Range Program Priorities reporting requirements and program direction

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Nevada State office (NVSO) has identified the following priorities for the Range Program for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 and FY 2020. The following are< not arranged in priority order:

1. Outcome Based Grazing Authorizations: The BLM (nationally) will initially develop and issue a limited number of Outcome Based Grazing Authorizations (OBGA) as demonstrations. These initial OBGAs will serve to demonstrate the use of authorizations as a framework for permit holders to use their knowledge, experience and stewardship to achieve or make significant progress toward achieving habitat and vegetation objectives, while increasing flexibility in their operations. The steps for developing and implementing OBGA 's are nearly identical to the standard permit processing procedures with a few additional considerations, and enlarge upon the principles for developing and implementing allotment management plans. The OBGA demonstration is a Washington Office (WO) priority, and a BLM NV priority, to increase flexibility in permits to improve land health and relationships.

The OBGA projects selected in Nevada are:

• Winecup-Gamble Ranch in Elko, Nevada (Wells Field Office)
• Elko Land and Livestock Company in Elko, Nevada (Tuscarora Field Office)
• Willow Ranch in Battle Mountain, Nevada (Mt. Lewis Field Office)
• Smith Creek Ranch, Carson City, Nevada (Stillwater Field Office)
• John Uhalde and Company in Ely, Nevada (Ely District Office, multiple FOs)

Field Offices responsible for a selected OBGA demo will provide the NVSO with monthly status updates. These will be due close of business (COB) on the last working day of every month. Although a template is forthcoming from the WO, until that template is received the monthly status will include any:

1. changes in timeframes of milestone completion (EA delayed, etc.)
2. meetings held and parties involved
3. concerns
4. flexibility employed (turnout. pasture move, etc.)

BLM NV is dedicated to increase and improve the flexibility provided for in all grazing permits. Offices are encouraged to pursue opportunities to work with permittees on increasing flexibility and to inform the NVSO of efforts moving forward. Field Offices will inform the NVSO when permits with flexibility are being pursued, prior to the initiation of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) process. Field offices will report to the NVSO whenever flexibility is integrated into a permit. whether that permit is involved in the OBGA demonstration or not. Field Offices will ensure that necessary components from Handbook 4120-1 {Rel. 4-73, June 20, 1984), as well as the IM 2018-109 (Flexibility in Livestock Grazing) are effectively integrated into the NEPA analysis and permit.

Relevant to all flexible permits, regardless if OBGA demo or not;

• Additional reports will be due quarterly to NVSO and include the following information:
  •  a) details on the specific flexibilities provided;
  •  b) details on the SMART objectives;
    • Specific, measurable, achievable, results-oriented, and time-fixed
  •  c) details on the monitoring plan;
  • d) the Consultation, Cooperation and Coordination (CCC) strategy to be employed.
•  In addition, the draft NEPA document will be provided for NVSO review prior to being provided for public comment. The draft Proposed Decision will also be provided to the NVSO for review prior to issuance. This information will also be included in the permit renewal reporting, described in Item 4 of this IM.

2. 8100: The Range Improvement Account functions as the primary fund for on-the-ground rehabilitation, protection and improvement of public rangeland ecosystems. Funding is distributed to the BLM offices from which they were derived and is used to construct on-the-ground projects, such as vegetation management treatments, fencing, and wildlife-livestock water developments.  

In the past 3-5 years, the WO has directed that carryover in 8100 be limited to 12% annually, and 6% of annual allocations be applied to invasive species control and management. WO IM 2001-027 provides direction on types of expenditures allowed in the 8100 subactivity. Range Improvement (8100) funds are to be used for on-the-ground projects instead of Rangeland Management ( 1020) funds. This will provide more flexibility to use base MLR funding for higher priority program work such as processing grazing permits. 

District and Field Offices will prioritize the use of funds for on-the-ground projects that support grazing permit/lease renewals where land health evaluations show that livestock grazing practices are the causal factor for not achieving one or more of the rangeland health standards. This would include those in priority sage-grouse habitat when a range improvement could alleviate or decrease those impacts. 

Each district will communicate, annually at a minimum, with their applicable grazing board on priority projects related to the 8100 program so as to try and leverage funds and improve a cooperative approach. The District Offices will provide the grazing board with a written report that includes:

• 8100 funds for last FY (including money received last FY as well as carryover money from the year before, listed separately).
• An itemized list of what the money was spent on (what projects were done, etc).
• 8100 budget information for this year (new money received as well as carryover, separated out).
• A list of projects slated for this year and associated costs.

All the information provided to the Grazing Board will also be given to the NVSO concurrently, by COB November 1st of each year. All projects must be entered into Range Improvement Project System (RIPS), or Vegetation Management Action Portal (VMAP) post-transition, by COB September 30th of each year. Work breakdown structure (WBS) codes are required for the authorized use of 8100 funds. Use of non range improvement WBS codes with 8100 expenditures is inappropriate. The BLM Financial Business Management System (FBMS) is used to track expenditures in 8100. Workload accomplishments are tracked in the BLM Performance Measure Data Standard (PMDS) system.

