[Advisory Report on the Resource Advisory Councils, Rangeland Management Program, Bureau of Land Management]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Report No. 98-I-646
Title: Advisory Report on the Resource Advisory Councils, Rangeland
Management Program, Bureau of Land Management
Date: September 21, 1998
**********DISCLAIMER**********
This file contains an ASCII representation of an OIG report.
No attempt has been made to display graphic images or illustrations.
Some tables may be included, but may not resemble those in the printed version.
A printed copy of this report may be obtained by referring to the PDF
file or by calling the Office of Inspector General, Division of
Acquisition and Management Operations at (202) 208-4599.
******************************
U.S. Department of the Interior
Office of Inspector General
ADVISORY REPORT
RESOURCE ADVISORY COUNCILS,
RANGELAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM,
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
REPORT NO. 98-I-646
SEPTEMBER 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Secretary
FROM: Richard N. Reback
Acting Inspector General
SUBJECT SUMMARY: Final Advisory Report for
Your Information - "Resource Advisory
Councils, Rangeland Management Program,
Bureau of Land Management" (No. 98-I-646)
Attached for your information is a copy of the subject final
advisory report. The report presented the results of our
review of the Resource Advisory Councils of the Bureau of
Land Management's Rangeland Management Program. The
original objective of the audit was to determine whether the
Bureau had effectively implemented land use decisions during
fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998 (through February) to
improve rangeland conditions. However, effective August 21,
1995, the Bureau revised its grazing regulations to provide
fundamental standards and guidelines for assessing rangeland
health. At the time of the audit, these standards and
guidelines had not been implemented. Accordingly, we
deferred our audit of rangeland conditions until the
standards and guidelines were fully implemented. During the
entrance conference on October 30, 1997, the Bureau
requested that we revise our objective to review the
effectiveness of the Resource Advisory Councils, which were
established to assist the Bureau in developing the new
standards and guidelines and in advising the Bureau on land
use policy issues.
We determined that, overall, the Resource Advisory Councils
worked effectively with the Bureau. Specifically, they
assisted in developing standards and guidelines for
rangeland health, represented and reached consensus among
diverse public interest groups, and advised the Bureau
concerning land use decisions. However, we also noted that
all Council members had not received the training required
by the Code of Federal Regulations. In addition,
representatives from other Federal agencies that had land
within the authorized boundaries of the Councils were not
involved in the process except in Oregon/Washington, and the
Wyoming Council had not been rechartered. The report did
not contain any recommendations.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please
contact me at (202) 208-5745 or Mr. Robert J. Williams,
Assistant Inspector General for Audits, at (202) 208-4252.
Attachment
ADVISORY REPORT C-IN-BLM-001-98D
Memorandum
To: Director, Bureau of Land Management
From: Robert J. Williams
Assistant Inspector General for Audits
Subject: Advisory Report on the Resource Advisory
Councils, Rangeland Management Program, Bureau of
Land Management (No. 98-I-646)
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our audit of the
Resource Advisory Councils of the Bureau of Land
Management's Rangeland Management Program. The original
objective of the audit was to determine whether the Bureau
had effectively implemented land use decisions during fiscal
years 1996, 1997, and 1998 (through February) to improve
rangeland conditions. However, effective August 21, 1995,
the Bureau revised its grazing regulations to provide
fundamental standards and guidelines for assessing rangeland
health. At the time of the audit, these standards and
guidelines had not been implemented. Accordingly, we
deferred our audit of rangeland conditions until the
standards and guidelines were fully implemented. During the
entrance conference on October 30, 1997, the Bureau
requested that we revise our objective to review the
effectiveness of the Resource Advisory Councils,[1] which
were established to assist the Bureau in developing the new
standards and guidelines and in advising the Bureau on land
use policy issues.
BACKGROUND
The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for managing,
protecting, and improving about 260 million acres of public
land in the western states, including about 166 million
acres of rangeland. The Bureau's Rangeland Management
Program involves managing rangeland ecosystems to ensure
their health, natural diversity, and long-term productivity.
Rangeland management activities include administering
livestock grazing permits, supporting wildlife habitats,
serving wild horse and burro needs, promoting watershed
health, and maintaining and improving the condition of
rangelands to serve a variety of uses. The rangelands
provide forage for about 3.7 million livestock (cattle and
sheep) and 42,000 wild horses and burros annually.
