Proposed Revisions to

Grazing Regulations

for the Public Lands

Final Environmental Impact Statement

FES 04-39

October 2004

Prepared by

The Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management
Livestock grazing on BLM lands near Price, Utah. (Jerry Sintz, BLM Utah State Office [retired])
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Final Environmental Impact Statement FES 04-39

Prepared by The Department of the Interior • Bureau of Land Management • October 2004
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240

http://www.blm.gov

Dear Concerned Citizen:

Thank you for your contribution to the Bureau of Land Managementʼs (BLM) grazing regulatory 

initiative, aimed at improving the management and long-term health of Americaʼs public rangelands. Your comments and concerns have helped the BLM prepare a final Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) related to the Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for Public Lands. The 

final EIS analyzes the environmental effects of the regulation revisions and management alternatives and includes responses to the comments received on the draft EIS. 

These regulation changes will contribute to improving the BLMʼs working relationships with 

permittees and lessees; protecting the health of the rangelands; and increasing our agencyʼs 

administrative effectiveness and efficiency. These revisions, as detailed in the EIS, recognize that 

grazing is a proud heritage of the West. As trustees of that legacy, Western rural communities 

continue to rely on public and private rangelands to support local economies, sustain working 

landscapes, and protect open spaces. Since passage of the Taylor Grazing Act in 1934 and the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, many improvements in the management and 

practice of livestock grazing have taken place, and these regulation revisions will advance public 

rangeland stewardship even further. 

Since the beginning of this process in March of 2003, we have met with a variety of groups and 

individuals to discuss the future of BLM-managed rangelands. The more than 18,000 comments 

we received on the draft document have helped us to develop a well-rounded, forward-looking 

approach that seeks to ensure healthy and productive rangelands across the West. I encourage 

you to share this final Environmental Impact Statement with other concerned citizens as well as 

to view it on our national Website (www.blm.gov).

Thank you for your valuable time and interest in the management and future of public land grazing. I hope you will continue to be involved in the stewardship of Americaʼs public lands.

Sincerely,

 

Kathleen Clarke

Director

Proposed Revisions to

Grazing Regulations

for the Public Lands

Final Environmental Impact Statement

FES 04-39

October 2004

Prepared by

The Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management
Abstract

Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Environmental Impact Statement

Draft ( ) Final (X)

The United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

1. Type of Action: Administrative (X) Legislative ( )

2. Abstract: The BLM is amending the grazing regulations for the public lands, 43 CFR 

Part 4100, Grazing Administration—Exclusive of Alaska. The grazing regulations 

govern all public lands that have been identified as suitable for livestock grazing. These 

lands presently include approximately 160 million acres in the western United States. 

This final environmental impact statement (EIS) is a national-level, programmatic EIS that 

documents the ecological, cultural, social, and economic effects that would result from 

implementing the proposed regulatory changes. The proposed action (preferred alternative) 

described in this final EIS is the proposed action (alternative 2) analyzed in the draft 

EIS with changes as described in this document. Also analyzed in this final EIS are the 

projected effects of continuing under the existing regulations or the “no action” alternative 

(alternative 1) and a “modified” alternative (alternative 3) that reflects several modifications 

to the proposed action. 

More than 18,000 public comments, including letters and oral statements at public 

meetings, were analyzed. Summary comments and responses are provided in this final 

EIS. Changes in the proposed action and in the analysis as a result of public comments are 

summarized in this document. 

3. For further information, contact: Steven Borchard, Bureau of Land Management, 

202-452-0357, or Kenneth Visser, Bureau of Land Management, 775-861-6492. 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ES-1

Chapter 1 Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3

1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5

1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7

1.2 The Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-13

1.3 Overview of Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-23

1.4 Rulemaking and EIS Process and Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-26

1.5 Relation to Other Policies, Programs, and Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-27

Chapter 2 Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3

2.0 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5

2.1 Alternative One: No Change in Regulations (No Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9

2.2 Alternative Two: Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-18

2.3 Alternative Three: Modified Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-31

2.4 Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed in Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-32

2.5 Comparison of the Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-38

2.6 Comparison of the Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-49

Chapter 3 Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3

3.0 Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7

3.1 General Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8

3.2 Physiographic Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8

3.3 Drought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11

3.4 Grazing Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11

3.5 Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-19

3.6 Fire and Fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-31

3.7 Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-35

3.8 Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-38

3.9 Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-42

3.10 Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-43

3.11 Special Status Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-55

3.12 Wild Horses and Burros . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-57

3.13 Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-59

3.14 Special Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-60

3.15 Heritage Resources: Paleontological and Cultural Resources (Properties) . . . . . . 3-63

3.16 Economic Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-66

3.17 Social Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-70

Chapter 4 Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3

4.0 Environmental Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5

4.1 Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9

4.2 Alternative One: No Change in Regulations (No Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10

4.3 Alternative Two: Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-23

4.4 Alternative Three: Modified Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-50

4.5 Cumulative and Other Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-59

v
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Table of Contents 

Chapter 5 Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3

5.0 Consultation and Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5

5.1 Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5

5.2 Consultation and Coordination Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6

5.3 List of Preparers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7

5.4 Response to General Public Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-16

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .R-1

Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AA-1

Appendix A. Proposed Final Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

A1. Final Shown with Strike and Replace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

A2. Final Shown without Strike and Replace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-51

Appendix B. Special Status Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B-1

Appendix C. Summary of Scoping Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-1

Appendix D. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

Appendix E. Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E-1

Appendix F. Social Impact Assessment Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F-1

Index to Chapters 1-5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

vi 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Executive Summary

Introduction

The BLM proposes to revise its 

regulations concerning the administration 

of livestock grazing on public lands. During 

the nine years since implementation of the 

1995 grazing reforms, a number of discrete 

concerns have been raised regarding the 

administration of grazing management. The 

purpose of this proposed action is to address 

a variety of these discrete issues related to the 

current regulatory scheme without altering 

the fundamental structure of the grazing 

regulations. In other words, we are adjusting 

rather than conducting a major overhaul of 

the grazing regulations. Fundamental changes 

such as modifications to the grazing fee 

provisions, the addition of fundamentally 

new regulatory topics, or the removal of 

substantial sections of the regulations do not 

meet this limited purpose. 

More than 160 million acres of public 

lands in the western United States have 

been determined to be suitable for livestock 

grazing and are subject to these regulations. 

The BLM administers its grazing program—

excluding Alaska—under 43 CFR 4100 

of the Code of Federal Regulations. These 

regulations implement the laws that govern 

public land grazing, including the Taylor 

Grazing Act of 1934 (TGA), the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

(FLPMA), and the Public Rangelands 

Improvement Act of 1978 (PRIA). The last 

major change to these regulations occurred in 

1995. These proposed revisions leave intact 

many of the revisions from 1995—most 

notably the establishment of Resource 

Advisory Councils and Rangeland Health 

Standards and Guidelines.

This Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS) is a national-level, 

programmatic EIS that documents the 

ecological, cultural, social, and economic 

effects that would result from implementing 

the proposed regulatory changes. When new 

regulations are under consideration, an EIS 

may be prepared even if the environmental 

effects of the rule are not expected to be 

significant. 40 CFR Section 1502.4(b). 

This rulemaking is designed to provide 

limited refinements to the larger grazing 

reforms made in 1995. The BLM does not 

anticipate that the proposed changes would 

have significant environmental effects, but 

it recognizes that even small changes in the 

management of public lands can generate 

a high level of public interest. Given this 

interest, the BLM decided to prepare an EIS 

to fully analyze potential effects, consider 

alternatives, and provide a means for public 

discussion. 

The BLM published an Advance Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) and Notice 

of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS in the 

Federal Register on March 3, 2003. The 

BLM held four public scoping meetings in 

March, 2003. More than 8,300 comments 

were received during the scoping period. On 

the basis of scoping comments and internal 

reviews, a Proposed Rule was developed 

and published in the Federal Register on 

December 8, 2003. A notice of availability of 

the Draft EIS was published in the Federal 

Register on January 2, 2004. Six public 

meetings were held in late January and early 

February to take comments on the Proposed 

Rule and Draft EIS. The comment period 

for both the Proposed Rule and Draft EIS 

closed on March 2, 2004. More than 18,000 

comments were received. These comments 

were analyzed and considered in preparing 

this Final EIS.

Executive Summary

ES-1
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Executive Summary 

Proposed Action and 

Alternatives

The BLM considers three alternatives 

in this analysis: a “No Action Alternative,” 

the “Proposed Action Alternative,” and a 

“Modified Action Alternative.”

This rulemaking is an attempt to address 

several distinct issues that have been 

identified since the 1995 grazing reforms. 

Each proposed regulatory change is largely 

independent and may have been triggered 

by concerns that do not directly apply to the 

others. The collection of proposed changes 

has been grouped together into a single 

Proposed Action Alternative. The Modified 

Action Alternative is a collection of other 

possibilities that were worthy of extended 

analysis. Although the changes have been 

grouped into broader alternatives, the BLM 

will continue to maintain a focus on the 

individual proposals during the decisionmaking process. It is thus quite possible that 

the final action may include pieces from all 

three of the broader alternatives. 

No Action Alternative—The No Action 

Alternative analyzes the effects of continuing 

to administer the public lands grazing 

program under the present regulations.

Proposed Action Alternative—Under 

the Proposed Action Alternative, the 

BLM proposes to revise regulations to 

address issues that have surfaced during 

administration of the grazing program or 

that were raised during public scoping. The 

proposed regulatory revisions are organized 

under three categories. 

Improving Working Relations with 

Grazing Permittees and Lessees—Under this 

category, the proposed rule would: 

• Require BLM to follow a consistent 

approach in analyzing and documenting 

the relevant social, economic and cultural 

effects of proposed changes in grazing 

preference and incorporate such analyses 

into appropriate NEPA documents. 

• Require phase-in of changes in grazing 

use of more than 10 percent over a 5-year 

period, consistent with relevant law. 

• Provide prospectively for joint ownership 

of range improvements—changes 

would allow the BLM and a grazing 

permittee, or other cooperator, to share 

title to certain permanent structural range 

improvements, such as fences, wells, or 

pipelines, which are constructed under 

a Cooperative Range Improvement 

Agreement. 

• Require BLM to cooperate with Tribal, 

state, county, and local governmentestablished grazing boards in reviewing 

range improvements and allotment 

management plans on public lands. 

Protecting the Health of Rangelands—

Under this category, the proposed rule would:

• Remove the 3-consecutive-year limit on 

temporary nonuse of a grazing permit 

but continue to require the BLM to 

review nonuse annually to make sure it 

is still necessary, whether for resource 

conservation, enhancement, or protection, 

or for personal or business purposes. 

• Require standards assessments and 

monitoring of resource conditions to 

support BLM determinations of whether 

existing grazing management practices or 

levels of grazing use on public lands are 

significant factors in failing to achieve 

standards and conform with guidelines. 

• After a determination that grazing 

practices or levels of use are significant 

ES-2 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Executive Summary

factors in failing to achieve standards 

and conform to guidelines, provide 

additional time for BLM to formulate, 

propose and analyze actions; to 

comply with all applicable laws; and to 

complete all consultation, cooperation, 

and coordination requirements before 

reaching a final decision on appropriate 

actions. 

Increasing Administrative Efficiency 

and Effectiveness—Under this category, the 

proposed rule would:

• Eliminate the “conservation use” permit 

regulatory provisions to comply with the 

10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in 

Public Lands Council v. Babbitt, 167 F.3d 

1287 (10th Cir. 1999).

• Expand the definition of “grazing 

preference” to include an amount of 

forage on public lands attached to a 

rancherʼs private base property, which 

can be land or water. This expanded 

definition, similar to one that existed from 

1978 to 1995, makes clear that grazing 

preference has a quantitative meaning 

(forage amounts, measured in Animal 

Unit Months) as well as a qualitative one 

(priority of position “in line” for grazing 

privileges). 

• Modify the definition of “interested 

public” to ensure that only those 

individuals and organizations that 

actually participate in the process are 

maintained on the list of interested 

publics. The regulations with respect 

to the interested public are also revised 

to improve efficiency in the BLMʼs 

management of public lands grazing 

by reducing the occasions on which 

the Bureau is required to involve the 

interested public. Under the regulatory 

changes, the BLM could involve the 

public in such matters as day-to-day 

grazing administration but would no 

longer be required to do so. The BLM 

would continue to require consultation, 

cooperation, and coordination with the 

interested public in grazing planning 

activities such as allotment management 

planning or range improvement project 

planning. 

• Provide flexibility to the Federal 

government in decisions relating to 

livestock water rights by removing 

the requirement that the BLM acquire, 

perfect, maintain, and administer water 

rights in the name of the United States to 

the extent allowed by state law. 

• Clarify that an applicant for a new permit 

or lease will be deemed to have a record 

of satisfactory performance when the 

applicant has not had any Federal or 

state grazing permit or lease canceled, 

in whole or in part, for violation of the 

permit or lease within the 36 calendar 

months immediately preceding the date 

of application, and a court of competent 

jurisdiction has not barred the applicant 

or an affiliate from holding a Federal 

grazing permit or lease. 

• Clarify what is meant by “temporary 

changes in grazing use within the terms 

and conditions of the permit or lease.” 

Under the 1995 regulations, BLM can 

approve temporary changes in grazing 

use within the terms and conditions of 

a permit or lease. The final rule clarifies 

that “temporary changes in grazing use 

within the terms and conditions” means 

temporary changes to livestock number, 

period of use, or both, that would result 

in nonuse or in grazing use where forage 

removal does not exceed the amount 

ES-3
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Executive Summary 

of active use specified in the permit or 

lease, and such grazing use occurs not 

earlier than 14 days before the begin 

date specified on the permit or lease and 

not later than 14 days after the end date 

specified on the permit or lease. 

• Increase certain service charges to reflect 

more accurately the cost of grazing 

administration. 

• Clarify that if a grazing permittee or 

lessee is convicted of violating a Federal, 

state, or other law, and if the violation 

occurs while he is engaged in grazingrelated activities, the BLM may take 

action against his grazing permit or 

lease only if the violation occurred on 

the BLM-managed allotment where the 

permittee or lessee is authorized to graze. 

• Provide the authority for the BLM to 

issue an immediately effective decision 

on nonrenewable grazing permits or 

leases or on applications for grazing 

use on designated ephemeral or annual 

rangelands. Also, clarify how the BLMʼs 

grazing decision is affected if a decision 

on nonrenewable permits or leases or a 

decision on applications for grazing use 

on ephemeral or annual rangelands is 

“stayed” pending administrative appeal. 

Under the final rule, if a stay on an appeal 

of such a decision is granted, the decision 

would be inoperative and, if appropriate 

considering the specific stay, the livestock 

may have to be removed from the 

allotment.

• Clarify how BLM will authorize grazing 

when OHA stays all or part of a BLM 

grazing decision affecting a permit 

or lease. Such decisions may cancel, 

suspend or change terms and conditions 

of a permit or lease during its current 

term; renew a permit or lease; or grant 

or deny a permit or lease to a preference 

transferee. Under the final rule, if OHA 

stays all or part of such a decision, then 

the BLM will, with respect to any stayed 

portions of the decision, authorize grazing 

use on the allotment(s) or portions of the 

allotment(s) in question pursuant to terms 

or conditions that are the same as the 

permit or lease that immediately preceded 

BLM’s decision, subject to any other 

provisions of the stay order.

