Navajo Partitioned Lands Grazing Permits, 58882-58897 [05-20100]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
• Bureau of Indian Affairs
• Indian Affairs Bureau

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 194 (Friday, October 7, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58882-58897]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20100]



[[Page 58881]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part V





Department of the Interior





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Bureau of Indian Affairs



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



25 CFR Part 161



Navajo Partitioned Lands Grazing Permits; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 194 / Friday, October 7, 2005 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 58882]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

25 CFR Part 161

RIN 1076-AE46


Navajo Partitioned Lands Grazing Permits

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of the Interior (Department), Bureau of Indian 
Affairs (BIA), is amending its regulations by adding a new part to 
govern the grazing of livestock on the Navajo Partitioned Land (NPL) of 
the Navajo-Hopi Former Joint Use Area (FJUA) of the 1882 Executive 
Order reservation. The purpose of this regulation is to conserve the 
rangelands of the NPL in order to maximize future use of the land for 
grazing and other purposes, while recognizing the importance of 
livestock in the Navajo way of life.

DATES: Effective January 5, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Archibald H. Wells, Acting Deputy 
Bureau Director, Trust Services, Attn: Agriculture and Range, Mail Stop 
4655-MIB, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240, Telephone 202-208-
6464.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background
II. Response to Comments
III. Part-by-Part Analysis
IV. Procedural Requirements

I. Background

    This regulation is issued to implement the Secretary of the 
Department of the Interior's (Secretary) responsibilities for the NPL 
as mandated by the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act of 1974, 25 U.S.C. 640d-
6402-31, as amended by the Navajo-Hopi Indian Relocation Amendments 
Acts of 1980, 94 Stat. 929, and the Federal court decisions of Healing 
v. Jones, 174 F. Supp. 211 (D. Ariz. 1959) (Healing I), Healing v. 
Jones, 210 F. Supp. 126 (D. Ariz. 1962), aff'd 363 U.S. 758 (1963) 
(Healing II), Hopi Tribe v. Watt, 530 F. Supp. 1217 (D. Ariz. 1982), 
and Hopi Tribe v. Watt, 719 F.2d 314 (9th Cir. 1983).
    This regulation also incorporates the requirements of the American 
Indian Agricultural Resource Management Act (AIARMA) (107 Stat. 2011, 
25 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.), as amended. The purposes of AIARMA include 
carrying out the trust responsibility of the United States and 
promoting self-determination of Indian tribes by providing for the 
management of Indian agricultural lands and related renewable resources 
in a manner consistent with identified tribal goals and priorities for 
conservation, multiple use, and sustained yield; by authorizing the 
Secretary to take part in the management of Indian agricultural lands 
with the participation of the beneficial owners of the land in a manner 
consistent with the trust responsibility of the Secretary and the 
objectives of beneficial owners; and by providing for the development 
and management of Indian agricultural land. The AIARMA requires that 
the Secretary conduct all land management activities on Indian 
agricultural lands in accordance with agricultural resource management 
plans, integrated resources management plans, and all tribal laws and 
ordinances, except where such compliance would be contrary to the trust 
responsibility of the United States.
    The proposed regulation was published in the Federal Register on 
November 12, 2003 (68 FR 64023), with a 90-day public comment period 
that ended on February 10, 2004. Before the proposed regulation was 
published, BIA received approval to publish the draft regulation from 
the Navajo Nation at a meeting held on June 26, 2003, in Window Rock, 
Arizona.
    On October 27, 2004, the Navajo Hopi Land Commission, by a 6-0 
vote, passed a resolution recommending concurrence in the final 
regulation. On February 10, 2005, the Navajo Nation Resources 
Committee, by a 7-0 vote, recommended concurrence, and referred the 
final regulation to the Navajo Nation Intergovernmental Relations 
Committee for final concurrence. On April 8, 2005, the Navajo Nation 
Intergovernmental Relations Committee, by an 8-0 vote, passed a 
resolution concurring in and approving the final regulation.
    This regulation will become effective 90 days after date of 
publication in the Federal Register.

II. Response to Comments

    The Department solicited comments from all interested parties 
through its publication of the Proposed Rule in the Federal Register on 
November 12, 2003 (68 FR 64023). During the comment period, BIA 
employees and representatives from the Navajo Nation Resources 
Committee, the Navajo-Hopi Land Commission Office, the Navajo Nation 
Department of Agriculture, and the NPL District Grazing Committee 
members held public meetings in Tonalea, Arizona, on December 10, 2003, 
and in Pinon, Arizona, on December 11, 2003. These meetings were well 
attended, and many NPL residents testified in both the English and 
Navajo languages. A certified Navajo interpreter was present at the 
meetings to translate comments for the court reporter so that all 
testimony was recorded.
    The Department received a total of 63 comments, representing 53 
individuals, on all parts of the proposed rule. The comments were 
carefully reviewed by the regulation drafting team made up of BIA 
employees from Washington, DC, and the Navajo Regional Office, 
attorneys from the Solicitor's Office, and representatives from the 
Navajo Nation, and depending upon their merit, the Department accepted, 
accepted with revision, or rejected comments made on each part of the 
rule. As noted in the part-by-part analysis below, certain sections of 
the regulation have been clarified in direct response to comments. 
Additionally, some language has been deleted and/or added to provide 
for increased clarity and precision. Substantive comments are 
summarized below.

III. Part-by-Part Analysis

25 CFR Part 16--Navajo Partitioned Lands Grazing Permits

    The purpose of this regulation is to conserve the rangelands of the 
NPL in order to maximize future use of the land for grazing and other 
purposes, while recognizing the importance of livestock in the Navajo 
way of life. This regulation is an addition to the regulations of the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs governing the grazing of livestock on the NPL 
of the Navajo-Hopi FJUA of the 1882 Executive Order reservation.
    The various subparts of part 161 address the purpose and scope of 
the NPL grazing permits; the definition of terms; the application of 
tribal policies and laws pertaining to permits; environmental 
compliance and management documents required by AIARMA; the process by 
which carrying capacity and stocking rates are established; permit 
requirements; eligibility and priority criteria for reissuance of 
cancelled permits; permit transfer, assignment and modification; 
procedures for the investigation, notification and processing of permit 
violations; procedures for trespass notification, enforcement, actions 
and penalties, damages and costs; and procedures by which the Navajo 
Nation provides concurrence to BIA under this part.

