaking (ANPR) was published in the Federal Register, (58

FR 43202), in which the Department of Agriculture gave notice of its

intent to revise its grazing and livestock use and grazing fee (36 CFR

222 subpart A and subpart C) rules to respond to the Administration's

commitment to implement federal rangeland management reform. The

Department of the Interior issued an ANPR concurrent (58 FR 43208) with

the Department of Agriculture's in which it announced its proposed

grazing regulation changes for BLM lands, including the grazing fee

system.

A total of about 12,600 letters were received on the ANPR's

published by the Department of the Interior and the Department of

Agriculture. These letters included over 56,000 separate comments on

various aspects of grazing administration and fees. The greatest number

of comments addressed possible changes in the grazing fee. Comments

also identified a need for protection of rangeland ecosystems through

an ecosystem approach to management and the use of locally developed

standards and guidelines. Other concerns included the suitability of

land for grazing and the need for balance between livestock grazing and

other forest uses with the ability to implement and enforce the

necessary management. A healthy and productive human environment with

opportunities for public participation in planning decisions also

received support from many respondents. Also, frequently noted in the

comments was the longstanding role of land steward played by grazing

permittees. A large number of comments highlighted the need for

consistency between regulations of the Bureau of Land Management and

the Forest Service.

Based on the comment received on the ANPR, the Secretary of

Agriculture has decided to separate the rulemaking for grazing fees

from the rulemaking for other grazing and livestock use proposals

identified in the ANPR. Comments on the grazing fee portion of the ANPR

will be considered in the development of the final grazing fee rule.

Reviewers need not resubmit comments they filed on the Department of

Agriculture's ANPR in order for them to be considered by the agency in

the preparation of the final rule. All comments received on the

Department of Agriculture's ANPR and this proposed rule will be

considered in the preparation of a final rule.

Also, by separate rule, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is

proposing a revision of their grazing management regulations and a

revised system for determining livestock grazing fees on the public

lands they administer. The fee system proposed by the BLM is similar to

that proposed by the Forest Service.

Proposed Revisions to 36 CFR Part 222, Subpart A

The rules of Subpart A currently focus exclusively on issuance and

administration of livestock grazing permits. Under the proposed rule,

this Subpart would be retitled ``Management of Grazing Use Within

Rangeland Ecosystems'' signaling the Department's intent to plan for

rangeland activities and to regulate grazing use within an ecosystem

management framework. In addition, the structure of the Subpart would

be extensively revised to improve the flow and order of the text. To

assist readers, a redesignation table which shows the disposition of

provisions of the current rule is set out at the end of this preamble.

Finally, extensive editorial revisions have been made to existing

provisions to improve clarity of the rule, to remove gender specific

pronoun references, to remove passive voice, and to correct spelling

and punctuation.

A discussion of the proposal, keyed to the section numbers of the

proposed rule, follows.

Proposed Section 222.1--Purpose and Scope

This section sets forth the purpose of the rule as governing

domestic livestock grazing on National Forest System lands and other

lands under Forest Service control. The scope of the rule, as described

in this proposed section, is to specifically address decision points

related to NEPA procedures for determining suitability for and

authorization of grazing use and to address specific and general

requirements and standards related to the issuance and administration

of grazing permits.

Proposed Section 222.2--Definitions

In the current rule, definitions are set out in Sec. 222.1 entitled

``Authority and definitions.'' Because existing paragraph (a) of

Sec. 222.1 is a restatement of the authority delegated to the Chief of

the Forest Service by the Assistant Secretary at 7 CFR 2.60, this

paragraph would be removed and Sec. 222.2 would be limited solely to

definitions.

Under this proposed rule, a number of terms would be added,

revised, or removed.

Terms Proposed To Be Added

The following terms and their definitions would be added:

1. The term affiliates is used to denote entities that have a

business relationship with permit applicants or holders. The term is

used in proposed Sec. 222.7 in relation to determinations that the

applicants have satisfactory records of performance. The definition is

derived from the definition of affiliation used by the Small Business

Administration and found at 13 CFR 121.3.

2. The term authorized officer needs to be defined because it is

used throughout the subpart. The term and the definition is consistent

with the use of this term under 36 CFR part 251, which governs

administration of special use authorizations.

3. The term escrow waiver is used within the subpart and needs to

be defined. The term has been used by permittees and the Forest Service

since 1938. The definition in the proposed rule is derived from the

definition currently found in the Forest Service Grazing Permit

Administration Handbook 2209.13, Chapter 10 (36 CFR part 200).

4. The term National Forest System lands in the Eastern States

would be added for ease of reference and to distinguish certain

livestock management provisions that apply solely in the Western United

States.

5. Where grazing permit requirements apply only to lands in the

Western United States, the term National Forest System lands in the

Western States would be added.

6. The term NEPA procedures is used throughout the subpart to refer

to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

7. A definition of rangelands would be added to reflect that

rangelands are a category of land, not a type of use. This proposed

definition of rangelands is derived from the definition provided by the

Society for Range Management following consultations with the Soil

Conservation Service and the Bureau of Land Management. This definition

is qualified to note that rangelands may include other lands that do

not fall within the technical definition of rangelands if there is

grazing activity by wild and domestic herbivores on these lands.

8. The term rangeland improvement is used to denote any structural

or nonstructural improvements which occur on or benefit rangelands.

9. The term unauthorized use would be added to define all livestock

use except for certain temporary livestock uses explicitly provided for

in the rule that is not authorized by a grazing permit.

Proposed Revisions of Existing Terms

The following terms in the current rule are proposed to be revised:

1. The definition of allotment management plan would be limited to

defining allotment management plans and removes regulatory text that is

inappropriately included as part of the definition in the current rule.

While under proposed Sec. 222.3 the agency is proposing to eliminate

allotment management plans, the term is needed to address authorization

of grazing within the transitional procedures established in this

section of the proposed rule.

2. The definition of base property would be slightly reworded for

clarity with no change in meaning.

3. The definition of grazing permit would be revised for clarity.

4. The term 16 contiguous Western States would be reworded for

clarity and brevity.

5. The definition of livestock would be clarified by specifying

that the term means foraging animals and by adding that the animals are

raised for livestock production.

6. The definition of National Forest System lands would be revised

to conform to the statutory definition found in 16 U.S.C. 1609.

7. The definition of other lands under Forest Service control would

be shortened and clarified by substituting the words ``other means''

for ``otherwise.''

8. The definition of permitted livestock would be expanded to

include those livestock grazed under a permit during the preceding

season, including offspring retained for herd replacement. This change

reflects the current practice of recognizing these animals as permitted

livestock when approving waivers of permits based on the sale of

permitted livestock.

9. The definition of range betterment fund is shortened and makes

clear that the funds are available for range rehabilitation,

protection, and improvement.

10. The definition of transportation livestock would be expanded to

include other lands under Forest Service control.

Terms Proposed To Be Removed

The following terms found in the current rule are not included in

the proposed rule:

1. The term livestock use permit would be removed since this type

of use would be covered through a temporary permit as described in

Sec. 222.6.

2. The definitions of the terms temporary grazing permit, term

permits, on-and-off grazing permits, and private land grazing permits

would be removed since they can be defined and better understood in the

context of the rule.

3. The definitions of cancel, modify, on-the-ground expenditure,

suspend, and term period would be removed since the meanings of these

terms are easily understood from common usage and in the context of the

regulation.

4. The definitions of person, land subject to commercial livestock

grazing, and range betterment would be removed as these terms would no

longer be used in the regulatory text with special meanings.

Proposed Section 222.3--Framework for Rangeland Planning and Decisions

This section of the proposed rule provides the context in which

plans and decisions regarding rangeland management on National Forest

System lands are made. This includes the decision to authorize grazing.

This section would adopt the two-tiered planning and decisionmaking

framework established by the Chief of the Forest Service through two

key administrative appeal decisions (Panhandle LRMP Appeal #2130,

August 15, 1988, p. 7 and Flathead LRMP Appeals #1467 and #1513, August

31, 1988, p. 8) and subsequently endorsed by the United States Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Idaho Conservation League vs. Mumma,

956 F.2d 1508 (9th Cir. 1992).

Specifically, proposed paragraph (a) would recognize that rangeland

planning and decisions occur through the land and resource management

planning process set out in 36 CFR part 219 and that forest plans,

establish the programmatic direction for rangeland management on the

forest which includes goals, objectives, standards, guidelines, and an

identification of lands suitable for livestock grazing. Finally,

proposed paragraph (a) makes clear that a determination in the forest

plan that lands are suitable for grazing is not a decision to authorize

grazing. This latter declaration is included in the rule to eliminate

recurring permittee and public confusion over the distinction between a

grazing suitability determination and a grazing authorization decision.

The first determination--the suitability of lands for grazing--must be

made before a decision to authorize grazing can be made, but a grazing

suitability determination does not necessarily lead to a decision to

graze those lands. Even though lands may be suitable for grazing, other

resource objectives may take precedence over grazing livestock; for

example, protection needs of wildlife habitat might have a higher

priority in a given area and thus grazing use would be incompatible

with that objective.

While programmatic rangeland management direction is made in forest

plans, proposed paragraph (b) makes clear that, except as otherwise

provided in this section, a rangeland project decision would be

required when site-specific activities that implement management

direction in the forest plan are proposed. Examples of rangeland

project decisions given in the proposed rule include, but are not

limited to, maintenance or modification of specific plant communities

or riparian, aquatic, soil, or other resource conditions needed to

promote the achievement of goals and objectives of the forest plan;

rangeland improvements needed to promote the achievement of goals and

objectives of the forest plan; and authorization of livestock grazing,

where it is suitable and appropriate.

A significant aspect of the framework for planning and

decisionmaking as proposed in this rule is the streamlining and

simplification of rangeland planning. Under this proposed rule,

allotment management plans, currently prepared on an allotment-by-

allotment basis, would be eliminated. There has been considerable

permittee and internal agency confusion over how allotment management

plans fit into the agency's decisionmaking and environmental analysis

framework. These allotment management plans appear to create a middle

tier of planning and decisionmaking related to rangeland management

that does not conform to the two-tier planning and decisionmaking

process used in planning for all other forest resources. By eliminating

allotment management plans, the proposed rule would conform rangeland

management planning to the process applicable to all other uses and

thus, clarify when and where livestock grazing and livestock use

decisions are made. While the agency proposes to eliminate the use of

allotment management plans, the Forest Service still intends to fully

consult with and involve grazing permittees and other affected parties

in rangeland planning and decisionmaking as required in both NEPA and

the National Forest Management Act.

It is generally at the site-specific project level that

authorization of livestock grazing is made and the site-specific

environmental effects of alternatives are fully analyzed and disclosed.

For this reason, proposed paragraph (b)(l)(iii) specifies that, where a

rangeland project decision authorizes livestock grazing, the decision

must also specify the maximum permissible amount of grazing use, the

timing and duration of such use, and other appropriate livestock

management requirements or measures needed to promote the achievement

of goals and objectives of the forest plan. Further, paragraph (b)(3)

clarifies that where a rangeland project decision has been made that

authorizes livestock grazing, the timely issuance of the grazing permit

is an administrative act and not a separate decision subject to

additional NEPA analysis and disclosure. Inclusion of this provision is

intended to avoid any confusion about administrative appeal points and

to make clear that issuance of a grazing permit is not the decision

point, provided the grazing permit is issued within a reasonable

timeframe of the authorization decision and the environmental effects

disclosed in the rangeland project decision are still current.

Although a decision to authorize grazing use may be made in a

forest plan as long as there is adequate analysis and documentation of

the environmental effects, it is generally more practicable to make a

livestock grazing use decision and disclose the environmental effects

of grazing at the project decision level.

While the agency intends to move toward rangeland project

decisionmaking at broader ecological scales, these project level

decisions cannot be undertaken and completed immediately upon adoption

of the final rule. In light of the approximately 4500 Forest Service

grazing permits subject to renewal in 1995, transitional procedures are

thus needed to guide the agency over the short term. Under proposed

paragraph (c), the agency would utilize a screening approach that

permits a smooth transition for the reauthorization of grazing permits

and completion of rangeland project decisions. This approach balances

the interests of permittees with the need for compliance with

environmental law.

Proposed paragraphs (c)(1), (2), (3), and (4) address the

situations where a rangeland project decision to authorize grazing use

does not exist. Specifically, proposed paragraph (c)(1) would permit

the authorized officer to issue a term grazing permit for up to ten

years on allotments where there is a current allotment management plan

and where the NEPA documentation associated with that management plan

is also current. This provision is necessary since in many cases there

are current allotment plans that are consistent with forest plan

standards and guidelines and are sufficient to guide rangeland

management in the foreseeable future. This provision would allow for

the smooth transition from allotment management plans to rangeland

project decisions.