The basic authority for the Bureau's livestock grazing
program was established by the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934,
as amended, which was enacted, in part, to prevent
overgrazing and soil deterioration on public rangelands and
to provide for the orderly use, improvement, and development
of public rangelands. The Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 requires the Secretary of the
Interior to prepare and maintain an inventory of all public
lands and their resources. This inventory is to be kept
current to reflect changes in conditions. Further, the
Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 required the
Bureau to include the trend in rangeland condition to be
maintained as part of the inventory of public lands. The
Bureau based its early inventories on the amount of forage
that was available to sustain livestock and classified
rangelands as excellent, good, fair, or poor according to
the available forage. By 1980, the emphasis on inventorying
public land had shifted from a forage-based method to an
ecological-based method. As such, rangelands were
reclassified according to the percentage of native plant
species, or the potential natural community, that each
rangeland supported. However, the forage-based and the
ecological-based classifications were not comparable, a
condition that impeded the Bureau's ability to complete the
inventory process and determine the trend in the condition
of public rangelands, as required by the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act of 1976 and the Public Rangelands
Improvement Act of 1978. As of fiscal year 1996, the
Bureau had inventoried 126 million of the 166 million acres
of public rangelands, consisting of 86 million acres using
ecological-based data and 40 million acres using forage-
based data. Four of the 14 members of the National Research
Council's[2] Committee on Rangeland Classification told us
that they believed the Bureau should continue to gather
ecological site data for the remaining 80 million acres of
public rangeland and use independent organizations that have
expertise in rangeland management to establish an acceptable
methodology for classifying the condition of the rangelands.
For example, in 1994, the National Research Council
published "Rangeland Health-New Methods to Classify,
Inventory, and Monitor Rangelands," which recommended that
standardized indicators and methods for inventorying
rangeland health be established. The publication stated:
An agreed-to standard that can be used to
determine whether the capacity of these rangelands
to produce commodities and satisfy values is being
conserved, degraded, or improved is needed. The
lack of a consistently defined standard for
acceptable conditions of rangeland ecosystems is
the most significant limitation to current efforts
to assess rangelands. The lack of such an
agreed-to standard has and continues to confuse
the public, the U.S. Congress, ranchers, and range
scientists themselves.
Effective August 21, 1995, the Bureau revised its grazing
regulations contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (43
CFR 1780 and 4100) and on August 30, 1996, issued
Instruction Memorandum No. 96-172, "Implementing Standards
of Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management,"
to implement the revised regulations. Under the revised
regulations, the Bureau's State Directors, in consultation
with Resource Advisory Councils, are responsible for
developing and amending state or regional standards and
guidelines to address the basic principles[3] needed to help
achieve healthy, sustainable rangelands. In addition, the
revised regulations included "fallback standards and
guidelines" that should be used until state or regional
standards and guidelines are completed.
The revised grazing regulations also established Resource
Advisory Councils to assist the Bureau in developing
rangeland standards, in preparing and implementing land use
plans, and in establishing other long-range plans and
management priorities. The Council members are appointed by
the Secretary of the Interior, with membership balanced
among three interest groups: commodity industries,
recreational and environmental interests, and local area
interests. All members of a Council are required by the
Code (43 CFR 1780) to attend a course of instruction in the
management of rangelands that has been approved by a Bureau
State Director. As of February 1998, there were 24 Resource
Advisory Councils representing 13 states (see the Appendix).
SCOPE
We reviewed the activities of the 24 Resource Advisory
Councils in 13 states from their inception in September 1995
through February 1998 and of the Wyoming Resource Advisory
Council from inception to 1996, when it was not rechartered.
Our review included attending a standards and guidelines
implementation workshop hosted by the Bureau in Denver,
Colorado, and Resource Advisory Council meetings in Las
Vegas, Nevada, and Montrose, Colorado. We also visited the
Bureau's Nevada State Office, Carson City and Winnemucca
field offices, and its National Business Center in Denver.
In addition, we reviewed the Bureau's "National Rangeland
Inventory, Monitoring and Evaluation Report, Fiscal Year
1996" and the National Research Council's "Rangeland Health,
New Methods to Classify, Inventory, and Monitor Rangelands."