[[Page 58883]]

General Observations in Response to Comments

    Several commenters expressed general support for the regulation's 
purpose of land restoration and resource management. However, numerous 
concerns and questions were raised by commenters. Some commenters found 
that the regulation did not clearly identify whether BIA or the Navajo 
Nation will oversee particular activities, or expressed concern about 
the difficult nature of enforcing the regulation. One commenter felt 
that the regulation is too ``authoritarian rather than flexible.''
    We believe the regulation provides the significant flexibility in 
implementation as required by statute. Section 640d-9(e)(1)(A) of the 
Settlement Act requires that all conservation practices, including 
grazing control and range restoration activities be coordinated and 
executed with the concurrence of the Navajo Nation. Thus, conservation 
practices will be cooperatively developed and implemented by both BIA 
and the Navajo Nation. Further, this regulation provides the Navajo 
Nation with the opportunity to take the lead role in any part of this 
regulation, either by enforcing tribal laws as provided in subpart B, 
or through the contracting process pursuant to Public Law 93-638. The 
regulation therefore allows for a range of approaches in 
implementation. However, pursuant to AIARMA which authorizes the 
Secretary to carry out the trust responsibility of the United States in 
managing Indian agricultural lands, the Secretary retains the final 
authority for actions taken under this part.

Subpart A--Definitions, Authority, Purpose and Scope

Summary of Subpart

    Subpart A contains key terms used throughout the regulation. The 
terms are consistent with those found in AIARMA. This subpart also 
describes the Secretary s authorities under part 161.

Comments

    Numerous commenters expressed concern that the regulation does not 
address the importance of livestock in the Navajo culture. Another 
commenter was concerned that the regulation rehabilitates the 
environment but not human lives. We recognize the crucial role of 
livestock, and have revised the Summary and section 161.3 of the 
regulation to note the importance of livestock in the Navajo way of 
life, tradition and culture. The BIA and Navajo Nation were mindful of 
the impact that this regulation would have on the NPL residents. The 
regulation is intended to facilitate recovery of the NPL rangeland 
which in turn will result in improved conditions for NPL residents.
    A number of commenters stated that additional funding is necessary 
in order for the regulation to achieve its goals. Two commenters 
inquired as to whether funding was included as part of BIA's assistance 
in Navajo law enforcement. While we have not made any change to the 
regulation because funding is an issue that is determined by Congress, 
the Navajo Nation stated that it would address its concerns about 
funding for implementation of the regulation to the Department in a 
forthcoming tribal resolution.
    Another commenter felt that individuals should be compensated to 
the extent that their rights are lost due to the regulation. This 
regulation does not intentionally contemplate the loss of any 
individual rights. However, if an individual feels that his or her 
rights have been violated by a decision made by BIA, the decision may 
be appealed pursuant to 25 CFR part 2. Decisions made by the Navajo 
Nation under this part may be appealed to the appropriate hearing body 
of the Navajo Nation. Section 161.801 addresses appeals made under this 
part. No change was made to the regulation.
    Several commenters requested clarification of terms used in the 
regulation. In response to these requests, section 161.1 has been 
revised to further define the term ``improvements,'' by including 
examples such as windmills, water troughs, fences, and cattleguards. 
Also a definition of ``other affected land users'' was added to section 
161.4.
    Several commenters also indicated that the District Grazing 
Committee should be given greater priority in decision making. The term 
``Navajo Nation'' as used in this regulation includes the District 
Grazing Committee and such authority provided to it by the Navajo 
Nation. No change was made to the regulation.
    One commenter questioned how the regulation would classify Shetland 
ponies, and one felt that the llama should not count as an animal unit. 
Shetland ponies will be classified as horses, and llamas kept as 
livestock will require a permit because such animals consume forage and 
are used to guard sheep. No change was made to the regulation.
    One commenter felt that NPL District Rangers should play a larger 
role in carrying out the regulation. The role of NPL District Rangers 
will be determined by the Navajo Nation and BIA at the implementation 
stage of this regulation. No change was made to the regulation.
    Another commenter stated that the Secretary should be responsible 
for assisting the Navajo people in improving their farming methods 
under section 161.1. Pursuant to AIARMA, the Secretary is authorized to 
increase educational and training opportunities in all aspects of 
agricultural and land management. Education and assistance can be 
addressed on a continuing basis by BIA and the Navajo Nation following 
finalization of this regulation. No change was made to the regulation.
    One commenter was concerned that there will be two different 
permits used on the Navajo Reservation; i.e., 25 CFR parts 167 and 161. 
Another commenter expressed concern that this regulation and part 167 
create different standards for permit eligibility. One commenter was 
concerned that the regulation would force people to choose between 
either grazing on non-NPL Navajo lands or the NPL. In response, part 
167 governs grazing on the majority of the Navajo Reservation. However, 
because grazing management on the NPL must comply with the requirements 
of the Settlement Act, a separate permitting system must be used on the 
NPL. Pursuant to section 161.4, contiguous areas outside of the NPL may 
be included under this part which may eliminate any confusion caused by 
two different permitting systems on contiguous parcels. The Navajo 
Nation will have discretion to determine whether an individual may hold 
permits under both parts 161 and 167. No change was made to the 
regulation.

Subpart B--Tribal Policies and Laws Pertaining to Permits

Summary of Subpart

    This subpart is consistent with AIARMA, and makes clear that Navajo 
Nation laws generally apply to land under the jurisdiction of the 
Navajo Nation, except to the extent that those Navajo Nation laws are 
inconsistent with applicable Federal law. Further, unless prohibited by 
Federal law, BIA will recognize and comply with tribal laws regulating 
activities on the NPL, including tribal laws relating to land use, 
environmental protection, and historic or cultural preservation.

