Nevada Term Grazing Permit Renewal Strategy
In Reply Refer To:
4100 (NV930) P
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Nevada State Office
1340 Financial Boulevard
Reno, Nevada 89502-7147
http://www.blm.gov/nv
December 20, 2013
EMS TRANSMISSION 12/23/13
Instruction Memorandum: No. NV-2014-005 Expires: 09/30/2016
To: District and Field Managers, Nevada
From: State Director
Subject: Nevada Term Grazing Permit Renewal Strategy
Purpose: In order to meet the expectations of the Washington Office, BLM Nevada has developed the following short and long-term strategies that will result in a minimum of 55 Grazing Permits being fully processed per year with an emphasis on grazing permits in priority sage-grouse habitat. In the long-term, we intend to fully process 70 permits per year and minimize the use of the Appropriations Act1 to issue grazing permits.
Policy/Action: Meeting the objective of 55 to 70 fully processed grazing permits per year will be achieved by utilizing a combination of dedicated Term Permit Renewal Teams (TPRTs) located in District Offices/Field Offices (DOs/FOs) and creation of a Statewide Term Permit Renewal Team (STPRT). The STPRT will be made up of the following specialties*:
Project Lead GS-0301-13/PFT NV-930
Rangeland Management Specialist GS-0454-12/PFT WNDO
Wildlife Biologist GS-0486-12/PFT BMDO
Riparian/Hydrology Specialist GS-1315-12/PFT CCDO
Ecologist GS-0408-12/PFT Elko DO
Writer –Editor GS-1082-09/PFT Ely DO
*Additional required skills will be secured by contract or term positions as necessary.
The Appropriations Act (Act) allows field officials to renew grazing permits and leases (permits) that will not be fully processed (NEPA analysis complete) before they expire. Grazing permits issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act are to be issued for a term of ten years unless as otherwise provided in the grazing regulations at 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §4130.2(d).
The STPRT will be responsible for developing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents necessary for fully processing assigned grazing permits. This team will be dependent on DOs/FOs providing data and data analysis documents sufficient for it to complete required NEPA documents. The STPRT is NOT a data collection team. Field data collection remains the responsibility of the DOs/FOs. However, analysis of field data in support of NEPA document preparation may be assigned to the STPRT as needed.
The majority of the NEPA analysis is expected to be accomplished at the Environmental Assessment (EA) level and will take approximately 12 months to complete the permit renewal. However, this strategy also foresees the potential need for Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) level grazing analysis. EIS level analysis would typically be the responsibility of the STPRT. On average, an EIS level grazing analysis would be expected to take about 24 months to complete.
This strategy will be implemented utilizing a short term strategy (2015-2019) and a long term strategy (2020 and beyond). A two-step process is proposed because this strategy represents a radical departure from present work methods. Intensive coordination between the field and state office teams will be required to establish efficient work procedures. The short-term strategy could be viewed as a “break-in” period but real progress on grazing permit renewals is expected.
Advisory Group
Successful implementation of this strategy will rely on the establishment of an Advisory Group composed of members from each DO/FO, the STPRT Team Lead, and the Nevada State Office Range Program Lead. Initially, this group will develop a 5-10 year work plan that outlines which permits will be assigned to the STPRT for processing. The Advisory Group is expected to develop document templates, an interdisciplinary monitoring plan, and work processes designed to achieve the objective of fully processing grazing permits. During the short-term strategy phase, this group should meet quarterly to identify problems, adjust processes, etc.
Strategies
The following strategies reflect the initial concepts that will likely be adjusted as the process evolves. The targets shown are the starting point for discussions.
Short-term Strategy
The short term strategy will focus on completing 55 fully processed permit renewals per year with the focus on those permits in sage-grouse habitat. The assumption will be that DO/FO TPRTs are responsible for completing approximately 50% of the state’s base target of 55 permits “in-house,” while the STPRT will be responsible for the remaining 50% of the state’s target.