Proposed paragraph (c)(2) would permit the authorized officer to

issue a term grazing permit for up to ten years based on an approved

forest plan for allotments that are meeting, or moving toward

achievement of forest plan goals and objectives. In this situation, the

forest plan must contain applicable standards and guidelines that can

be incorporated as terms and conditions of the grazing permit and the

environmental effects of applying the standards and guidelines on the

land must be analyzed and disclosed pursuant to NEPA procedures.

However, if the allotment is meeting or moving toward achievement

of forest plan goals and objectives but the forest plan does not

contain applicable standards and guidelines that can be incorporated as

terms and conditions of the permit, the authorized officer would be

prohibited, pursuant to proposed paragraph (c)(3), from renewing or

issuing a new term permit of more than three years duration. In those

situations where allotments are meeting or moving toward achievement of

forest plan goals and objectives, paragraph (c)(3) would allow the

authorized officer to issue a term permit of up to three years duration

while the agency gathers information and conducts the necessary

analysis to determine if grazing should be authorized or a different

term should be established. Issuance of 1-3 year term permits in this

situation would require disclosure of the short term environmental

effects of grazing under the permit pursuant to NEPA procedures. This

term permit provision is needed to prevent undue impact on operators

who are in compliance with the terms and conditions of their permit.

Paragraph (c)(4) addresses those situations where allotments are

not meeting or moving toward forest plan goals and objectives. In this

situation, the authorized officer cannot issue a new ten year term

permit until a rangeland project decision and disclosure of

environmental effects are accomplished. However, the authorized officer

may issue a term permit for a period of up to three years until a

rangeland project decision is completed. The term permit to be issued

during this transition period must include applicable forest plan

standards and guidelines and/or any other measures necessary to move

management of the allotment toward forest plan goals and objectives.

Prior to issuance of the 1-3 year term permit, the environmental

effects of continuing grazing under the permit must be disclosed

pursuant to NEPA procedures. This term permit provision provides for

resource protection and prevents undue impact on operators while

rangeland project decisions are being prepared.

Fundamental to proposed paragraphs (c)2, 3, and 4, is the necessity

for the agency to make a determination as to whether management of a

given allotment is or is not meeting or moving toward forest plan goals

and objectives. The programmatic direction in forest plans establishes

goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines for management of the

resources on the National Forests, including management of rangelands.

Forest plan goals and objectives are designed to promote achievement of

desired resource conditions on the land. Site specific projects

implementing the forest plan must be consistent with forest plan

standards and guidelines, which provide for resource protection in the

achievement of forest plan goals and objectives. Under the transitional

procedures proposed in this section, agency employees would determine

whether management of an allotment is meeting or moving toward

achievement of forest plan goals and objectives through forest plan and

allotment monitoring and evaluation, allotment field inspections, other

existing resource information, and professional judgment.

The exhibit at the end of this document outlines the tiered

screening approach proposed in paragraphs (c)(1)-(4) to guide issuance

of grazing permits in compliance with NEPA procedures.

Additionally, the Klamath, Mendocino, Shasta-Trinity, and Six

Rivers National Forests in the state of California are without approved

forest plans. Under the provisions of the planning regulations (36 CFR

219.29) these national forests continue to be managed under existing

land use and resource plans. In such cases, provisions of proposed

paragraph (c)(1), (3), and (4) would provide a reasonable mechanism for

the continuation of livestock operations which are in compliance with

the terms and conditions of their permits.

The agency is committed to the long term improvement of rangeland

condition. Therefore, proposed paragraph (c)(5) would require the

authorized officer to develop and maintain a schedule for rangeland

project decisions and site specific disclosure of environmental effects

on affected allotments pursuant to NEPA procedures. These schedules

will be developed in consultation with grazing permittees and other

interested parties. Priority for scheduling the completion of rangeland

project decisions will be given to those areas with significant

resource concerns such as protection of threatened and endangered

species, riparian and aquatic habitat, and water quality. These

schedules are necessary to ensure an orderly transition for completion

of rangeland project decisions through both the short term (1-3 years)

and long term (10-13 years). It it not the intent of the transitional

procedures proposed in this section to avoid or delay the completion of

rangeland project decisions, but rather to complete rangeland project

decisions on all allotments within 13 years from the effective date of

the final rule.

Paragraph (c)(6) of this section clarifies that where grazing

permits are issued under the transitional procedures of paragraphs (c)

(1), (2), (3), and (4), the timely issuance of a grazing permit is an

administrative act and not a separate decision subject to additional

NEPA analysis and disclosure.

Paragraph (c)(7) of this section states that adoption of these

rules would not compel the agency to immediately initiate rangeland

project planning and decisionmaking. This provision is necessary to

prevent any claim or assertion that, upon the effective date of this

rule, the agency would intend to immediately initiate rangeland project

decisions for issuance or renewal of all grazing permits. This

provision also provides the necessary transitions from the current

allotment-by-allotment decisionmaking process to a more streamlined

process for future decisionmaking in an orderly and planned manner.

Paragraph (d) of Sec. 222.3 of the proposed rule requires the

authorized officer to delineate lands suitable and authorized for

grazing use into allotments. The introductory text retains the current

policy of including nonfederal lands in an allotment where doing so

would form logical management units. Proposed paragraph (d)(1) would

require that maps delineating allotments must be on file at the office

of the District Ranger. Proposed paragraph (d)(2) would make clear that

the delineation of allotments is merely an administrative act and not a

decision subject to further NEPA analysis for disclosure of

environmental effects. The intent is to eliminate confusion and future

disputes over the decision point, the requisite environmental

disclosure requirements, and administrative appeal opportunities.

In summary, proposed Sec. 222.3 would make clear that planning and

decisionmaking for National Forest System rangeland management,

including authorization of livestock grazing use, is a two-level

process, just as is the case for all other National Forest resources.

As a consequence, the agency would discontinue the use of the allotment

management plan. Additionally, this section signals the agency's intent

and provides the foundation for moving toward an ecological approach to

rangeland management decisions. Under an ecological approach, the

agency will seek to focus on appropriate larger geographic scales for

ecological analysis purposes, while incorporating and building on the

best science available to ensure the sustainability of the land to

continue to produce goods and services to meet public demand.

In the ANPR, the Department specifically asked the public for input

on appropriate scales of rangeland ecosystem analysis. Public comments

received support a broader scope of analysis and planning with

consideration of the human element of the ecosystem. However, mandating

a particular hierarchical level of analysis for planning is

inappropriate in this proposed rule on rangeland management. The

framework for overall agency land management planning and planning for

all resources must be set out in a cohesive and integrated way in the

agency's land management planning regulations in Part 219. Accordingly,

the comments received on the scales of rangeland ecosystem analysis and

planning in response to the ANPR on rangeland management will be

considered in the agency's development of a proposed revision of the

land management planning regulations, which is now underway.

Proposed Section 222.4--General Provisions Applicable to All Grazing

Permits.

This section of the proposed rule establishes some of the

fundamental ground rules governing grazing on National Forest System

land and other lands under Forest Service control.

Section 222.4(a) of the proposed rule is essentially the same as

Sec. 222.3(a) of the current rule and provides that grazing activities

require written authorization in the form of a grazing permit. Similar

to current practice, certain minor exceptions for temporary grazing are

allowed under proposed Sec. 222.6(c).

At Sec. 222.4(b), the proposed rules describes the permit as a

privilege subject to the terms and conditions contained therein. As in

the current rule, Sec. 222.3(b), proposed Sec. 222.4(b) states that the

grazing permit does not convey any right, title, or interest in United

States lands, resources, or permanent range improvements to the

permittee. This is entirely consistent with statutory and case law

which, for nearly a century has recognized grazing permits as a license

or privilege to use federal lands for grazing activities which can be

revoked at anytime without requiring the payment of compensation.

Proposed Sec. 222.4(c) states that the issuance of the grazing

permit implements an existing decision to authorize grazing and that

issuance of the permit is an administrative act that is not a decision

point subject to NEPA procedures as provided in Sec. 222.3(b)(3) of

this subpart. This provision is intended to eliminate the confusion of

permittees and the public regarding the role of the grazing permit in

management of National Forest System rangelands.

Proposed paragraph (d) would require the authorized officer to

prescribe the terms and conditions of each grazing permit in accordance

with applicable law and administrative direction. Paragraph (d)(1) of

Sec. 222.4 of the proposed rule parallels the intent of the current

rule at Sec. 222.2(c). However, in contrast to the current rule,

proposed paragraph (d)(1) makes clear that terms and conditions of the

permit include applicable standards and guidelines from the forest plan

and/or from applicable rangeland project decisions. This provision of

the proposed rule replaces the allotment management plan as the basis

of the terms and conditions of the permit and ties the permit terms and

conditions to the two-tiered planning and decisionmaking process, as

discussed earlier.

The current regulations recognize an allotment management plan

(AMP) as the mechanism for carrying out forest plan direction on a

grazing allotment. The proposed rule would phase out the AMP as a

source of direction for rangeland management and grazing use and,

instead, make applicable standards and guidelines from forest plans

and/or from applicable rangeland project decisions a part of the terms

and conditions of the grazing permit. This provision is significant in

that it would provide the means for ensuring that those current grazing

operations authorized without benefit of rangeland project decisions

would comply with the direction of forest plans. As previously noted,

many of those who submitted comments on the ANPR recommended adoption

of local standards and guidelines because they would be relevant to the

land being affected by the action. On National Forest System lands, the

forest plan and project decisions fulfill this role.

Under paragraph (d)(2) of Sec. 222.4 of the proposed rule, the

permittee may be required to collect and submit monitoring, inventory,

or other resource information related to the permitted livestock

grazing activity. Information of this nature is essential for

identifying progress toward forest plan goals and objectives and

changes in operational practices which may be necessary. This

information is vital to proper rangeland management and in some

instances the permittee is in a better position to gather the

information than the agency.

Paragraph (e) of Sec. 222.4 of the proposed rule allows the

authorized officer to issue written annual operating instructions that

document temporary stocking adjustments and/or provide additional

direction necessary for proper management of the range resource. While

not explicitly covered in the current rule, this is a long-standing

agency practice provided for in the agency's internal directive system

and in part 2 of the term grazing permit (Form FS-2222-10). Until now,

most written instructions have been contained in annual operating plans

provided to the permittees. These annual operating plans have been the

subject of increasing controversy over whether decisions made therein

are subject to NEPA procedures. Proposed paragraph (e) would make clear

that where operating instructions fall within the scope of the decision

authorizing the grazing use and NEPA documentation associated with that

decision, a new decision and additional analysis is not required. If,

however, they fall outside the scope of the decision authorizing

grazing use, additional environmental analysis would be required before

those annual operating instructions can be issued.

Annual adjustments documented in operating instructions would be

prepared with the involvement of the permittee. This approach conforms

to current practices and helps insure permittee involvement and mutual

understanding of rangeland management and operational objectives. The

agency believes the elimination of annual operating plans and the

adoption of operating instructions will reduce current confusion over

how grazing use decisions are made and lead to more uniform

understanding of grazing permit administration by both agency employees

and external groups who are interested in national forest rangeland

resources.

Proposed Section 222.5--Term Grazing Permits; Types and Duration

This section of the proposed rule describes the types of term

grazing permits which may be issued. This includes term permits, term

private land permits, term permits with on-and-off provisions, and

grazing agreements. These four types of permits are necessary because

of the various grazing use and land ownership patterns which occur on

National Forest System lands.

Proposed Sec. 222.5(a) contains descriptions of the various types

of term permits authorized. This same information is covered at

Sec. 223.3(c)(1) in the current rule and in the Forest Service

directives system. The types of term permits listed in the proposed

rule are the same as those provided in the current rule. This section

of the proposed rule contains no change in current practice and,

therefore, would have no effect on permittees.

Proposed paragraph (a)(1) covers the circumstances where a term

permit is appropriate. In addition, a provision for a term grazing

association permit, which is presently provided for in Forest Service

Manual (FSM) Chapter 2230, would be incorporated into the proposed

rule. Proposed paragraph (a)(2) describes a term private land permit

which is issued to a qualified applicant who owns or controls land

within an allotment. The permit waives exclusive grazing use of the

private land to the United States and in return the applicant is

authorized to graze livestock on the allotment. The amount of livestock

grazing use authorized in a term private land grazing permit is

determined by the authorized officer. A term permit with on-and-off

provisions described in proposed paragraph (a)(3) is issued when the

grazing area includes grazing lands other than the lands under Forest

System control. Under this type of permit, the livestock graze

concurrently on National Forest Service lands and other lands

controlled by the applicant. Proposed paragraph (a)(4) describes the

circumstances when a grazing agreement is appropriate.