Comments

    Two commenters expressed concern about conflicts between Federal 
law and those of the Navajo Nation. Sections 161.100 and 161.101, in 
compliance with section 3712(b) of AIARMA, address this concern by 
providing that Navajo Nation law applies so long as it

[[Page 58884]]

does not conflict with Federal law, and that the Navajo Nation is 
primarily responsible for enforcing tribal laws on the NPL. One 
commenter felt that the enforcement role of the Navajo Nation Resources 
Committee and the Navajo Nation Courts is ignored under section 
161.101. However, section 161.101 provides discretion for the Navajo 
Nation to determine the roles of the Navajo Nation Resources Committee 
and Courts. No change was made to the regulation.

Subpart C--General Provisions

Summary of Subpart

    This subpart lists the environmental compliance and management 
documents that are required by AIARMA. This subpart also discusses how 
carrying capacity and stocking rates are established.

Comments

    Numerous commenters expressed concern that this regulation will 
result in the loss of livestock. One commenter felt that stocking rate 
adjustments should be prorated and not be made equally under section 
161.204. In response, the regulation provides that livestock numbers 
may be reduced when stocking rates are established in order to 
facilitate range recovery. While the extent of such permit reductions 
will not be known until BIA and the Navajo Nation review the current 
carrying capacity of each range unit pursuant to section 161.204, both 
BIA and the President's Office of the Navajo Nation will explore all 
possible alternatives to the loss of livestock. No change was made to 
the regulation.
    Several commenters indicated that the permit process should include 
more environmental studies. Sections 161.200 and 161.201, in compliance 
with AIARMA section 3711(b), address this concern by requiring that an 
agricultural resource management plan be prepared, and that actions 
taken by BIA under this regulation must comply with the National 
Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 431 et seq., applicable regulations 
of the Council on Environmental Quality, 40 CFR part 1500, and 
applicable tribal laws and provisions of the Navajo Nation 
Environmental Policy Act CAP-47-95, where the tribal laws and 
provisions do not violate a Federal or judicial decision or conflict 
with the Secretary's trust responsibility under Federal law. No change 
was made to the regulation.
    One commenter questioned when specific environmental standards 
would be announced. The standards for environmental compliance are set 
forth in the statutes and regulations listed above. Compliance with 
these standards and regulations is an ongoing responsibility of the BIA 
and Navajo Nation. No change was made to the regulation.
    Some commenters were concerned that the regulation did not address 
the manner in which current NPL livestock will be treated if stocking 
rates are reduced. We believe this comment refers to the removal of 
livestock that exceed permit stocking rates. This issue will be 
addressed at the implementation stage following finalization of the 
regulation. Sufficient time and accommodations will be made available 
to implement changes for individuals affected by this regulation. No 
change was made to the regulation.
    One commenter expressed concern that livestock kept and grazed 
elsewhere would count towards NPL livestock limitations under section 
161.204. Livestock grazed elsewhere on the Navajo Reservation will have 
no effect on the number of NPL grazing permits that are issued or on 
the stocking rates for each permit. No change was made to the 
regulation.
    One commenter felt that private agreements should be honored when 
range unit boundaries are set, and another was concerned that range 
units would be established based on the already standing fences. 
Section 161.202 provides flexibility in determining range unit 
boundaries, and allows for agreements to be reached based on historical 
use. Fences may also be taken into account when establishing range unit 
boundaries. No change was made to the regulation.
    One commenter felt that more than two horses should be allowed on a 
grazing unit. In response, the BIA and the Navajo Nation have 
determined that because cattle, sheep and goat herd sizes are 
relatively small, two horses are sufficient for the management of these 
herds. No change was made to the regulation.
    One commenter felt that the regulation should discuss deferred 
compensation. Determinations about compensation will be made in 
accordance with Federal and tribal law. No change in the regulation was 
made.

Subpart D--Grazing Permit Requirements

Summary of Subpart

    This subpart describes the general requirements for obtaining a 
permit, the provisions contained in a grazing permit, the restrictions 
placed on permits, and other permit requirements.

Comments

    Several commenters raised questions regarding permit costs. The 
regulation does not require that rentals or fees be paid for permits 
because the Navajo Nation requested that the regulation not include 
grazing fee provisions. Several commenters were concerned about the 
period of permit validity and permit renewals. Under section 161.303 
permits are valid for one year, and will be automatically renewed so 
long as the permittee remains in good standing. No change was made to 
the regulation.
    Two commenters also indicated that the manner in which permits will 
be issued is unclear. We believe this question refers to the process of 
applying for and receiving permits. The specific steps that must be 
taken by a potential permittee when applying for a permit are not 
outlined in this regulation. However, BIA and Navajo Nation personnel 
will be available to answer questions about the permitting process 
after finalization of this regulation.
    Several commenters were concerned that the language of section 
161.301(a)(14) would result in permittees being held responsible for 
the cleanup of hazardous waste spills, or that hazardous dumping would 
be authorized. Due to the continuing confusion created by this 
language, section 161.301(a)(14) was deleted from the regulation. 
Section 161.301(a)(15) was redesignated as section 161.301(a)(14). 
Nonetheless, liability standards for hazardous waste are governed by 
applicable statutes and regulations, and the elimination of this 
language from this regulation does not alter such standards.
    One commenter was concerned about the ability of a family to share 
a permit. Section 161.302(b) requires that a permit be issued in the 
name of one individual only, and section 161.302(f) requires that a 
permit cannot be subdivided once it has been issued. This requirement 
was developed to ensure that permit ownership and accountability may be 
efficiently tracked. It does not preclude a family from sharing in 
permit responsibilities, or for a permit holder from assigning his or 
her permit to a family member under section 161.500.

Subpart E--Reissuance of Grazing Permits

Summary of Subpart

    This subpart sets forth eligibility and priority criteria for 
reissuance of cancelled grazing permits. This subpart makes clear that 
the Navajo Nation may prescribe eligibility requirements for

[[Page 58885]]

grazing allocations within 180 days following the effective date of 
these regulations. The BIA will prescribe the eligibility requirements 
after expiration of the 180-day period in the event that the Navajo 
Nation does not prescribe eligibility requirements, or in the event 
that the Navajo Nation does not take satisfactory action. This subpart 
also describes how new permits may be granted after the initial 
reissuance of permits, and sets forth the procedures for reissuing 
permits and allocating permits within each range unit.