Table 1: Short Term Strategy
DO Name: Battle Mountain ; Permits in AA Status: 54 ; Appropriation Act Permits in Grouse Habitat: 48 ; 55 TARGET: 8 ; DO/FO PRT Responsibility: 4 ; STPRT Responsibility: 4
DO Name: Carson City ; Permits in AA Status: 32 ; Appropriation Act Permits in Grouse Habitat: 17 ; 55 TARGET: 3 ; DO/FO PRT Responsibility: 2 ; STPRT Responsibility: 1
DO Name: Elko ; Permits in AA Status: 164 ; Appropriation Act Permits in Grouse Habitat: 161 ; 55 TARGET: 27 ; DO/FO PRT Responsibility: 13 ; STPRT Responsibility: 14
DO Name: Ely ; Permits in AA Status: 65 ; Appropriation Act Permits in Grouse Habitat: 31 ; 55 TARGET: 6 ; DO/FO PRT Responsibility: 3 ; STPRT Responsibility: 3
DO Name: Winnemucca ; Permits in AA Status: 83 ; Appropriation Act Permits in Grouse Habitat: 65 ; 55 TARGET: 11 ; DO/FO PRT Responsibility: 5 ; STPRT Responsibility: 6
Long-term Strategy
The long-term strategy will expand upon the short-term strategy by focusing on achieving 70 grazing permit renewals per year. The DO/FO TPRTs are responsible for completing approximately 50% of the state’s base target of 55 permits “in-house”, while the STPRT will be responsible for the remaining 50% of the state’s target and all additional units required to achieve 70 permits per year.
Table 2: Long Term Strategy
DO Name: Battle Mountain ; Permits in AA Status: 54 ; Appropriation Act Permits in Grouse Habitat: 48 ; 70 TARGET: 10 ; DO/FO TPRT Responsibility: 4 ; STPRT Responsibility: 6
DO Name: Carson City ; Permits in AA Status: 32 ; Appropriation Act Permits in Grouse Habitat: 17 ; 70 TARGET: 4 ; DO/FO TPRT Responsibility: 2 ; STPRT Responsibility: 2
DO Name: Elko ; Permits in AA Status: 164 ; Appropriation Act Permits in Grouse Habitat: 161 ; 70 TARGET: 35 ; DO/FO TPRT Responsibility: 13 ; STPRT Responsibility: 22
DO Name: Ely ; Permits in AA Status: 65 ; Appropriation Act Permits in Grouse Habitat: 31 ; 70 TARGET: 7 ; DO/FO TPRT Responsibility: 3 ; STPRT Responsibility: 4
DO Name: Winnemucca ; Permits in AA Status: 83 ; Appropriation Act Permits in Grouse Habitat: 65 ; 70 TARGET: 14 ; DO/FO TPRT Responsibility: 5 ; STPRT Responsibility: 9
Advisory Group Developed Strategy
The STPRT workload will be designed for maximum efficiency. Based on the results of the Advisory Group’s 5-10 year work plan, the method described in Table 3 below may be the typical approach. For example, if an EIS or programmatic (i.e. “broad action”) level EA analysis is required, it may make sense to adjust DO/FO and STPRT’s workload targets in any given year(s). In the below example (shaded), the minimum target of 55 is met and the total number of grazing permits/leases processed (EE) is still 70:
Table 3: Advisory Group Developed Strategy
DO Name: Battle Mountain ; Permits in AA Status: 54 ; Appropriation Act Permits in Grouse Habitat: 48 ; 55 TARGET: 8 ; 70 TARGET: 10 ; DO/FO PRT Responsibility: 6 ; STPRT Responsibility: 8 EA
DO Name: Carson City ; Permits in AA Status: 32 ; Appropriation Act Permits in Grouse Habitat: 17 ; 55 TARGET: 3 ; 70 TARGET: 4 ; DO/FO PRT Responsibility: 4 ; STPRT Responsibility: null
DO Name: Elko ; Permits in AA Status: 164 ; Appropriation Act Permits in Grouse Habitat: 161 ; 55 TARGET: 27 ; 70 TARGET: 35 ; DO/FO PRT Responsibility: 15 ; STPRT Responsibility: 15 EIS
DO Name: Ely ; Permits in AA Status: 65 ; Appropriation Act Permits in Grouse Habitat: 31 ; 55 TARGET: 6 ; 70 TARGET 7 ; DO/FO PRT Responsibility: 5 ; STPRT Responsibility: null
DO Name: Winnemucca ; Permits in AA Status: 83 ; Appropriation Act Permits in Grouse Habitat: 65 ; 55 TARGET: 11 ; 70 TARGET: 14 ; DO/FO PRT Responsibility: 7 ; STPRT Responsibility: 10 EA
Staffing and Funding
Funding for the STPRT positions will come off the top of the state’s budget before payroll budget distribution to districts. Unfunded/vacant positions will be made available for team positions. Recruitment for these new positions will be by conventional announcement or through reassignment of existing qualified Bureau of Land Management (BLM) employee(s) currently qualified for the grade of these new positions. Districts will voluntarily give up vacant authorized Table of Organization slots (funded or unfunded), but keep currently encumbered positions and funding.