• Clarify that a biological assessment 

or biological evaluation, prepared in 

compliance with the Endangered Species 

Act, is not a decision and therefore is not 

subject to protest or appeal.

The proposed regulations also include 

additional regulatory text clarifications and 

minor modifications.

Modified Action Alternative—The 

Modified Alternative contains revisions 

similar to those of the Proposed Action, with 

the following exceptions:

• Makes the provision that requires phasein of grazing decreases (and increases) of 

more than 10 percent over a 5-year period 

discretionary rather than mandatory. 

• Extends the present 3-consecutive-year 

limit on temporary nonuse of a grazing 

permit to a 5-consecutive-year limit 

rather than unlimited consecutive years as 

proposed. 

• Allows for discretion by the BLM 

manager in deciding what data are 

necessary to support evaluations of 

whether an allotment is meeting standards 

and conforming to guidelines and to make 

a determination as to whether existing 

grazing management practices or levels of 

ES-4 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Executive Summary

grazing use on public lands are significant 

factors in failure to achieve standards and 

conform with guidelines. 

• Eliminates several Federal or state laws 

and regulations from the list of prohibited 

acts identified in the existing regulations 

including laws and regulations regarding 

placement of poisonous bait or hazardous 

devices; application or storage of 

pesticides, herbicides, or other hazardous 

materials; alteration or destruction of 

natural stream courses; pollution of 

water sources; illegal take, destruction 

or harrassment of wildlife; and illegal 

removal or destruction of archaeological 

or cultural resources. The consequence 

would be that a permittee or lessee who 

is convicted and penalized for violating 

these state or Federal laws would not 

be subject to having his permit or lease 

withheld from issuance, suspended, or 

cancelled. 

• Adds as a prohibited act, failure to use 

certified weed seed-free forage, grain, 

straw, or mulch when required by the 

authorized officer. 

The alternatives are compared and 

described in Table ES-1 “Comparison of 

Alternatives.”

Effects of the Proposed 

Alternative

There are no irreversible or irretrievable 

commitments of resources directly resulting 

from the proposed regulation changes nor are 

there any projected discernable effects from 

short-term uses on long-term productivity of 

resources arising from this rulemaking. 

Most of the proposed regulatory 

changes have little or no adverse effects 

on the human environment. Some shortterm adverse effects may not be avoided 

because of increases in timeframes associated 

with several components of this proposed 

rulemaking, including the requirement for 

a 5-year phase-in of changes in use of over 

10 percent, the requirement for monitoring 

before making a determination that livestock 

grazing is the causal factor for failure to 

meet standards and conform to guidelines, 

and the extension of time allowed before a 

decision must be made after a determination 

that livestock grazing is the causal factor 

for failure to meet standards and conform 

to guidelines for grazing administration. 

However, better and more sustainable 

decisions would be developed by using 

monitoring data in analyzing achievement of 

standards; carefully formulating, proposing, 

and analyzing the appropriate action and 

ensuring that all legal and consultation 

requirements are satisfied. In the long-term, it 

is expected that the effects of these provisions 

would be beneficial to rangeland health. 

To minimize the potential for short-term 

adverse effects, the BLM could exercise 

authority under Section 43 CFR 4110.3-3(b) 

to curtail grazing if resources on the public 

lands require immediate protection or if 

continued grazing use poses an imminent 

likelihood of significant resource damage. 

Mitigation measures would be 

appropriately developed when site-specific 

NEPA documents are prepared to implement 

the regulatory provisions.

The effects of each alternative are 

summarized and compared across alternatives 

in Table ES-2 “Comparison of Impacts 

Across the Alternatives.”

ES-5
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Executive Summary 

Consultation and 

Coordination

Coordination With Federally 

Recognized Tribes

The BLM contacted Tribal government 

representatives for input into the Grazing 

Rulemaking and Draft EIS. It began with 

the initiation of the public scoping process. 

Issues raised by Tribal governments, Tribal 

entities and Native American individuals 

during meetings and received in letters were 

considered in the development of the Draft 

EIS and Proposed Rulemaking. Once the 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and 

Proposed Rulemaking was ready for release 

and public review, including review by Tribal 

governments, more than 300 Tribes west 

of the Mississippi River, excluding Alaska, 

were sent a letter soliciting their comments 

to the Draft EIS and Proposed Rulemaking. 

Enclosed was a copy of the Draft EIS and 

Proposed Rulemaking on a compact disk 

and Web site information for finding the 

document on the Internet. 

Consultation With Fish and Wildlife 

Service and NOAA, Fisheries

A determination was made that the 

regulatory changes would have no adverse 

effects to candidate, proposed, threatened 

or endangered species, or designated or 

proposed critical habitat from the proposed 

regulation changes. 

Before grazing permits are issued, the 

appropriate BLM Office would review 

the adequacy of existing environmental 

analyses and consider if candidate, proposed, 

threatened or endangered species, or 

designated or proposed critical habitat within 

the proposed permit or lease area may be 

affected. If adverse effects are expected, 

a formal Section 7 consultation would be 

performed. 

Consultation With the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation

Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act requires Federal Agencies 

to take into account the effects of their 

undertakings on historic properties. The 

agency has sent a letter to the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation notifying 

them of the proposed regulation changes. The 

letter provides a brief synopsis of the goals 

and objectives of the regulations changes 

and information on where to find the current 

regulations for their review. 

Public Participation and Final 

Rulemaking–EIS Process

After careful consideration of all 

comments on the Draft EIS and Proposed 

Rule, the BLM prepared this Final EIS. 

The Notice of Availability (NOA) for the 

Final EIS has been published in the Federal 

Register. Thirty days after publication of 

the Final EIS, the BLM may issue a Final 

Rule that sets forth the BLMʼs final decision 

including all requirements for a Record of 

Decision under NEPA . The Final Rule will 

become effective 60 days after its publication 

in the Federal Register. The regulations will 

then become part of the Code of Federal 

Regulations.

ES-6 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Executive Summary

Table ES-1. Proposed revisions to grazing regulations for the public lands: 

comparison of alternatives.

Improving Working Relations with Permittees and Lessees

Elements No Action/No Change 

Alternative 1

Proposed Action

Alternative 2

Modified

Alternative 3

Social,

Economic, and

Cultural

Considerations

in the DecisionMaking Process

* No provisions specifically 

address NEPA documentation of 

social, economic, and cultural 

considerations in the regulations 

regarding changes in permitted 

use.

* Before changing grazing 

preference, the BLM would 

undertake appropriate 

analysis as required by NEPA. 

The BLM would analyze and 

document, if appropriate, the 

relevant social, economic, and 

cultural effects of the proposed 

action.

* Same as 

Proposed Action

Implementation

of Changes

in Grazing Use

* The present regulations 

do not address the timing of 

implementation of decisions to 

change grazing use.

* Changes in active use in 

excess of 10% would be 

implemented over a 5-year 

period unless: an agreement is 

reached with the permittee or 

lessee to implement the increase 

or decrease in less than 5 years; 

or the changes must be made 

before 5 years to comply with 

applicable law (e.g., Endangered 

Species Act).

*Same as 

proposed action, 

except that the 

5-year phase-in 

of changes in 

use would be 

discretionary, 

i.e., change 

in active use 

in excess of 

10% may be 

implemented 

over a 5-year 

period.

Range

Improvement

Ownership 

* The United States holds title to 

permanent range improvements 

such as fences, wells, and 

pipelines authorized after August 

21, 1995.

* Title to permanent range 

improvements such as fences, 

wells, and pipelines authorized 

under a cooperative range 

improvement agreement would 

be shared among cooperators

in proportion to their initial

contribution to on-the-ground 

project development and 

construction costs.

* Same as 

Proposed Action

ES-7
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Executive Summary 

Improving Working Relations with Permittees and Lessees (continured

Elements No Action/No Change 

Alternative 1

Proposed Action

Alternative 2

Modified

Alternative 3

Cooperation with 

Tribal, State, 

County, or Local 

GovernmentEstablished

Grazing

Boards

* The BLM is required to 

cooperate with state, county, 

and Federal agencies in the 

administration of laws and 

regulations relating to livestock 

diseases, sanitation, and noxious 

weeds, including state cattle and 

sheep sanitary or brand boards 

and county or other weed control 

districts.

* Tribal agencies would be 

added to the list of agencies 

with which BLM would be 

required to cooperate in the 

administration of laws and 

regulations relating to livestock 

diseases, sanitation, and noxious 

weeds

* In addition, BLM would be 

required to cooperate with 

Tribal, state, county, or local 

government-established 

grazing boards in reviewing 

range improvements and 

allotment management plans on 

public lands. 

* Same as 

Proposed Action

Review of 

Biological 

Assessments

and Evaluations

* BLM is required, to the extent 

practicable, to provide affected 

permittees or lessees, the State 

having lands or responsible for 

managing resources within the 

area, and the interested public an 

opportunity to review, comment, 

and give input during the 

preparation of reports that evaluate 

monitoring and other data that 

are used as a basis for making 

decisions to increase or decrease 

grazing use, or to change the 

terms and conditions of a permit 

or lease. This provision has been 

interpreted to include biological 

assessments and biological 

evaluations as among the body of 

reports subject to this requirement.

* Same as existing regulations 

except for some minor edits 

Note: In the draft EIS, it was 

proposed to specifically identify 

biological assessments (BAs) 

and biological evaluations (BEs) 

prepared under the Endangered 

Species Act as reports during 

the preparation of which BLM 

would be required to provide 

affected permittees or lessees, 

the State, and the interested 

public an opportunity to 

review and give input. Based 

on concerns raised during the 

review of the draft EIS, it was 

determined to be inappropriate 

to highlight BAs and BEs in this 

fashion; implying that they had 

greater value or emphasis than 

other reports such as grazing 

management evaluations.

* Same as 

existing 

regulations 

Table ES-1 (continued). Proposed revisions to grazing regulations for the public lands: 

comparison of alternatives.

ES-8 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Executive Summary

Protecting the Health of the Rangelands

Elements No Action/No Change 

Alternative 1

Proposed Action

Alternative 2

Modified

Alternative 3

Temporary 

Nonuse

* Grazing permittees or lessees 

may submit and the BLM may 

approve an annual application for 

temporary nonuse for no more 

than 3 consecutive years. Reasons 

for temporary nonuse include 

but are not limited to financial 

conditions or annual fluctuations 

of livestock.

* Grazing permittees or lessees 

could submit and the BLM 

could approve nonuse for no 

longer than 1 year at a time 

for resource reasons as well as 

for business or personal needs 

of the permittee or lessee (i.e., 

there would be no limit on 

consecutive years of nonuse 

allowed).

* Same as 

Proposed Action 

except that 

permittees or 

lessees could 

submit and 

the BLM could 

annually approve 

an application 

for nonuse for 

no more than 5 

consecutive 

years.

Basis for 

Rangeland Health 

Determinations

* The present regulations do 

not prescribe how the BLM 

determines that existing grazing 

management practices or levels 

of grazing use on public lands 

are significant factors in failing 

to achieve the rangeland health 

standards and conform with the 

guidelines.

* Determinations that existing 

grazing management practices 

or levels of grazing use are 

significant factors in failing to 

achieve standards and conform 

with guidelines would be based 

on standards assessments and 

monitoring.

* Same as 

proposed action 

except that the 

BLM would 

not be required 

to use both 

assessments 

and monitoring

as basis for 

determinations, 

i.e., may be 

based on 

assessment or 

monitoring.

Table ES-1 (continued). Proposed revisions to grazing regulations for the public lands: 

comparison of alternatives.

ES-9
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Executive Summary 

Protecting the Health of the Rangelands (continued)

Elements No Action/No Change 

Alternative 1

Proposed Action

Alternative 2

Modified

Alternative 3

Timeframe for 

Taking Action to

Meet

Rangeland Health 

Standards

* The BLM is required to take 

appropriate action as soon as 

practicable but not later than the 

start of the next grazing year upon 

determining that existing grazing 

management needs to be modified 

to ensure that the fundamentals of 

rangeland health conditions exist 

or progress is being made toward 

achieving the fundamentals of 

rangeland health

* Where standards and 

guidelines have not been 

established, the BLM would 

take appropriate action as soon 

as practicable but not later than 

the start of the next grazing 

year following completion 

of relevant and applicable 

requirements of law, 

regulations and consultation 

requirements to ensure 

fundamentals of rangeland 

health conditions exist or 

progress is being made toward 

achieving rangeland health.

* Same as 

Proposed Action.

* Upon determining that existing 

grazing practices or levels of use 

are significant factors in failing to 

achieve standards and conform 

with guidelines for grazing 

administration, the authorized 

officer shall take appropriate 

action as soon as practicable but 

not later than the start of the next 

grazing year.

* Upon determining that existing 

grazing practices or levels of 

use are significant factors in 

failing to achieve standards and 

guidelines, the BLM would, in 

compliance with applicable 

laws and with the consultation 

requirements, formulate, 

propose, and analyze 

appropriate action to address 

failure to meet standards 

or conform to guidelines no 

later than 24 months after 

determination is made. Upon 

execution of agreement or 

documented decision, the BLM 

would implement appropriate 

actions as soon as practicable 

but not later than start of next 

grazing year. 

* BLM could extend the 

deadline when legally 

required processes that are 

the responsibility of another 

agency prevent completion of 

all legal obligations within the 

24 month timeframe.

* Same as 

Proposed Action.

Table ES-1 (continued). Proposed revisions to grazing regulations for the public lands: 

comparison of alternatives.

ES-10 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Executive Summary

Increasing Administrative Efficiency and Effectiveness

Elements No Action/No Change 

Alternative 1

Proposed Action

Alternative 2

Modified

Alternative 3

Conservation Use *Conservation use is defined, 

is identified as a component 

of permitted use, may be 

authorized for up to 10 years, 

and is addressed in other 

provisions. However, no 

conservation use permits can or 

have been issued due to the 10th

Circuit Court decision in 1999 

that issuance of conservation use 

permits exceeds the Secretaryʼs 

authority under the Taylor Grazing 

Act. 

* All references to and 

provisions on conservation use

would be deleted.

* Same as 

Proposed Action.

Definition of

Grazing 

Preference,

Permitted Use, 

and

Active Use

* Grazing preference or preference

is defined as a superior or priority 

position against others for the 

purpose of receiving a grazing 

permit or lease. This priority is 

attached to base property owned 

or controlled by the permittee or 

lessee.

* Grazing preference or 

preference would mean the 

total number of animal unit 

months on public lands 

apportioned and attached 

to base property owned or 

controlled by a permittee, 

lessee or an applicant for 

a permit or lease. Grazing 

preference would include 

active use and use held in 

suspension. Grazing preference 

holders would have a superior or 

priority position against others 

for the purpose of receiving a 

grazing permit or lease.

* Same as 

Proposed Action.