We interviewed 88 Council members, including original
members who had been reappointed, and new members from 14
states, including Wyoming, to obtain their opinions on the
(1) effectiveness of the Resource Advisory Councils; (2)
representation of interest groups on the Councils; (3)
ability to reach consensus on major land use policy issues;
and (4) cooperation of the Bureau, particularly the Bureau's
responsiveness to their concerns. Further, we interviewed
members of the National Research Council and Bureau program
personnel regarding the effectiveness of the Councils. We
also viewed an interactive satellite broadcast between
Resource Advisory Council members and the Secretary of the
Interior in conjunction with a Bureau publication titled
"Partners Across the West-Resource Advisory Councils."
Our audit was conducted in accordance with the "Government
Auditing Standards," issued by the Comptroller General of
the United States. Accordingly, we included such tests of
records and other auditing procedures that were considered
necessary under the circumstances. As part of our audit, we
reviewed the Department of the Interior's Accountability
Report for fiscal year 1996, which includes information
required by the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of
1982, and the Bureau's annual assurance statement for fiscal
year 1997 to determine whether any reported weaknesses were
within the objective and scope of our review. We found that
a material weakness was reported by the Bureau relating to
inadequate range monitoring data. To resolve this weakness,
the Bureau issued Instruction Memorandum No. 96-172,
"Implementing Standards of Rangeland Health and Guidelines
for Grazing Management," and conducted a workshop on
implementation of the new standards and guidelines for
rangeland health.
PRIOR AUDIT COVERAGE
Neither the Office of Inspector General nor the General
Accounting Office has issued any audit reports during the
past 5 years on the Bureau's Rangeland Management Program.
DISCUSSION
We concluded that, overall, the Resource Advisory Councils
worked effectively with the Bureau of Land Management.
Specifically, they assisted in developing standards and
guidelines for rangeland health, represented and reached
consensus among diverse public interest groups, and advised
the Bureau concerning land use decisions. However, we also
noted that all Council members had not received the training
required by the Code of Federal Regulations (43 CFR 1780).
In addition, we found that representatives from other
Federal agencies which had land within the authorized
boundaries[4] of the Councils were not involved in the
process except in Oregon/Washington and that the Wyoming
Council had not been rechartered.
Standards
The Code of Federal Regulations (43 CFR 1780 and 4100)
established the Resource Advisory Councils with the
objective of providing advice to the Department and the
Bureau on formulating standards and guidelines and executing
plans and programs for the use and management of public
lands. Of the 13 states that had existing Councils, we
found that only California and New Mexico did not have
standards approved by the Secretary of the Interior.
However, the standards for both states were being reviewed
by the Secretary, and the Bureau indicated that the
standards should be approved by the end of 1998. Even
though each state developed its own standards and guidelines
for rangeland health, we believe that the Bureau's new
standards and guidelines for rangeland health should be
reviewed by the National Research Council to independently
evaluate the effectiveness of these standards and
guidelines. As such, we suggest that the Bureau coordinate
its efforts with the National Research Council and the U.S.
Forest Service to develop, test, and establish indicators of
rangeland health that will be accepted on a national basis.
Consensus
The Code (43 CFR 1780) requires the Councils to represent a
balance of diverse interest groups concerned with rangeland
management and express public concerns on land policy
issues. A primary function of the Resource Advisory
Councils is to represent and reach consensus among diverse
interest groups. We concluded that the Councils had been
successful in achieving this requirement, as shown in the
following examples:
- For the past 2 years, the Alaska Resource Advisory
Council has focused its efforts on conflicts between state
and Federal management of mining activities along the
Fortymile River, which is designated as a wild and scenic
river. For example, the Council worked with the Bureau and
the State of Alaska to find a solution involving policy
interpretations that allowed miners to camp while working
their claims rather than to propose changes in regulations
or in the wild and scenic river designation.
- The Dakotas Resource Advisory Council reached
consensus on a number of issues, including rehabilitating
the Bear Butte Creek watershed in South Dakota; supporting a
land exchange between the Bureau and the State of North
Dakota; and supporting the completion of the Meridian Oil,
Bureau, and U.S. Forest Service mineral exchange in North
Dakota.
