Voluntary Relinquishment - Federal Grazing Permits/Leases
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The concept of allowing federal grazing permittees/lessees to voluntarily relinquish and waive their grazing permits/leases to the managing agency (the Bureau of Land Management - BLM) can be an effective management tool in response to the Sustained Working Landscape concept. Actual compensation must be based on an agreement between the willing buyer and seller. The BLM would not be the "purchaser" but rather the recipient of total relinquishment and waiver of grazing permits/leases and related or associated interests, such as interests in range improvements. There shall be no existing contingencies. The decision to prohibit or allow and facilitate voluntary relinquishment of grazing permits/leases must ultimately be based on resource values, conflicts, and uses in accordance with current resource management plans. New legislation to allow voluntary relinquishments is unnecessary; however, current policies and procedures must be clarified to ensure an effective process. Grazing is a valuable tool for the management of the public lands, and the flexibility and authority to use or not use the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) must retain it. All relinquishment decisions must be made in accordance with the Land-Use Plans (LUPs)/NEPA process.
II. ISSUE The overall issue is whether the voluntary relinquishment and waiver of federal grazing permits/leases is acceptable and/or workable as it relates to the management of public lands or lands included in withdrawals administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The proposal by outside interests is summarized as follows: After "smoldering" in the background for some time, this issue has now come front and center. The proposal is that federal grazing permittees/lessees would relinquish their entire permit/lease back to the federal government in exchange for compensation per animal unit month (AUM) that is based on an average of permitted use during a past period, e.g., ten years. According to the proposal, the grazing allotment would be permanently retired from domestic livestock grazing, with the forage allocated to wildlife and watershed purposes. Compensation could come from several sources. Some groups propose that government funds be used to make the payment to ranchers. Others propose that private organizations provide the funds needed. Some groups propose that the buyouts occur wherever a rancher requests the action, while others propose that it occur only where grazing is found not to be appropriate considering other resource values and resource conditions. The Public Lands Foundation's position is that grazing permits/leases are a valid and effective tool for management of the natural resources. Grazing use or nonuse is based on resource considerations as outlined in site-specific land management plans. Procedures are currently in place, which allow for the relinquishment or termination of a grazing permit/lease; these practices are not addressed or included as part of this buyout issue.
III. BACKGROUND Recently there has been an interest in what is referred to as a buyout of federal grazing permits/leases. The concept being discussed/proposed is to purchase outright the federal range privileges (permits/leases). The federal grazing permittees/lessees would voluntarily waive their grazing permits/leases to the appropriate managing agency in exchange for monetary compensation, with the ultimate goal of permanently retiring the relinquished AUMs. The general objective is to reduce resource conflicts, reallocate forage, and enhance the managing agency's ability to administer the resources in an area/allotment. Some positions taken suggest the buyout proposal(s) should allow permittees/lessees to clear debts, recapitalize their operations, finance various ventures, and/or prepare for retirement. Various means of compensation to permittees/lessees include using appropriated funds per a described formula that considers past use, Congressional mandate, third party funding, department/agency funds, private funding, etc. However, at this point in time, the primary source of compensation discussed in the buyout proposals is appropriated funding. Without addressing specifics, it is recognized that there are positive and negative aspects of voluntary relinquishments, including participation, resource impacts/benefits, effects on communities, agency workload increases/decreases, legal authorities, etc. Thus, BLM's authorities for the management of the public lands must be retained and applied in such transactions. The Solicitor's Opinion of October 7, 2002, supports this recognition. In response to voluntary relinquishment of grazing permits/leases and cessation of grazing, the Solicitor stated it must be done in accordance with land use plans and that grazing may be resumed if circumstances warrant it. Plans are also subject to future amendments that could result in resumption of grazing on subject allotments. This position paper addresses the direct acquisition of federal grazing permits/leases (privileges) and the waiver of these privileges. This does not include the acquisition or disposition of permits/leases via purchase of base property (land/water base). There are existing regulatory and procedural requirements associated with the purchase or acquisition of base property. These requirements are responsive to appropriate planning, NEPA, and management objectives for specific areas. The voluntary relinquishment and waiver (buyout) proposal must also be responsive to the planning and environmental processes. Such procedures provide the basis for all aspects of public land management, with decisions resulting from disclosure required in these processes. Further, acquisition under the voluntary relinquishment and waiver concept is applicable to those areas (AUMs) managed by and accountable to BLM, including grazing privileges/leases within interests or boundaries of the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, and Interior and associated agencies. Such acquisition (buyout) and disposal must acknowledge BLM's responsibility and accountability. It is important that the waiver of the grazing permit/lease within an area or allotment results in no remaining encumbrances or contingencies. The voluntary relinquishment is to be a total package submitted to the BLM. It includes a waiver of grazing privileges, waiver of range improvement interests, waiver and transfer of water rights associated with public land grazing (per federal/state law), and other interests related to the authorization of grazing permits/leases. The value of all these interests is to be negotiated and resolved between the willing buyer and seller. BLM is not a buyer of its own privileges and is not in the business of buying out other interests, such as range improvements. Again, this is a concept of voluntary relinquishment and waiver of all interests associated with the grazing permit/lease to BLM. This paper supports a buyout (relinquishment/waiver) concept as stated herein. This is a position paper and is not intended to be (1) a rebuttal to any buyout proposal, (2) an analytical paper, (3) an environmental assessment, (4) a modification to existing and approved acquisition procedures, (5) a recap of the various authorities, or (6) a procedural and problem-solving document.