3. Cooperative monitoring: Nationally, the BLM strongly supports the engagement of rangeland livestock producers in utilizing science-based monitoring to evaluate, achieve, and sustain desired rangeland conditions. This is evidenced through the Memorandum of Understanding signed September, 2017 between the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management and the Public Lands Council. Additionally, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, and Nevada State Office entered into a Cooperative Monitoring Memorandum of Understanding with the Nevada Cattlemen's Association and the Central Committee of Nevada State Grazing Boards in January, 2018.

Cooperative monitoring on BLM-administered public rangelands provides mutual understanding, exchange of information, and collaboration for the inter-dependent goals and interests of the private sector, while assisting the BLM to make integrated rangeland management decisions. Additionally, there is mutual benefit from the exchange of information when monitoring data is collected, analyzed, and interpreted in a transparent and candid setting. Although cooperative monitoring is most frequently engaged in by permittees and land management agencies, there may be reasons why other publics would seek involvement. This is legitimate and supported, as long as all participants in cooperative monitoring are seeking the goals outlined below.

The goals of the cooperative monitoring relationship include:

• Opportunities for consultation and coordination of rangeland stewardship at the pasture, allotment, watershed or landscape level,
• Incorporating local knowledge and practical experience of grazing operators to achieve a more holistic perspective towards practicable implementation of rangeland grazing and management,
• Addressing intergovernmental issues,
• Avoiding duplication of effort, and;
• Building relationships of trust and collaboration for long-term mutual gain.

District and Field Office rangeland staff will make every effort to implement Cooperative Permittee Monitoring across the state and develop monitoring plans that are mutually agreeable between livestock permittees/lessees and the BLM when requested by a permittee, or possibly others, under the following guidelines:

1. Staff and permittees/lessees will utilize the Cooperative Monitoring Agreement Template provided in the Nevada Rangeland Monitoring Handbook and Ranchers' Monitoring Guide (NVRMH 2018) as the basic structure for the monitoring plan.
2. BLM and permittees will share and utilize monitoring information and data to guide grazing management on the designated allotments.
3. Permittee monitoring data will be recognized and considered by BLM when the data is properly collected by the permittees/lessees or his/her representative using the protocols outlined in the NVRMH and Ranchers' Monitoring Guide or other appropriate agency technical references.
4. BLM and permittee/lessee will review and analyze annual monitoring data at a minimum of once per year, to make management decisions and/or grazing strategy modifications that are within regulatory compliance and are operationa1ly/fiscally practicable by the permittees/lessee as determined by the permittees/lessee. If there is only one meeting, it needs to occur prior to the next grazing year (March 1) or scheduled grazing period. An adaptive management process, within the terms and conditions of the permit, must emphasize the use of monitoring data to determine whether or not progress is being made toward objectives. There is also a need to periodically review objectives and confirm that current objectives continue to be appropriate and relevant in guiding grazing management strategies.
5. Emphasis will be on short-term monitoring to guide season-of-use, stocking, compliance and annual allotment decisions in a collaborative setting, but actions taken may also include long-term monitoring.
6. Work with permittees to promote, achieve, and maintain healthy rangelands in accordance with the BLM's Rangeland Health Standards and consistently use monitoring protocols or methodologies statewide.
7. Send staff and appropriate management to cooperative monitoring workshops, and ensure that permittees/lessees are informed of any training opportunity.
8. Provide list of cooperative monitoring agreements initiated annually to NVSO by COB September 30th.

4. Permit Renewal Reporting: When determining which allotment(s)/permit(s) to fully process, refer to IM 20 I 8-024, "Setting Priorities for Review and Processing of Grazing Authorizations and Related Livestock Grazing Monitoring" and the District Permit Renewal Prioritization spreadsheet (Attachment I). Each field office should prioritize the review and processing of every allotment/permit for which it is responsible and provide the prioritized list to the NVSO by COB November 1 s1 annually. In addition, the allotments that fall into priority I for the Field/District Office will also need to be included on the District Permit Renewal Workload Schedule spreadsheet (Attachment 2) and provided to the NVSO by COB November 1st. Completion of each field office's permit renewals, and associated workload targets, should generally follow this list.

As per lM 2018-024, "Field offices win focus this work in the highest priority areas, which usually include areas where LHS have not been evaluated, areas not achieving LHS, areas with sensitive plant, wildlife or cultural resources, or where specific issues have been identified .. . Field Offices must give the highest priority to the work necessary to meet applicable legal requirements (e.g., court orders)."

Where possible, conduct land health assessments at the watershed, or other meaningful landscape-scale. The relationships of allotments to each other, landscape units such as watersheds, and the habitat which they contain, should also be considered. For example, it may be appropriate to conduct a watershed-level land health assessment and NEPA analysis to address high-priority allotments, and include review of connected, lower-priority allotments in the same processes to increase efficiency.