Comments

    Many commenters indicated that grazing permits of the deceased 
should pass to their descendants. While permits may not automatically 
pass to descendants under this regulation, the Navajo Nation has 
discretion under section 161.401 to determine who may be granted the 
permit of a deceased permit holder in accordance with Navajo Nation 
law. No change was made to the regulation.
    Several commenters expressed concern that the regulation and 
specifically section 161.400 give priority to those over the age of 65. 
One commenter indicated that all enrolled Navajo Nation members over 18 
should be eligible to receive permits. In response, priority under 
section 161.400(c)(1) was given to those aged 65 and older because 
persons of that age are more likely to have had their permits cancelled 
by the 1972 United States District Court order in Hamilton v. 
MacDonald, Civ. 579-PCT (1972), and are more likely to be dependent on 
livestock for subsistence. No change was made to the regulation.
    Commenters were also concerned that those not fluent in the English 
language, especially the elderly, will be disadvantaged in exercising 
their rights under the regulation. The BIA and the Navajo Nation are 
committed to making the materials and processes of this regulation 
available in both the English and Navajo languages. No change was made 
to the regulation.
    Commenters were also concerned that decisions regarding permit 
reissuance have already been made. Decisions regarding permit 
reissuance have not been made by either BIA or the Navajo Nation, and 
any previous discussions of permit reissuance were speculative and non-
binding.
    One commenter felt that those who previously grazed on Navajo and 
Hopi land should receive permits under section 161.400. Another 
commenter stated that priority for permit reissuance should go to those 
starting a business, and one commenter indicated that first priority 
for reissuing permits should go to those not paid for relocation. One 
commenter expressed concern that residents of Black Mesa, Arizona, 
would be left out of permit reissuance. One commenter questioned 
whether non-Navajos are qualified to receive permits, and another 
expressed concern that those outside the Joint Use Area will not be 
qualified to receive permits. No changes were made to the regulation in 
response to these comments because the Navajo Nation has the discretion 
to determine permit eligibility for these and other situations under 
sections 161.400 and 161.401. If the Navajo Nation does not prescribe 
eligibility criteria for permit reissuance, the criteria presented in 
section 161.400 will be implemented. The criteria presented in section 
161.400 were developed by BIA and the Navajo Nation and are intended to 
restore permits to those permittees who had their permits cancelled by 
court order in Hamilton v. MacDonald, Civ. 579-PCT (1972). Under 
section 161.400, only current residents of the NPL may receive permits. 
This criterion was developed to ensure that current NPL residents 
receive permits before non-NPL residents receive them. Section 161.401 
provides complete discretion to the Navajo Nation to grant permits 
based on its own criteria following reissuance of permits under section 
161.400. No change was made to the regulation.
    Another commenter felt that 180 days is insufficient time for the 
Navajo Nation to establish permit eligibility requirements. The Navajo 
Nation may receive an extension to determine eligibility criteria under 
section 161.400 upon request and a showing that progress is being made. 
No change was made to the regulation.

Subpart F--Modifying A Permit

Summary of Subpart

    This subpart describes how permits may be transferred, assigned or 
modified.

Comments

    One commenter expressed concern about the impact that outside 
businesses would have on grazing permits under section 161.502 if 
businesses were allowed to occupy grazing lands and remove those lands 
from a range unit. Another commenter felt that in the event that a 
special land use results in permit modification, the permittee should 
be compensated. In response, section 161.502 provides discretion to BIA 
and the Navajo Nations to determine whether a special land use may 
occupy grazing land, but does not require that special land uses be 
approved. Determination about special land uses will be made on a case-
by-case basis by BIA and the Navajo Nation. Determinations about 
compensation will be made in accordance with Federal and tribal law. No 
change was made to the regulation.

Subpart G--Permit Violations

Summary of Subpart

    This subpart sets forth the procedures for investigation, 
notification and processing of permit violations. This subpart also 
describes the process by which mediation can be used in the event of a 
permit violation.

Comments

    One commenter expressed concern that the responsibilities for 
monitoring permit compliance under section 161.601 were unclear. In 
response to this concern, section 161.601 has been slightly modified to 
add ``and/or Navajo Nation'' to provide additional enforcement 
capabilities.
    One commenter suggested that section 161.603 be deleted. This 
section was developed by BIA and the Navajo Nation to provide an 
alternative means of resolving permit violations or disputes prior to 
permit cancellation. No change was made to the regulation.

Subpart H--Trespass

Summary of Subpart

    This subpart describes the process for trespass notification, 
enforcement, actions and penalties, damages and costs. This subpart is 
substantially similar to the general grazing regulations, 25 CFR part 
166, subpart I, and is consistent with AIARMA.

Comments

    Numerous commenters were concerned that the trespass provisions and 
penalties are too harsh and insufficiently defined. However, section 
3713 of AIARMA requires the Secretary to establish civil penalties for 
the commission of trespass on Indian agricultural lands, and specifies 
what those penalties must be. The trespass provisions contained in this 
subpart are substantially similar to the trespass provisions contained 
in the general grazing regulations in 25 CFR part 166, and incorporate 
the requirements of AIARMA. In accordance with section 161.101, BIA has 
agreed that it will use the Navajo Nation Trespass Code when resolving 
trespass issues on the NPL. However, if a trespass issue remains 
unresolved under the Navajo Nation Trespass Code, the provisions of 
this

[[Page 58886]]

subpart will be applied. No change was made to the regulation.
    Several commenters were concerned that a trespass may result in 
loss of NPL occupancy under section 161.715. This is a concern to some 
NPL residents because the issue of authorized occupancy on the NPL is 
somewhat unclear in some cases due the particular history of the area. 
In response, we slightly modified section 161.715(a) to eliminate loss 
of occupancy as a consequence of failure to pay penalties, damages or 
costs.

Subpart I--Concurrence/Appeals/Amendments

Summary of Subpart

    This subpart sets forth the procedures for the Navajo Nation to 
provide concurrence to BIA under this part. This subpart also states 
that decisions made by BIA under this part may be appealed, and that 
decisions made by the Navajo Nation under this part may be appealed to 
the appropriate hearing body of the Navajo Nation.