Proposed Sec. 222.5(b) establishes the duration of term grazing

permits which, normally, is for a 10 year period. Proposed paragraph

(b)(1) contains direction presently found in Sec. 222.3(c)(1) of the

current rule which describes those instances when a term grazing permit

on National Forest land in the 16 contiguous Western States may be

issued for a period less than the maximum ten year time period as

provided for in FLPMA. Under proposed paragraph (b)(2) of this section,

the authorized officer may issue permits on all other National Forest

System lands or other lands under Forest Service control for up to a

ten year period as determined to be in the best interest of sound land

management.

Propsed Section 222.6--Authorization of Temporary Grazing

The proposed rule provides that, when term permits are not

appropriate for administration of livestock grazing, a paid or free

temporary permit can be issued or free grazing without a permit can be

allowed. Issuance of these permits or allowance of free use is

dependent upon the availability of forage.

Current regulations found in Sec. 222.3(c)(2) provide for either a

temporary or a livestock use permit depending on the particular

situation. Section 222.3(c)(2)(i) provides for temporary grazing

permits to be issued for a period of up to one year for a variety of

purposes. Section 222.3(c)(2)(ii) provides for the issuance of

livestock use permits for periods up to one year for a variety of

purposes.

Using two types of permits to cover temporary livestock grazing

uses is often confusing and requires maintenance and use of two

policies and procedures, applications, and permits. Thus, the

Department proposes to eliminate livestock use permits, combine them

with temporary permits, and extend the term period for temporary

permits for up to three years. These changes will streamline and

simplify the issuance of temporary permits.

The proposed rule eliminates the provision in the current rule at

Sec. 222.3(c)(2)(ii)(D) for free livestock grazing use for persons who

reside on ranch or agricultural lands within or contiguous to National

Forest System lands for not to exceed 10 head of owned or kept

livestock whose products are consumed or whose services are used

directly by the family of the resident who distinctly needs National

Forest System lands to support such animals. The proposed rule does not

retain this provision since a review of permit administration revealed

no use of or need for this authority.

Paragraphs (a)(1)-(4) of Sec. 222.6 of the proposed rule provide

the same requirements as found in the current rule at

Sec. 222.3(c)(2)(i)(A)-(D) for the issuance of temporary permits for a

variety of purposes. The proposed rule makes not substantive change

from the current rule; however, the text of these paragraphs is revised

and reduced for clarification.

The current rule specifies that temporary permits may be issued in

times of national or regional drought or emergency where such use would

not result in permanent resource damage. This provision is retained in

this proposed rule at Sec. 222.6(a)(5), but is revised. Limiting this

provision to drought or emergency that is ``national or regional

scope'' is excessive to the qualifications established for temporary

grazing use of other lands by permitted livestock from an affected

allotment. Additionally, the qualifying phrase ``* * * where such use

would not result in permanent resource damage,'' would be removed since

this qualification is unnecessary. Part of a determination that the

capacity exists to graze animals is that any such grazing use permitted

will be done in accordance with appropriate standards and guidelines in

a forest plan or rangeland project decision to prevent resource damage.

Paragraphs (a)(6) and (a)(7) of Sec. 222.6 of the proposed rule

provide the same requirements as found in the current rule at

Sec. 222.3(c)(2)(ii) (A) and (H), concerning temporary permits for

transportation livestock an animals used for breeding purposes. The

proposed rule makes no substantive changes from the current rule;

however, the text of these paragraphs is revised and reduced for

clarification.

The current rule at Sec. 222.3(c)(2)(ii)(C) allows free or paid

permits for trailing livestock that graze along the way as they cross

National Forest System lands. Issuing free permits for such use is not

in the public interest and must be closely administered to prevent

excessive use and potential resource damage. As a result, the proposed

rule at Sec. 222.6(a)(8) would allow authorized officers to issue only

paid temporary permits for trailing livestock across National Forest

System lands and other lands under Forest Service control. This should

not result in a substantial increase in the cost of business since, in

many instances, there may be alternatives to trailing that do not

require the payment of a grazing fee.

Paragraph (b) of this proposed section would allow an authorized

officer the discretion to issue free or paid temporary permits where

the primary documented objective is managing vegetation to meet a

resource objective other than livestock forage utilization. Where the

primary land management objective is to ``manipulate vegetation'' (as

opposed to livestock production), the current regulations at

Sec. 222.3(c)(2)(ii)(I) require that a fee be charged for this use. The

agency believes this fee requirement is an impediment to effective

vegetative management. In some areas, vegetation, such as chaparral, is

best managed by grazing livestock. Permitting free use could be a cost-

effective way to manage fuelbreaks, tree plantations, or other areas

where it is desirable to remove vegetation periodically. In these

situations, grazing can be used instead of more costly methods

involving herbicides, fire, or mowing. The temporary permits for

vegetation management issued under this authority would not replace

existing grazing permits where the primary purpose if livestock

production and the permittee pays a fee.

The current rule at Sec. 222.3(c)(2)(ii)(E) provides for free

permits to campers and travelers for the livestock used during the

period of occupancy. This same provision is carried forth into the

proposed rule at paragraph (c)(1) of proposed Sec. 222.6. Livestock use

under this provision does not included livestock being used by campers

and travelers permitted under the provisions of paragraph (a)(6) of

this section which covers use by transportation livestock for

commercial purposes.

The current rule at Sec. 222.3(c)(2)(ii)(B) allows for free or paid

grazing for research purposes and administrative studies but requires

the issuance of a permit. Under the proposed rule at Sec. 222.6(c)(2),

authorized offices may provide for this type of grazing use free of

charge without a written permit. Experience shows that the amount of

grazing permitted under this authority is insignificant. Most of the

livestock involved in such studies are owned by permitted and are

authorized and paid for under a term grazing permit. Where a university

or other research entity owns or borrows the livestock used in a study,

it is in the interest of the United States to allow such use free of

charge and without a written permit, since the public will benefit from

the information gained from the research.

Paragraph (c)(3) of proposed Sec. 222.6 would allow authorized

officers to grant free grazing with no permit to permittees for horses,

mules, or burros that are used to support the management of permitted

livestock. This type of free grazing use is appropriate when the animal

is not grazed full time on the allotment but is used occasionally as a

work animal during the grazing season. This is a revision of the

provision of the current rule at Sec. 222.3(c)(2)(ii)(F), which allows

for this type of permitted use on either a free or paid basis.

Proposed Section 222.7--Requirements Applicable to Grazing Permits

This section of the proposed rule contains the requirements which

must be met in order to hold a term or temporary grazing permit.

Proposed paragraph (a) lists the requirements for term and temporary

grazing permits while paragraph (b) covers all additional requirements

applicable specifically to term permits. The proposed rule is similar

in content to the current rule at Sec. 222.3(c)(1) and existing agency

direction with two primary differences. First, the proposed

requirements would enable foreign corporations to hold grazing permits,

and second, this proposed rule would establish a satisfactory record of

performance under previous or currently held federal grazing permits as

a requirement for the issuance or renewal of a grazing permit.

Proposed Sec. 222.7(a)(1) would limit issuing term and temporary

grazing permits to private individuals, grazing associations and

districts, business concerns, or tribal governments, making it clear

that government agencies are not eligible to receive term or temporary

grazing permits. This is consistent with Sec. 222.3(c)(1) of the

current rule.

Paragraph (a)(2) of Sec. 222.7 of the proposed rule requires

eligible individuals or entities seeking a grazing permit to make

written application, using one of the forms listed in Sec. 222.12.

Currently this requirement is established in the Forest Service Grazing

Permit Administration Handbook, FSH 2209.13, section 14, which provides

that applicants must submit an application and any other information

requested by the authorized officer in order for the officer to

determine that all permit requirements have been satisfied. This

requirement belongs with other requirements in the rules rather in

agency directives.

Paragraph (a)(3) of Sec. 222.7 of the proposed rule requires that

applicants, permittee(s), and affiliates(s), have a satisfactory record

of performance under previous or currently held federal grazing permits

to be eligible for a permit. An applicant, permittee, or affiliate, if

any, with a history of prior grazing use on federal lands that has had

a Forest Service grazing permit canceled, in whole, pursuant to

Sec. 222.10(b) (2), (3), (4), or (5), or other federal grazing permits

cancelled for similar reasons within 36 months prior to application,

would be presumed to have an unsatisfactory performance record. This

provision is a substantive change from the existing rule and would

conform with the intent of FLPMA which requires that, in order to be

given first priority for receipt of a new grazing permit, existing

permittees must be in compliance with the terms and conditions in the

permit and any applicable rules and regulations. Under the current

rule, permittees who have their permits cancelled because they have

violated their permit terms and conditions may, be reorganizing as a

new entity, remain eligible to hold a permit provided that they are

otherwise qualified. This situation is contrary to the public interest

and to the intent of FLPMA and would be remedied by this proposed

Sec. 222.7(a)(3) which would protect the public interest by allowing

only those who have satisfactory performance records to hold a grazing

permit. In determining eligibility for a new permit or for reissuance

of a permit, under the proposed rule an authorized officer would

consider current performance under federal grazing permits held at the

time of application as well as performance under other federal grazing

permits held within the past 36 months. A 36-month period is believed

to be a reasonable period of time to consider in establishing a record

of performance under grazing permits. This consideration would extend

to any affiliates of the applicant or permittee and would include

review of all federal grazing permits or leases held by those parties.

Section 222.7(b) of the proposed rule establishes additional

requirements that are applicable only to term grazing permits.

Specifically, Sec. 222.7(b)(1) would establish that term permits may

only be issued to the following:

(1) A citizen of the United States.

(2) An alien who has filed a petition for naturalization with the

proper authorities.

(3) A corporation or other business concern that is authorized to

do business in the state where the graving activity is sought or is

otherwise licensed to do business in that state.

(4) Tribal governments.

Currently, the Forest Service Manual (FSM 2231.21) identifies who

is eligible for a grazing permit. These eligibility standards belong

with the other requirements in regulation, not in an internal agency

directive, and, therefore, and being incorporated in the proposed rule

at Sec. 222.7(b). The current Forest Service eligibility requirements

do not allow corporations or other business concerns to hold a grazing

permit unless 80% of the capital stock is held by American citizens

(FSM 2231.21). This policy would be eliminated by adoption of the

proposed rule, which at Sec. 222.7(b)(1)(iii) would allow foreign

corporations or other business concerns to hold a grazing permit if

they are licensed to do business in the state in which the grazing

permit is sought. This change will make eligibility requirements for

graving permits consistent with requirements for all other Forest

Service permits and with those of the Bureau of Land Management.

Section 222.7(b)(2) of the proposed rule would establish that an

applicant or permit holder must own the livestock to be graved under

permit and such base property as required by the Forest Service. This

requirement is the same as that in Sec. 222.3(c)(1)(i) of the current

rule. However, in contrast to the current rule, the proposed rule would

allow for five exceptions to the livestock ownership requirements.

The first exception is at proposed Sec. 222.7(b)(2)(i) and would

allow livestock owned by children of permittees to be run under the

parents' term grazing permit for up to 50 percent of the permitted

numbers. The inclusion of this section makes an existing Forest Service

practice currently authorized in the Forest Service Grazing Permit

Administration Handbook (FSH 2209.13, sec. 12.22) a part of the grazing

regulations. The intent of this exception is to allow children who own

livestock for 4-H, Future Farmers of America, or similar projects, or

those who want to build up their own livestock herd and ultimately take

over the family ranch operation, to run livestock under the parents'

permit and to encourage family operations.

The second exception, Sec. 222.7(b)(2)(ii) of the proposed rule,

recognizes that where the permit or agreement is issued to a grazing

association or district, the members of the association or district

must own the requisite base property and livestock as specified in the

term permit or grazing agreement. This is consistent with the intent of

the current rule (Sec. 222.7) and agency practice as provided in the

Forest Service Grazing Permit Administration Handbook (FSH 2209.13,

Chapter 20). Thus, the agency has concluded this provision belongs in

the rule.

Under the third exception, Sec. 222.7(b)(2)(iii) of the proposed

rule, holders of term private land permits would not be required to own

the livestock or base property under Forest Service permit. This is

current agency practice as provided in the Forest Service Manual (FSM

2231.22c). However, it belongs in the rules and, accordingly, is

incorporated.