* Permitted use is defined as the 

forage allocated by, or under the 

guidance of, an applicable land 

use plan for livestock grazing 

in an allotment under a permit 

or lease and is expressed in 

AUMS. The term permitted 

use encompasses authorized use 

including livestock use, suspended 

use and conservation use.

* The term permitted use

would be dropped from the 

regulations and replaced with 

the term grazing preference, 

preference or active use, 

depending upon the context, 

throughout the regulations.

* Same as 

Proposed Action.

* Active use means present 

authorized use, including livestock 

grazing and conservation use. 

Active use may constitute a 

portion, or all, of permitted 

use. Active use doesnʼt include 

temporary nonuse or suspended 

use within all or a portion of an 

allotment.

* Active use would be redefined 

to mean that portion of the 

present authorized use that 

is available for livestock 

grazing based on livestock 

carrying capacity and resource 

conditions in an allotment 

under a permit or lease and 

that is not in suspension. 

* Same as 

Proposed Action.

Table ES-1 (continued). Proposed revisions to grazing regulations for the public lands: 

comparison of alternatives.

ES-11
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Executive Summary 

Increasing Administrative Efficiency and Effectiveness (continued)

Elements No Action/No Change 

Alternative 1

Proposed Action

Alternative 2

Modified

Alternative 3

Definition and 

Role of Interested 

Public 

* Interested public is defined 

as an individual, groups or 

organization that has submitted a 

written request to the authorized 

officer to be provided an 

opportunity to be involved in the 

decision-making process for the 

management of livestock grazing 

on specific allotments or has 

submitted written comments to the 

authorized officer regarding the 

management of livestock grazing 

on a specific allotment.

* Interested public would be 

defined as an individual, group 

or organization that has: (1) 

Submitted a written request 

to BLM to be provided an 

opportunity to be involved in 

the decision-making process 

as to a specific allotment 

and followed up on that 

request by commenting on 

or otherwise participating in 

the decision-making process 

on management of a specific 

allotment; or (2) Submitted 

written comments to the BLM 

regarding management of 

livestock grazing on a specific 

allotment.

* Same as 

Proposed Action.

* The BLM is required to consult, 

cooperate and coordinate with 

interested public on the following:

• Designating/adjusting 

allotment boundaries.

• Apportioning additional 

forage

• Reducing permitted use

• Emergency closures or 

modifications 

• Development or 

modification of grazing 

activity plan.

• Planning of the range 

development or 

improvement program

• Renewing/issuing grazing 

permit/lease

• Modifying a permit/lease

• Reviewing/commenting on 

grazing evaluation reports.

• Issuing temporary nonrenewable grazing permits.

* Requirements to consult, 

cooperate and coordinate with 

the interested public would be 

modified as follows:

• Removed

• Retained

• Removed

• Removed

• Retained

• Retained

• Removed

• Removed

• Retained (dropped 

reference to commenting) 

• Removed

* Same as 

Proposed Action.

Table ES-1 (continued). Proposed revisions to grazing regulations for the public lands: 

comparison of alternatives.

ES-12 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Executive Summary

Increasing Administrative Efficiency and Effectiveness (continued)

Elements No Action/No Change 

Alternative 1

Proposed Action

Alternative 2

Modified

Alternative 3

Definition and 

Role of Interested 

Public

(continued) 

* BLM is required to send copies 

of proposed and final decisions to 

the interested public.

* Same as existing regulations. * Same as 

existing 

regulations.

Water Rights * Any right acquired on or after 

8/21/95 to use water on public 

land for the purpose of livestock 

watering shall be acquired, 

perfected, maintained, and 

administered under the substantive 

and procedural laws of the State 

within which land is located. To 

the extent allowed by State law, 

any such water right shall be 

acquired, perfected, maintained, 

and administered in the name of 

the United States.

* The phrase – “on or after 8/

21/95” - would be dropped from 

the first sentence. The second 

sentence of this provision

- stating that, to the extent 

allowed by State law, any 

water right would be acquired, 

perfected, maintained, and 

administered in the name of 

the United States - would be 

removed.

* Same as 

Proposed Action.

Satisfactory 

Performance 

of Permittee

or Lessee

* Requirements for satisfactory 

performance for renewal of 

permits and leases and for new 

permits or leases are defined in 

terms of when the applicant for 

such permits or leases is deemed 

not to have a satisfactory record of 

performance.

* The provisions on satisfactory 

performance would be moved

from the section on “mandatory 

qualifications” to the section on 

“filing applications”. Minor 

editorial changes would 

be made in the definition of 

“satisfactory performance” for a 

new applicant for a permit or 

lease or for a permit or lease 

subsequent to a preference 

transfer – basically changing 

the definition from a negative 

(what “is not” satisfactory 

performance) to a positive 

(what “is” satisfactory 

performance).

* Same as 

Proposed Action.

Table ES-1 (continued). Proposed revisions to grazing regulations for the public lands: 

comparison of alternatives.

ES-13
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Executive Summary 

Increasing Administrative Efficiency and Effectiveness (continued)

Elements No Action/No Change 

Alternative 1

Proposed Action

Alternative 2

Modified

Alternative 3

Changes in 

Grazing use 

Within Terms 

and Conditions 

of Permit or Lease 

* Changes within the terms and 

conditions of the permit or lease 

may be granted by the authorized 

officer.

* Same as existing regulations. * Same as 

existing 

regulations.

* The present regulations do 

not define what is meant by 

“temporary changes in grazing use 

within the terms and conditions of 

the permit or lease.”

* “Temporary changes in 

grazing use within the terms 

and conditions of the permit 

or lease” would be defined 

to mean temporary changes to 

livestock number, period of use, 

or both that would: 

(1) Result in temporary nonuse; 

or 

(2) Result in forage removal 

that does not exceed the 

amount of active use specified 

in the permit or lease; and, 

unless otherwise specified in 

an allotment management plan,

occurs no earlier than 14 days 

before the begin date specified 

on the permit or lease, and 

no later than 14 days after 

the end date specified on the 

permit or lease; or 

(3) Result in both temporary 

nonuse and forage removal as 

defined above.

* Same as 

Proposed Action.

* The present regulations do not 

include consultation requirements 

for such changes.

*The BLM would consult, 

cooperate and coordinate with 

the permittee or lessee on such 

changes. 

* Same as 

Proposed Action.

Service Charges * A service charge may be 

assessed for each crossing permit, 

transfer of grazing preference, 

application solely for nonuse and 

each replacement or supplemental 

billing notice except for actions 

initiated by the authorized officer. 

A specific fee is not identified in 

the present regulations, however 

the present fee for these actions is 

$10.

* Except where BLM initiates 

the action, BLM would assess 

a service charge as shown 

below:

(1) Issuance of crossing 

permit: $75; 

(2) Transfer of grazing 

preference: $145; 

(3) Cancellation and 

replacement of grazing fee 

billing: $50

* Same as 

Proposed Action.

Table ES-1 (continued). Proposed revisions to grazing regulations for the public lands: 

comparison of alternatives.

ES-14 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Executive Summary

Increasing Administrative Efficiency and Effectiveness (continued)

Elements No Action/No Change 

Alternative 1

Proposed Action

Alternative 2

Modified

Alternative 3

Prohibited Acts * There are three categories of 

acts that are prohibited on public 

lands.

* Same as existing regulations. * Same as 

existing 

regulations. 

* The first category provides 

that permittees or lessees may be 

subject to civil penalties if they 

perform any of the 6 prohibited 

acts listed in this section.

* Same as existing regulations 

with several minor editorial 

changes and clarifications.

* Same as 

Proposed Action. 

* The second category provides 

that anyone, not just permittees or 

lessees, shall be subject to civil or 

criminal penalties if they perform 

any of the 11 prohibited acts listed 

in this section. Prohibited acts 

in this category include actions 

such as littering, damaging or 

removing U.S. property without 

authorization, and failing to 

reclose any gate or other entry 

during periods of livestock use.

* Same as existing regulations 

with some minor editorial 

changes.

* Same as 

the Proposed 

Action plus 

the following 

prohibited act 

would be added 

to this section:

“Failing to 

comply with the 

use of certified 

weed seed 

free forage, 

grain, straw or 

mulch when 

required by 

the authorized 

officer.”

* The third category provides 

that permittees or lessees could 

be subject to civil penalties for 

performance of acts listed in 

this section where: public lands 

are involved or affected; the 

violation is related to grazing use 

authorized by BLM; the permittee 

has been convicted or otherwise 

found to be in violation of any of 

these laws or regulations; and no 

further appeals are outstanding.

* The performance of prohibited 

acts in the third category of 

prohibited acts would be further 

limited to the performance 

of such acts on an allotment 

where the permittee or lessee 

is authorized to graze under a 

BLM permit or lease.

In addition, there would be some 

minor editorial changes. 

* Same as 

Proposed Action.

Table ES-1 (continued). Proposed revisions to grazing regulations for the public lands: 

comparison of alternatives.

ES-15
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Executive Summary 

Increasing Administrative Efficiency and Effectiveness (continued)

Elements No Action/No Change 

Alternative 1

Proposed Action

Alternative 2

Modified

Alternative 3

Prohibited Acts

(continued)

* The third category consists 

of three sets of prohibited acts 

including:

• Specific laws or regulations 

(e.g., Endangered Species Act)

• Federal or state laws pertaining 

to natural, environmental, or 

cultural resources 

• State laws related to livestock 

operations

* Same as existing regulations. The third 

category would 

consist of only 2 

sets of prohibited 

acts including:

• Specific laws 

or regulations

(e.g., Endangered

Species Act)

• State laws

related to 

livestock

operations

* Federal or

state laws 

pertaining to 

natural,

environmental,

or cultural 

resources would

be deleted from

the prohibited

acts list.

Table ES-1 (continued). Proposed revisions to grazing regulations for the public lands: 

comparison of alternatives.

ES-16 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Executive Summary

Increasing Administrative Efficiency and Effectiveness (continued)

Elements No Action/No Change 

Alternative 1

Proposed Action

Alternative 2

Modified

Alternative 3

Grazing Use 

Pending

Resolution

of Appeals

When Decision

Has Been

Stayed

* If a decision is stayed, the 

permittee or lessee will graze in 

accordance with the authorization 

issued the previous year.

* If a stay is granted on an 

appeal to a decision to cancel, 

suspend, change or renew a 

term permit or lease or to deny 

or offer a permit or lease to a 

preference transferee, then the 

BLM will authorize grazing 

under the immediately preceding 

permit or lease, or the relevant 

term or condition thereof.

* Same as 

Proposed Action.

* If the applicant had no 

authorized grazing use the 

previous year or the application is 

for ephemeral or annual grazing 

use, then grazing use will be 

consistent with the final decision 

pending resolution of the appeal.

* Decisions on ephemeral or 

annual rangeland grazing use 

and nonrenewable grazing 

permits would be effective 

immediately or on the date 

specified in the decision. There 

would be no special provisions 

for grazing use if a stay is 

granted on such decisions, 

therefore if a stay is granted the 

decision would be inoperative 

and, if appropriate considering 

the specific stay, the livestock 

may have to be removed from 

the allotment.

Treatment of

Biological 

Assessments and 

Evaluations in the

Grazing 

Decision-Making

Process

* Present regulations do not 

specifically address biological 

assessments or biological 

evaluations prepared in 

compliance with the Endangered 

Species Act. However, in 

accordance with the IBLA Blake

decision, biological assessments 

are to be treated as decisions 

subject to protest and appeal.

* A biological assessment or 

biological evaluation prepared 

for Endangered Species Act 

consultation or conference 

would not be a decision for 

purposes of protest or appeal.

* Same as 

Proposed Action.

Table ES-1 (concluded). Proposed revisions to grazing regulations for the public lands: 

comparison of alternatives.

ES-17
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Executive Summary 

Table ES-2. Comparison of the effects across alternatives.

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Grazing Administration

*BLM grazing administration 

would provide some partnership 

opportunities. 

*Mechanisms for changing 

grazing management would be 

hurried, impractical, inefficient, 

and discourage partnerships, 

and may result in decisions of 

inconsistent quality. 

*The consideration and 

documentation of social, 

economic and cultural effects of 

grazing decisions would remain 

inconsistent.

*The timeframe for implementing 

changes in use would be 

determined on a case-by case 

basis.

*Cooperation with government 

established grazing boards would 

be inconsistent.

*Decisions on day-to-day 

operations would cumbersome, 

inefficient and untimely.

*Biological assessments and 

evaluations could be appealed, 

creating workloads that would 

displace other high priority work 

such as monitoring, and delaying 

implementation of grazing 

decisions.

*The regulations would promote 

greater partnership with grazing 

permittees, lessees, and grazing 

advisory boards. 

*The extended timeframe for 

developing appropriate action 

following a determination would 

yield reasoned, comprehensive 

and sustainable decisions. This 

timeframe would delay on-theground action in a relatively small 

number of allotments but would 

improve cooperation and build 

partnerships with permitees and 

lessees. 

*Ensure greater consistency in the 

consideration and documentation 

of relevant social, economic, and 

cultural impacts. 

*The requirement to use monitoring 

data to support determinations 

on allotments that fail to meet 

standards because of existing 

grazing management may result in 

an additional workload for BLM. 

*Reprioritizing data collection 

efforts to conduct monitoring 

may effect watershed assessment 

schedules and could delay permit 

renewal where current monitoring 

data is not available.

*Allowing shared title to permanent 

structural range improvements may 

stimulate private investment.

*BLM would focus 

communications with interested 

public on significant issues 

occurring on grazing allotments 

where input would be of the 

greatest value.

*By providing that biological 

assessments are not subject to 

appeal, BLM would be able to 

more efficiently and timely make 

changes in grazing management. 

*Similar to Alternative 2 but with 

additional overall flexibility at the 

local level.

*Allowing BLM discretionary 

authority for phase-in period instead 

of requiring 5-year timeframe could 

provide additional protection for 

wildlife or other sensitive resources.

*Allowing discretionary use of 

monitoring data for standards 

determinations rather than requiring 

it would allow BLM to flexibility at 

the local level to prioritize data and 

information collection.

*The provision allowing the 

requirement to use weed seed free 

forage, grain, straw or mulch would 

provide enforcement authority as a 

preventative measure to reduce the 

spread of noxious weeds.

ES-18 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Executive Summary

Table ES-2 (continued). Comparison of the effects across alternatives.

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Vegetation

*Vegetation would move toward 

achievement of management 

objectives. 

*Timelines for formulating 

management changes may 

limit vegetation management 

alternatives and strain working 

relationships with permittees or 

lessees. 

*Riparian vegetation would 

remain static or improve slightly.

*Vegetation would move toward 

achievement of management 

objectives. 

*Potential for short-term adverse 

effects where vegetative conditions 

are in a downward trend and 

recovery is delayed.

*Additional resources may be 

invested in improvements due to 

partnerships and improved working 

relationships. 

*Increased flexibility for 

temporary nonuse may result in 

greater alignment between forage 

production and utilization levels.