Comments

    Some commenters were concerned with the possibility that BIA may 
implement proposals without the Navajo Nation's concurrence under 
section 161.800(b)(5). In response, section 161.800 provides a detailed 
procedure by which the Navajo Nation provides concurrence to BIA 
conservation practices, including grazing control and range restoration 
activities as required by section 640d-9(e)(1)(A) of the Settlement 
Act. If however, this process does not result in Navajo Nation 
concurrence, BIA is authorized to act by AIARMA, which authorizes the 
Secretary to carry out the trust responsibility of the United States in 
managing Indian agricultural lands. Every attempt will be made to 
resolve issues of concern prior to the implementation of section 
161.800(b)(5). No change was made to the regulation.
    One commenter indicated that the citation in section 161.800(a) 
should be ``Hopi v. Watt'' rather than the ``Settlement Act.'' We 
slightly modified the regulation to include the specific citation for 
the Settlement Act for clarity.
    Another commenter felt that the Navajo-Hopi Land Commission is best 
suited for recommending amendments under section 161.802. This section 
requires the Resources Committee to incorporate the recommendation of 
the Navajo-Hopi Land Commission in approving amendments to this part. 
No change was made to the regulation.

IV. Procedural Requirements

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) must determine whether the 
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB 
review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines 
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a 
rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles in the 
Executive Order.
    The rule describes how BIA will administer grazing permits on trust 
land. Thus, the impact of the rule is confined to the Federal 
Government and individual Indian and the Navajo Nation, and does not 
impose a compliance burden on the economy generally. Accordingly, it 
has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory 
action'' under any of the preceding criteria.

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as 
amended, whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rule 
making for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effects of the rule on small entities. Indian tribes are 
not considered to be small entities for purposes of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, and consequently, no regulatory flexibility analysis 
has been done.
    This rule does not have significant adverse effects on competition, 
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of 
U.S. based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises 
because it concerns only the Navajo Nation. Accordingly, this 
regulation will not have an economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities, and, therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis has 
been prepared.

C. Review Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996

    Under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), SBREFA, a rule is major if OMB finds that it 
results in:
    a. An annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more;
    b. A major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual 
industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic 
regions; or
    c. Significant adverse effects on competition, employment, 
investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based 
enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
    This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the 
SBREFA. This rule is uniquely confined to the Federal Government, 
individual Indians and the Navajo Nation, thus, it will not result in 
the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one 
year. This rule provides regulatory guidance for grazing permits on 
trust lands owned by individual Indians and the Navajo Nation.

D. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule would not impose unfunded mandates as defined by the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, March 22, 1995, 
109 Stat. 48). This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, 
local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private 
sector, of $100 million or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532). The 
impact of this rule is confined to grazing permits on land held in 
trust for the Navajo Nation. Accordingly, this proposed rule will not 
result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any one year.

E. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    This rule does not have significant ``takings'' implications. 
Policies that have taking implications do not include actions affecting 
properties that are held in trust by the United States. The NPL grazing 
regulations provide specific regulatory guidance on trust lands.

F. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 that 
speaks to regulations that significantly affect energy supply, 
distribution, and use. The Executive Order requires agencies to prepare 
Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This

[[Page 58887]]

rule is restricted to 25 CFR 161, NPL Grazing Permits on lands held in 
trust for individual Indians and tribes. Mineral development on lands 
held in trust for individual Indians and the Navajo Nation are 
regulated under the Indian Mineral Development Act. Regulations for 
mineral development are provided under a separate part in 25 CFR 211, 
212 and 225. This proposed implementation guidance is not expected to 
significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, 
no Statement of Energy Effects has been prepared.

G. Review Under Executive Order 12612

    This rule does not have significant Federalism effects because it 
pertains solely to Federal-tribal relations and will not interfere with 
the roles, rights, and responsibilities of States. While this proposed 
rule will impact tribal governments, there is no federalism impact on 
the trust relationship or balance of power between the United States 
government and the various tribal governments affected by this 
rulemaking. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, it is 
determined that this rule will not have sufficient federalism 
implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment.

H. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    With respect to the review of existing regulations and the 
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of the Executive Order 
12988, Civil Justice Reform, 61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996, imposes on 
executive agencies the general duty to adhere to the following 
requirements:
    (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity;
    (2) Write regulations to minimize litigation; and
    (3) Provide a clear legal standard for effective conduct rather 
than a general standard and promote simplification and burden 
reduction.
    With regard to the review required by section 3(a), section (b) of 
Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that executive agencies 
make every reasonable effort to insure that the regulations:
    (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any;
    (2) Clearly specifies any effect on existing federal law or 
regulation;
    (3) Provides a clear legal standard for affecting conduct while 
promoting simplification and burden reduction;
    (4) Specifies the retroactive affect if any;
    (5) Adequately defines key terms; and
    (6) Addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general 
draftsmanship.
    Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires executive agencies 
to review regulations in light of the applicable standards in section 
3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is 
unreasonable to meet on one or more of them. This rule does not unduly 
burden the judicial system and meets the applicable standards provided 
in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Executive Order 12988.

I. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    This rule is categorically excluded from the preparation of an 
environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement under the 
NEPA of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq., because its environmental 
effects are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves 
to meaningful analysis and the Federal actions under this rule will be 
subject at the time of the action itself to the NEPA process, either 
collectively or case-by-case. Further, no extraordinary circumstances 
exist to require preparation of an environmental assessment or 
environmental impact statement.

J. Review Under Executive Order 13175

    Pursuant to Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000, Consultation 
and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, the Department has 
determined that because this rule will uniquely affect tribal 
governments, it will follow Department and Administrative protocols in 
consulting with tribal governments on rulemaking. Consequently, tribal 
governments were notified through the proposed rulemaking published in 
the Federal Register and through BIA field offices, of the 
ramifications of this rule. This enabled tribal officials and the 
affected tribal constituency throughout the NPL to have meaningful and 
timely input in the development of this rule. This will reinforce good 
intergovernmental relations with the Navajo Nation and better inform, 
educate and advise the Navajo Nation on compliance requirements of this 
rule. We consulted with representatives of the Navajo Nation during the 
formulation of this rule. Representatives from the Navajo-Hopi Land 
Commission and Navajo Nation Natural Resources Committee met in 
consultation several times from November 2002 to June of 2003 to draft 
the proposed regulations. The comments received from these 
consultations were taken into consideration in the formulation of this 
rule. We also consulted with the Navajo Nation in the formulation of 
this rule.

K. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule requires an information collection from 10 or more 
parties, and therefore was subject to review under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13). The information collection 
regulates grazing permits and the use of the Navajo Partitioned Lands. 
The information collection will also help protect the lands from 
overgrazing and aid in restoring lands that have been overgrazed. The 
information collection involves 5,370 responses with an hourly annual 
burden of 1227 hours for an average burden of approximately 14 minutes. 
The respondents are not required to keep records but many do as part of 
their business. Responses are given in order to obtain or retain a 
benefit, namely, acquiring or keeping a grazing permit as authorized by 
the Navajo-Hopi Settlement Act of 1974 as amended, by federal court 
decisions (Healing v. Jones, 174 F. Supp. 211 (D. Ariz. 1959) (Healing 
I), Healing v. Jones, 210 F. Supp. 126 (D. Ariz. 1962), and Hopi Tribe 
v. Watt, 530 F. Supp. 1217 (D. Ariz. 1982), and Hopi Tribe v. Watt, 719 
F. 2d 314 (9th Cir. 1983), and the American Indian Agricultural 
Resource Management Act (AIARMA), (107 Stat. 2011, 25 U.S.C. 3701 et 
seq.) as amended. Interior submitted a request for approval of the 
information request which was approved. The OMB Control Number is 1076-
0162 and expires January 31, 2007.
    Comments on this information collection can be made at any time and 
sent to the Information Collection Clearance Officer at 625 Herndon 
Parkway, Herndon, VA 20170. Please note that comments about the burden 
are separate from comments on the rule. If you wish to withhold 
personal information, such as your name, you must state this 
prominently at the beginning of your comments. We will honor your 
request to the extent that the law allows.
    The table showing the burden of the information collection is 
included below for your information.

[[Page 58888]]



                                         Table of Burden for 25 CFR 161
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Hourly burden
              CFR section                    Number of     Number of annual    per response       Total annual
                                            respondents        responses          (hours)        hourly burden
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
161.102................................               700               700  ................  .................
161.206................................               700               700             \1/2\              350
161.301................................               700               700  ................  .................
161.302................................               700               700             \1/3\              233
161.304................................               700               700  ................  .................
161.402................................               700               700             \1/3\              233
161.500................................                70                70             \1/3\               23
161.502................................                70                70  ................  .................
161.604................................                35                35             \1/2\               17.5
161.606................................                35                35             \1/2\               17.5
161.703................................                35                35             \1/2\               17.5
161.704................................                35                35             \1/2\               17.5
161.708................................                10                10             \1/2\                5
161.717................................                10                10                 1               10
161.800................................               700               700             \1/4\              175
161.801................................                85                85             \1/2\               42.5
161.802................................                85                85                 1               85
                                        -------------------
    Totals.............................               700             5,370  ................            1,226.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                         Table of Burden for 25 CFR 161
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Salary: $5.00 x                                       Salary: $18.52 x
                                           total hourly     Federal burden     Total Federal      total hourly
              CFR section                 burden = total     per response      annual burden     burden = total
                                           hourly burden        (hours)            hours         Federal burden
                                               cost                                                   cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
161.102................................  ................             \1/2\              350              $6,482
161.206................................            $1,750             \1/4\              175               3,241
161.301................................  ................             \1/4\              175               3,241
161.302................................             1,165             \1/4\              175               3,241
161.304................................  ................             \1/4\              175               3,241
161.402................................             1,165                 1              700              12,964
161.500................................               115                 1               70               1,296
161.502................................  ................             \1/4\               17.5               324
161.604................................                87                 1               35                 648
161.606................................                87                 1               35                 648
161.703................................                87                 1               35                 648
161.704................................                88                 1               35                 648
161.708................................                25                 1               10                 185
161.717................................                50                 2               20                 370
161.800................................               875             \1/4\              212.5             3,936
161.801................................               213                 1               85               1,575
161.802................................               425             \1/2\               42.5               787
                                        -------------------
    Totals.............................             6,132  ................            2,347.5            43,475
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 25 CFR Part 161

    Grazing lands, Indians--lands, Livestock.

    Dated: July 29, 2005.
Michael D. Olsen,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of the Interior, 
Bureau of Indian Affairs, is adding part 161 to chapter I of title 25 
of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows.

PART 161--NAVAJO PARTITIONED LANDS GRAZING PERMITS

Subpart A--Definitions, Authority, Purpose and Scope
Sec.
161.1 What definitions do I need to know?
161.2 What are the Secretary's authorities under this part?
161.3 What is the purpose of this part?
161.4 To what lands does this part apply?
161.5 Can BIA waive the application of this part?
161.6 Are there any other restrictions on information given to BIA?
Subpart B--Tribal Policies and Laws Pertaining to Permits
161.100 Do tribal laws apply to grazing permits?
161.101 How will tribal laws be enforced on the Navajo Partitioned 
Lands?
161.102 What notifications are required that tribal laws apply to 
grazing permits on the Navajo Partitioned Lands?
Subpart C--General Provisions
161.200 Is an Indian agricultural resource management plan required?
161.201 Is environmental compliance required?
161.202 How are range units established?
161.203 Are range management plans required?
161.204 How are carrying capacities and stocking rates established?
161.205 How are range improvements treated?
161.206 What must a permittee do to protect livestock from exposure 
to disease?

