8. Federal Land Management

Download this Policy Statement

  • 8.1 Introduction
    Last updated: February 08, 2010

    Throughout the country’s history, and up to the present day, the use and corresponding management of lands belonging to the federal government has received widespread attention. The grazing of domestic livestock on federal rangelands has become the center of controversy resulting in proposals advanced in both the regulatory and legislative arenas.  The issue has commanded the attention of the administration, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service, Congress, the livestock and related industries, the general public, and a myriad of special interest groups.

  • 8.2 Grazing on Public Land
    Last updated: February 08, 2010

    Rangeland Reform ‘94 was the latest administrative effort to revise the management process for livestock grazing on federal rangelands, and culminated in the current regulations which govern livestock grazing on both the public lands and the national forests. Central to any proposal for the management of livestock grazing on the federal rangelands is the concept that management objectives must be based on the philosophy of multiple use and sustained yield.

    Any administrative or legislative endeavors to amend or revise the administration of grazing domestic livestock on the federal rangelands must consider the following comments:
    • The grazing fee and fee formula must provide for a reasonable return to the federal government while insuring that federal land grazing permittee and lessees are afforded the ability to retain viable and productive livestock operations. The fee must also be non-punitive in nature to encourage the continued private investment of time and monies into the improvement of the condition of the federal rangelands.
    • Allow for the development of allotment management plans using the principles of careful and considered consultation, cooperation, and coordination to insure that appropriate grazing management practices are implemented which are necessary to meet specific multiple-use management objectives to insure that appropriate grazing management practices are implemented which are necessary to meet specific multiple-use management objectives, and maintain the economic viability of the livestock operation. In addition to achieving multiple-use management objectives, utilize monitoring methodologies that will determine the appropriateness of the management practice (s) implemented.
    • Standards and guidelines for rangeland health that are identified as appropriate and necessary for the effective management of the nation’s rangelands shall be developed on a state or regional level in cooperation with the state department of agriculture, natural resource conservation service, and the land-grant university of each interested state. This will ensure that the standards and guidelines reflect the indigenous and existing resource conditions and management requirements specific to each state.
    • Any resource advisory process which provides the federal land management agencies with advice or recommendations concerning the federal lands livestock grazing management program shall be implemented in consultation with the governors of the affected states.
    • The Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture, upon the petition of a simple majority of the livestock permittees and lessees for each administrative unit for which the petition originates, shall establish and maintain at least one Grazing Advisory Council. The function of the Council shall be to provide the federal land management agencies with advice concerning the grazing of livestock on public lands to include the planning, development, and implementation of range improvement objectives, the expenditure of range improvement funds, grazing management programs, and range management decisions and actions at the term grazing permit or lease and allotment management plan level.
    • Title to structural range improvements on federal lands necessary for the proper administration and management of the federal rangelands resource shall be in the name of the federal government and the permittee or permittee or lessee in proportion to the value of the original contributions toward the initial cost of construction. This will continue to encourage investment for improved management on federal rangelands as well as facilitate cooperative endeavors for implementing range improvements.
    • The use and appropriation of water rights by any entity, including the federal government, shall be in accordance with state law. Any proposal, either administrative or legislative, shall not create an expressed or implied reservation or water rights in the name of the United States. Additionally, with regard to the management deemed necessary for the livestock grazing programs on the federal rangelands, the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture shall follow state law with regard to water ownership.
    • Applicants, permittees, lessees, and lienholders shall have the opportunity to protest proposed decisions developed by the federal land management agencies relating to any and all provisions of the term grazing permit or lease. Applicants, permittees, lessees, and lienholders shall also have the opportunity to appeal a final decision of the land management agencies concerning any and all provisions of the term grazing permit or lease. An appeal of a final decision shall suspend the effect of the final decision pending final action on the appeal unless the decision is made based on the determination that imminent and irreversible damage to land resources would likely result from delay of implementation of the final decision. Applicants, permittees, lessees, and lienholders should have the opportunity to mediate any disputed decisions with federal land management agencies regarding any and all provisions of a term grazing permit or lease. Mediation services should be provided by state mediation programs certified under section 502 of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 and other appropriate federal legislation.
    • The issuance of a term grazing permit or lease that is consistent with a land use plan developed by and compliant with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) shall not be considered to be a major federal action requiring the conduct of any additional study or assessment under NEPA. “In cases where impacts are identified to be occurring on federal lands requiring NEPA analysis of the grazing administration of a term grazing permit or lease, and a term grazing permit or lease expires prior to the completion of the NEPA analysis, the term grazing permit or lease shall be issued, reissued, or transferred using the same terms and conditions as contained in the expiring permit until such time as the terms and conditions may require modification under a NEPA compliant record of decision.
    • Recognize that additional stability in the form of term permit or lease tenure length encourages private investment in the federal rangelands, promotes long term planning and management efforts, and provides an environment of continued cooperation and coordination between grazing permittee and lessees and the land management agencies; therefore, to ensure that these benefits continue, term grazing permits and leases shall be issued for a term longer than ten years.
    • The Secretary of Interior should use local law enforcement authority when enforcing Federal laws and regulations. Per Section 303 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act the Secretary has the authority to “offer a contract to appropriate local officials having law enforcement authority within their respective jurisdictions with the view of achieving maximum feasible reliance upon local law enforcement officials in enforcing such [Federal] laws and regulations.” Furthermore the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture should be cognizant of state law and due process related to their enforcement actions.
    • Any administrative or legislative proposal addressing the management of grazing domestic livestock on federal lands must apply to the BLM as administered by the Secretary of the Interior and the Forest Service as administered by the Secretary of Agriculture.