The fourth exception, at G222.7(b)(2)(iv) of the proposed rule,

provides that term permit holders for developing ranges on National

Forest System lands in the Eastern States would not be required to own

livestock or base property for the initial permit, but must meet the

livestock and base property ownership requirements for permit renewal.

This provision, which is not in the current rule, would allow new

livestock operators to get into the livestock business incrementally.

This flexibility is desirable in the Eastern States where the Forest

Service administers areas where vegetation can be better and more

economically managed through livestock grazing rather than by spraying,

mowing, or burning.

The fifth exception is found at proposed Sec. 222.7(b)(2)(v) and

would allow a permittee who disposes or loses control of all or part of

the base property but retains the permit up to one year, to meet base

property requirements. The proposed rule is very similar to the current

rule at Sec. 222.3(c)(1)(v) but is reworded to clarify its intent and

to recognize that the loss of control of the base property can result

from actions other than disposal through sale.

Proposed Sec. 222.7(b)(3) would grant authorized officers authority

to impose additional requirements for term permits including, but not

limited to, nonuse of permits and upper limits on the total number of

permitted livestock. This is a continuation of existing authority

currently located in Sec. 222.3(c)(1)(vi).

Proposed Section 222.8--Waivers and Escrow Waivers

This section sets out the circumstances where term grazing permits

may be waived in favor of another entity, where escrow waivers may be

executed, and the Forest Service role in each. Although escrow waivers

have long been allowed through Forest Service Manual direction, they

have not been addressed in the grazing regulations.

Proposed Sec. 222.8(a) would include provisions for the waiver of

term grazing permits to the United States in favor of another entity.

The current rule at Sec. 222.3(c)(1)(vi)(F) provides for the

establishment of conditions where waived grazing privileges may be

confirmed in favor of a new applicant. The proposed rule at

Sec. 222.8(a)(1) would include the current conditions established in

the Forest Service Manual (FSM 2230) for waiver of term grazing permits

for National Forest System lands in the Western States.

In addition, the proposed rule at Sec. 222.8(a)(2) would provide

that an existing term grazing permit for National Forest System lands

in the Eastern States, issued under the noncompetitive procedures of 36

CFR 222.53, may be waived to the United States in favor of the

permittee's spouse or child who acquires title to base property or

permitted livestock. If such a permittee dies and the permit was not

waived in favor of the spouse or child, the permit reverts to the

United States and would be competitively offered to other applicants

pursuant to Sec. 222.5(a)(1). This proposed provision merely placed

into the rule what is the current practice in the Eastern States and

clarifies the status of the permit in event of a permittee's death.

Under proposed Sec. 222.8(a)(3), the holder of a permit for

National Forest System Lands in the Eastern States, issued as a result

of the competitive bidding process authorized in the current rule at 36

CFR 222.54, could not waive a permit. This provision reflects current

Forest Service practice in the Eastern States and is necessary to

ensure continuation of the competitive bidding process at 36 CFR

222.54.

Proposed paragraph (b) addresses escrow waivers. The Forest Service

has been allowing permittees to execute escrow waivers in favor of

lenders since 1938 under a memorandum of understanding between the Farm

Credit Administration and the Department of Agriculture. That agreement

is no longer in effect; however, a new memorandum of understanding was

agreed to by the Forest Service and six western Farm Credit Banks on

December 21, 1990.

The current procedures governing escrow waivers are set forth in

FSM Chapter 2230, section 2231.82. Under these procedures, a permittee

who mortgages base property or permitted livestock waives all grazing

permit privileges (except the privilege of continuing to graze

livestock) to the United States to be held in escrow for a named

lender. If the lender forecloses on the mortgaged property, the lender

or a subsequent purchaser who acquires the foreclosed property has

first priority for receipt of a new term grazing permit. This policy

would be incorporated in the rules at Sec. 222.8(b).

Proposed Section 222.9--Renewal of Term Grazing permits

This section of the proposed rule specifies the qualifications and

priority for reissuance of a term permit. The current rule at

Sec. 222.3(c)(1)(vi) merely authorizes the Chief of the Forest Service

to prescribe the provisions and requirements under which term permits

will be reissued, but does not set out those provisions in the rule. In

the proposed rule, renewal of term permits is addressed in a separate

section to ensure that all provisions related to renewal can be easily

found in one place in the rule.

Paragraph (a) of proposed Sec. 222.9 states that current permit

holders must meet the requirements of Sec. 222.7 to qualify for renewal

of a term permit, and paragraph (b) provides that current permit

holders on National Forest System lands in the Western States have

priority for receiving new term permits when the current permit

expires. Under paragraph (c) of proposed Sec. 222.9, a new permit would

be issued to the current permit holder if the agency must cancel an

exiting permit to respond to changing law, executive order, regulation,

or resource condition. This commitment to issue a new permit is

necessary to protect permittees' interest when events beyond their

control result in the need to establish new terms and conditions of the

grazing permit.

Proposed paragraph (d) provides a needed cross reference that notes

that holders of expired term permits on the National Forest System

lands in the Eastern States, issued under the competitive bidding

process, are subject to the renewal procedures in 36 CFR part Sec. 222,

Subpart C.

Proposed paragraph (e) makes clear that term permits that are

renewed are subject to the same duration provisions as set out in

Sec. 222.5(b).

Proposed Section 222.10--Cancellation Suspension, and Modification of

Grazing Permits

This section of the proposed rule contains the provisions found in

the current rule at Sec. 222.4. In addition to editorial changes and

reorganization of the text for clarity, the proposed rule makes several

changes from the current rule that take into account important

rangeland resource management needs.

Areas of emphasis that were not specifically stated in the current

rule include cancellation, suspension, or modification of a permit to

correct documented resource damage [Sec. 222.10(b)] and for

unauthorized use [Sec. 222.10(b)(3)]. Documented resource damage refers

to damage occurring as a result of the livestock grazing. If permittee-

owned livestock exceed the permitted numbers or are on the allotment at

times or in locations not authorized under the permit, they are

considered unauthorized livestock. This change replaces the current

excess livestock designation and is consistent with the current Bureau

of Land Management regulations.

Proposed Sec. 222.10(b)(1) strengthens direction in the current

rule at Sec. 222.4(a)(3) by explicitly providing for a permit to be

canceled, suspended, or modified, in whole or in part for failure to

pay grazing fees. The proposed rule includes failure to pay

unauthorized use and service charges in the same category.

Cancellation of permits for the purpose of reissuance of a new ten

year term permit is provided for in both the current and proposed

rules. The current rule Sec. 222.3(c)(1)(iii) states that a permit may

be cancelled at the end of the midyear of the decade for reissuance of

a new permit. The term grazing permit also currently contains a clause

which states that an authorized officer may cancel the permit at the

end of the midyear of the decade so that it may be updated. The clause

provides that, in such a case, a new permit will be reissued to the

existing permit holder. This permit clause causes authorized officers

to cancel all the term permits needing updating at the same time and

reissue them. This practice results in inefficiency and delays in

reissuing permits. Therefore, paragraph (a)(4) of this section of the

proposed rule retains the authority to cancel permits to update their

terms and conditions but does not limit the point at which this could

be done. This charge would allow authorized officers to update permits

over a period of time in an efficient and timely manner. Paragraph

(a)(4) also stipulates that when a permit is cancelled under this

provision, issuance of a new permit is preceded by a rangeland project

decision and NEPA documentation.

The current rule at Sec. 222.4(a)(6) authorizes the Forest Service

to cancel or suspend a permit if the permit holder is convicted of

failing to comply with certain Federal laws or regulations or state

laws when exercising the grazing use authorized by the permit. The

proposed rule at Sec. 222.10(b)(5) would change the words ``when

exercising'' to ``related to.'' This proposed change would clarify that

the Forest Service is authorized to cancel or suspend a grazing permit

when a permittee is convicted of violating the listed laws even though

the violation may have taken place outside the grazing season or the

specific allotment, but there is a connection between the violation and

the grazing use authorized by the permit. The current rule focuses on

the permitted grazing allotment and on the permitted season of use.

This clarification is needed so permittees, agency personnel, and the

public understand the agency's intent, to broaden this provision of the

rule beyond the grazing allotment and season of use specified in the

grazing permit.

The proposed rule would incorporate an existing procedure outlined

in the Forest Service Grazing Permit Administration Handbook, FSH

2209.13, section 16.2, that requires an authorized officer to notify a

permittee in writing of an alleged permit violation and that the

officer is considering taking action against the permit. Under

Sec. 222.10(d) of the proposed rule, the permittee would be allowed up

to 30 days to respond to allegations.

Proposed Section 222.11--Grazing Permit Fees and Other Charges

This is a new section of the proposed rule that would direct

authorized officers to establish grazing fees and charges for livestock

grazing use in accordance with this section of the proposed rule and

the rules in subpart C--Grazing fees of part 222. Additionally, this

section would set out the charges to be assessed for unauthorized use

and provide for the assessment of a service charge for recovery of

administrative costs for processing actions related to grazing permits.

Proposed Sec. 222.11(a) would permit recovery of administrative

costs associated with issuance of grazing permits. Under the current

regulations, the Forest Service does not assess a service charge to

recover the costs of processing permit actions initiated by an existing

or prospective permittee or processing of actions related to permit

violations. Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 9701, the Forest Service believes it

should recover the cost of providing services to users who seek a

special privilege or use, especially when costs of responding to

permittees or applicants exceed those normally incurred by the agency.

Paragraph (a) would make clear that the Forest Service is authorized to

assess a service change to recover the administrative and clerical

costs for processing those permit actions initiated by an existing

permittee or applicant. Examples of these types of actions are the

modification of an existing permit solely at the request and benefit of

the permittee and issuance of a new permit to a qualified applicant. It

is estimated that out of the approximately 9,100 permittees on the

National Forest System, 2,000 may initiate a permit action in any one

year. The average service charge is estimated to be about $100 per

action. It is the agency's intent to issue guidelines to its employees

through the agency directive system establishing the service charge,

which would include the processing costs and be adjusted periodically

to reflect any changes in these costs.

Proposed Sec. 222.11(b) makes clear that unauthorized use is a

violation of the terms and conditions of the permit and establishes

that authorized officers shall charge permittees and other livestock

owners for any unauthorized use. Charges for unauthorized use are in

addition to grazing fees assessed for authorized grazing use as

prescribed in subpart C.

Proposed Sec. 222.11(c) provides for determining if unauthorized

use is willful or nonwillful. If unauthorized use is determined to be

willful, the authorized officer is directed to determine if the

offender has been responsible for other incidents of willful

unauthorized use within a period of 36 months preceding the subject

incident, and therefore is subject to the higher rate charge of

paragraph (d)(3) of this section.

Proposed Sec. 222.11(d) establishes that the charge for

unauthorized use will be the average monthly animal unit month (AUM)

grazing fee rate for the 17 Western States published annually by the

National Agricultural Statistical Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture. Direction for determining charges for unauthorized use is

covered in the current rule in subpart C--Sec. 222.50(h). Since charges

for unauthorized use are penalties rather than fees, this direction is

more appropriately covered under Subpart A of the proposed rule rather

than Subpart C where it is currently located.

Proposed Sec. 222.11(d)(1) provides that livestock owners

responsible for nonwillful unauthorized use would be charged the

unauthorized use rate. This section also provides for the charge to be

waived if certain criteria outlined in the proposed rule are met. In

the case of a waiver there would be no unauthorized use or service

charges to the permittee when the situation has been resolved to the

satisfaction of the authorized officer. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of

proposed Sec. 222.11(d) provide for charging two times the unauthorized

use rate for willful unauthorized use and three times the unauthorized

use rate for repeated willful unauthorized use. When unauthorized use

is found to be willful, or repeatedly willful, charges will be assessed

for the full cost of all resource and property damage resulting from

the unauthorized use and all reasonable expenses incurred by the United

States in detecting, investigating, and resolving such unauthorized

use. In recognition that Forest Service financial penalties have not

been effective as a deterrent in preventing unauthorized use in the

past, this section of the proposed rule represents a significant

increase in penalties for unauthorized use. Strong support for this

section of the proposed rule was contained in the public comments on

the ANPR. This support was based on the need for Forest Service

enforcement of the terms and conditions of grazing permits and for

strong penalties for willful unauthorized use; also, for the

recognition that some situations of unauthorized use are unintentional

and the appropriate resolution does not entail a financial penalty.