[[Page 58889]]

161.207 What livestock are authorized to graze?
Subpart D--Permit Requirements
161.300 When is a permit needed to authorize grazing use?
161.301 What will a grazing permit contain?
161.302 What restrictions are placed on grazing permits?
161.303 How long is a permit valid?
161.304 Must a permit be recorded?
161.305 When is a decision by BIA regarding a permit effective?
161.306 When are permits effective?
161.307 When may a permittee commence grazing on Navajo Partitioned 
Land?
161.308 Must a permittee comply with standards of conduct if granted 
a permit?
Subpart E--Reissuance of Grazing Permits
161.400 What are the criteria for reissuing grazing permits?
161.401 Will new permits be granted after the initial reissuance of 
permits?
161.402 What are the procedures for reissuing permits?
161.403 How are grazing permits allocated within each range unit?
Subpart F--Modifying A Permit
161.500 May permits be transferred, assigned or modified?
161.501 When will a permit modification be effective?
161.502 Will a special land use require permit modification?
Subpart G--Permit Violations
161.600 What permit violations are addressed by this subpart?
161.601 How will BIA monitor permit compliance?
161.602 Will my permit be canceled for non-use?
161.603 Can mediation be used in the event of a permit violation or 
dispute?
161.604 What happens if a permit violation occurs?
161.605 What will a written notice of a permit violation contain?
161.606 What will BIA do if the permitee doesn't cure a violation on 
time?
161.607 What appeal bond provisions apply to permit cancellation 
decisions?
161.608 When will a permit cancellation be effective?
161.609 Can BIA take emergency action if the rangeland is 
threatened?
161.610 What will BIA do if livestock is not removed when a permit 
expires or is cancelled?
Subpart H--Trespass
161.700 What is trespass?
161.701 What is BIA's trespass policy?
161.702 Who will enforce this subpart?

Notification

161.703 How are trespassers notified of a trespass determination?
161.704 What can a permittee do if they receive a trespass notice?
161.705 How long will a written trespass notice remain in effect?

Actions

161.706 What actions does BIA take against trespassers?
161.707 When will BIA impound unauthorized livestock or other 
property?
161.708 How are trespassers notified of impoundments?
161.709 What happens after unauthorized livestock or other property 
are impounded?
161.710 How can impounded livestock or other property be redeemed?
161.711 How will BIA sell impounded livestock or other property?

Penalties, Damages, and Costs

161.712 What are the penalties, damages, and costs payable by 
trespassers?
161.713 How will BIA determine the amount of damages to Navajo 
Partitioned Lands?
161.714 How will BIA determine the costs associated with enforcement 
of the trespass?
161.715 What will BIA do if a trespasser fails to pay penalties, 
damages and costs?
161.716 How are the proceeds from trespass distributed?
161.717 What happens if BIA does not collect enough money to satisfy 
the penalty?
Subpart I--Concurrence/Appeals/Amendments
161.800 How does the Navajo Nation provide concurrence to BIA?
161.801 May decisions under this part be appealed?
161.802 How will the Navajo Nation recommend amendments to this 
part?

    Authority: 25 U.S.C. 2; 5 U.S.C. 301; 25 U.S.C. 640d et seq.

Subpart A--Definitions, Authority, Purpose, and Scope


Sec.  161.1  What definitions do I need to know?

    Agricultural Act means the American Indians Agricultural Resource 
Management Act (AIARMA) of December 3, 1993 (107 Stat. 2011, 25 U.S.C. 
3701 et seq.), and amended on November 2, 1994 (108 Stat. 4572).
    Agricultural resource management plan means a 10-year plan 
developed through the public review process specifying the tribal 
management goals and objectives developed for tribal agricultural and 
grazing resources. Plans developed and approved under AIARMA will 
govern the management and administration of Indian agricultural 
resources and Indian agricultural lands by BIA and Indian tribal 
governments.
    Allocation means the number of animal units authorized in each 
grazing permit.
    Animal Unit (AU) means one adult cow and her 6-month-old calf or 
the equivalent thereof based on comparable forage consumption. Thus as 
defined in the following:
    (1) One adult sheep or goat is equivalent to one-fifth (0.20) of an 
AU;
    (2) One adult horse, mule, or burro is equivalent to one and one 
quarter (1.25) AU; or
    (3) One adult llama is equivalent to three-fifths (0.60) of an AU.
    Appeal means a written request for review of an action or the 
inaction of an official of the Bureau of Indian Affairs that is claimed 
to adversely affect the interested party making the request.
    Appeal Bond means a bond posted upon filing of an appeal that 
provides a security or guaranty if an appeal creates a delay in 
implementing our decision that could cause a significant and measurable 
financial loss to another party.
    BIA means the Bureau of Indian Affairs within the Department of the 
Interior.
    Bond means security for the performance of certain permit 
obligations, as furnished by the permittee, or a guaranty of such 
performance as furnished by a third-party surety.
    Business day means Monday through Friday, excluding federally or 
tribally recognized holidays.
    Carrying capacity means the number of livestock and/or wildlife, 
which may be sustained on a management unit compatible with management 
objectives for the unit.
    Concurrence means the written agreement of the Navajo Nation with a 
policy, action, decision or finding submitted for consideration by BIA.
    Conservation practice refers to any management measure taken to 
maintain or improve the condition, productivity, sustainability, or 
usability of targeted resources.
    Customary Use Area refers to an area to which an individual 
traditionally confined his or her traditional grazing use and occupancy 
and/or an area traditionally inhabited by his or her ancestors.
    Day means a calendar day, unless otherwise specified.
    Enumeration means the list of persons living on and identified 
improvements located within the Former Joint Use Area obtained through 
interviews conducted by BIA in 1974 and 1975.
    Former Joint Use Area means the area that was divided between the 
Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe by the Judgment of Partition issued 
April 18, 1979, by the United States District Court for the District of 
Arizona. This area was established by the United States District Court 
for the District of Arizona in Healing v. Jones, 210 F. Supp. 125

[[Page 58890]]