Land Use Decisions
The Code (43 CFR 1780) requires the Councils to advise the
Bureau on land use decisions. We found that the ability of
the Resource Advisory Councils to reach consensus had
facilitated the Bureau's ability to make land use policy
decisions that protect the rangelands while making the lands
open to multiple use, as shown in the following examples by
state:
- The Arizona Resource Advisory Group is helping the
Bureau develop the Arizona Recreation Strategy. This
strategy focuses on recreation and tourism-related issues
and addresses issues affecting the use of public lands and
those affecting the quality of life in the communities
located near public land.
- The California Desert District Advisory Board
provided advice on (1) implementation of wilderness
designations resulting from the 1994 California Desert
Protection Act, (2) establishment of recreation user fees,
(3) filming on public lands, (4) management and use of off-
highway vehicles, (5) controversial landfill proposals at
Eagle Mountain and Mesquite, (6) proposed mining operations,
and (7) problems associated with burros on public lands near
the Colorado River.
- The Colorado Front Range Resource Advisory Council
provided advice to the Bureau on issues, including grazing
trespass, grazing standards and guideline implementation,
and recreation use. The Council also assisted the Bureau's
Canon City District in resolving a conflict with a business
involved in a jointly managed recreation area. The
Southwest Resource Advisory Council recommended that the
Bureau testify in support of proposed legislation which
would create the Black Canyon National Park Complex if the
legislation included a wilderness designation for Gunnison
Gorge.
- After viewing the problem areas within the watershed
and visiting with involved parties, the Upper Columbia-
Salmon Clearwater Advisory Council made recommendations to
the Bureau that will help implement the Interior Columbia
Basin Ecosystem Management Project. In addition, the Lower
Snake River Advisory Council has provided advice to the
Bureau on issues related to a U.S. Air Force proposal for
military training in Idaho, the Bureau's Final Resource
Management Plan for the Owyhee Resource Area in Idaho, and
fire rehabilitation progress in the Boise Foothills.
The overall effectiveness of Resource Advisory Councils was
further illustrated in an interactive satellite broadcast
presented by the Bureau on February 20, 1998, to the
Resource Advisory Councils. The broadcast entitled "RACs
[Resource Advisory Councils]: Partners Across the West"
provided an opportunity for Council members to participate
in an exchange with the Secretary of the Interior, the
Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management, the
Bureau Director, and a panel of Council members. In the
presentation, the Secretary of the Interior, in effect,
expanded the role of the Councils by suggesting that they
also focus on solving other public land issues, such as
implementing the Federal fire management policy adopted by
the Departments of the Interior and of Agriculture,
combating invasive weeds, applying standards and guidelines
to other resources (such as watershed and recreation
management), and improving the land exchange process.
Training
The Code (43 CFR 1780) requires Council members to attend
instructional training in management of rangelands that has
been approved by the appropriate Bureau State Director.
However, we found that new Council members were not
receiving training on rangeland ecosystems, as required by
the revised grazing regulations. Specifically, 7 of the 10
new members on Colorado's two Councils had not received any
training on rangeland ecosystems. Additionally, at least 1
new member on each of 11 other Councils also had not
received this training. Bureau officials said that they did
not believe that new members needed the training because the
original members had completed the development of the
standards and guidelines. We suggest that the Bureau
provide training on rangeland ecosystems to all Council
members because the Councils are still developing standards
and guidelines for other resource areas.
Participation
The Code (43 CFR 1780) does not require representatives from
other Federal agencies that have land within the boundaries
of the Councils to participate with the Bureau and the
Councils in land use decisions; however, the final rule for
the Code states, "The RACs [Resource Advisory Councils] will
advise the Secretary and BLM [Bureau of Land Management] -
and other agencies as appropriate - on matters relating to
multiple use issues associated with public lands and
resources." We believe that having other agencies
participate in the Council process is advantageous to the
Bureau and the other agencies. For example, we found that
in Oregon and Washington, the U.S. Forest Service is a full
partner in the Council's advisory process. The Southeast
Oregon Council's boundaries include all or portions of three
Bureau field offices and four National Forest Districts. At
the time of our review, the Council was addressing the
issues of prescribed fires,[5] water quality, and noxious
weeds[6] for both agencies. We suggest that the Bureau
encourage participation from other Federal agencies as part
of the Council's advisory process.
Wyoming Council
The Code (43 CFR 1780) requires Councils to be established
to improve the management of public rangelands. However,
the Wyoming Council has not been rechartered since 1996. As
a result, there is no forum available for the public to
participate in the Bureau's land use policy decisions other
than to respond to environmental impact statements and
environmental assessments, which require notices to be
published in local newspapers and the "Federal Register."
We suggest that the Bureau increase its efforts to
reestablish the Wyoming Council.
On April 7, 1998, we held an exit conference with Bureau
officials. In general, the Bureau concurred with the
results of our audit. Additionally, we provided a
preliminary draft of this report to the Bureau on July 31,
1998. The Bureau did not comment on the preliminary draft.
Because this report does not contain any recommendations, a
response is not required.
The legislation, as amended, creating the Office of
Inspector General requires semiannual reporting to the
Congress on all audit reports issued, actions taken to
implement audit recommendations, and identification of each
significant recommendation on which corrective action has
not been taken.
We appreciate the assistance of Bureau personnel in the
conduct of our review.
**FOOTNOTES**
[1]:The Code of Federal Regulations (43 CFR 1784) states that Resource
Advisory Councils will consist of members who have diverse interests
that provide for public participation in the preparation and execution
of plans and programs for the management of public lands.
[2]:Members of the National Research Council are drawn from the Councils
of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of
Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
[3]:These factors are watershed health; nutrient cycling and energy
flow; water quality; habitat for endangered, threatened, proposed,
candidate, or special status species; and habitat quality for native
plant and animal populations and communities.
[4]:Under the Code (43 CFR 1784.6-1), the Councils, as determined by the
Bureau State Director, in consultation with the Governor and other
interested parties, may be formed on the basis of state boundaries,
Bureau districts, or "ecoregions."
[5]:As defined by the Society of Rangeland Management, prescribed fires
(burning) are a management tool used under specific conditions for
burning a predetermined area.
[6]:As defined by the Society of Rangeland Management, noxious weeds
(species) are undesirable because they conflict, restrict, or otherwise
cause problems under the management objectives.
APPENDIX
RESOURCE ADVISORY COUNCILS
State Resource Advisory Councils[1]
Alaska Alaska Resource Advisory Council
Arizona Arizona Resource Advisory Council
California California Desert District Resource
Advisory Council[2]
Central California Resource Advisory
Council
Northeastern California Resource
Advisory Council
Northwestern California Resource
Advisory Council
Colorado Front Range Resource Advisory Council
Northwest Resource Advisory Council
Southwest Resource Advisory Council
Idaho Lower Snake River Resource
Advisory Council
Upper Snake River Resource Advisory
Council
Upper Columbia/Salmon Clearwater
Resource Advisory Council
Montana/North Dakota and Butte Resource Advisory Council
South Dakota Dakotas Resource Advisory Council
Lewistown Resource Advisory Council
Miles City Resource Advisory Council
Nevada Mojave-Southern Great Basin
Resource Advisory Council
Northeastern Great Basin Resource
Advisory Council
Sierra-Front Northwestern Great Basin
Resource Advisory Council
New Mexico New Mexico Resource Advisory Council
Oregon/Washington Eastern Washington Resource Advisory
Council
John Day-Snake Resource Advisory
Council
Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory
Council
Utah Utah Resource Advisory Council
*FOOTNOTES**
[1]:The Wyoming Resource Advisory Council has not been rechartered since
the summer of 1996.
[2]:The California Desert District Advisory Council was specifically
required by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and was
established in 1980.
ILLEGAL OR WASTEFUL ACTIVITIES SHOULD BE REPORTED TO THE OFFICE
OF INSPECTOR GENERAL BY:
Sending written documents to:
Within the Continental United States
U.S. Department of the Interior
Office of Inspector General
1849 C Street,N.W.
Mail Stop 5341
Washington, D.C. 20240
Calling:
Our 24 hour
Telephone HOTLINE
1-800-424-5081 or
(202) 208-5300
TDD for hearing impaired
(202) 208-2420 or
1-800-354-0996
Outside the Continental United States
Caribbean Region
U.S. Department of the Interior
Office of Inspector General
Eastern Division- Investigations
1550 Wilson Boulevard
Suite 410
Arlington, Virginia 22209
Calling:
(703) 235-9221
North Pacific Region
U.S. Department of the Interior
Office of Inspector General
North Pacific Region
238 Archbishop F.C. F'lores Street
Suite 807, PDN Building
Agana, Guam 96910
Calling:
(700) 550-7428 or
COMM 9-011-671-472-7279