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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[WO-220-94-4320-01-241A]

Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Rangeland Reform '94 and

Request for Public Comment

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 202 of the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969, the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management (BLM), with the cooperation of the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, has prepared a draft environmental impact

statement (EIS) for Rangeland Reform '94. BLM and the Forest Service

are proposing to change policies and regulations within their Federal

rangeland management programs. These actions are intended to improve

and restore a significant portion of rangeland ecosystems and to

improve and maintain biodiversity, while providing for sustainable

development on lands administered by the two agencies. The two agencies

are also proposing to revise the formula used to determine fees charged

for grazing livestock on Federal lands in the 17 western states. By

this notice, the public is informed that the draft EIS is available and

that interested individuals may obtain copies by request.

DATES: Written comments on the draft EIS must be postmarked no later

than August 11, 1994. Comments received after this date may not be

considered in preparation of the final EIS. Oral and/or written

comments may also be presented at public hearings to be held in the

West during the public comment period. Dates and locations of public

hearings on the draft EIS will be announced separately from this notice

of availability.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the draft EIS should be sent to: Rangeland

Reform '94, P.O. Box 66300, Washington, DC 20035-6300.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Write to the above address or call Jim

Fox, Bureau of Land Management, (202) 452-7740, or Jerry McCormick,

Forest Service, (202) 205-1457. To obtain a copy of the draft EIS,

please call or visit your nearest BLM Resource Area office or Forest

Service Forest office.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The last major revisions to 43 CFR part

4100, including establishment of the current fee formula in

regulations, occurred in 1988. Since then, new information on range

practices and conditions has been generated by various studies and

General Accounting Office audits. In response, the Departments of the

Interior and Agriculture have initiated a proposal for rangeland

reform, including specific regulatory language.

The draft EIS addresses several areas of rangeland management

reform, including, but not limited to: the Federal formula for

calculating grazing fees, subleasing, unauthorized use (trespass),

public participation, suspended and extended nonuse, appeals,

disqualification, issuing grazing preference and permits, prohibited

acts, permit or lease tenure, BLM grazing advisory boards, range

improvement ownership, establishment of an ecosystem framework for

rangeland management, and the establishment of standards and guidelines

for grazing.

The draft EIS is a national-level, programmatic EIS. It documents

the ecological, economic, and social impacts that would result from

alternative fee formulas and from reforming, or not reforming, other

elements of the federal rangeland management program. Five management

alternatives are considered in detail: Current Management (No Action),

BLM-Forest Service Proposed Action, Livestock Production, Environmental

Enhancement, and No Grazing. Seven grazing fee formula alternatives are

also analyzed: Current Public Rangeland Improvement Act (PRIA) (No

Action), Modified PRIA, BLM-Forest Service Proposed Action, Regional

Fees, Federal Forage Fee, PRIA with Surcharges, and Competitive

Bidding.

Management Alternative 1, Current Management (No Action) would

continue existing policies, regulations, and management practices

within both BLM's and the Forest Service's rangeland management

programs.

Management Alternative 2, the BLM-Forest Service Proposed Action,

would change many elements of the agencies' current rangeland policies,

regulations, and management practices. The Proposed Action includes

national requirements that provide the basis for developing state or

regional standards and guidelines for managing livestock grazing in

rangeland ecosystems administered by BLM. The Forest Service would

continue to formulate standards and guidelines for rangeland management

while it prepares national forest land and resource management plans.

BLM would replace grazing advisory boards with resource advisory

councils, which would address a broader range of concerns, while still

ensuring local participation in rangeland management decisions. Both

agencies would implement policies to manage rangeland resources using

an ecosystem approach. The Proposed Action would also establish

consistent BLM and Forest Service programs to improve ecological

conditions while maintaining opportunities for long-term sustainable

development.

Management Alternative 3, Livestock Production, would place more

control of rangeland management in local communities. Although BLM and

the Forest Service would not give up their responsibilities under laws

and regulations, local community involvement in grazing advisory boards

would play a lead role in making decisions about public rangelands

management planning, implementation, and evaluation. Under this

alternative, both agencies would have grazing advisory boards. BLM

standards and guidelines would be developed at the local level by

grazing advisory boards, while the Forest Service would continue to

formulate standards and guidelines when it prepares national forest

land and resource management plans. Goals and objectives for rangeland

ecosystems would be set at the local level through consultation with

grazing advisory boards. As under other alternatives, regulation

changes would make BLM and Forest Service program administration more

efficient and consistent.

Management Alternative 4, Environmental Enhancement, would

authorize livestock grazing only in areas where enough data shows

resource condition standards and goals are being met. This alternative

places greater emphasis on managing all uses, including livestock

grazing, to sustain ecosystem biodiversity and ecological processes.