Priorities for processing grazing permits should consider criteria outlined in IM 2018-024 to inform the priority-setting process. In addition, priorities may change based on new information, land use plan objectives, etc. For example, review of land health conditions may be accelerated or moved up in the priority list in an area where a downward trend in habitat condition for an ESA-listed species is detected.

In addition to the prioritization table, Field Offices must send NVSO a 'courtesy' copy of each document associated with the permit renewal process as produced. This would include, but not be limited to:

• Rangeland Health Assessment, Evaluation and Determination
• NEPA document (DNA, CX, EA or EIS)
• Decision Document (Proposed and Final)

In the event that a Proposed Decision needs to be issued to select a different analyzed alternative than was originally selected, a Determination of NEPA Adequacy must be prepared and a Proposed and Final Decision must be issued. The State Director must receive a face-to-face briefing prior to any decision issuance. Post briefing, and with State Director concurrence, the authorized officer may then issue a new Proposed Decision selecting the alternative that was analyzed.

Each District will send the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service a letter by September 30th each year identifying all the allotments with threatened and endangered species that have permits undergoing permit renewal the next Fiscal Year. This will include permits that are undergoing full permit renewal as well as permits that are expiring and being renewed under the FLPMA authority with the same terms and conditions. The District will send the NVSO a courtesy copy of the letter.

5. Targeted Grazing- Wildfires are predicted to become increasingly larger and more intense in the future. Although great progress has been made in fire suppression and fuels management implementation over the last decade, it is clear that these two programs, along with the post-fire rehabilitation program need additional support from other programs. On public lands in the Great Basin, livestock grazing is an underutilized tool in assisting managers to achieve fuels and vegetation management objectives that could minimize wildfire impacts to high priority areas. Targeted Grazing is not intended as a focus for the Mojave ecoregion in southern Nevada.

Targeted livestock grazing must be carefully implemented and monitored to meet fuels management objectives on an annual and long-term basis. Targeted livestock grazing will be done to the appropriate level, and focused on the specific area needed, to meet identified fuel and landscape or project management objectives within BLM's regulatory framework. Sound project planning is essential, including identification of priority areas for protection, followed by the development of a strategic fuels/livestock management plan. It involves BLM resource and fuels specialists and livestock permittees who select the preliminary treatment areas to be analyzed in the NEPA process. A comprehensive plan must include clearly defined targeted grazing objectives and a comprehensive monitoring plan.

When appropriate, and as allowed in District Resource Management Plans and Normal Year Fire Plans, explore opportunities to apply targeted grazing in areas post-bum. If an area had a large component of cheatgrass prior to the bum, or has a greatly reduced fire return interval due to cheatgrass presence, there may be opportunity to utilize targeted grazing to decrease the fire return interval by treating the fuels post-bum. This direction is relevant to the Great Basin Ecoregions of Nevada.

6. Annual Program Element (PE) Target and Actual Reporting - Attachment 3 of this IM provides the PE descriptions for the priority PEs. Proper billing and reporting of permit renewals and transfers in the Rangeland Administration System captures the accomplishments for ED, EE, EF, and NA accomplishments however all other accomplishments must be reported into the PMDS system. By the end of the Fiscal Year (September 3011'), priority 1020 accomplishments will be reported into PMDS or RAS and be accompanied by the following documents: Additional reporting requirements will continue to be required as per WO Directives.
   1. ED - This information is captured in RAS. No extra reporting required, unless under or over 10% of target. Ensure staff performing this PE have gone to RAS training and are correctly entering information into RAS. The CX for the permit issuance needs to be entered into RAS.
   2. EE -For every EE accomplishment, the associated NEPA and proposed and final decision must be sent to the NVSO by September 301h of the fiscal year the accomplishment is reported. Preference is to have these documents sent to the NVSO as they are distributed to the public.
   3. EF - This information is captured in RAS. No extra reporting required, unless under or over 10% of target.
   4. J codes - A list of projects completed, including the name of the project, brief description of the project, and the allotment the project was completed in (could be several allotments for large seedings, etc.). A photo of the completed project is preferred but not required.
   5. MJ - The Land Health Evaluation must be complete and submitted to the NVSO by September 30th of the fiscal year the accomplishment is reported. One MJ is accomplished per allotment evaluated.
   6. ML - The complete monitoring report for each ML accomplishment reported must be sent to the NVSO by September 30th of the fiscal year the accomplishment is reported.
   7. NA - Each inspection of each authorization is a unit of accomplishment. This information is captured in RAS. No extra reporting required, unless under or over 10% of target.

Additional reporting requirements will continue to be required as per WO Directives. In addition to these annual reporting requirements, authorized officers are also directed to notify the State Director, and seek concurrence, before taking any actions associated with responding to prohibited uses as defined in 43 CFR § 4140.l(e.g. unauthorized use).

Summary of annual dead1ines. Products due by COB on the below dates: