{
  "id": "98-40",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "98-40",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 105127,
      "date": "1998-01-13",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:56:41.210941",
      "title": "The Forage Improvement Act of 1997: An Analysis of H.R. 2493",
      "summary": "This report analyzes most of the provisions of  H.R. 2493 , which addresses the grazing\nprograms of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (FS). The bill was\nsponsored by Rep. Bob Smith, chairman of the House Agriculture Committee and others, and was\nreported by that committee on September 24, 1997 and was reported by the House Resources\nCommittee on October 8 and October 22, 1997. Both committees amended the bill and it was further\namended before passage by the House on October 30, 1997. \n  The bill is considerably shorter than was legislation in the 104th Congress and earlier in the\n105th, and addresses primarily monitoring, cooperative management plans, and grazing fees. Under\nthe bill, monitoring would be conducted according to regional or state criteria and protocols selected\nby the Secretary concerned. The Secretary of the Interior for BLM lands and the Secretary of\nAgriculture for FS lands could not accept data from monitoring that was not conducted either in\naccordance with such protocols or by persons who are among the groups listed. Cooperative\nmanagement plans would be made available to qualifying permittees and could allow greater flexibility\nas to grazing practices. \n  The principal change that would be made by the bill is that a new grazing fee formula would be\nenacted, applicable to the grazing programs of both BLM and FS, but not applicable to the National\nGrasslands, which are also managed by the FS. The new formula would be based primarily on 12-\nyear gross beef cattle production values and be tied to short-term treasury bill rates for the past 12\nyears, thereby making the fees more stable and less responsive to yearly fluctuations in beef prices\nthan the current formula. The bill also would count seven sheep or goats as one Animal Unit Month\n(AUM) rather than the current five, thereby allowing more of such animals to graze for the same fee. \nThe bill does not establish a minimum payment.\n  Many definitions were eliminated from the bill. Some of these related to aspects of the nature\nof the grazing privilege that currently are being litigated and were controversial for this reason. The\nbill also does not address many issues that proved to be controversial in the 104th Congress, such as\nwater rights, application of the National Environmental Policy Act in the grazing context, appeals,\naccess across private lands, or ownership of range improvements. Some provisions are ambiguous\nin certain respects and this report discusses possible interpretations.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/98-40",
          "sha1": "381863e01e5ab0d92f6908dad727cc6668bb4357",
          "filename": "files/19980113_98-40_381863e01e5ab0d92f6908dad727cc6668bb4357.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/19980113_98-40_381863e01e5ab0d92f6908dad727cc6668bb4357.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law",
    "Environmental Policy"
  ]
}