*Increased flexibility to negotiate 

cooperative water developments 

may stimulate private investments 

and assist BLM to achieve 

vegetation management objectives.

*Riparian vegetation would remain 

static or improve slightly.

*Similar to Alternative 2 but the 

flexibility in the use of monitoring 

or standards assessments data 

for making determinations and 

the timeframe for implementing 

management changes would allow 

BLM to accelerate short-term 

vegetative recovery. 

*Weed seed-free forage enforcement 

authority would result in slower 

weed expansion rates..

Fire and Fuels

*A minimal effect on the ability 

to reach a more historical fire 

regime.

*A slight improvement in the 

ability to reestablish historical fire 

regimes resulting in vegetation 

improvements.

*Similar to Alternative 2.

Soils

*Short-term adverse impacts 

would be minimal except at the 

local scale. 

*Would result in maintenance 

of or slight improvement in 

conditions in the long term. 

*Short-term adverse impacts would 

be minimal except at the local 

scale where watershed cover is 

inadequate. 

*Maintenance or slight 

improvement would be expected in 

the long-term due to maintenance 

of adequate watershed cover.

*Overall the effects would be 

neutral to slightly beneficial 

because of maintenance or slight 

improvement in watershed cover.

* Allowing greater discretion 

in the phase-in schedule, and 

choice of data used for making 

determinations may allow more 

rapid implementation of changes, 

accelerating recovery of watershed 

cover.

A weed-seed free forage provision 

that reduces the spread of weeds 

might enhance watershed cover.

ES-19
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Executive Summary 

Table ES-2 (continued). Comparison of the effects across alternatives.

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Water Resources

*The proposed changes would 

have little or no impact on shortterm water resource conditions. 

*Slow improvement in watershed 

conditions would be expected for 

the long term. 

*Water quality would remain static 

or improve slowly.

*Similar to Alternative 1. *Similar to Alternative 1.

Air Quality

*Air quality would be expected 

to be maintained or improved and 

within standards.

*Similar to Alternative 1. *Similar to Alternative 1.

Wildlife

*Risks and benefits to wildlife and 

wildlife habitat, are not expected 

to change.

*Current timeframes for 

developing grazing management 

changes would impede adequate 

analysis and consultation, resulting 

in less effective and acceptable 

decisions on wildlife. 

*In the long-term, there would be 

little or no effect on wildlife due to 

better partnerships with permittees 

and lessees and longer timeframes 

for developing effective and 

acceptable decisions. 

*Implementation of changes in 

grazing use and timeframes for 

taking action could have an adverse 

effect on wildlife in the short-term 

in a small number of allotments.

*The elimination of the 3 

consecutive year limit on 

temporary non-use could improve 

opportunities for cooperation 

to benefit wildlife resources by 

allowing a longer recovery period.

*The extended timeframe would 

allow formulation of reasoned, 

comprehensive and sustainable 

decisions that, in the long term, 

may benefit wildlife.

*Changes in temporary non-use 

over current regulations from 3 to 

5 consecutive years would slightly 

benefit wildlife.

*Allowing greater discretion for 

BLM managers to schedule phasing 

in changes in grazing use would 

allow more rapid implementation 

benefiting wildlife.

* Allowing greater discretion on 

the type of data used for making 

rangeland health determinations 

would allow more rapid 

implementation, benefiting wildlife 

resources.

*A weed-seed free forage provision 

that reduces the spread of weeds 

would enhance wildlife habitat.

*Removal of certain prohibited acts 

would eliminate a mechanism for 

protecting wildlife.

Special Status Species

* Risks and benefits to special 

status species, are not expected to 

change 

*Effects similar to wildlife in 

Alternative 1.

*No effect on most special status 

species. 

*At risk species and those 

designated by each BLM State 

Director as BLM-sensitive may be 

affected in the short-term in a small 

number of allotments however, in 

the long-term, there would be little 

or no effect.

*Similar to wildlife effects in 

Alternative 3. 

ES-20 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Executive Summary

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Wild Horses and Burros

*Little affect on wild horse and 

burro populations on public lands.

*Slight long-term beneficial impact 

from improved condition of the 

vegetation on habitat areas through 

an improved decision making 

process.

*Similar to Alternative 2.

Recreation

*Minimal impacts to the 

Recreation Program. 

*Slight improvement where the 

vegetation is improved.

*Minimal impacts to the Recreation 

Program. 

*Slight improvement where the 

vegetation is improved. *Effects 

could be adverse in the short term 

if corrective actions are delayed.

*Similar impacts to alternative 2. 

*The reduction of weed expansion 

would have an additional benefit to 

recreation interests.

Special Areas

*Little impact due to existing 

good conditions and Special Area 

mandates.

*Little impact due to existing 

good conditions and Special Area 

mandates.

*Slight improvement of conditions 

on the long term due to reduction of 

weed expansion. 

Heritage Resources: Paleontological and Cultural Resources (Properties)

*Heritage resources are protected 

through case-by-case, site specific 

surveys and analysis.

*Prohibited act regarding removal 

or destruction of cultural resources 

may act as a deterrent.

*There would be little to no effect 

on heritage resources. 

* New on-the-ground projects 

would be analyzed on a case-bycase basis. 

* There would be little to no effect 

on heritage resources. 

* New on-the-ground projects would 

be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. 

Economic Conditions

*Local/regional economic effects 

would be minor. 

*On-going effects include: 1) low 

flexibility; 2) lack of incentive to 

participate in range improvements; 

3) lack of time to implement land 

health determinations; and 4) lack 

of cost recovery.

*Local/regional economic effects 

would be minor. 

*Primary effects would be: 1) 

Increased flexibility; 

2) Increased BLM costs; 3) reduced 

adverse impacts on ranchers from 

herd reductions; 4) increased 

service charges for ranchers and 

increased cost recovery for BLM.

*Similar to Alternative 2. *Greater 

discretion for BLM managers in 

implementing changes in use and 

using monitoring data for land 

health determinations could have 

an adverse economic impact on 

ranchers.

Table ES-2 (continued). Comparison of the effects across alternatives.

ES-21
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Executive Summary 

Table ES-2 (concluded). Comparison of the effects across alternatives.

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Social Conditions

*Ranchers would continue to face 

increasing stress related to public 

land grazing. 

*Ranchers would continue to have 

difficulty passing ranch on to the 

next generation.

*Ranchers would continue to sell 

ranches for amenity reasons and 

subdivision.

*Ranching, environmental and 

recreation interests perceive the 

monitoring requirements as being 

positive and believe this provision 

would provide beneficial social 

impacts. 

*Ranchers would experience 

beneficial social effects as a result 

of most provisions – particularly 

documentation of social, economic, 

and cultural impacts, phasing in 

of implementation of changes, 

required cooperation with grazing 

boards, focusing stock water 

rights provision on following 

state law and providing more 

time for developing appropriate 

action following rangeland health 

determination.

*Ranchers would experience 

adverse social effects from the 

removal of the limit on consecutive 

years of nonuse. 

*Environmental groups would 

experience adverse social effects 

from the stock water rights 

provision change.

*Social effects on environmental 

interests and recreation interests 

would generally be minimal 

or neutral for most of the other 

proposed revisions.

*There could be minimal social 

effects on ranchers and conservation 

groups due to BLM having 

discretion to use monitoring for 

rangeland health determinations.

*Elimination of certain prohibited 

acts would have an adverse effect 

on conservation, environmental and 

recreation groups.

Environmental Justice

*No disproportionate effects on 

low-income, minority, or Tribal 

populations.

*Would not result in violation of 

environmental justice principles.

*No disproportionate effects on 

low-income, minority, or Tribal 

populations.

*Would not result in violation of 

environmental justice principles..

*No disproportionate effects on 

low-income, minority, or Tribal 

populations.

*Would not result in violation of 

environmental justice principles.

ES-22 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 1

Introduction

Chapter 1

Introduction

1-1

Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 1

Introduction

Chapter 1 Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5

1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7

 1.1.1 Laws Governing the BLM Grazing Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7

 1.1.2 Grazing Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8

 1.1.3 Land Use Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9

 1.1.4 Overview of the Livestock Grazing Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-10

 Figure 1-1. Public Lands in the West. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-11

1.2 The Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-13

 1.2.1 General Purpose and Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-13

 1.2.2 Purpose and Need by Topic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-13

 1.2.2.1 Social, Economic, and Cultural Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-14

 1.2.2.2 Implementation of Changes in Grazing Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-14

 1.2.2.3 Range Improvement Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-15

 1.2.2.4 Cooperation with Grazing Boards Established by state,

 County, or Local Governments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-15

 1.2.2.5 Review of Biological Assessments and Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-15

 1.2.2.6 Temporary Nonuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-16

 1.2.2.7 Basis for Rangeland Health Determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-17

 1.2.2.8 Timeframe for Taking Action to Meet Rangeland Health Standards . . . 1-17

 1.2.2.9 Conservation Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-18

 1.2.2.10 Definition of Preference, Permitted Use, and Active Use . . . . . . . . . . . 1-18

 1.2.2.11 Definition and Role of the Interested Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-19

 1.2.2.12 Water Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-20

 1.2.2.13 Satisfactory Performance of Permittee or Lessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-20

 1.2.2.14 Changes in Grazing Use Within the Terms and

 Conditions of Permit or Lease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-21

 1.2.2.15 Service Charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-21

 1.2.2.16 Prohibited Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-21

 1.2.2.17 Grazing Use Pending Resolution of Appeals

 When Decision Has Been Stayed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-22

 1.2.2.18 Treatment of Biological Assessments and Evaluations

 in the Grazing Decision-Making Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-22

1.3 Overview of Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-23

 1.3.1 Summary of Scoping Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-23

 1.3.2 Results of Scoping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-23

 1.3.3 Issuance of Proposed Rule and Draft EIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-25

1.4 Rulemaking and EIS Process and Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-26

 Figure 1-4. The EIS and rulemaking process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-26

1.5 Relation to Other Policies, Programs, and Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-27

1-3

Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 1

Introduction

This final environmental impact 

statement (EIS) analyzes the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) proposed amendments 

to the regulations governing livestock 

grazing on public lands. The existing grazing 

regulations are found in Title 43 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations, Part 4100, Grazing 

Administration—Exclusive of Alaska (43 

CFR 4100 ). A copy of the regulations which 

includes revisions reflected in the proposed 

action (Alternative 2) is shown in Appendix 

A of this document. One copy is shown as 

Appendix A.1 in a strike-and-replace format 

to enable the reader to see how the proposed 

changes differ from the existing regulations. 

A second copy of the proposed regulations 

without strike and replace is shown as 

Appendix A.2. 

When new regulations are under 

consideration, an EIS may be prepared even 

if the environmental impacts of the rule 

are not expected to be significant. 40 CFR 

Section 1502.4(b). This proposed rulemaking 

is designed to provide limited refinements 

to the larger grazing reforms made in 1995. 

The BLM does not anticipate that the 

proposed changes would have significant 

environmental effects, but BLM recognizes 

that even small changes in the management 

of public lands can generate a high level of 

public interest. Given this interest, BLM 

decided to prepare an EIS to fully analyze the 

potential impacts, consider alternatives, and 

provide a means of public discussion 

A full text final EIS has been prepared 

and, therefore, contains substantially the 

same contents as the Draft EIS, with the 

following exceptions: (1) several appendixes 

are incorporated by reference rather than 

reprinted in this document; and (2) responses 

to substantive comments that were received 

on the draft are incorporated in this final EIS. 

In addition, changes have been made 

in the EIS as a result of BLMʼs review and 

evaluation of comments received on the draft 

EIS. Some of the changes are purely editorial 

and do not affect the substance or meaning of 

the text. These changes are made throughout 

the document and are not specifically 

identified or summarized elsewhere in this 

final EIS. Such changes include:

• Minor editorial changes to correct 

spelling errors, grammatical errors, 

and awkward sentence structure, and to 

eliminate redundant text. 

• Minor formatting changes to improve 

readability. For example, paragraph 

breaks were added or bullets used to 

show lists. No substantive changes in 

text resulted from these minor formatting 

changes. 

• Minor clarifications deemed necessary 

or appropriate. For example, wherever 

there were references to the document as 

a “draft EIS,” it was changed to “EIS.” 

Other more significant or substantive 

changes in the text are summarized at the 

beginning of each chapter to this final EIS 

following the general description of the 

contents of the chapter.

Chapter 1 of this final EIS contains 

background information on the livestock 

grazing program, a discussion of the purpose 

and need for the regulatory revisions, a brief 

overview of public participation in this 

rulemaking, a review of the rulemaking and 

EIS process and schedule, and a discussion of 

the relationship of this effort to other policies, 

programs and plans.

1.0 Introduction

1-5
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 1

Introduction

Changes in Chapter 1 based on comments 

on the draft EIS include the following:

• Clarifications to avoid misunderstanding 

of intent or meaning:

o Section 1.0, Introduction—Clarified 

rationale for doing an EIS.

o Section 1.1.1, Laws Governing 

the BLM Grazing Management 

Program—Minor changes to clarify 

BLMʼs goals in managing public 

lands.

o Section 1.1.3, Land Use Plans—

Minor changes to clarify purpose of 

land use plans.

o Section 1.1.4, Overview of the 

Livestock Grazing Program—The 

discussion on the history of grazing 

privileges on public lands is 

revised and expanded to clarify the 

background of grazing preference. 

o Section 1.2.2.4, Cooperation with 

Grazing Boards Established by state, 

county, and Local Governments—

The section title as well as text 

is modified to clarify that we are 

talking about cooperation with 

grazing boards established by nonfederal government entities, Public 

comments on the draft EIS reflected 

a misunderstanding of the discussion 

in Chapter 1 and elsewhere in the 

draft EIS regarding this issue. Some 

thought we were talking about BLM 

established grazing advisory boards 

and others thought we were talking 

about non-government grazing 

boards or groups. This section is also 

reorganized to improve clarity.

o Section 1.2.2.5, Review of Biological 

Assessments and Evaluations—The 

definitions of “biological assessment” 

and “biological evaluation” are 

modified to clarify the difference 

between the assessments and 

evaluations. Other minor changes are 

also made in this section to improve 

clarity.

o Section 1.2.2.11, Definition and Role 

of the Interested Public—Clarification 

that requirements for interested public 

involvement is grazing program is 

more extensive than for other BLM 

programs; also other minor edits.

o Section 1.2.2.13, Satisfactory 

Performance of Permittee or 

Lessee—Clarification that satisfactory 

performance provisions also apply 

to applicants for a grazing permit 

or lease subsequent to a preference 

transfer.

o Section 1.2.2.18, Treatment of 

Biological Assessments and 

Evaluations in the Grazing DecisionMaking Process—The definitions 

of “biological assessment” and 

“biological evaluation” are modified 

to clarify the difference between the 

assessments and evaluations. Other 

minor corrections in this section 

including correction of citation of 

Blake v. BLM IBLA case.

• Clarifications to ensure consistency with 

regulatory language:

o Section 1.2.2.2—Language is added 

to clarify that the pre-1995 phase-in 

requirements were for changes in 

excess of 10 percent.

o Section 1.2.2.10—Language is added 

to clarify that grazing preference 

under the current regulations means a 

1-6 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 1

Introduction

“superior or priority position against 

others for the purpose of receiving a 

permit or lease.” 

• Changes in text to correct errors or 

misleading statements made in draft EIS:

o Section 1.2.2.8, Timeframe for 

Taking Action to Meet Rangeland 

Health Standards—Replaced 

“Archaeological Resources Protection 

Act” with “National Historic 

Preservation Act.” 

o Section 1.2.2.12, Water Rights—The 

text in the draft EIS stated that in 

1995, the BLM added a provision that 

“water rights would be sought solely 

in the name of the United States under 

state water law.” This is not correct. 

The 1995 rule did not state that water 

rights would be sought “solely” in 

the name of the United States and, 

in fact, the preamble to the 1995 

rule stated that co-application and 

joint ownership would be allowed 

where state law permits it. The word 

“solely” is dropped from this section 

in Chapter 1. This issue is also 

clarified in a new section in Chapter 

3. The discussion in Chapter 1 is 

further clarified by indicating that 

under the current regulations water 

rights will be sought in the name 

of the United States “to the extent 

allowed” under state law. 

• Corrections in figures:

o Figure 1.4, EIS and Rulemaking 

Process—Corrections are made in the 

figure to make it consistent with the 

discussion of the rulemaking and EIS 

process in the text of Section 1.4.

• Additions to the EIS:

o Section 1.1.4, Overview of the 

Livestock Grazing Program—New 

material is added addressing 

consultation and other legal 

requirements that must be completed 

prior to implementing an appropriate 

action if livestock grazing practices or 

levels of grazing use are determined 

to be a significant factors in failure to 

achieve standards and conform with 

guidelines. In addition, information 

on the number of permits and leases 

held in 2003 is added to the text in 

this section. 

o Section 1.3.3., Issuance of Proposed 

Rule and Draft EIS—A new section 

is added providing background 

information on the issuance of the 

proposed rule and the draft EIS and 

the public review period for both 

documents.

• Other Changes:

o Section 1.3—The title of this section 

is changed from “Scoping” to 

“Overview of Public Participation” to 

reflect changes in the content.

1.1 Background

A brief summary of the livestock grazing 

program, including laws, regulations, and 

program operations, is presented below. This 

information is provided to assist the reader 

in understanding the context of the revisions 

to the regulations. 

1.1.1 Laws Governing the BLM 

Grazing Program

The primary laws that govern grazing 

on public land are the Taylor Grazing Act 

1-7
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 1

Introduction

(TGA) of 1934, the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, and the 

Public Rangelands Improvement Act (PRIA) 

of 1978.

BLMʼs goal is to manage the public 

rangelands in a way that maintains or 

improves their condition. The TGA directs 

that occupation and use of the range be 

regulated to preserve the land and its 

resources from destruction or unnecessary 

injury, and to provide for the orderly use, 

improvement, and development of the range. 

The FLPMA provides authority and direction 

for managing the public lands on the basis 

of multiple use and sustained yield and 

mandates land use planning principles and 

procedures for the public lands. The PRIA 

defines rangelands as public lands on which 

there is domestic livestock grazing or which 

are determined to be suitable for livestock 

grazing, establishes a national policy to 

improve the condition of public rangelands 

so they will become as productive as feasible 

for all rangeland values, requires a national 

inventory of public rangeland conditions 

and trends, and authorizes funding for range 

improvement projects.

1.1.2 Grazing Regulations

The BLM administers its grazing 

program under 43 CFR 4100 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR). The regulations 

carry out the laws enacted by Congress. 

Since the first set of grazing regulations 

was issued after passage of the Taylor 

Grazing Act in 1934, they have been 

periodically amended and updated. The 

last major revision was called Rangeland 

Reform. Rangeland Reform was proposed 

in partnership with the Forest Service in 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The 

broad purpose of Rangeland Reform was to 

improve ecological conditions while allowing 

for sustainable development. Changes made 

to the grazing rules in 1995 included the 

following:

1. Revised the term “grazing preference” 

to mean a priority position against other 

applicants for receiving a grazing permit, 

rather than a specified amount of public 

land forage apportioned and attached to 

a base property owned or controlled by 

a permittee or lessee, and added the term 

“permitted use” to describe forage use 

amounts authorized by grazing permits or 

leases;

2. Removed the requirement that one must 

be engaged in the livestock business to 

qualify for grazing use on public lands;

3. Required applicants for a new or renewed 

grazing permit to have a satisfactory 

record of performance;

4. Provided that BLM could issue a 

conservation use permit to authorize 

permittees not to graze their permitted 

allotments;

5. Limited authorized temporary nonuse to 3 

consecutive years; 

6. Required grazing fee surcharges for 

permittees who do not own the cattle that 

graze under their permits;

7. Provided that title to permanent range 

improvements authorized under 

cooperative range improvement 

agreements, such as fences, wells, and 

pipelines, be in the name of the United 

States rather than proportionately sharing 

title with the cooperators;

8. Required livestock operators and the 

BLM to use cooperative agreements 

to authorize new permanent water 

1-8 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 1

Introduction

developments, instead of allowing some 

water developments to be authorized 

under range improvement permits; 

9. Provided that after August 21, 1995, the 

United States, if allowed by state water 

laws, would acquire livestock water rights 

on public lands;

10. Authorized BLM to approve nonmonetary 

settlement of nonwillful grazing trespass 

under certain circumstances;

11. Expanded the list of prohibited acts 

applicable to grazing activities;

12. Established Fundamentals of Rangeland 

Health; and

13. Created a process for developing and 

applying state or regional standards for 

land health and guidelines for livestock 

grazing as a yardstick for grazing 

management performance.

In addition, revisions were made to 

BLMʼs regulations at 43 CFR Subpart 

1784 on Advisory Committees to establish 

Resource Advisory Councils (RACs) to 

allow for increased public participation in 

and advice to BLM resource management 

programs. The RACs replaced the BLM 

grazing advisory boards and district advisory 

councils, and were set up to represent diverse 

interests and employ consensus decision 

making. 

Policy and procedural guidance on how 

to implement the regulations is provided 

in BLM manuals and handbooks. 

1.1.3 Land Use Plans

Under FLPMA, public land must be 

managed pursuant to land use plans using 

multiple use and sustained yield concepts and 

a systematic interdisciplinary approach to 

achieve integrated consideration of physical, 

biological, economic, and other sciences. 

Additionally, the public land must be 

managed to recognize the nationʼs need for 

domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, 

and fiber. FLPMA requires that land use 

plans be prepared to achieve these and other 

statutory objectives. 

Land use plans are designed to set goals 

for land use and future conditions that 

BLM and others believe are desirable. The 

Bureau of Land Managementʼs land use 

plans provide the basis for every action and 

approved use that takes place on land the 

agency manages, and are created with the 

help of interested individuals and groups 

from the public and government. Each 

BLM Field Office is required to be covered 

by a land use plan and grazing is a resource 

use where appropriate.

On the basis of present planning 

guidance, livestock grazing decisions found 

in land use plans include the identification of 

lands available or not available for livestock 

grazing; for those lands available for grazing, 

identification on an areawide basis of both 

existing permitted use and future anticipated 

permitted use with full implementation of the 

land use plan while maintaining a thriving 

ecological balance and multiple-use relations; 

and identification of guidelines and criteria 

for future allotment-specific adjustments 

in permitted use, season of use, or other 

grazing management practices. Standards for 

rangeland health and guidelines for grazing 

administration may also be incorporated into 

land use plans. 

FLPMA requires that the public be 

involved in the development of land use 

plans. Public participation and collaboration 

are encouraged throughout the planning 

process. NEPA also sets forth as policy that 

Federal agencies shall to the fullest extent 

possible encourage and facilitate public 

involvement in decisions which affect the 

1-9
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 1

Introduction

quality of the human environment. One 

of the primary functions of NEPA is to 

disclose to the public the effects on the 

human environment of proposed actions 

and alternatives. The BLM uses a process to 

create or update land use plans that is fully 

integrated and consistent with the NEPA 

process and Council on Environmental 

Quality regulations. 

1.1.4 Overview of the Livestock 

Grazing Program

All allowable uses on BLM lands, 

such as grazing, are described in land 

use plans. These plans now provide for 

about 160 million acres (see Figure 1.1) in 

the West as available for livestock grazing. 

The instrument that authorizes grazing 

use is called a grazing permit or lease. A 

BLM grazing permit or lease authorizes a 

permittee or lessee to graze livestock on one 

or more grazing administrative units called 

allotments. Permittees or lessees can be 

individual citizens or business entities such as 

corporations, associations, and partnerships. 

Allotments range in size from small (1,000 

acres or fewer) to vast (more than a million 

acres). 

The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (TGA) 

mandates the government to determine, for 

the western public lands, how much forage is 

available for livestock grazing, who should 

get the grazing permits, and how grazing is 

to occur. The TGA provides that preference 

for a permit shall be given in the issuance 

of grazing permits to nearby landowners 

engaged in the livestock business, settlers, 

those who owned water or water rights, and 

other stockowners as necessary to permit 

the proper use of the privately owned land 

or water. The TGA also provides that 

recognized and acknowledged grazing 

privileges shall be adequately safeguarded, 

so far as consistent with the purposes of the 

TGA. Once this system was established, 

Congress intended that the grazing 

privilege was to be safeguarded as long as 

it comported with sound land management 

practices. Where FLPMA land use planning 

has determined that grazing continues to be 

an appropriate use of the land, permittees 

or lessees who comply with their permits 

or leases and other applicable rules and 

regulations receive first priority for renewal 

of their expiring permits or leases. 

The government developed a system for 

keeping records regarding who has priority 

for grazing privileges on public land. In 

the years immediately following enactment 

of the Taylor Grazing Act, following the 

recommendations of locally established 

Grazing Advisory Boards, the Grazing 

Service awarded grazing privileges to those 

applicants who qualified under the Act for 

public land grazing use. These privileges 

were expressed as units of forage (e.g 

“animal unit months,” “cattle yearlong”) 

and were “attached” to privately owned land 

or water, commonly called “base lands” or 

“base waters.” Once public land grazing 

privileges were attached to privately owned 

land, water or water rights, as the case may 

be, whoever controlled the base property 

was recognized by the government as having 

preference to use the public land grazing 

privileges attached to that property, and 

upon application were granted a permit that 

authorized grazing use to the extent of their 

recognized grazing privileges. This system 

also allows for grazing preference to be 

transferred from one property to another. 

The amount of forage that a permittee 

may graze on an allotment each year 

is called “active use” and the lessee or 

permittee is obligated to graze livestock at 

this level unless resource conditions or other 

considerations warrant taking nonuse. When 

the owner or lessee of a base property applies 

1-10 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 1

Introduction

Figure 1-1. Public Lands in the West.

1-11
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 1

Introduction

for grazing use, he or she is issued a permit 

or lease that specifies which allotment(s) 

are to be used, the number of livestock to 

be allowed, when they can graze, and other 

management terms and conditions. In 

some instances, there is an “Allotment 

Management Plan” (AMP) that describes in 

detail how grazing is to occur on a specific 

allotment, and these plans become part of the 

grazing permit or lease.

Sometimes operators do not wish to graze 

all of the active use allowed by their permits 

or leases. When this happens, BLM can 

approve nonuse to help conserve resources or 

for other reasons specified by the permittee or 

lessee, including financial reasons. In some 

instances, BLM may temporarily authorize 

another operator to make grazing use through 

a nonrenewable permit if the nonuse is not 

for resource conservation reasons. In a good 

growth year, forage is temporarily available 

on the range that exceeds the amount of 

use permitted. When this happens, BLM 

may temporarily authorize grazing use that 

exceeds the established level of permitted 

use.

The BLM may allow operators to graze 

livestock owned by another entity on their 

permitted allotments. When this happens, 

they must submit a livestock control 

agreement to BLM and pay an extra fee 

called a surcharge. 

The BLM may cancel a permit or lease 

and the preference for the permitted use 

that was attached to the base property for 

grazing rules violations. This happens in few 

instances, but when it does, BLM may award 

the forage to a new applicant.

Permits or leases may be modified 

as a result of, among other things, 

implementation of the rangeland health 

standards and guidelines process in which 

data (i.e., vegetation, watershed, wildlife, 

and others) are collected and analyzed by 

a BLM interdisciplinary team. The team 

also considers any other resource and land 

use plan issues and provides an evaluation 

report to the BLM authorized officer. The 

authorized officer then determines if an 

allotment has met the standards for rangeland 

health, and if not, identifies the significant 

causal factors for not meeting the standards. 

Upon determining that existing grazing 

management practices or levels of grazing 

use are significant factors in failure to achieve 

the rangeland health standards and conform 

to the guidelines, the BLM has until the next 

grazing season to implement appropriate 

actions that will result in significant progress 

toward meeting them. If the appropriate 

actions include a modification to a permit 

or lease, the BLM must consult, cooperate 

and coordinate with the affected permittees 

or lessees, the state having lands or 

responsibility for managing resources within 

the area, and the interested public prior 

to making a decision on the modification. 

Actions to be implemented must be analyzed 

through the NEPA process, which normally 

requires an environmental assessment. 

After undergoing the NEPA process as 

well as satisfying any other applicable and 

relevant legal reguirements, the actions are 

incorporated into the new grazing permit or 

lease and then the permit or lease is issued. 

Whether an allotment does or does not meet 

a standard for rangeland health, the effects 

of issuing, modifying or renewing a permit 

or lease are appropriately analyzed under the 

NEPA.

Another tool for maintaining or 

improving land conditions is to install 

rangeland improvement projects, such as 

water pipelines, reservoirs, or fences. 

In 2002, grazing operators held 18,142 

BLM grazing permits and leases. These 

permits and leases allowed for as many 

as 12.7 million Animal Unit Months (AUMs) 

of grazing use, with 7.9 million AUMs 

authorized as active use and 4.8 million 

1-12 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 1

Introduction

AUMs authorized as temporary nonuse 

or conservation use. In 2003, grazing 

operators held 18,021 grazing permits 

and leases and AUM usage declined to 

6.9 million. This decline was the result of 

decreased forage growth due to extended 

drought, fire, and other factors. This decrease 

in forage resulted in ranchers reducing their 

herds and using less AUMs than allowed 

under grazing permits and leases. 

1.2 The Purpose of and Need 

for the Proposed Action

The overall purpose and need for revising 

the regulations, as well as the purpose of and 

need for revising specific elements of the 

regulations, are described in this section. 

1.2.1 General Purpose and Need

During the nine years since 

implementation of the 1995 grazing reforms, 

a number of discrete concerns have been 

raised regarding the administration of grazing 

management. The purpose of this proposed 

action is to address a variety of these discrete 

issues related to the current regulatory 

scheme without altering the fundamental 

structure of the grazing regulations. In 

other words, we are adjusting rather than 

conducting a major overhaul of the grazing 

regulations. Fundamental changes such as 

modifications to the grazing fee provisions; 

the addition of fundamentally new regulatory 

topics; or the removal of substantial sections 

of the regulations do not meet this limited 

purpose. 

1.2.2 Purpose and Need by Topic

There is an ongoing need to improve the 

working relationships with permittees and 

lessees, to protect the health of rangelands, 

and to increase the administrative efficiency 

and effectiveness of the BLM grazing 

management program. These goals are 

often inter-related. For example, improved 

relationships with grazers are likely to foster 

both better management efficiency and 

healthier rangelands. Likewise steps that may 

directly improve management efficiency are 

likely to lessen the bureaucratic frustrations 

that can harm working relationships and 

sometimes inhibit the protection of rangeland 

health. 

Based on field experiences, internal 

comments, and public input, including 

feedback during the scoping process, the 

BLM identified 18 issues to be addressed in 

this rulemaking. We grouped these issues 

into three categories – those that would 

primarily contribute to improving working 

relations with permittees and lessees; those 

that would primarily contribute to protecting 

the health of the rangelands; and those that 

would primarily contribute to increasing 

administrative efficiency and effectiveness, 

including resolution of legal issues. The 

issues are listed below by category. 

Improving Working Relations with 

Permittees and Lessees 

• Social, Economic, and Cultural 

Considerations in the Decision-Making 

Process 

• Implementation of Changes in Grazing 

Use 

• Range Improvement Ownership 

• Cooperation with Tribal, state, Local, and 

county Established Grazing Boards 

• Review of Biological Assessments and 

Biological Evaluations 

Protecting the Health of the Rangelands 

• Temporary Nonuse 

1-13
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 1

Introduction

• Basis for Rangeland Health 

Determinations 

• Timeframe for Taking Action to Meet 

Rangeland Health Standards 

Increasing Administrative Efficiency and 

Effectiveness, Including Resolution of Legal 

Issues 

• Conservation Use 

• Definition of Grazing Preference, 

Permitted Use, and Active Use 

• Definition and Role of Interested Public 

• Water Rights 

• Satisfactory Performance of Permittee or 

Lessee 

• Changes in Grazing Use Within the 

Terms and Conditions of Permit or Lease 

• Service Charges 

• Prohibited Acts 

• Grazing Use Pending Resolution of 

Appeals when Decision has been Stayed 

• Treatment of Biological Assessments and 

Biological Evaluations in the Grazing 

Decision-Making Process 

1.2.2.1 Social, Economic, and Cultural 

Considerations

NEPA and its implementing regulations 

require that all Federal agencies use qualified 

specialists from the various physical and 

social science disciplines to perform analyses, 

such as environmental assessments, under 

this law. In addition to assessing effects 

on various environmental elements such 

as vegetation, wildlife, and water quality, the 

law and NEPA regulations require the BLM 

to assess effects on economic, social, and 

cultural environments. No specific reference 

to these elements exists in the present BLM 

grazing regulations. The degree and nature 

of documentation of social, economic and 

cultural factors in NEPA documents varies 

across the BLM. The question remains 

whether BLM should change its grazing 

regulations to include language concerning 

the analysis of economic, social, and cultural 

effects, thereby enhancing consistency and 

clarity. Many grazing operators believe that 

these factors are not adequately considered 

by BLM and that they should always be part 

of the written analysis in NEPA documents. 

This issue is addressed in this EIS.

1.2.2.2 Implementation of Changes in 

Grazing Use

When BLM implements substantial 

changes in a permitteeʼs or lesseeʼs active 

use, this is sometimes done within a 

timeframe that causes sudden adverse 

economic effects, affects the ability to make 

operational adjustments such as pasture 

rotations, or does not allow enough time 

for herd size changes. In these instances, 

the opportunity to monitor and adjust based 

on increments of change is also foregone. 

Before the 1995 Rangeland Reform changes, 

there was a 5-year phase-in period in the 

regulations for the implementation of 

changes in active use in excess of 10 percent. 

To address concerns about this issue, 

consideration is given in this rulemaking 

and EIS to the implementation of changes 

in active use within a timeframe that allows 

such changes to be absorbed without an 

unreasonably adverse effect on a permittee or 

lessee. 

1-14 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.2.2.3 Range Improvement Ownership

The regulations that went into effect in 

1995 provided that title to new permanent 

range improvements developed under a 

cooperative range improvement agreement 

would be held by the United States 

government, even if a grazing user funded 

or built them. This change was meant to 

conform with the common law concept that 

title to permanent improvements should go 

to the landowner, which in this case is the 

Federal government. This change was also 

implemented to conform to the practice of the 

Forest Service and to BLMʼs own practice 

before rule changes took place in the early 

1980s. However, many grazing operators 

have said that having range improvements 

jointly owned by the Federal government 

and the operator contributes to healthy range 

conditions and allows them to more easily 

obtain loans for their operations. They 

have also said that joint ownership would 

offer an incentive for operators to construct 

improvements, and that the present situation 

leaves them with little incentive to invest 

in improvements if they canʼt claim the 

value of their contribution as part of their 

ranching operation. Grazing users believe 

that, under present regulations, the fact that 

range improvements are entirely owned by 

the Federal government does not adequately 

reflect their role in purchasing and/or 

installing those improvements. Consideratio

n of shared ownership of range improvements 

is, therefore, an issue addressed in this 

rulemaking and EIS.

1.2.2.4 Cooperation with Grazing Boards 

Established by Tribal, State, County, or Local 

Governments

The present grazing regulations provide 

that the BLM will cooperate with other 

agencies and units of government that have 

responsibilities for grazing on public lands, 

and specifically state that the BLM will 

“cooperate with state, county, and Federal 

agencies in the administration of laws and 

regulations relating to livestock, livestock 

diseases, sanitation, and noxious weeds 

including (a) State cattle and sheep sanitary 

or brand boards...and (b) County or other 

local weed control districts....” 

In many western States, grazing boards 

have been established by Tribal, state, county, 

or local governments to provide them with 

guidance and advice on grazing management 

issues. There is no specific provision, 

however, in the present regulations that 

requires BLM to cooperate with such grazing 

boards. In other words, grazing boards 

established by Tribal, state, county or local 

governments are not listed in the regulations 

even though other boards, such as state brand 

boards, are specifically identified. 

Section 401 (b)(1) of FLPMA states 

that a portion of the grazing fees collected 

are to be set aside for range betterment, 

and, after BLM consults with the local user 

representatives, half the fee amount is to 

be used in the area where the fees were 

collected for range rehabilitation, protection, 

and improvements. Grazing interests and 

state and local governments have raised 

concerns that existing grazing advisory 

boards have not been used effectively by 

the BLM and are underutilized as a tool for 

gathering local input for BLM decisions on 

range improvements as well as allotment 

management planning which generally 

address range improvements. For these 

reasons, the BLM is addressing the issue 

of cooperation with such grazing boards, 

where they exist, in this rulemaking and EIS. 

1.2.2.5 Review of Biological Assessments and 

Evaluations

Under the current regulations, the 

BLM must, to the extent practical, provide 

1-15
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 1

Introduction

the permittee, the pertinent state, and 

the interested public an opportunity to 

review reports that are used to support 

decisions for making changes in grazing 

use. Such reports may include biological 

assessments and biological evaluations which 

are prepared in compliance with consultation 

requirements of the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA). The present regulations do not 

specifically address the review of biological 

assessments or biological evaluations.

A biological assessment (BA) is prepared 

by an agency to determine whether a 

proposed action is likely to (1) adversely 

affect listed species or designated critical 

habitat, (2) jeopardize the continued 

existence of species that are proposed for 

listing; or (3) adversely modify critical 

habitat. BAs must be prepared for “major 

construction activities.” [50 CFR §402.02; 

50 CFR §402.12]. The BA is submitted by 

the preparing agency to the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS) and/or the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

Fisheries (NOAA, Fisheries) as part of the 

formal Section 7 consultation process in 

compliance with the ESA.

A biological evaluation (BE) is a 

documented review of an agencyʼs programs 

or activities in sufficient detail to determine 

how an action or proposed action may affect 

any threatened, endangered, proposed or 

sensitive species or proposed or designated 

critical habitat. BEs are often prepared in 

the format of a BA. Where listed species 

are not likely to be adversely affected and 

formal consultation is not anticipated, the 

BE provides the basis of evaluation during 

informal consultation with the FWS and/or 

NOAA, Fisheries.

When biological assessments or 

biological evaluations are included within the 

body of information that is used to support 

modification of grazing permits, the BLM 

is required, to the extent practical, to make 

these assessments available for comment and 

review by the affected permittees and lessees, 

the interested public, and state agency staff. 

However, BLM has not been consistent in 

making these assessments or evaluations 

available. Therefore, a solution is needed 

to ensure more consistent application of 

opportunities for public review of biological 

assessments and biological evaluations based 

on the nature and purpose of the document. 

Consideration of this issue is addressed in 

this rulemaking and EIS.

1.2.2.6 Temporary Nonuse

Before the 1995 regulatory changes, 

permittees or lessees could apply to not 

use all or a portion of their active grazing 

use for purposes of conservation and 

protection of the public lands because 

of annual fluctuations of livestock operations, 

for financial or other reasons beyond the 

control of the operator, or because of 

livestock disease or quarantine. There was 

no restriction on the number of consecutive 

years a permittee or lessee could apply 

for nonuse. Such nonuse could be approved 

each year during the permit if need be. 

The 1995 regulations recharacterized 

BLMʼs pre-1995 authority to approve nonuse 

for reasons of conservation and protection of 

the public lands as approving “Conservation 

Use.” Thus the current regulations provide 

that a permittee or lessee may apply to not 

use all or a part of the use authorized by 

their permit for purposes including but not 

limited to personal or business reasons (i.e., 

nonuse for conservation and protection is 

also allowed by the present regulations), 

but the BLM may only approve such nonuse 

for three consecutive years. The present 

regulations provide that if a permittee or 

lessee wishes to take nonuse for longer 

than 3 consecutive years for purposes of 

resource conservation or protection, then 

1-16 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 1

Introduction

the BLM could issue a “Conservation Use” 

grazing permit. However, a 1999 ruling by 

the 10th Circuit Court determined that the 

BLM did not have the authority to issue 

“Conservation Use” permits. As a result, 

even if the operator wishes to apply for 

nonuse for conservation and protection of the 

public lands for longer than 3 consecutive 

years, and the BLM believes that the resource 

would benefit and would like to approve the 

nonuse, the BLM is prevented by its present 

rules from approving it. The BLM always has 

the ability to suspend grazing use to protect 

resources. However, when both parties agree 

that nonuse would benefit the resources, it 

is more efficient and conducive to a climate 

of cooperation for the BLM to approve 

an operator application for nonuse than to 

suspend grazing use using BLMʼs grazing 

decision process.

Therefore, to promote greater flexibility 

and efficiency as well as enhanced 

opportunity for cooperation and coordination 

with the permittee and lessee, the BLM needs 

to consider changes in the regulations to 

provide a mechanism to allow longer periods 

of nonuse as needed to ensure the health of 

the rangelands. Consideration of allowing 

the BLM to approve applications for nonuse 

each year is, therefore, addressed in this 

rulemaking and EIS.

1.2.2.7 Basis for Rangeland Health 

Determinations

The present regulations do not identify 

what data or information is to be used by the 

BLM to determine that existing grazing 

management practices or levels of grazing 

use on public land are significant factors 

in failing to achieve the rangeland health 

standards and conform with the guidelines for 

grazing administration. 

The BLM has issued detailed policy and 

procedural guidance to the field in Manual 

Section 4180 and Handbook H-4180-1, 

Rangeland Health Standards, on how to 

evaluate rangeland health standards, make 

determinations, and develop and implement 

plans to address appropriate actions for 

achieving or progressing toward achievement 

of standards or fundamentals of rangeland 

health conditions. The guidance addresses 

how to conduct an evaluation and assessment 

and identifies monitoring data as an important 

source of information in conducting 

the evaluation. Where data is not available or 

not adequate for making the determination, 

it is recommended that the manager initiate 

action necessary to gather the information 

needed to complete the evaluation.

Members of the public, in scoping and 

ongoing communications with the BLM, 

have expressed a strong interest in BLMʼs 

monitoring program and, particularly, 

in ensuring that adequate and sufficient 

monitoring data are available to support our 

decisions and determinations. Concerns 

have been raised about the validity and 

credibility of basing a determination on a 

one-time assessment. Multiyear monitoring 

data are considered by some members of 

the public as a minimum requirement for 

making determinations. Consideration 

of requirements for both assessments and 

monitoring data as a basis for rangeland 

health determinations is, therefore, addressed 

in this rulemaking and EIS.

1.2.2.8 Timeframe for Taking Action to Meet 

Rangeland Health Standards

The 1995 regulations established the 

fundamentals of rangeland health and called 

for the BLM to establish, within geographic 

regions and in consultation with Resource 

Advisory Councils, standards and guidelines 

for grazing administration. Fallback 

standards and guidelines were also identified 

to be used in the event that regional standards 

1-17
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 1

Introduction

and guidelines were not established by a 

specified date. 

Under the regulations, the BLM is 

required to take appropriate action, as soon 

as practicable but not later than the start of 

the next grazing year, upon determining that 

existing grazing management needs to be 

modified to ensure that the fundamentals 

are being met or that existing grazing 

management practices or levels of use on 

public lands are significant factors in failing 

to achieve the standards and conform with 

the guidelines.

This timeframe has proven to be too 

short in many instances, especially given 

that NEPA and other environmental laws 

such as the Endangered Species Act 

Section 7 consultation where applicable 

and the National Historic Preservation Act 

106 clearance, must be satisfied before 

a decision is made on the “appropriate 

action.” In addition, the BLM must satisfy 

consultation, cooperation, and coordination 

requirements before identifying the proposed 

action. The mandate that the proposed 

appropriate action be developed and 

implemented before the start of the next 

grazing year has often created unreasonable 

timeframes. For this reason, therefore, 

consideration is given in this rulemaking and 

EIS to providing a reasonable timeframe to 

develop an appropriate action or plan after a 

determination has been made.

1.2.2.9 Conservation Use

The 1995 regulations authorized the 

BLM to issue “Conservation Use” permits 

to groups or individuals for an activity, 

excluding livestock grazing, for the purposes 

of protecting the land from destruction or 

unnecessary injury, improving rangeland 

conditons, or enhancing resource values, 

uses, or functions. The authority for BLM 

to issue conservation use permits was 

challenged in court, with the result that in 

1999 the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held 

that the Taylor Grazing Act stipulated that the 

primary purpose of issuing a grazing permit 

is to permit grazing and that BLM could not 

issue permits exclusively for conservation 

purposes (Public Lands Council v. Babbitt, 

167 F.3d 1287, 1308 (10th Cir. 1999), affʼd 

on other grounds, 529 U.S. 728 (2000)). This 

aspect of the decision was not appealed to the 

Supreme Court and thus is the final judicial 

determination on this issue. The present 

regulations do not conform with the courtʼs 

finding. The removal from the BLM grazing 

regulations of all references to conservation 

use and conservation use permits is, 

therefore, addressed in this rulemaking and 

EIS.