Advisory Group Responsibilities
Workload Planning
1. Develop and approve a 5 year work plan that assigns a minimum of 27-28 grazing permits per year to the STPRT for processing.
2. Develop a prioritization process/selection matrix that will be used to identify which permits should be assigned to the STPRT and those that will be retained by the Districts for processing over the long term (i.e. after those permits identified in the 5 year work plan have been processed).
3. Responsible for tracking grazing permit renewal progress.
4. Review, revise, and implement replacement Instruction Memoranda (IMs) for IM-NV-2004-086, “Process to Document Rangeland Health and Condition, Range Use, and Management Decisions” and IM NV-2006-034, “Guidance for EAs for Grazing Permit Renewals” to ensure document consistency across the state.
5. Develop and implement a standardized data management plan by 2015. Maintenance and modification of this plan will be the on-going responsibility of the Advisory Group and the STPRT.
District/Field Office Permit Renewal Team Responsibilities
Workload Planning
1. Focus grazing use analysis programmatically (i.e. “broad actions” such as geographical areas or relevant similar timing) as much as possible to create efficiencies.
2. Develop a 5-10 year work plan covering all District offices and identify grazing permits to be processed by the Field Offices and the STPRT.
3. Field Managers should be the agency lead when working with permittees, counties, etc. on permits assigned to the STPRT.
4. As needed, schedule time for the Field Manager/staff, STPRT, interested public, and permittee(s) to meet on the ground.
Data Collection
1. DOs/FOs are responsible for data collection.
2. DOs/FOs are responsible for establishing where data collection will be conducted.
3. The type of data necessary for permit processing will be collected in accordance with manuals and technical references by the DOs/FOs. Nevada BLM is currently collecting land health assessment data through the Assessment Inventory and Monitoring (AIM) Strategy on many allotments. If it is felt that this data alone is inadequate or not representative for grazing permit evaluation, additional data may be collected. The DOs/FOs need to coordinate this effort to ensure the data needed for the permit evaluations is collected either through this effort or other
appropriate means.
4. Data collection may be accomplished in-house with BLM staff or by outside expertise (e.g. through current agreements with Great Basin Institute (GBI) and/or the United States Forest Service Enterprise Teams, etc.), or a combination.
5. Data collection sites should be representative of the grazing use occurring in the watershed/sub-basin/allotment.
6. Long term trend monitoring data should be included where available.
7. Utilization transect data and use pattern mapping should be collected.
Data Analysis
Data analysis is the responsibility of the DOs/FOs, unless this task is assigned to the STPRT for particular permits. Analysis may be accomplished in-house by BLM staff or by outside expertise, such as GBI Enterprise Teams.
Document Preparation
1. Grazing use analysis reports, such as rangeland health assessments/evaluations and standards determinations, monitoring data analysis reports, Allotment Management Plan (AMP) evaluations, etc. will be finalized by DOs/FOs. The STPRT may be assigned this task for those permits assigned to them. Reports may be completed in-house by BLM or by outside expertise, such as GBI Enterprise Teams.
2. Rangeland health assessments and standards determinations, monitoring evaluation reports, grazing analysis reports finalized by DOs/FOs for the STPRT must be made available in a timely manner to avoid needless delays.
3. NEPA documents for grazing permits being processed by DOs/FOs may be prepared in-house or through contracts and agreements as appropriate.
4. The DO/FO TPRTs are responsible for NEPA document preparation, proposed/final grazing decision preparation, and grazing decision defense on their assigned grazing permits; this includes Nevada Department of Wildlife coordination and Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation as appropriate.