Proposed Section 222.12--Information Collection Requirements

While this is a new section in the proposed rule describing

information requirements associated with the application and

administration of grazing permits, the type of information requested

has been routinely collected by the agency in its grazing permit

administration activities for many years. For a description of the

information requirements associated with this rule, see the discussion

of ``Information Requirements'' at the end of this ``Supplementary

Information'' section.

Proposed Section 222.13--Improvements

The current regulation at Sec. 222.9 authorizes the Forest Service

to grant permission to individuals, organizations, or other agencies to

perform range improvement work on National Forest System lands and

other lands under Forest Service control. Additionally, the current

rule allows authorized officers to require permittees to maintain range

improvements to specified standards. The proposed rule at Sec. 222.13

includes the provisions of the current rule but would be reorganized

for ease of use. The only substantive changes embodied in this section

is to incorporate provisions related to the Range Betterment Fund into

this section of the proposed rule (currently at Sec. 222.10) and to

conform the rules prohibiting adjustment of fees or charges for range

improvement work to the new rules governing grazing fees in the East

adopted in 1990.

The current rule at Sec. 222.10 details background and direction

for range development through the Range Betterment Fund. Direction

presently contained in the current rule at Sec. 222.10 has now more

appropriately been incorporated into the Forest Service Manual (FSM

2240). Therefore, direction for use of the Range Betterment Fund in the

proposed rule is greatly reduced from that in the current rule and is

incorporated in paragraph (c) of proposed Sec. 222.13.

The current rule at Sec. 222.9(d) prohibits adjusting grazing fees

or charges for number of head months to compensate permittees for range

improvement work performed on National Forest System lands with the

exception of National Grasslands and land utilization projects. On

January 26, 1990, FR 2646, Vol. 55, No. 18, Subpart C of part 222 was

amended to allow grazing fee credits for range improvements on National

Forest System lands in the Eastern States to facilitate the development

of ranges. Therefore, the proposed rule at Sec. 222.13(d) makes clear

where the use of grazing fee credits or adjustments for rangeland

improvement work is authorized within the National Forest System.

Proposed paragraph (d)(1) references the specific sections of Subpart C

of part 222 authorizing grazing fee credits for rangeland improvements

on National Forest System lands in the Eastern States. Proposed

paragraph (d)(2) continues the provision of the current rule at

Sec. 222.9(d) authorizing the adjustment of annual grazing fees on

National Grasslands or Land Utilization Projects to reflect the cost to

a grazing permittee of complying with required conservation practices.

Proposed paragraph (d)(3) then specifically states that adjustment in

grazing fees charged in exchange for rangeland improvement work is not

authorized on all other National Forest System lands except as provided

in proposed paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3).

Proposed Section 222.14--Compensation for Permittees' Interest in Range

Improvements

This section of the proposed rule provides for and sets the

conditions under which permittees may be compensated for investments in

existing rangeland improvements in the event of grazing permit

cancellation.

The proposed rule at Sec. 222.14(a) would incorporate the

provisions of the current rule Sec. 222.6(a) which directs that

whenever a term permit for grazing livestock on National Forest lands

in the 16 contiguous Western States is cancelled, that the current

permittee shall be compensated for the current value of any authorized

permanent range improvements they placed or constructed on the lands.

This situation applies when the permit is cancelled, in whole or in

part, to devote the land to another public purpose, including disposal.

This provision is applicable only when lands are actually permanently

excluded from grazing and does not apply in the situation when a

grazing permit is partially reduced due to resource conditions but

grazing use continues at a reduced level. The value of these range

improvements may not exceed the fair market value of the terminated

portion of the permittee(s) interest in the improvement.

Questions have arisen concerning the status of former permittees

and any interest they might have had in a range improvement. To address

these questions, the proposed rule at Sec. 222.14 (b) and (c) would

state that those permittees who had waived permits or allowed permits

to expire prior to receiving notice of cancellation of grazing in an

area would not be entitled to compensation under this section. This is

intended to clarify the direction in the current rule at Sec. 222.6(b)

concerning permittees who have waived their permit in connection with

the sale of permitted livestock or base property.

Proposed Section 222.15--Recognition and Cooperation With Local

Livestock or Grazing Associations and Districts

This section of the proposed rule deals with the recognition of and

subsequent issuance of term permits to local livestock or grazing

associations and the requirements that must be met and adhered to in

order to maintain that recognition.

Section 222.7(a) of the current rule authorizes and sets out

procedures for Forest Officers to recognize and cooperate with local

livestock associations. Section 222.15 of the proposed rule covers the

same information in the current rule at Sec. 222.7(a); however, the

text has been edited for clarity and contains two modifications of

existing practice.

Historically, a clause has been included in term permits which

specified that grazing association or district members must address

their grievances to the association or district in accordance with the

term permit and the governing constitution and bylaws of the

organization. This requirement should be in the rule. Accordingly, the

proposed rule would include this longstanding grievance process at

Sec. 222.15(a)(2).

The current rule at Sec. 222.7(a)(4) allows an authorized officer

to withdraw recognition of an association if it does not hold an annual

or special meeting during a 24-month period. However, if an association

does not meet at least once a year, the organization cannot effectively

assist in the management of allotment(s), which is the purpose of the

Forest Service cooperating with the association. Therefore, the

proposed rule at Sec. 222.15(c) would require an association or

district to meet at least once every 12 months. Failure to meet at

least annually would be grounds for withdrawal of recognition. The

proposed rule further clarifies that the loss of recognition would

result in cancellation of the grazing permit to the association or

district.

Proposed Section 222.16--Cooperation with National, State, and County

Livestock Organizations and Others

This section of the proposed rule encourages Forest Service

officials to cooperate with national, state, and county livestock

organizations, other agencies, institutions, organizations, and

individuals having an interest in the protection and management of the

rangeland resources on National Forest system and private lands. The

proposed rule is very similar to information in the current rule found

in Sec. 222.7(b), (c), and (d), and Sec. 222.8. The text of these

sections of the current rule has been edited for clarity and

consolidated into a revised section of the proposed rule at

Sec. 222.16. Additionally, Sec. 222.11 of the current regulation,

providing direction for the establishment and operation of grazing

advisory boards would be removed, as the statutory authority mandating

such boards has expired.

In addition to editorial changes for clarity, proposed

Sec. 222.16(b) would make clear that cooperation with other agencies

and units of government is subject to the availability of appropriated

funds. Also, the word ``farm'' would be eliminated from the term

``noxious farm weeds'' in proposed Sec. 222.16(b) (1) and (2) to

broaden the term to include undesirable plant species which may occur

on rangelands or farm (cultivated) lands. Animal damage management is

added to paragraph (b)(3) as a specific activity in addition to

surveillance of pesticide programs for which the Forest Service

cooperates with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

The authority for Grazing Advisory Boards, established under the

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, expired December 31,

1985. Thus, the current regulations at Sec. 222.11 concerning Grazing

Advisory Boards are obsolete and need to be removed. However, the

proposed rule at Sec. 222.16(d) would note that the Secretary has the

authority, under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 1),

and the implementing regulation at 41 CFR part 101-6.10, and the Food

and Agriculture Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2281, et seq.), to establish

advisory boards reflecting a variety of points of view and resource

interests to advise the Forest Service on management of the resources

of the National Forest System including forage production.

Other Considerations

In addition to the changes noted in the preceding section-by-

section discussion of the proposed rule, gender specific references

have been identified throughout the current rule and eliminated. Also,

wherever possible, the language--but not the intended meaning--of the

existing rule has been revised for clarity and ease of reading; for

example, text written in passive voice has been rewritten in active

voice whenever possible. In addition, the organization and arrangement

of the sections of the rule have been revised for easier use by permit

holders, agency personnel, and other readers. Publication of the final

rule will require concurrent modifications in the standard conditions

and clauses of grazing permit forms.

Public comment on this proposed rule, is invited and will be

considered in adoption of the final 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. By separate

rulemaking, the Department also will propose a revision in the system

used to determine the fees for grazing livestock on National Forest

System lands in the Western States.

Redesignation of Existing Rule

The following redesignation table systematically lists the old CFR

numbers with the new CFR numbers.

Redesignation Table

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

Old section New section

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

222.1.

222.1.............................. 222.2.

222.2.............................. 222.3.

222.4 (Partial).

222.3.............................. 222.3 (Partial).

222.4.

222.5.

222.6.

222.7.

222.8.

222.9.

222.10 (Partial).

222.4.............................. 222.10.

222.11.

222.12.

(Note: no Sec. 222.5 in the current

rule.).

222.6.............................. 222.14.

222.7.............................. 222.15.

222.16 (Partial).

222.8.............................. 222.16.

222.9.............................. 222.13.

222.10............................. 222.13.

222.11............................. ...................................

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

Because the current rule is so comprehensively revised and reorganized

in the proposed rule, it is not practical to provide a full derivation

and distribution table for this subchapter. However, as an aid to

readers the agency has prepared a very simplified chart showing where

old sections can be found in the proposed rule and whether that section

has been edited in the proposed rule.

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

Old section New section

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

222.1(a) First half of paragraph... 222.3 Addresses and expands.

222.1(a) Second half of paragraph.. 222.4 Addresses and expands.

222.1(b)........................... 222.2 (Edited).

222.2(a)........................... 222.3(d) Addresses and expands.

222.2(b)........................... 222.3 Addresses and expands.

222.2(c) First half of paragraph... 222.3(b)(1)(iii) Addresses and

expands.

222.2(c) Second half of paragraph.. 222.3(b),(c) and 222.4(b) Addresses

and expands.

222.3(a)........................... 222.4(a) (Edited).

222.3(b)........................... 222.4(b) (Edited).

222.3(c)........................... 222.3 (b) and (c) Addresses and

expands.

222.3(c)(1) ``Grazing permits ... 222.5(b) Addresses and expands.

or less.''

222.3(c)(1) ``Term grazing ... 222.5(a)(4) (Edited).

policies.''

222.3(c)(1) ``Term permits ... 222.5(a) (2) and (3) Addresses and

requires.'' expands.

222.3(c)(1)(i) First half of 222.7(b)(2).

paragraph.

222.3(c)(1)(i) Second half of 222.3(a) and 222.3(b)(1)(iii)

paragraph. Addresses and expands.

222.3(c)(1)(ii).................... 222.9(a), (b), and (d) Addresses

and expands.

222.3(c)(1)(iii)................... 222.10(a)(4) (Edited)

222.3(a)(1)(iv).................... 222.8(a)(1), (2) and (3) (Edited).

222.3(c)(1)(v)..................... 222.7(b)(2)(v) (Edited).

222.3(c)(1)(vi).................... 222.7 (Edited).

222.3(c)(1)(vi)(A)................. 222.7(b)(2) (Edited).

222.3(c)(1)(vi)(B)................. Unnecessary.

222.3(c)(1)(vi)(C)................. 222.8 Addresses and expands.

222.3(c)(1)(vi)(D)................. 222.7(b)(3)(i) (Edited).

222.3(c)(1)(vi)(E)................. 222.7(b)(3)(ii) (Edited).

222.3(c)(1)(vi)(F)................. 222.8(a) (Edited).

222.3(c)(2) Entire section......... 222.6 (Edited).

222.4(a)(1) and (2)(i) through (iv) 222.10(a)(1) and (a)(2) (Edited).

222.4(a)(2)(v) and (3) through (6). 222.10(b) addresses and expands.

222.4(a) (7) and (8)............... 222.10(c) (Edited).

222.4(b)........................... 222.10(a)(3) (Edited).

(There is no 222.5 in the current

rule.)

222.6.............................. 222.14 (Edited).

222.7(a)(1)........................ 222.15(a) (Edited).

222.7(a)(2)........................ 222.15(b) (Edited).

222.7(a)(3)........................ 222.15(a) (1) through (4) (Edited).

222.7(a)(4)........................ 222.15(c) (Edited).

222.7(b)........................... 222.16(a) (Edited).

222.7(c) and (d)................... 222.16(c) (Edited).

222.8(a)........................... 222.16(b) (Edited).

222.8(a) (1) through (3)........... 222.16(b)(1)(3) and (4) (Edited).

222.8(b)........................... 222.16(b)(2) (Edited).

222.9.............................. 222.13 (Edited).

222.10............................. 222.13(c) (edited).

222.10(a).......................... Unnecessary.

222.10(b).......................... Unnecessary.

222.11............................. Obsolete.

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

Regulatory Impact

This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866 on

Regulatory Planning and Review, The agency has determined that in

combination with a separate proposed rule to revise grazing fees this

proposed rule is a significant regulatory action subject to Office of

Management and Budget review. The proposed increase in grazing fees may

result in increased operational costs for small ranching businesses

that have permits on National Forest System land in Western States.

The Department of Interior has prepared an initial Small Entities

Flexibility Assessment analyzing the economic impact of this rulemaking

on small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605 et

seq). The public may obtain copies of the draft Small Entities

Flexibility Assessment by writing the address listed under ADDRESSES

earlier in the document.

Environmental Impact

The Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service, as a

cooperating agency, are preparing a draft environmental impact

statement (DEIS) on rangeland reform as announced in the Federal

Register on August 13, 1993. Upon completion of the draft EIS, a notice

of availability will be published in the Federal Register with an

opportunity for public comment. Following the comment period on the

draft EIS, a final EIS will be developed.

Constitutionally Protected Property Rights

This rule has been reviewed for its effects on private property

rights (Executive Order 12630 of March 15, 1988, ``Government Actions

and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights'' as

implemented by the U.S. Attorneys General's Guidelines for the

Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings). Under the

Guidelines, benefits and privileges bestowed by the Government are

expressly excluded from the definition of private property rights

protected by the Fifth Amendment.

The Congress established that a grazing permit is a privilege

through the Granger-Thye Act of April 24, 1950 (Section 19) and the

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976 (Section

402h)). Both of these acts state that the issuance of grazing permits

in no way grants any right, title, interest, or estate in or to lands

or resources held by the United States.

A long line of court cases has established that a grazing permit is

a noncompensable interest since it is a privilege to use federally

owned land for livestock grazing purposes. Accordingly, it is a

privilege--not a right--which can be withdrawn or canceled by the

United States without compensation. Since this rule deals with granting

a privilege, Executive Order 12630, which involves the taking of

private property for public use, does not apply.

Notwithstanding the above, the Office of General Counsel has

prepared a Taking Implication Assessment on grazing activities

undertaken by the Forest Service. It was the conclusion of that

assessment that regulatory activities associated with Forest Service

administration of grazing on National Forest System lands do not

present the risk of a taking of private property.

Information Requirements

This proposed rule governing grazing and livestock use on National

Forest System lands specifies the information that applicants or

permittees must provide in order for an authorized officer to act on a

request. This proposed rule would not require permittees to provide any

additional information from that already required under the existing

rule. As such, this rule contains information requirements as defined

in 5 CFR part 1320.

The following Forest Service grazing-related forms: FS 2200-1,

Refund, Credit, or Transfer Application; FS 2200-2, Application for

Temporary Grazing Permit)--Part 1; FS 2200-12, Waiver of Term Grazing

Permit; FS 2200-13, Escrow Waiver of Term Grazing Permit Privileges; FS

2200-16, Application for Term Grazing Permit; and FS 2200-17,

Application for Term Private Land Grazing Permit are already cleared

for the use that would be required by this proposed rule and have been

assigned OMB control No. 0596-0003, with an expiration date of August

31, 1995.

Public reporting burdens for the collection of information by these

forms is estimated to average from 9 to 18 minutes per response

depending on the form. Extremely complex situations may require up to 2

hours to prepare. The information needed to complete the forms should

be readily available from existing livestock and landownership records.

Reviewers should send comments regarding the burden estimate or any

other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions

for reduction this burden to: Chief (2200) Forest Service, USDA, P.O.

Box 96090, Washington, DC 20090-6090; and Forest Service Desk Officer,

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

Civil Justice Reform Act

This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778,

Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule were adopted, (1) all state

and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this proposed

rule or which would impede its full implementation would be preempted;

(2) no retroactive effect would be given to this proposed rule; and (3)

it would not require administrative proceedings before parties may file

suit in court challenging its provisions.

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 222

Grazing Lands, Livestock, National forests, National grasslands,

Range Management, Wildlife, and Wild horses and burros.

Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, it is

proposed to revise subpart A of part 222 of title 36 of the Code of

Federal Regulations to read as follows:

PART 222--RANGE MANAGEMENT

Subpart A--Management of Grazing Use Within Rangeland Ecosystems

Sec.

222.1 Purpose and scope.

222.2 Definitions.

222.3 Framework for rangeland planning and decisions.

Grazing Permits

222.4 General provisions applicable to all grazing permits.

222.5 Term grazing permits; types and duration.

222.6 Authorization of temporary grazing.

222.7 Requirements applicable to grazing permits.

222.8 Waivers and escrow waivers.

222.9 Renewal of term grazing permits.

222.10 Cancellation, suspension, and modification of grazing

permits.

222.11 Grazing permit fees and other charges.

222.12 Information collection requirements.

Rangeland Improvements

222.13 Improvements.

222.14 Compensation for permittees' interest in rangeland

improvements.

Cooperation

222.15 Recognition and cooperation with local livestock or grazing

associations and districts.

222.16 Cooperation with national, state, and county livestock

organizations and others.

Subpart A--Management of Grazing Use Within Rangeland Ecosystems

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1011; 16 U.S.C. 472, 551, 572, 580g, 580h,

580l, 1600 et seq.; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 43 U.S.C. 1901-1903, 1751-1752.

Sec. 222.1 Purpose and scope.

(a) The purpose of this subpart is to set forth the rules by which

domestic livestock operations are managed on National Forest System

lands and other lands under Forest Service control.

(b) This subpart addresses the following:

(1) The points in the planning and decisionmaking process at which

decisions are made on the suitability of rangelands for grazing, on the

authorization of livestock grazing, and when compliance with NEPA

procedures is required;

(2) General provisions applicable to all grazing permits;

(3) Specific requirements related to issuance and administration of

grazing permits;

(4) Standards for the cancellation, suspension, and modification of

grazing permits;

(5) Requirements related to structural and nonstructural range

improvements; and

(6) Standards for cooperative management.

Sec. 222.2 Definitions.

The special terms used in this subpart are defined as follows:

Affiliate(s) means a business concern(s) or individual(s) that is

sufficiently closely related to a permittee through personal,

professional, or other ties that it either controls, has the power to

control, or can influence business decisions made by the permittee

concerning authorized grazing use on National Forest System lands or

other lands under Forest Service control.

Allotment is a delineated area of land available for livestock

grazing.

Allotment management plan is a document that specifies the actions

to be taken to manage and protect the rangeland resources and reach a

given set of objectives.

Authorized officer is a Forest Service line officer who has been

delegated the authority to take certain actions related to rangeland

management on National Forest System lands and other lands under Forest

Service control.

Base property is land and improvements owned and used by a grazing

permittee for a farm or ranch operation and specifically identified by

a permittee, in order to qualify for a term grazing permit.

Escrow waiver is a document by which a permittee, who has mortgaged

permitted livestock or base property, waives all privileges associated

with a grazing permit, except the privilege of continuing to graze

livestock, to the United States to be held in escrow for the lender.

Grazing permit is a document authorizing livestock use of National

Forest System lands or other lands under Forest Service control.

Livestock means foraging animals kept or raised for livestock

production, pleasure, or other use.

National Forest System lands means the National Forests, National

Grasslands, Land Utilization Projects, and other lands, waters, or

interests therein administered by the Forest Service or designated for

administration through the Forest Service as a part of the System (16

U.S.C. 1609).

National Forest System lands in the Eastern States refers to all

National Forest System Lands in the Eastern and Southern administrative

regions of the Forest Service (36 CFR 200.2), except the National

Grasslands in Texas and Oklahoma.

National Forest System lands in the Western States refers to all

National Forest System lands in the states of Arizona, California,

Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota,

Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming but only to the

National Grasslands in the states of Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. This

term does not include national forests in the states of Oklahoma and

Texas.

NEPA procedures are the requirements of the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969, (42 U.S.C. 4321 et. seq.) regulations at 40 CFR

parts 1500 through 1508, and Forest Service policies and procedures in

the Forest Service Manual Chapter 1950 and Forest Service Handbook

1909.15.

Other lands under Forest Service control are non-federal lands over

which the Forest Service has been given control through lease,

agreement, or other means.

Permittee is any individual or entity who has been issued a grazing

permit.

Permitted livestock means livestock being grazed under a permit or

those that were grazed under a permit during the preceding season,

including offspring retained for herd replacement.

Range Betterment Fund is the fund established by section 401(b)(1)

of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1751)

which is used for on-the-ground range rehabilitation, protection, and

improvement projects.

Rangeland improvement is any permanent or temporary structure or

any nonstructural land treatment designed to protect, improve or make

use of rangeland ecosystems.

Rangelands are a kind of land on which the native vegetation,

climax or natural potential, is predominantly grasses, grass-like

plants, forbs or shrubs. Rangelands include lands revegetated naturally

or artificially to provide a plant cover which is managed like native

vegetation. Rangelands include natural grasslands, savannas,

shrublands, most deserts, tundra, alpine communities, coastal marshes,

and wet meadows. When used in this rule, the term also includes other

National Forest System lands (including forested lands, woodlands, and

riparian areas) on which grazing by wild and domestic herbivores may

occur.

16 Contiguous Western States refers to the states of Arizona,

California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New

Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington,

and Wyoming.

Transportation livestock means livestock used as pack and saddle

stock for travel on National Forest System lands and other lands under

Forest Service control.

Unauthorized use means livestock use on National Forest System

lands or other lands under Forest Service control that is not

authorized by a grazing permit, or an amendment or modification

thereto.

Sec. 222.3 Framework for rangeland planning and decisions.

(a) Forest plan direction. Planning for management of rangelands is

accomplished through the land and resource management planning process

set out in 36 CFR part 219. Forest plans establish programmatic

direction including goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines for

rangeland management and identify National Forest System lands suitable

for livestock grazing. A suitability determination is not a decision to

authorize grazing.

(b) Rangeland project decisions. Except as otherwise provided in

this section, a rangeland project decision is required when site-

specific activities designed to accomplish a specific, on-the-ground

purpose or result are proposed which implements the programmatic

management direction in the forest plan.

(1) Examples of rangeland project decisions include, but are not

limited to, the following:

(i) Maintenance or modification of specific plant communities or

riparian, aquatic, soil, or other resource conditions needed to promote

the achievement of goals and objectives of the forest plan.

(ii) Rangeland improvements needed to promote the achievement of

goals and objectives of the forest plan.

(iii) Authorization of livestock grazing where grazing is suitable

and appropriate. A rangeland project decision authorizing livestock

grazing must specify the maximum permissible amount of grazing use, the

timing and duration of such use, and other appropriate livestock

management requirements or measures needed to promote the achievement

of goals and objectives of the forest plan.

(2) Rangeland project decisions must be consistent with applicable

forest plan standards and guidelines.

(3) Rangeland project decisions are decision points subject to NEPA

procedures. Where a rangeland project decision authorizes livestock

grazing, timely issuance of the grazing permit based on the rangeland

project decision is an administrative act and not a separate decision.

(c) Transitional procedures for authorizing grazing use. In the

absence of a rangeland project decision that addresses livestock

grazing use, the authorized officer may issue a grazing permit in

accordance with the following transitional procedures:

(1) The authorized officer may issue a new term permit for up to

ten years where there is a current allotment management plan adopted

prior to [180 days from date of publication of the final rule] and the

analysis and disclosure of environmental effects are still current.

(2) On those allotments for which there is no current allotment

management plan but which are meeting, or moving toward achievement of,

forest plan goals and objectives, the authorized officer may issue a

new term permit for up to ten years based on the forest plan, provided

that the plan contains applicable standards and guidelines that can be

incorporated as terms and conditions of the permit and that the

environmental effects of applying the standards and guidelines on the

land are analyzed and disclosed pursuant to NEPA procedures.

(3) On those allotments for which there is no allotment management

plan or current NEPA disclosure and the allotments are meeting, or

moving toward achievement of, forest plan goals and objectives, but the

forest plan does not contain applicable standards and guidelines that

can be incorporated into the permit, the authorized officer shall issue

a term permit not exceeding three years in duration to authorize the

continuation of grazing. This interim period will permit the agency to

gather information and conduct necessary analysis to determine if

grazing should be authorized or a different permit term should be

established. In such cases, the environmental effects of continuing

grazing under a 1-3 year term permit must be analyzed and disclosed

pursuant to NEPA procedures prior to issuance of the permit.

(4) On those allotments for which there is no allotment management

plan or current NEPA disclosure, and the allotments are not meeting or

moving toward achievement of forest plan goals and objectives, the

authorized officer may not issue a term permit of more than three years

in duration until a rangeland project decision and disclosure of

environmental effects is accomplished. In the interim, the authorized

officer may issue a term permit of up to three years in duration

provided that the terms and conditions of the permit include existing

or amended forest plan standards and guidelines or other measures

necessary to move management of the allotment toward achievement of

forest plan goals and objectives. In such case, the environmental

effects of continuing grazing under the 1-3 year term permit must be

analyzed and disclosed pursuant to NEPA procedures prior to issuance of

the permit.

(5) Where authorization of livestock grazing is made pursuant to

paragraphs (c) (1), (2), (3), and (4) of this section, the authorized

officer shall develop and maintain a schedule for completing rangeland

project decisions and site specific disclosure of environmental effects

on affected allotments pursuant to NEPA procedures. The authorized

officer shall develop this schedule in consultation with the grazing

permittees and other interested parties. Priority for scheduling the

completion of rangeland project decisions shall be given to those areas

with significant resource concerns such as protection of threatened and

endangered species, riparian and aquatic habitats, and water quality.

(6) Where grazing permits are issued under the transitional

procedures of paragraphs (c) (1), (2), (3), and (4) of this section,

the timely issuance of a grazing permit is an administrative act and

not a separate decision.

(7) This subpart does not compel immediate initiation of rangeland

project decisions to issue or renew grazing permits.

(d) Delineation of allotments. Where lands are suitable for grazing

and livestock grazing is to be authorized, the authorized officer shall

delineate allotments consistent with the forest plan and applicable

rangeland project decisions. When approved by the affected landowner,

lessee, or cooperating agency, allotments may include associated

private and other public lands in order to form logical range

management units for effective coordinated resource management.

(1) Maps delineating allotments shall be on file at the office of

the District Ranger.

(2) The delineation of allotments is an administrative act and not

a decision subject to further NEPA analysis or disclosure of

environmental effects.

Grazing Permits

Sec. 222.4 General provisions applicable to all grazing permits.

(a) Grazing authorization required. All livestock grazing use of

National Forest System lands and other lands under Forest Service

control requires prior written authorization through a grazing permit

issued by an authorized officer, except for certain temporary grazing

as provided for in Sec. 222.6(c).

(b) Nature of grazing permit. A grazing permit is a privilege

authorizing the holder to use National Forest System lands or other

lands under Forest Service control subject to the terms and conditions

contained therein. Grazing permits do not convey any right, title, or

interest in United States lands, resources, or permanent range

improvements to the permittee.

(c) NEPA compliance. Issuance of a permit implements a previous

decision to authorize grazing and is not a decision point subject to

NEPA procedures as provided for in Sec. 222.3(b)(3).

(d) Terms and conditions. The authorized officer shall prescribe

the terms and conditions of each grazing permit in accordance with

applicable statutes, regulations, and direction issued through the

Forest Service Directive System (36 CFR 200.4).

(1) The authorized officer shall include as terms and conditions of

the grazing permit those applicable standards and guidelines in the

forest plan and rangeland project decision.

(2) A permittee may be required, as a condition of permit issuance,

to collect and submit to the Forest Service monitoring, inventory, or

other resource information related to the permitted livestock grazing

activity.

(e) Operating instructions. In addition to the terms and conditions

of a permit, the authorized officer may issue written operating

instructions to the permittee(s) to make annual, seasonal, or other

temporary adjustments in the amount or duration of livestock grazing

use authorized by a grazing permit. The authorized officer may also

issue written instructions that temporarily adjust or tailor terms and

conditions as necessary for proper management of the rangelands. As

long as the operating instructions fall within the scope of the

decision authorizing the grazing use and the NEPA documentation

associated with that decision, this does not require a new decision and

additional environmental analysis.

Sec. 222.5 Term grazing permits; types and duration.

(a) Types of term permits. The following types of grazing permits

may be issued to applicants that meet the relevant requirements of

Sec. 222.7 for a term of up to 10 years with priority for renewal, as

described in Sec. 222.9.

(1) A term grazing permit may be issued to qualified applicants,

including grazing associations and districts, to graze livestock on

National Forest System lands or other lands under Forest Service

control. On all National Forest System lands in the Eastern States,

except the National Grasslands in Texas and Oklahoma, permits for new

allotments or permits that are vacated or terminated are issued under

the competitive provision of Sec. 222.54.

(2) A term private land grazing permit may be issued to a qualified

applicant who owns or controls land in an allotment under Forest

Service control. To receive this permit, the applicant must waive

exclusive grazing use of the private land involved to the United States

for the full period the permit is to be issued. In return, the

applicant is authorized to graze livestock within the allotment

associated with the waived private land.

(3) A term grazing permit with provisions for grazing on and off

National Forest System lands and other lands under Forest Service

control may be issued to a qualified applicant when a logical grazing

area contains both lands under Forest Service administration and lands

controlled by the applicant.

(4) A grazing agreement may be issued to eligible grazing

associations or districts, to graze livestock on National Forest System

lands and other lands under Forest Service control. Under such grazing

agreements, grazing associations or districts may be authorized to

issue and administer grazing permits subject to rules, policies, and

procedures agreed to by the authorized officer.

(b) Duration of term grazing permits. The maximum length of a term

grazing permit is 10 years.

(1) On National Forest lands in the 16 contiguous Western States,

the authorized officer shall issue permits for the full 10-year period,

unless one of the following situations exist:

(i) The land is pending disposal;

(ii) The land will be devoted to non-grazing uses prior to the end

of 10 years; or

(iii) It will be in the best interest of sound land management to

specify a shorter term.

(2) On all other National Forest System lands or other lands under

Forest Service control, the authorized officer may issue permits for up

to a ten year period, as determined to be in the best interest of sound

land management.

Sec. 222.6 Authorization of temporary grazing.

Provided that the necessary forage is available, applicants meeting

the relevant requirements of Sec. 222.7 may receive authorization to

graze livestock for a term of up to three years, with no priority for

renewal. Grazing fees for authorized temporary livestock grazing shall

be assessed in accordance with Sec. 222.11 and Subpart C--Grazing Fees

of this part, unless free permits as expressly provided for in this

section.

(a) Paid temporary permits. Temporary permits for a fee are

appropriate in the following circumstances:

(1) Where a new permittee assumes previously authorized grazing use

which has been suspended or cancelled.

(2) Where there has been unusually favorable climatic conditions.

(3) Where a permittee has exercised the nonuse provision of a term

permit.

(4) Where the base property has been sold; the term permit waived;

a new term permit issued; the new permittee does not want to graze

livestock that season; and the most recent former permittee desires to

graze livestock for the remainder of the permitted grazing season.

(5) Where fire, drought, pestilence or other natural phenomenon has

reduced livestock grazing capacity on other National Forest System

lands or other lands under Forest Service control.

(6) Where transportation livestock are engaged in commercial

packing, dude ranching, or other commercial enterprises, such as

mining, ranching, and logging activities.

(7) Where animals are being used to breed permitted livestock.

(8) Where livestock are trailing across National Forest System

lands and other lands under Forest Service control.

(b) Free or paid temporary permits: The authorized officer has

discretion to issue temporary permits for a fee or free of charge where

the primary objective for grazing use is managing vegetation, rather

than utilizing forage.

(c) Free grazing with no written permit. Grazing may be authorized

free of charge and without a written permit in the following

circumstances:

(1) Where livestock are being used by campers and travelers during

the period of occupancy.

(2) Where horses, mules, or burros are being used in support of

research, administration, or other approved work being conducted on

National Forest System lands and other lands under Forest Service

control.

(3) Where horses, mules, or burros are being used occasionally to

assist a permittee in managing the permitted livestock during the

grazing season.

Sec. 222.7 Requirements applicable to grazing permits.

(a) Requirements applicable to all Forest Service livestock grazing

permits. (1) Grazing permits may be issued only to private individuals,

grazing associations and districts, business concerns, or tribal

governments. Federal, State, and local governments, or units thereof,

are not eligible to receive or hold grazing permits.

(2) Applicants for a grazing permit must file a written application

to the District Ranger responsible for the administration of the lands

to be grazed.

(3) An applicant or permittee(s), and affiliate(s), if any, with a

history of prior grazing use on federal lands, must show a satisfactory

record of performance under previous or currently held federal grazing

permits. Applicants, permittees, or affiliates, who have had Forest

Service grazing permits cancelled, in whole, pursuant to Sec. 222.10(b)

(2), (3), (4), or (5), or other federal grazing permits or leases

cancelled within 36 months prior to application are presumed to have an

unsatisfactory performance record.

(b) Additional requirements applicable to term permits:

(1) Term permits may be issued to the following:

(i) A citizen of the United States;

(ii) An alien who has filed a petition for naturalization;

(iii) A corporation or other business concern, including but not

limited to grazing associations and districts, that is authorized to do

business in the State where the grazing activity is to be conducted

regardless of the ownership of the company or the company's stock; or

(iv) Tribal governments.

(2) An applicant or permittee must own the livestock to be grazed

under permit and such base property as required by the Forest Service,

except that:

(i) Livestock owned by children of permittees may be run under

their parent's term grazing permit for up to 50 percent of the

permitted numbers when the children are establishing a livestock herd

with the intent of acquiring the family ranch operation or when

children own livestock as part of a youth agricultural program or

project.

(ii) Members of a grazing association or a grazing district, as

opposed to the association or district itself, must meet base property

and livestock ownership requirements as specified in the term permit

issued to that association or district.

(iii) Applicants for or holders of term private land grazing

permits are not required to own base property or the livestock

authorized by the grazing permit.

(iv) Applicants for or holders of term permits for developing

ranges on National Forest System lands in the Eastern States are not

required to own livestock or base property to obtain the initial

grazing permit. However, when applying for permit renewal, the

permittee must meet the livestock and base property ownership

requirements.

(v) If a term grazing permittee disposes or loses control of all or

part of the base property but does not waive the permit to the United

States in favor of the new owner, the permittee has one year from the

date of sale or loss of control to meet base property requirements. If

the permittee does not meet base property requirements within that time

period, the permittee is no longer qualified to hold a term grazing

permit, and the authorized officer shall promptly cancel the permit.

(3) An authorized officer may prescribe other requirements for term

grazing permits including, but not limited to, the following:

(i) Conditions for and length of time that non-use may be allowed;

and

(ii) Upper limits on the total number of permitted livestock and

any exceptions to upper limits.

Sec. 222.8 Waivers and escrow waivers.

(a) Waiver of term permits. Holders of term grazing permits may

waive their permits to the United States in favor of another entity and

the waiver may be confirmed by an authorized officer as follows:

(1) A holder of a term grazing permit for National Forest System

lands in the Western States may waive a permit to the United States in

favor of an applicant who has purchased the permitted livestock or base

property if there is no escrow waiver in effect for that portion of the

permit. An authorized officer may confirm the waiver and issue a new

term grazing permit if the purchaser meets the requirements of

Sec. 222.7.

(2) On National Forest System lands in the Eastern States, a holder

of a term grazing permit issued under the noncompetitive procedures of

Sec. 222.53 may waive the permit to the United States in favor of a

spouse or child who acquires title to base property or permitted

livestock. An authorized officer may confirm the waiver and issue a new

term grazing permit if the spouse or child meets the applicable

requirements of Sec. 222.7.

(3) A holder of a term grazing permit issued under the competitive

bidding procedure in Subpart C-Grazing Fees of this part, may not waive

the permit to the United States in favor of another entity.

(b) Escrow waivers. Authorized officers may accept an escrow waiver

executed by the holder of a term grazing permit for National Forest

System lands in the Western States. The lender in whose name the United

States holds the grazing privileges in escrow shall receive copies of

all correspondence by the Forest Service related to actions under

Sec. 222.10 of this subpart to cancel, suspend, or modify the grazing

permit that is the subject of the escrow waiver. The authorized officer

may release an escrow waiver only upon the satisfaction of the mortgage

or upon the lender's written notification to the Forest Service that it

does not require such an arrangement to adequately protect its

interest. Authorized officers may issue term grazing permits to the

lender named on the escrow waiver, if the lender has acquired the

mortgaged base property or livestock and otherwise meets the

requirements of Sec. 222.7.

Sec. 222.9 Renewal of term grazing permits.

(a) To qualify for renewal of a term permit, current permit holders

must meet the requirements of Sec. 222.7.

(b) Current permit holders on National Forest System lands in the

Western States have priority for receiving a new term grazing permit

when the current term grazing permit expires.

(c) If the agency must cancel an existing permit and issue a new

permit to respond to changing law, executive order, regulation, or

resource condition, the new permit shall be issued to the current

permit holder.

(d) Procedures for renewal of term grazing permits for National

Forest System Lands in the Eastern States are set forth in subpart C of

this part.