1.2.2.10 Definition of Preference, Permitted 

Use, and Active Use

“Grazing preference” has been defined 

since 1995 as a superior or priority position 

against others for the purpose of receiving 

a grazing permit or lease. This priority is 

attached to base property owned or controlled 

by the permittee or lessee. Before 1995, 

grazing preference was defined as the total 

number of animal unit months (AUMs) of 

livestock grazing on public lands apportioned 

and attached to base property owned or 

controlled by a permittee or lessee. 

“Permitted use” was introduced as a term 

in the 1995 regulations revisions to define an 

amount of forage allocated by a land use plan 

for livestock grazing in an allotment. It is 

expressed in AUMs and includes “active use” 

and “suspended use.” Thus, in 1995, the term 

“permitted use” replaced the term “grazing 

preference” in describing the quantity of 

forage allocated. 

Since 1995, “active use” has meant 

“current authorized use including livestock 

grazing and conservation use.” The BLM 

1-18 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 1

Introduction

must remove conservation use from the 

definition because of the 1999 10th Circuit 

Court decision in Public Lands Council v. 

Babbitt, supra. The 1995 definition used the 

term livestock grazing to distinguish between 

“active” authorized grazing use and “active” 

authorized conservation use. Removing 

conservation use from this definition would 

eliminate the need for this distinction. 

The 1995 regulation revisions, which 

changed “grazing preference” from a term 

having a quantitative meaning (number of 

AUMs) to a qualitative meaning (superior 

or priority position) and which introduced 

the new term, “permitted use,” to represent 

the number of AUMs, have proven to be 

confusing. Attaching or associating a 

public land forage allocation to or with base 

property provides a reliable and predictable 

way to connect ranch property transactions 

with the priority for use of the public land 

grazing privileges that BLM has associated 

with that property. This has been the 

foundation of BLMʼs system for tracking 

who has priority for receipt of public land 

grazing privileges since the enactment of the 

TGA. To clarify these terms and improve 

consistency in their application, consideration 

is being given to a modification of the 

definitions of grazing preference and active 

use and deletion of the term permitted use in 

this rulemaking and EIS. 

1.2.2.11 Definition and Role of the Interested 

Public

The present regulations define 

“interested public” as an individual, group, 

or organization that has (a) submitted a 

written request to the BLM to be provided an 

opportunity to be involved in the decisionmaking process for the management of 

livestock grazing on a specific allotment, 

or (b) has submitted comments to BLM 

regarding the management of livestock 

grazing on a specific allotment. On the 

basis of this definition, an individual 

or organization may be identified as an 

interested public covering an array of actions 

without participating in the public process 

leading to a specific grazing decision. 

Under the current regulations, someone 

could remain on the interested public list 

indefinitely without ever commenting on 

or otherwise providing input in the decisionmaking process. 

Under the present rules, the BLM is 

required to consult, coordinate, and cooperate 

with the interested public before a proposed 

decision on the following actions: 

• Designation or adjustment of allotment 

boundaries, 

• Apportionment of additional forage, 

• Reductions in permitted use, 

• Emergency closures or modifications, 

• Development or modification of grazing 

activity plans, 

• Plans for range development or 

improvement programs, 

• Renewal or issuance of grazing permits or 

leases, 

• Modification of a permit or lease, or 

• Issuance of temporary, nonrenewable 

grazing permits. 

The interested public is also provided a 

copy of all proposed and final decisions.

In addition, the interested public must be 

provided an opportunity to review, comment, 

and give input during the preparation of 

grazing evaluation reports used to support 

decisions. In some instances, this has led 

1-19
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 1

Introduction

to confusion and suggestions that reports 

prepared to support decision processes are 

decisions themselves, with comment periods.

These requirements for involving 

the interested public in the development 

of decisions and plans on almost every 

level and aspect of the grazing program 

are more extensive than in other BLM 

programs, and are considered by some to 

be excessive, inefficient, or nonproductive. 

For these reasons, modifying the definition 

of “interested public,” reducing the level 

of involvement of the interested public in 

the day-to-day grazing operation decisions, 

and refocusing participation on the primary 

decisions that set management direction are 

considered in this rulemaking and EIS. 

1.2.2.12 Water Rights

In 1995, the BLM added a provision 

to the regulations that stated that livestock 

water rights would be sought in the name of 

the United States to the extent allowed under 

state water law. This was added because the 

BLM wanted to (1) clarify its policy, and (2) 

make its policy consistent with that of the 

U.S. Forest Service. The BLM explained in 

the 1995 rulemaking that seeking water rights 

under state law had been its policy since 

1981, and that these regulations would not 

create any new Federal reserved water rights 

or affect valid existing rights. 

Except for Federal reserved water rights 

for Public Water Reserves, livestock water 

rights are not Federal rights. They are statebased rights that require the United States, 

like any other entity, to comply with state 

substantive and procedural requirements to 

obtain them. 

The present regulations limit BLMʼs 

flexibility to cooperatively pursue livestock 

water rights with permittees or lessees. 

To enhance such flexibility, the BLM 

is considering modifications to the water 

rights provisions in this rulemaking and EIS.

1.2.2.13 Satisfactory Performance of 

Permittee or Lessee

By regulation, the BLM must determine 

whether applicants who apply for a new 

grazing permit or lease or a permit or lease 

subsequent to a preference transfer have a 

satisfactory record of past performance. The 

regulations define under what circumstances 

operators would be deemed to have an 

unsatisfactory performance, including: 

• having had a Federal grazing permit or 

lease cancelled for violations within 36 

months of their application; 

• having had a state permit or lease, for 

lands within the grazing allotment for 

which they are applying, cancelled for 

violations within 36 months of their 

application; or 

• having been barred from holding a 

Federal grazing permit or lease by order 

of a court of competent jurisdiction. 

Determinations of unsatisfactory 

performance in cases such as these are 

complicated by the wording of the present 

regulations. Although it is clear that 

if any one of these conditions exist the 

applicant would be deemed to not have a 

record of satisfactory performance, it is 

ambiguous as to what constitutes satisfactory 

performance. Some have interpreted the 

existing regulatory language to mean that 

there may be other conditions that would 

result in a determination that the applicantʼs 

performance is unsatisfactory. This 

open-ended definition has created some 

confusion. For these reasons, the BLM 

is considering revisions to the regulations 

1-20 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 1

Introduction

to clarify the definition of satisfactory 

performance for applicants for a permit or 

lease in this rulemaking and EIS.

1.2.2.14 Changes in Grazing Use Within the 

Terms and Conditions of Permit or Lease

The present regulations state that 

changes in grazing use within the terms 

and conditions of the permit or lease 

may be granted by the BLM. There is no 

regulatory language that defines what is 

meant by “within the terms and conditions 

of the permit or lease.” This could lead to 

inconsistent interpretations and applications 

of this provision. Clarification and definition 

of what is meant by “within the terms and 

conditions” is, therefore, a consideration in 

this rulemaking and EIS.

1.2.2.15 Service Charges

Regulations allow the BLM to assess 

a service fee for processing each crossing 

permit, transfer of grazing preference, and 

cancellation and replacement of a grazing 

fee billing. Under the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act, these service charges 

should reflect BLMʼs processing costs and 

should be adjusted periodically as costs 

change. A $10 service fee is presently 

assessed for each of the above actions. This 

fee does not reflect BLMʼs costs to provide 

these services. Consideration of revisions 

to the service charges to more adequately 

cover costs is, therefore, addressed in this 

rulemaking and EIS. 

1.2.2.16 Prohibited Acts

Regulatory changes from 1978 through 

the 1995 established several prohibited 

acts that are part of the present regulations. 

There are three categories of prohibited 

acts. The third category of prohibited acts 

identifies generally and specifically a number 

of Federal and state laws which, if violated 

by the permittee or lessee, the permittee 

or lessee may be subject to civil penalties 

by the BLM (i.e., withdrawal of issuance, 

suspension, or cancellation of permit or 

lease) if:

• public land is involved or affected; 

• the violation is related to grazing use 

authorized by a BLM permit or lease; 

• the permittee or lessee has been convicted 

or otherwise found to be in violation of 

the laws or regulations; and 

• no further appeals are outstanding.

As presently written, it is somewhat 

unclear as to whether or not the performance 

of the prohibited act must occur on the 

allotment for which the permittee or lessee 

has a BLM permit or lease. In other words, 

the current regulation does not limit citation 

under these prohibited acts to a grazing 

operatorʼs allotment, i.e., a permittee or 

lessee can be cited for violating a law or 

regulation outside the allotment and, if 

convicted or otherwise found in violation, be 

subject to civil penalties by the BLM. 

Furthermore, there is concern that 

some of the laws and regulations identified 

in this category of prohibited acts could 

result in penalties against permittees and 

lessees that are unfair because they involve 

a secondary penalty for violation of a law 

or regulation. Some opponents of the 

current rule characterized the prohibited 

acts provision as a form of “double 

jeopardy.” Although this is not a frequently 

applied provision of the regulations, the level 

of controversy over the issue warrants its 

consideration in this rulemaking and EIS. 

1-21
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.2.2.17 Grazing Use Pending Resolution of 

Appeals When Decision Has Been Stayed

In general, under current regulations, all 

final BLM grazing decisions are implemented 

after the appeal period expires unless the 

decision is appealed and the Office of 

Hearings and Appeals or the Interior Board 

of Land Appeals stays the decision in 

response to a petition for a stay. The current 

regulations allow a petition for a stay to be 

filed by a permittee, lessee, or interested 

member of the public. 

The current regulations address grazing 

use pending resolution of appeals when a 

decision has been stayed as follows: 

• If a decision on an application for a 

permit or lease is appealed and a stay is 

granted, an applicant who was granted 

grazing use in the preceding year may 

continue at that level of authorized 

grazing use during the time the decision 

is stayed, except where grazing use in 

the preceding year was authorized on 

a temporary basis. If the applicant had 

no authorized grazing use the previous 

year or the application is for ephemeral 

or annual grazing use, then grazing use 

will be consistent with the final decision 

pending resolution of the appeal. 

• If a decision to change authorized use 

is appealed and a stay is granted, the 

grazing use authorized during the time 

the decision is stayed will not exceed the 

permitteeʼs or lesseeʼs authorized use in 

the last year during which any use was 

authorized. 

An application for a permit or lease made 

in conjunction with a preference transfer 

is not specifically addressed in the current 

rules. Based on the current regulations, if a 

stay is granted on an appeal of an application 

by a preference transferee, then grazing 

use would be authorized consistent with 

the final decision pending resolution of 

the appeal. This issue is addressed in this 

rulemaking and EIS. 

Of additional concern is the issue of 

when an appellant is considered to have 

exhausted his administrative remedies and 

can proceed to court. The judicial review 

provisions of the Administrative Procedure 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 701-706, (APA) provide a right 

of action against agencies and officers of the 

United States to persons adversely affected 

or aggrieved by an agency action. However, 

such action may be sought in a Federal court 

only when a decision is “final.” Generally, a 

decision becomes “final” only after appellants 

exhaust administrative remedies. The BLM 

is attempting through this rulemaking to 

find a balance between the exhaustion of 

administrative remedies under the APA and 

its responsibilities under FLPMA and the 

TGA. 

1.2.2.18 Treatment of Biological Assessments 

and Evaluations in the Grazing DecisionMaking Process

The present regulations do not 

specifically address biological assessments 

or biological evaluations prepared in 

compliance with Section 7 consultation 

requirements of the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA) or their treatment in BLMʼs 

decision-making process.

.A biological assessment (BA) is 

prepared by an agency to determine whether 

a proposed action is likely to: (1) adversely 

affect listed species or designated critical 

habitat, (2) jeopardize the continued 

existence of species that are proposed for 

listing; or (3) adversely modify critical 

habitat. BAs must be prepared for “major 

construction activities.” [50 CFR §402.02, 

50 FR §402.12] The BA is submitted by 

the preparing agency to the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS) and/or the National 

1-22 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 1

Introduction

of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS in the 

Federal Register on March 3, 2003. These 

notices requested public comment to assist 

BLM in the scoping process for both of these 

documents. Copies of these two publications 

were found in Appendix D and Appendix 

E, respectively, of the draft EIS and are 

incorporated by reference in this final EIS. 

The comment period for the ANPR and NOI 

ended on May 2, 2003. 

BLM held four public scoping meetings 

in March 2003 in Albuquerque, New Mexico; 

Reno, Nevada; Billings, Montana; and 

Washington, D.C., to take comments and 

suggestions for the proposed rule and the 

draft EIS. 

 Site Approximate 

Attendance 

Number 

of 

Speakers 

from the 

Public 

Reno, 

Nevada

200 25

Billings, 

Montana

60 23

Albuquerque, 

New Mexico

50 27

Washington, 

D.C.

25 5

See Chapter 5 for additional discussion of 

the scoping process.

1.3.2 Results of Scoping

The BLM received more than 8,300 

comments on the ANPR and the 

NOI. Comments were made orally at the 

four public meetings and submitted by letter, 

e-mail, and facsimile. Most of the written 

comments were form letters; about 35 letters 

containing substantive comments were 

received from special interest organizations 

and state and Federal agencies. 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

Fisheries (NOAA, Fisheries) as part of the 

formal Section 7 consultation process in 

compliance with the ESA.

A biological evaluation (BE) is a 

documented review of an agencyʼs programs 

or activities in sufficient detail to determine 

how an action or proposed action may affect 

any threatened, endangered, proposed or 

sensitive species or proposed or designated 

critical habitat. BEs are often prepared in 

the format of a BA. Where listed species 

are not likely to be adversely affected and 

formal consultation is not anticipated, the 

BE provides the basis of evaluation during 

informal consultation with the FWS and/or 

the NOAA, Fisheries.

The Interior Board of Land Appeals 

(IBLA) has ruled that biological assessments 

should be treated as proposed decisions 

subject to protest and appeal. Blake v. 

Bureau of Land Management, 145 IBLA 

154(1998), affʼd, 156 IBLA 280 (2002). 

Treating biological assessments and 

biological evaluations as decisions would 

add additional administrative review and 

process steps beyond those required for a 

proposed action and could cause considerable 

delay in reaching a final decision on a 

proposed action. Due to concerns about such 

consequences, the BLM is addressing this 

issue in this rulemaking and EIS.

1.3 Overview of Public 

Participation

A brief summary of the scoping process, 

the results of scoping, and the issuance of the 

proposed rule and draft EIS are presented in 

this section. 

1.3.1 Summary of Scoping Process

The BLM published an Advance Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) and Notice 

1-23
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 1

Introduction

The public comments were extremely 

useful in the development of the Proposed 

Rule. The following summarizes some of 

the major results of scoping with respect to 

what was included or not included in the 

Proposed Rule: 

• It was stated in the ANPR that 

consideration was being given to 

a proposal whereby BLM would be able 

to authorize the locking of gates on public 

land to protect private land and improve 

livestock operations. There was almost 

universal opposition from all groups to 

this proposal and it was dropped from 

further consideration in this rulemaking. 