5. Tribal consultation is the responsibility of the DOs/FOs in ALL cases.
6. The Field Manager is the Authorized Officer for ALL grazing decisions.
Statewide Term Permit Renewal Team Responsibilities
Workload Planning
Working through the Advisory Group, focus on analysis areas that will potentially be complex and require defending decisions throughout the protest/appeal and federal court processes.
Data Collection
STPRT has no data collection responsibilities.
Data Analysis
Data analysis and grazing use analysis reports may be completed by the STPRT for assigned permits if reports cannot be completed by the DOs/FOs.
Document Preparation
1. The STPRT is responsible for NEPA document preparation, proposed/final grazing decision preparation on their assigned grazing permits.
2. The STPRT is responsible for creating and maintaining the administrative record for grazing permit renewals assigned to them.
3. The STPRT is responsible for coordinating grazing decision defense on their assigned grazing permits with the Solicitors and Field Managers.
4. The STPRT requires regular communication with the Field Manager and their staff.
5. The Field Manager and staff need to be engaged in the critical steps of the NEPA process (issue and alternative development, etc.) to ensure ownership in the decision and for successful implementation.
6. The STPRT is responsible for NDOW coordination and ESA consultation on assigned permit renewals.
Conclusion:
This strategy involves a focused commitment of existing resources by Nevada BLM to meet the mandated goal of fully processing 55 permits per year. The success of this strategy depends on a long term commitment to grazing permit processing targeted at resolving resource conflicts and implementing appropriate grazing management at a landscape scale. Consistent resource data collection and analysis must keep pace with the ability of the STPRT to complete NEPA analysis and subsequently draft decisions to be provided to the authorized officer for signature and issuance.
Background:
Due to numerous conflicting priorities and staffing issues, Nevada has not been effective in timely and efficiently completing fully processed grazing permit renewals. For example, data from January 2012 indicated that Nevada BLM had a total of 663 grazing permits with 287 permits fully processed (43%). Rangeland Administration System (RAS) data as of September 12, 2013 shows Nevada has fully processed 267 of 668 (40%) grazing permits.
In an attempt to address this situation, beginning in 2012, Nevada BLM has been obtaining onetime monies through the budget process with the immediate goal of meeting the statewide target of 55 and reaching 70 permits processed per year in future years.
-In FY 12 Nevada BLM obtained one-time funds in the amount of $1,000,000 for grazing permit renewal. These monies were used to fund an Inter-agency Agreement with US Forest Service Enterprise Teams which are collecting data, conducting analysis and completing some environmental documents for Nevada BLM offices. Winnemucca added approximately $30,000 to this agreement in FY13.
-In FY 13 Nevada BLM obtained an additional $740,000 in one-time monies for permit renewal. These funds were spread to the Districts for continued rangeland monitoring, assessment, and permit renewal.
-Nevada BLM is currently funding Assistance Agreements with the Great Basin Institute at approximately $600,000 per annum from renewable resource programs to acquire rangeland monitoring and assessment data.
Even with these efforts, Nevada has not met its statewide target of 55 permit renewals (EE) per year. In 2011 Nevada reported 42 units of EE and in 2012 we reported 30 EE units. In 2013, the Nevada BLM accomplished 23 units of EE.
Additionally, the potential ESA listing of the Greater Sage-Grouse places greater importance on evaluating grazing use in priority habitats and ensuring that permitted grazing use protects and enhances these habitats. Compounding resource impacts from drought, wild horse and burro populations, etc. have also increased the importance of evaluating and adjusting permitted grazing use.
Timeframe: This policy is effective immediately.
Budget Impact: The effect on the budget should be minimal because the strategy uses existing vacant positions within current budget allocations to address the prevailing workload. The STPRT budget will come off the top of statewide funding and no net increase is anticipated.
Manual/Handbook Sections Affected: No manuals or handbooks are affected.
Coordination: This IM was coordinated with Nevada BLM DOs/FOs.
Contacts: If you have any questions regarding this information, please contact the Nevada State Range Program Lead or the STPRT Project Lead at 775-861-6464.
Signed by:
Amy Lueders
State Director
Authenticated by:
Edison Garcia
Staff Assistant