     

  • 8.3 Clean Water Act
    Last updated: February 08, 2010

    The issuance, reissuance, or transfer of a term grazing permit or lease that is consistent with a land use plan developed using the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process should not be considered a federal action requiring state certification under section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The NEPA process ensures the affected environment, the environmental consequences, and a full range of reasonable alternatives have been developed and considered in the decision-making process for all major federal actions proposed by the federal land management agencies. The NEPA scoping process involves the general public, state and local governments and Indian tribes, affected interest, and organizations, and includes the opportunity to submit comments on the planning provisions prior to the issuance of any management decisions. The NEPA process provides full and fair consideration of water quality issues contained in the CWA. As such, state certification is not necessary for the issuance, reissuance, or transfer of a federal term grazing permit.

  • 8.4 Federal Wilderness Areas
    Last updated: February 08, 2010

     

    Various problems impacting the management of livestock grazing and natural resources management occur on existing federal wilderness areas. Pending or new legislation will likely propose certain new areas for wilderness designation in western states.

    Any wilderness legislation must included the following provisions:
    • Continue livestock grazing practices and protect private investments in a manner existing prior to passage of the Wilderness Act of 1964.

     

    • Protect the states’ and private water rights and water administration systems from federal encroachment by requiring the federal government to seek any water necessary for wilderness purposes through a state’s water process.
    • Include language which will release those lands not designated wilderness to multiple use.

     

  • 8.5 Antiquities Act
    Last updated: February 08, 2010

    The Antiquities Act of 1906 grants authority to the President of the United States to set aside land of historic or scientific interest. Recently, over three million acres of federal land have been withdrawn from public use by authority of the Antiquities Act. In many instances, this action was taken without formal input from the state or local governments involved or the states’ congressional delegation, and was strongly opposed by the local citizens.

    The Antiquities Act should be repealed, and the authority to withdraw land from public use returned to Congress. Failing repeal, the Antiquities Act should be amended as follows:
    • All withdrawals should be subject to the National Environmental Policy Act;
    • Governors of the affected states should be formally consulted; and
    • No more than 5,000 acres will be withdrawn by any single executive action.

     

  • 8.6 Equal Access to Justice Act (New) 
    Last updated: February 08, 2010

    The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) was passed to aid small business, public interest groups, and individuals forced to sue or defend against the government in order to secure some right, privilege, or interest. Under EAJA, these individuals or small businesses can obtain reimbursement of attorney fees if the individual or small business prevails in litigation.

    • NASDA supports policies, including those of the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), that facilitate the ability of agricultural producers and other permittees on public lands to fully participate in the court system in order to address unreasonable government action. 
    • NASDA supports policies that provide reasonable reimbursement of attorney fees to prevailing individuals, small businesses, and public interest organizations in litigation intended to address unreasonable government action. 

    In order to guard against abuse of the EAJA and to help protect agricultural producers from onerous and excessive litigation, NASDA supports policies that:

    • Provide greater transparency into the amount of funding provided to prevailing parties under the EAJA. This transparency should also include an accounting of the recipients of these funds. 
    • Ensure a level playing field for recipients of EAJA reimbursements. Individuals and small businesses are subject to net-worth limits to qualify for reimbursement under the EAJA; appropriate limitations should be set to restrain the ability of non-profit activist organizations to abuse the system.
    • Enhance the ability of agricultural producers and other permittees on public lands to intervene in cases that could have direct financial consequences and other negative implications on these parties.