(1962), aff'd. 373 U.S. 758 (1963) and is located:
    (1) Inside the Executive Order area (Executive Order of December 
16, 1882); and
    (2) Outside Land Management District 6.
    Grazing Committee means the District Grazing Committee established 
by the Navajo Nation Council, that is responsible for enforcing and 
implementing tribal grazing regulations on the Navajo Partitioned 
Lands.
    Grazing Permit means a revocable privilege granted in writing and 
limited to entering on and utilizing forage by domestic livestock on a 
specified range unit. The term as used herein shall include 
authorizations issued to enable the crossing or trailing of domestic 
livestock within an assigned range unit.
    Historical Land Use see Customary Use Area.
    Improvement means any structure or excavation to facilitate 
management of the range for livestock, such as: Fences, cattle guards, 
spring developments, windmills, stock ponds, and corrals.
    Livestock means horses, cattle, sheep, goats, mules, burros, 
donkeys, and llamas.
    Management Unit is a subdivision of a geographic area where unique 
resource conditions, goals, concerns, or opportunities require specific 
and separate management planning.
    Navajo Nation means all offices/entities/programs under the direct 
jurisdiction of the Navajo Nation Government.
    Navajo Partitioned Lands (NPL) means that portion of the Former 
Joint Use Area awarded to the Navajo Nation under the Judgment of 
Partition issued April 18, 1979, by the United States District Court 
for the District of Arizona, and now a separate administrative entity 
within the Navajo Indian Reservation.
    Non-Concurrence means the official written denial of approval by 
the Navajo Nation of a policy, action, decision, or finding submitted 
for consideration by BIA.
    Range management plan is a statement of management objectives for 
grazing, farming, or other agriculture management including contract 
stipulations defining required uses, operations, and improvements.
    Range Unit means a tract of land designated as a separate 
management subdivision for the administration of grazing.
    Resident means a person who lives on the Navajo Partitioned Lands.
    Resources Committee means the oversight committee for the Division 
of Natural Resources within the Navajo Nation Government. The Resources 
Committee of the Navajo Nation Council to whom authority is delegated 
to exercise the powers of the Navajo Nation with regards to the range 
development and grazing management of the Navajo Partitioned Lands.
    Secretary means the Secretary of the Interior or his or her 
designated representative.
    Settlement Act means the Navajo Hopi Settlement Act of December 22, 
1974 (88 Stat. 1712, 25 U.S.C. 64d et seq., as amended).
    Sheep Unit means an adult ewe with un-weaned lamb. It is also the 
basic unit in which forage allocations are expressed.
    Special land use means all land usage for purposes other than for 
grazing withdrawn in accordance with Navajo Nation laws, Federal laws, 
and BIA policies and procedures, such as but not limited to: Housing 
permits, farm leases, governmental facilities, rights-of-way, schools, 
parks, business leases, etc.
    Stocking rate means the maximum number of sheep units, or animal 
units authorized to graze on a particular pasture, management unit, or 
range unit during a specified period of time.
    Trespass means any unauthorized occupancy, grazing, use of, or 
action on the Navajo Partitioned Lands.


Sec.  161.2  What are the Secretary's authorities under this part?

    (a) Under Section 640d-9(e) of the Settlement Act, lands 
partitioned under the Settlement Act are subject to the jurisdiction of 
the tribe to whom partitioned. The laws of the tribe apply to the 
partitioned lands as in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section.
    (1) Effective October 6, 1980:
    (i) All conservation practices on the Navajo Partitioned Lands, 
including control and range restoration activities, must be coordinated 
and executed with the concurrence of the Navajo Nation; and
    (ii) All grazing and range restoration matters on the Navajo 
Reservation lands must be administered by BIA, under applicable laws 
and regulations.
    (2) Effective April 18, 1981, the Navajo Nation has jurisdiction 
and authority over any lands partitioned to it and over all persons on 
these lands. This jurisdiction and authority apply:
    (i) To the same extent as is applicable to those other portions of 
the Navajo reservation; and
    (ii) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, except 
where there is a conflict with the laws and regulations referred to in 
paragraph (a) of this section.
    (b) Under the Agricultural Act, the Secretary is authorized to:
    (1) Carry out the trust responsibility of the United States and 
promote Indian tribal self-determination by providing for management of 
Indian agricultural lands and renewable resources consistent with 
tribal goals and priorities for conservation, multiple use, and 
sustained yield;
    (2) Take part in managing Indian agricultural lands, with the 
participation of the land's beneficial owners, in a manner consistent 
with the Secretary's trust responsibility and with the objectives of 
the beneficial owners;
    (3) Provide for the development and management of Indian 
agricultural lands; and
    (4) Improve the expertise and technical abilities of Indian tribes 
and their members by increasing the educational and training 
opportunities available to Indian people and communities in the 
practical, technical, and professional aspects of agricultural and land 
management.


Sec.  161.3  What is the purpose of this part?

    The purpose of this part is to describe the goals and objectives of 
grazing management on the Navajo Partitioned Lands:
    (a) To respect and recognize the importance that livestock and land 
have in sustaining Navajo tradition and culture.
    (b) Provide resources to rehabilitate range resources in the 
preservation of forage, soil, and water on the Navajo Partitioned 
Lands;
    (c) Monitor the recovery of those resources where they have 
deteriorated;
    (d) Protect, conserve, utilize, and maintain the highest productive 
potential on the Navajo Partitioned Lands through the application of 
sound conservation practices and techniques. These practices and 
techniques will be applied to planning, development, inventorying, 
classification, and management of agricultural resources;
    (e) Increase production and expand the diversity and availability 
of agricultural products for subsistence, income, and employment of 
Indians, through the development of agricultural resources on the 
Navajo Partitioned Lands;
    (f) Manage agricultural resources consistent with integrated 
resource management plans in order to protect and maintain other values 
such as wildlife, fisheries, cultural resources, recreation and to 
regulate water runoff and minimize soil erosion;
    (g) Enable the Navajo Nation to maximize the potential benefits 
available to its members from their lands by providing technical 
assistance, training, and education in conservation

[[Page 58891]]

practices, management and economics of agribusiness, sources and use of 
credit and marketing of agricultural products, and other applicable 
subject areas;
    (h) Develop the Navajo Partitioned Lands to promote self-sustaining 
communities; and
    (i) Assist the Navajo Nation with permitting the Navajo Partitioned 
Lands, consistent with prudent management and conservation practices, 
and community goals as expressed in the tribal management plans and 
appropriate tribal ordinances.


Sec.  161.4  To what lands does this part apply?

    The grazing regulations in this part apply to the Navajo 
Partitioned Lands within the boundaries of the Navajo Indian 
Reservation held in trust by the United States for the Navajo Nation. 
Contiguous areas outside of the Navajo Partitioned Lands may be 
included under this part for management purposes by BIA in consultation 
with the affected permittees and other affected land users, and with 
the concurrence of the Resources Committee. Other affected land users 
include those holding approved assignments,