IV. PUBLIC LANDS FOUNDATION CONCLUSION The concept of voluntary relinquishment and waiver of grazing privileges is supported within the recommendations stated in this position paper.
V. PUBLIC LANDS FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Current operating procedures and guidance for purchase of base property (land/water) and disposition of grazing privileges should remain intact.
2. All relinquishment and waiver actions should comply with BLM land management planning and NEPA procedures. However, LUPs/NEPA need not or should not be used to specifically identify areas suitable for relinquishment. Resource values and objectives for the area are the basis for determining appropriate actions.
3. All privileges are to be relinquished to BLM, with decisions pertaining to future use or nonuse being based on land management planning decisions and considering resource conflicts. Further, it is recognized that "permanent retirement" of grazing permits/leases is disallowed under the Solicitor's Opinion of October 7, 2002.
4. Acquisition is to be based on an appraisal or value agreed upon by a willing buyer and seller. The BLM is and shall be the recipient of relinquishments/waivers but should not participate in establishing acquisition values/prices.
5. The BLM has the authority to manage and control grazing privileges; therefore, there should be no expenditure of appropriated funds in acquiring (purchasing) or accepting relinquishments/waivers, with the exception of routine administrative costs. Funds for acquisition are expected to originate from private/conservation organizations, with the understanding that future management of relinquished grazing privileges and associated waivers are subject to BLM management through LUPs/NEPA.
6. Voluntary relinquishments must include all grazing privileges, interests and rights on public lands, in accordance with federal and state law. No encumbrance may exist. This includes range improvements, maintenance responsibilities, and other interests, which should be waived to BLM as part of the transaction. Any financial liens must be removed prior to accepting relinquishment.
7. Water rights disposition shall be waived by permittee/lessee to the BLM and accepted within federal and/or state laws. This disposition pertains to water rights associated with public land grazing and not to water rights associated with non-BLM lands.
8. New legislation is unnecessary; however, policies and procedures suggested herein should be incorporated and clarified in order to proceed effectively.
9. Any user who voluntarily relinquishes (buyout) grazing privileges will not be eligible to reapply for those privileges within that area/allotment at a later date.
10. Voluntary relinquishment could be an effective management tool in addressing grazing use and its relationship to other values identified in land management plans and specific authorizations. BLM should retain the flexibility to use grazing as a management tool and make adjustments in accordance with those plans.
11. Procedures are currently in place, which allow for the relinquishment of a grazing permit/lease, a viable option in the management of the public lands. Third parties through the purchase of base property or other arrangements or agreements have acquired grazing privileges. BLM should retain the authority to decide what actions are appropriate under these or other buyout/relinquishment options.
12. Under a relinquishment, the base property loses its "base property status" on all future actions pertinent to the area or allotment included in the relinquishment package. No past history of use, etc., applies in future adjudication of grazing use or allocation as determined by BLM.
13. Within an authorized relinquishment transaction there shall be no transfers, exchanges, etc., by those receiving compensation. This is intended to provide protection to all parties so that federal grazing privileges may not be "bartered."
This position paper addresses the Public Land Foundation's position as it relates to the BLM but may have applicability to other Departments/Agencies that permit grazing on federal lands. It was developed by the Idaho-Treasure Valley PLF Chapter and approved by the PLF Board of Directors.
Footnote: Anti-grazing advocates have finally gotten their foot in the door of Congress. A bill was introduced in Congress in October 2003 that authorizes the federal government to pay $175 per animal unit month to public land grazing permittees volunteering to relinquish their grazing permits with the government revoking all future grazing privileges on the allotment. The legislation would authorize an initial $100 million buyout.