(e) The duration of a term grazing permit renewed under this

section is determined in accordance with Sec. 222.5(b).

Sec. 222.10 Cancellation, suspension, and modification of grazing

permits.

(a) An authorized officer may cancel grazing permits, in whole or

in part, under the following circumstances:

(1) If the lands grazed under the permit are to be disposed of or

devoted to another public purpose. In these cases, except in an

emergency, the authorized officer must give the permittee two-years

advance notice of the intent to cancel.

(2) If a permittee does one or more of the following:

(i) Fails to meet the requirements in Sec. 222.7.

(ii) Waives the permit to the United States.

(iii) Fails to resume livestock grazing after exhausting the

maximum permitted time for nonuse.

(3) If a grazing association or district fails to comply with Title

VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and regulations promulgated

thereunder (7 CFR part 15).

(4) If it is necessary to update the grazing permit terms and

conditions. In this case, issuance of a new permit is preceded by a

rangeland project decision and NEPA disclosure and the duration of the

permit is determined in accordance with Sec. 222.5(b).

(b) An authorized officer may cancel, suspend, or modify a permit,

in whole or in part, to correct documented resource damage, or if a

permittee:

(1) Fails to pay grazing fees, service charges or unauthorized use

charges within the established time limit;

(2) Fails to comply with terms and conditions in the grazing

permit;

(3) Is responsible for unauthorized livestock use;

(4) Intentionally misrepresents a material fact to an authorized

officer on an application for a grazing permit or during the permit

term by making a false statement or by failing to disclose relevant

information; or

(5) Is convicted for violation of Federal laws or regulations or

State laws concerning animal control, protection of air, water, soil,

vegetation, fish, wildlife, or other environmental values related to

the grazing use authorized by the permit.

(c) An authorized officer may suspend or modify a permit, in whole

or in part, for the following purposes:

(1) To conform with changes in statute, court order, regulation,

Executive order, forest plans, rangeland project decisions, or other

management needs.

(2) To respond to a permittee(s) request, provided that the

requested modification is consistent with the forest plan and

applicable rangeland project decisions.

(3) To alter the amount of grazing permitted, the time or duration

of grazing use, or the allotment(s) to be used because of resource

condition(s). The authorized officer shall give a permittee one year's

notice, expect in an emergency or when agreed to by the permittee.

(d) When an authorized officer believes that cancellation,

suspension, or modification of a permit may be warranted, the officer

shall notify the permittee in writing that such action is being

considered. The permittee shall be accorded a reasonable opportunity to

respond, not to exceed 30 days. The officer shall consider any response

submitted by or on behalf of the permittee. If the authorized officer

decides that the permit action is appropriate, the decision becomes

effective on the date the decision is issued, unless specified

otherwise in the written decision.

Sec. 222.11 Grazing permit fees and other charges.

Authorized officers shall establish grazing fees and charges for

livestock grazing use in accordance with this section and the rules in

subpart C--Grazing Fees of this part.

(a) An authorized officer may assess a service charge for

processing the following actions related to a grazing permit:

(1) Actions initiated by a permittee or applicant;

(2) Actions arising under Sec. 222.10; or

(3) Actions related to willful unauthorized use.

(b) Unauthorized use is a violation of the terms and conditions of

the grazing permit. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the

authorized officer shall charge permittees and other livestock owners

for any unauthorized use. Charges for unauthorized use are in addition

to grazing fees assessed for authorized grazing use as prescribed in

subpart C of this part.

(c) The authorized officer shall determine whether unauthorized use

is willful or nonwillful. If willful, the authorized officer shall

check agency records and check with other federal agencies to determine

whether the permittee, applicant, or affiliate (if any) has been

responsible for other incidents of willful unauthorized grazing use in

the 36 months preceding the subject incident and, therefore, is subject

to the higher rate charge of paragraph (d)(3) of this section.

(d) The basic charge for unauthorized use will be the average

monthly animal unit month (AUM) grazing fee rate for the 17 Western

States published annually by the National Agricultural Statistical

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Charges for unauthorized use

are as follows:

(1) Nonwillful unauthorized use. Livestock owners responsible for

nonwillful unauthorized use shall be charged the unauthorized use rate

unless the authorized officer waives the charge. The charge for

nonwillful unauthorized use may be waived if the authorized officer

finds that all of the following apply;

(i) The unauthorized use was not due to the negligence of the

livestock operator;

(ii) Forage consumed by the unauthorized livestock was

insignificant;

(iii) There has been no damage to the land, resources or

improvements resulting from the unauthorized use; and

(iv) The waiver is in the best interest of the United States.

(2) Willful unauthorized use. Except as provided in paragraph

(d)(3) of this section, livestock owners responsible for willful

unauthorized use shall be charged two times the unauthorized use rate,

and they also shall be charged for all resource and property damage

resulting from the unauthorized use and for all reasonable expenses

incurred by the United States in detecting, investigating, and

resolving such unauthorized use.

(3) Repeated willful unauthorized use. Livestock owners responsible

for repeated willful unauthorized use shall be charged three times the

unauthorized use rate, and they also shall be charged for all resource

and property damage resulting from the unauthorized use and all

reasonable expenses incurred by the United States in detecting,

investigating, and resolving such unauthorized use.

Sec. 222.12 Information collection requirements.

(a) This subpart contains information requirements as defined by

the Paperwork Reduction Act and implementing regulations at 5 CFR part

1320, which, along with the forms listed in this section, have been

assigned OMB Control Number 0596-0003.

(b) Applicants or permittees must submit such information as may be

reasonably necessary for the authorized officer to determine whether

all applicable requirements under this subpart are satisfied.

(1) A person or entity desiring a grazing permit must submit an

application (Sec. 222.7), using one of the following forms:

(i) FS-2200-2, Application for Temporary Grazing Permit-Part 1.

(ii) FS-2200-16, Application for Term Grazing Permit.

(iii) FS-2200-17, Application for Term Private Land Grazing Permit.

(2) A permittee desiring a refund, credit, or transfer of grazing

fees (Sec. 222.11) must complete Form FS-2200-1, Refund, Credit, or

Transfer Application.

(3) A permittee desiring to waive a term permit to the Forest

Service (Sec. 222.8) should complete Form FS-2200-12, Waiver of Term

Grazing Permit.

(4) A permittee desiring to have the Forest Service hold a term

grazing permit in escrow in favor of a lender (Sec. 222.8) must

complete Form FS-2200-13, Escrow Waiver of Term Grazing Permit

Privileges.

Rangeland Improvements

Sec. 222.13 Improvements.

(a) An authorized officer may authorize permittees, individuals,

organizations, or other federal, State, and local agencies to perform

rangeland improvement work (Sec. 222.2) consistent with the forest plan

and with applicable rangeland project decisions.

(1) An authorized officer may require as a term or condition of the

permit that the permittee maintain rangeland improvements to specified

standards.

(2) The cost of rangeland improvement work may be borne in whole or

in part by the Forest Service.

(b) The installation, construction, and/or maintenance of rangeland

improvements are subject to the following conditions:

(1) All new or replacement rangeland improvements to be constructed

or accomplished by permittees must be expressly authorized by the

grazing permit.

(2) Subject to valid existing rights, title to permanent structural

rangeland improvements is held by the United States. Title to temporary

structural rangeland improvements may be held by the party which

performs the rangeland improvement work, if no part of the cost of that

work is borne by the United States.

(3) When rangeland improvement work is performed by a party other

than the Forest Service, that party does not obtain an exclusive right

to use the improvement or the land influenced by the improvement.

(c) Rangeland improvements on National Forest land in the 16

contiguous Western States may be funded by the Range Betterment Fund.

(d) Grazing fee credits or adjustments for rangeland improvement

work are subject to the following:

(1) Grazing fee credits for rangeland improvements may be granted

to permittees on National Forest System lands in the Eastern States

pursuant to Secs. 222.53 and 222.54.

(2) The annual grazing fee on National Grasslands or Land

Utilization Projects may be adjusted to reflect the cost to a grazing

permittee of complying with conservation practices required by a term

grazing permit, provided that such cost has not already been used in

establishing the grazing base value.

(3) Except as provided in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this

section, authorized officers shall not adjust grazing fees charged in

exchange for rangeland improvement work performed on all other National

Forest System lands.

Sec. 222.14 Compensation for permittees' interest in rangeland

improvements.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whenever a term

grazing permit in the 16 contiguous Western States is cancelled, in

whole or in part, to dispose of the land or to devote it to another

public purpose, the current permittee shall receive reasonable

compensation for investments in authorized permanent structural

rangeland improvements on the land affected by the permit concellation.

Compensation may not exceed the fair market value of the terminated

portion of the permittee's interest in the improvement.

(b) A permittee who waived a grazing permit to the United States

prior to the notice of cancellation, in accordance with

Sec. 222.8(a)(1), shall not receive any compensation under this

section.

(c) If a term grazing permit expires and the permittee fails to

renew it in accordance with Sec. 222.9, no compensation will be granted

for rangeland improvements to the former holder of the expired permit.

Cooperation

Sec. 222.15 Recognition and cooperation with local livestock or

grazing associations and districts.

(a) An authorized officer may recognize a local livestock or

grazing association or district for the purpose of issuing a term

permit if the following requirements are met:

(1) A majority of the grazing permittees on the allotments

designated in the term permit to be issued are members of the

association or district.

(2) The activities of the association or district are governed by a

constitution and bylaws which include a provision for members to

address their grievances to the association or district in accordance

with the term permit and the governing constitution and bylaws of the

organization and which are approved by the authorized officer.

(3) The officers of the association or district are elected by a

majority of the association or district members or by a quorum as

specified in the organization's constitution and bylaws.

(4) The officers, other than secretary and treasurer, are grazing

permittees on the allotments involved.

(b) Once an association or district is recognized and a term permit

issued, the Forest Service may cooperate with the association or

district under the terms and conditions of the permit in the management

of rangeland resources and livestock on the land covered by the term

permit issued to the association, provided that the association

provides the means for their members to:

(1) Manage their permitted livestock and the range resources

cooperatively;

(2) Share costs for handling of livestock, construction, and

maintenance of range improvements or other projects deemed necessary

for proper management of the permitted livestock and range resources;

(3) Meet with Forest officers to discuss and formulate programs for

management of their livestock and the rangeland resources;

(4) Communicate proposals, issues, or concerns to Forest Service

officials; and

(5) Formulate special association rules as needed to ensure proper

resource management.

(c) An authorized officer may withdraw recognition and subsequently

cancel the grazing permit of a grazing association or district at the

request of the majority of the members, when the association or

district is inactive and does not hold an annual or a special meeting

during a 12-month period, or when the association or district fails to

comply with the provisions of paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this

section.

Sec. 222.16 Cooperation with national, state, and county livestock

organizations and others.

(a) Forest Service officials shall endeavor to establish and

maintain cooperative working relationships with national livestock

organizations who have an interest in the administration of National

Forest System lands and other lands under Forest Service control and to

work cooperatively with state and county livestock organizations having

similar interests.

(b) Insofar as the programs and responsibilities of other agencies

and units of government involve grazing upon National Forest System

lands and other lands under Forest Service control or the livestock

which graze thereupon, the Forest Service may, subject to the

availability of appropriated funds, cooperate with:

(1) State, county, and federal agencies in the application and

enforcement of all laws and regulations relating to livestock diseases,

sanitation, and noxious weeds;

(2) County or other local weed control districts in analyzing

noxious weed problems and developing integrated weed management

strategies for areas which may include National Forest System lands and

other lands under Forest Service control;

(3) The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and other

Federal or State agencies and institutions in surveillance of pesticide

application programs and animal damage management; and

(4) State cattle and sheep sanitary or brand boards in control of

estray and unbranded livestock, to the extent such cooperation does not

conflict with the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of December 15,

1971.

(c) Forest Service officials also shall endeavor to cooperate with

other agencies, institutions, organizations, and individuals having an

interest in the protection and management of the range resource on

public or private lands.

(d) Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.),

and the implementing regulation at 41 CFR part 101-6, subpart 101-6.10,

and the Food and Agriculture Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2281, et seq.), the

Secretary may establish advisory boards to advise the Forest Service on

range resource management concerns. The membership of such boards shall

be appointed to reflect a variety of points of view about resource

management and a range of resource interests.

Dated: April 20, 1994.

James R. Lyons,

Assistant Secretary, Natural Resources and Environment.

Note: This appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal

Regulations.

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M

Appendix to Preamble of Proposed Rule

TP28AP94.001

[FR Doc. 94-10031 Filed 4-26-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-C