Some areas would be closed to grazing: wilderness, designated critical

habitat for threatened and endangered species, developed recreation

sites, and areas of unacceptable rangeland health. Under this

alternative, BLM and the Forest Service would adopt and implement

national standards and guidelines aimed at maintaining ecosystem

health. Joint BLM-Forest Service advisory councils would be set up on

an ecoregion basis. As under other alternatives, regulation changes

would make BLM and Forest Service program administration more efficient

and consistent.

Management Alternative 5, No Grazing, would eliminate grazing on

public lands over a 3-year phase-out period. BLM and the Forest Service

would continue developing policies and procedures for promoting

ecosystem management. Where needed, the agencies could use livestock to

manage vegetation to achieve resource objectives. None of the other

livestock grazing management measures considered in the other four

alternatives would be needed.

Fee Alternative 1, Current PRIA (No Action), consists of a base

value of $1.23 per animal unit month (AUM) that is updated annually

using three indexes: change in forage value, change in beef cattle

prices, and prices paid for selected items purchased by permittees. The

annual fee would not differ by more than 25 percent from the fee

charged in the previous year.

Fee Alternative 2, Modified PRIA, would use the same base as PRIA,

$1.23, but would differ in using an index for all production costs

rather than selected production costs. The annual fee would not differ

by more than 25 percent from the fee charged in the previous year.

Fee Alternative 3, BLM-Forest Service Proposed Action, would adopt

a fee formula using a base value ($3.96) updated annually by a Forage

Value Index. The $3.96 base value represents a midrange between the

results obtained through the use of two methods for estimating a fair

base value. The proposed fee would be phased in over the years 1995

through 1997. Thereafter, annual increases or decreases in the grazing

fee resulting from changes in the forage value index would be limited

to 25 percent of the amount charged the previous year to provide for a

measure of stability that would facilitate business planning.

This proposal would establish 1996 as the base year for the forage

value index. The forage value index would not be used to annually

adjust the fee in response to market conditions until the year 1997.

This proposed rule would establish the 1995 grazing fee at $2.75, and

the 1996 grazing fee at $3.50. Thereafter the fee would be calculated,

using the base value of $3.96 multiplied by the revised forage value

index. By definition, the forage value index in the year 1997 would

equal one; yielding a 1997 grazing fee of $3.96. In subsequent years

the calculated fee would depend on the changes in the market rate for

private grazing land leases as reflected by the forage value index.

Fee incentive criteria would be developed during the first 2 years

of a 3-year fee phase-in period. The third year of the phase-in would

not be implemented until the incentive criteria are developed. Instead

a base value of $3.50 would be substituted in 1997. Fee Alternative 4,

Regional Fees, is the same as the proposed action fee, except that a

different base value would be applied to six pricing regions. The

regional base values would be derived from the 1983 Federal Land Forage

Appraisal (updated in 1992). The regional base values would be annually

updated using the Forage Value Index. The annual fee would not differ

by more than 25 percent from the fee charged in the previous year.

Fee Alternative 5, Federal Forage Fee Formula, was developed by the

Western Livestock Producers Alliance. It is based on a 3-year average

of private grazing land lease rates for 16 western states. The formula

uses multipliers of private land lease rates and deducts the updated

1966 nonfee costs described in the proposed fee alternative. That

amount is multiplied by the percentage difference of cash receipts per

cow for federal and nonfederal livestock producers. The annual fee

would not differ by more than 25 percent from the fee charged in the

previous year.

Fee Alternative 6, PRIA with Surcharges, would use the fee under

the PRIA fee alternative ($1.86 for 1993) and add a surcharge to cover

the cost of administering the grazing program at the local Forest

Service and BLM administrative level. Each year the fee would be

limited to twice the fee produced by the PRIA formula. After a 1-year

phase-in, the surcharge would not differ by more than 10 percent from

the previous year's surcharge.

Fee Alternative 7, Competitive Bidding System, would use

competitive bidding to set grazing fees. The successful bidder would be

required to adhere to the terms of the permit and perform specific

management practices and facilities maintenance. The terms of the

permit would be part of the bid process, allowing bidders themselves to

estimate the market value of the forage.

Public participation has occurred throughout the EIS process. A

Notice of Intent was filed in the Federal Register on July 13, 1993.

The scoping period was reopened for an additional 60 days through

August 13 and September 20, 1993, Federal Register notices.

Dated: May 5, 1994.

Jonathan P. Deason,

Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance.

[FR Doc. 94-11364 Filed 5-12-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-84-P