• It was stated in the ANPR that BLM 

was considering establishing provisions 

addressing reserve common allotments 

to be managed as reserve forage areas 

for use by permittees whose allotments 

were undergoing restoration treatments 

and required rest from grazing. Public 

comments were mixed on this issue, but 

there were sufficient concerns raised in 

the public comments that we decided to 

drop reserve common allotments from 

further consideration in this rulemaking. 

• It was stated in the ANPR that BLM 

was considering clarifying which 

nonpermit-related violations we might 

take into account in penalizing a 

permittee or lessee. This was a very 

controversial issue. Although we 

considered removing several of the 

identified Federal and state laws and 

regulations from the list of prohibited 

acts, we determined that we did not have 

sufficient justification for making this 

change in the proposed rule. However it 

is included in an alternative. 

• Although the only reference to 

monitoring in the ANPR was with 

respect to the definition, numerous 

comments were received from the public 

regarding the need for monitoring and 

for basing decisions on monitoring. In 

particular, there was public support for 

requiring that monitoring data be used 

in evaluating and determining if existing 

grazing management practices or levels 

of grazing use are significant factors 

in failing to achieve the standards 

and conform with the guidelines for 

grazing administration. For this reason, 

the proposed action incorporates 

a requirement for using standards 

assessment and monitoring in arriving 

at the determination called for in 

§4180.2(c). In addition, an alternative 

is provided which allows discretion by 

the BLM manager in using assessment 

and monitoring data in making such 

determinations. 

• It was stated in the ANPR that BLM was 

considering changes to the definition 

of grazing preference. Ranchers and 

livestock industry representatives 

were strongly in favor of returning to 

the pre-ʼ95 regulatory definition of 

“preference” which defined the term 

as the total number of animal unit 

months of livestock grazing on public 

lands apportioned and attached to base 

property owned or controlled by the 

permittee or lessee. The BLM adopted 

this recommendation in the proposed 

regulation, but maintained the concept 

from the current regulatory definition 

that “preference” also means a “superior 

or priority position against others for the 

purpose of receiving a grazing permit or 

lease” (§4100.0-5). 

The public provided many thoughtful 

comments on the other issues raised in the 

ANPR as well as issues not addressed in 

1-24 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 1

Introduction

the ANPR. There were many differing 

opinions about the pros and cons of 

various regulatory provisions and these 

comments were seriously considered in this 

rulemaking. More detailed descriptions and 

summaries of the public scoping comments 

are found in Chapter 5 of this EIS. 

1.3.3 Issuance of Proposed Rule and 

Draft EIS

Based on the review and evaluation of 

the scoping comments, proposed revisions to 

the grazing regulations were developed and 

a draft EIS prepared. On December 5, 2003, 

the Department of the Interior Secretary, 

Gale Norton, announced the proposed rule 

at a meeting in New Mexico. On December 

8, 2004, the proposed rule was published in 

the Federal Register. The Environmental 

Protection Agency notice of availability 

(NOA) of the draft EIS on the proposed rule 

was published in the Federal Register on 

January 2, 2004 initiating a 60-day public 

review period for the draft EIS. The BLM 

issued its NOA for the draft EIS in the 

Federal Register on January 6, 2004. A 

subsequent Federal Register notice modified 

the comment period for the proposed rule 

so that it too ended on March 2, 2004, 

concurrent with the end of the comment 

period for the draft EIS.

Five public meetings were announced 

in the NOA. Due to public interest a 

sixth meeting was added to the schedule. 

Transcripts of the public meetings are posted 

on the Internet and may be accessed at 

www.blm.gov/grazing. The following is a 

summary of attendance at the public meetings 

held on the proposed rule and draft EIS:

Site Date Approximate 

Attendance 

Number of 

Speakers

Salt Lake City, Utah January 27, 2004 90 25

Phoenix, Arizona January 28, 2004 30 17

Boise, Idaho January 31, 2004 45 14

Billings, Montana February 2, 2004 31 19

Cheyenne, Wyoming February 3, 2004 29 14

Washington, D.C. February 5, 2004 17 6 

The proposed rule and draft EIS 

were both posted on BLM ʻs Web site. 

Approximately 18,000 comment letters 

or e-mails were received. Comments are 

posted on the Internet and may be accessed 

at www.blm.gov/nhp/news/regulatory/

index.htm. 

Oral and written comments were coded, 

reviewed and evaluated by the BLM. Because 

of the volume of comments received, 

summary comments were developed for 

similar substantive comments. Responses to 

the summary comments are found in Chapter 

5 of this EIS. 

1-25
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.4 Rulemaking and EIS 

Process and Schedule

The general process for a rulemaking 

is as follows: Federal rulemakings are 

governed by the Administrative Procedure 

Act (APA) which, among other things, gives 

the public, with some exceptions, the right 

to participate in the rulemaking process by 

commenting on proposed rules. Agencies 

may publish an Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (ANPR) as a means of obtaining 

public comment on issues the agency is 

considering addressing in a proposed rule. 

After consideration of any public comments, 

the agency publishes the proposed rule in 

the Federal Register for a set period of 

time for the receipt of comments from the 

public. All comments are considered and 

changes may be made to the final rule on the 

basis of comments received. The final rule is 

also published in the Federal Register with 

the effective date 30 days, or in the case of a 

significant rule, 60 days from the publication 

date. The rulemaking then becomes part 

of the Code of Federal Regulations. 

The preparation of an environmental 

impact statement (EIS) is governed by 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 (NEPA) and the Council on 

Environmental Quality implementing 

regulations at 40 CFR Parts 1500-

1508. When a proposed action, including 

a proposed regulatory or legislative 

recommendation, is projected to have a 

significant effect on the quality of the human 

environment an EIS must be prepared. An 

EIS is intended to provide decision makers 

and the public with a complete and objective 

evaluation of significant environmental 

Figure 1-4. The EIS and rulemaking process.

Planning and Organizing

Bureauwide

Interdisciplinary Team

Established for EIS

Advance Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking

published in Federal Register

EIS Notice of

Intent Published

in Federal Register

Public

Scoping

of Issues

Rulemaking

Drafting

Begins

Bureau I.D.

Team Meet to

Design EIS

Final Outline

of EIS

Developed

I.D. Team

Works on

Draft EIS

I.D. Team

Works on

Draft EIS

Public Mailing

List Prepared

Among States

Rough Draft of

EIS Receives

Internal Review

Draft EIS

Revised

and Printed

Notice of

Availability

of Draft EIS

and Proposed

Rule Published

in Federal Register

Notice of

Availability

of Draft EIS

and Proposed

Rule Published

in Federal Register

Draft EIS

and Proposed

Rule Public

Comment

Period

Closes

Draft EIS

and Proposed

Rule Public

Comment

Period

Closes

Public

Comments

on Proposed

Rule and

Draft EIS

are Analyzed

Public

Comments

on Proposed

Rule and

Draft EIS

are Analyzed

Notice of

Availability

of Final

EIS Published

in Federal

Register

Notice of

Availability

of Final

EIS Published

in Federal

Register

Final Rule

and Record

of Decision

Published

in Federal

Register

Final Rule

and Record

of Decision

Published

in Federal

Register

Implementation

Environmental Analysis

Final EIS and Record Decision and Final Rule

Grazing Environmental Impact Statement and Rulemaking

EIS and Rulemaking Process

1-26 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 1

Introduction

effects, both beneficial and adverse, resulting 

from a proposed action and all reasonable 

alternatives. An EIS is the major vehicle 

for fulfilling the substantive environmental 

goals set forth in NEPA. The EIS process 

begins with the publication of a Notice of 

Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS and request 

for public input. Public scoping meetings are 

also generally announced in the NOI. This 

early public process is known as scoping and 

must be open for a minimum of 30 days. The 

purpose of scoping, among other things, is to 

involve the public and affected agencies early 

in the process and to help identify significant 

issues to be analyzed, as well as alternatives 

and potential effects to be addressed. After 

scoping, the agency prepares a draft EIS. The 

draft EIS identifies the purpose and need for 

the proposed action, identifies alternatives, 

including the proposed action, the no action 

alternative, and other alternatives that meet 

the purpose and need; describes the affected 

environment; identifies the effects of the 

alternatives on the human environment; and 

summarizes consultation and coordination 

accomplished in the preparation of the draft 

EIS. The draft EIS is then released for public 

review, at least for 45 days but more 

typically for 60 days. After public review 

and consideration of all comments, the 

agency issues a final EIS in which responses 

are provided to all comments on the draft and 

any changes in the EIS are incorporated in 

the final EIS, including any changes in the 

proposed action. The final EIS is released 

for 30 days, after which the agency issues a 

record of decision (ROD) which sets forth the 

agencyʼs final decision on the action. 

Figure 1.4 graphically displays the EIS 

and rulemaking process.

1.5 Relation to Other 

Policies, Programs, and 

Plans

The BLM initiated or is a partner in 

the development of a number of policy and 

program efforts related to the management 

of grazing on public lands. These efforts are 

summarized below:

Sustaining Working Landscapes Policy 

Initiative 

On March 25, 2003, the BLM announced 

the initiation of a public process to gather 

input on actions the BLM could take to 

achieve the goals of the Sustaining Working 

Landscapes Initiative (SWL). The idea was 

to begin identifying means for improving 

the long-term health and productivity of the 

public lands through innovative partnerships 

with permittees and lessees within the present 

regulatory framework.

Twenty-three public workshops were held 

in the West and one was held in Washington, 

D.C. At those workshops we introduced 

several concepts for consideration, including 

Conservation Partnerships, Reserve 

Common Allotments, Voluntary Allotment 

Restructuring, Conservation Easements, 

and Endangered Species Mitigation. The 

public raised many valuable comments 

and legitimate concerns. As a result of the 

workshops, as well as a national meeting of 

BLM Resource Advisory Council (RAC) 

representatives held in Washington, D.C., it 

was decided in April that the BLM would 

benefit from more involvement and advice 

from our established advisory councils 

throughout the West before moving forward 

with the Sustaining Working Landscapes 

Initiative. 

It was decided not to try to develop 

policy guidance--even in draft form. Rather, 

the BLM reviewed the comments from the 

1-27
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 1

Introduction

workshops and provided responses to many 

of the questions raised. This information was 

then provided to the RACs. 

The major components considered in the 

Sustaining Working Landscapes Initiative 

and reviewed by the RACs are summarized 

below:

(1) Forming Conservation Partnerships 

with Grazing Permittees and Lessees--

Authorized under FLPMA, Conservation 

Partnerships allow permittees and lessees 

to voluntarily enter into contracts or 

agreements with the BLM to achieve upland 

recovery, riparian-wetland restoration, 

enhanced or improved water quality and 

quantity, improved wildlife or fisheries 

habitat, and listed species recovery. In 

return, conservation partnerships would 

allow permittees and lessees to seek grants 

to pay for labor and materials invested in 

conservation practices or provide increased 

management flexibility within agreed-on 

parameters.

(2) Voluntary Allotment Restructuring 

by Permittees to Improve Range Conditions-

-Voluntary allotment restructuring involves 

merging two or more allotments in which one 

or more of the permittees or lessees agrees 

to temporarily not graze their livestock. The 

other permittees or lessees would then be 

allowed to graze their herds over the entire 

area, resulting in lighter grazing use. The 

goal is to improve range conditions while 

supporting permittee economic viability.

(3) Establishment of Nonregulatory 

Policy for Reserve Common Allotments--

Reserve Common Allotments (RCAs) would 

be managed as reserve forage areas to 

restore and recover rangeland. The BLM 

would allow RCAs to be used by permittees 

and lessees who are engaged in rangeland 

restoration and recovery activities that require 

them to rest their customary allotments. By 

temporarily shifting their livestock to RCAs, 

permittees and lessees would be able to rest 

their allotments while still meeting their 

economic needs.

(4) Encouraging Creative Ways to 

Achieve Endangered Species Act Objectives-

-The preceding SWL elements all provide 

options for mitigating effects on listed 

species resulting from livestock grazing. 

For example, Conservation Partnerships 

could be used to restore rangelands, which 

benefit listed species. RCAs are intended 

to be grazed intermittently, but not to 

a degree inconsistent with their longterm conservation objective. Restructured 

allotments could incorporate forage reserves 

for grazing. Conservation easements 

could serve as mitigation for some listed 

species. Mitigation banks could also be an 

option under these concepts. They would 

permanently preserve or create listed species 

habitat, and then use that habitat as a source 

of mitigation credits to be sold to other land 

users to mitigate land development effects 

on listed species in order to comply with the 

Endangered Species Act.

The twenty-three (23) affected RACs 

in the West met throughout the summer 

and fall of 2003. RAC comments and 

recommendations were submitted to the 

BLM State Directors and forwarded to the 

Director in November 2003. These comments 

and recommendations will be used, along 

with feedback from this rulemaking, in any 

future effort to develop a Sustaining Working 

Landscapes policy initiative. BLM decided, 

however, to defer any further consideration of 

the policy initiative until after the completion 

of revisions to the grazing regulations.

Healthy Forests Initiative 

The Healthy Forests Initiative is a 

Presidential initiative that aims to reduce 

unnecessary regulatory obstacles and allows 

for more effective and timely forest and 

rangeland health actions. It will reduce the 

1-28 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 1

Introduction

cost and time required to plan treatments that 

are designed to improve forest and rangeland 

health, by expediting Endangered Species Act 

consultations and streamlining environmental 

assessments. These measures will help 

protect forests and grazing lands from 

devastating wildfires caused by excessive 

fuel buildup. 

The new procedures preserve the 

principle of partnerships with local 

communities and interests. Fuels treatment 

projects carried out under the Healthy 

Forests Initiative will be collaborative, 

including all local stakeholders and partners. 

 

National Fire Plan 

The Department of the Interior, the 

Forest Service and states are collaborating 

on the implementation of the National 

Fire Plan through guidance provided by 

the Collaborative Approach for Reducing 

Wildland Fire Risk for Communities and 

the Environment Ten Year Comprehensive 

Strategy (hereinafter referred to as the 

Ten Year Comprehensive Strategy) and 

the Ten Year Comprehensive Strategy 

Implementation Plan. The agencies 

have installed tracking and reporting 

mechanisms to provide accountability as 

accomplishments are made in firefighting, 

rehabilitation and restoration, hazardous 

fuels reduction, community assistance, and 

research. Collaboration with state and local 

governments is an important component of 

the Implementation Plan.

The National Fire Plan sets a longterm investment that will help protect 

communities, natural resources, and the lives 

of firefighters and the public. It is a longterm commitment based on cooperation and 

communication among Federal agencies, 

States, local governments, Tribes, and 

interested publics. 

Like the Healthy Forests Initiative, an 

integral element of the National Fire Plan is 

to reduce excess forest and rangeland fuels 

which contribute to catastrophic fires and can 

harm adjoining grazing land.

Vegetation Treatment EIS 

The BLM is preparing a national 

programmatic EIS to update four existing 

EISs for 13 western States, and to analyze 

vegetative treatments in four other western 

States and Alaska. The Vegetation Treatment 

EIS would examine the effects of such 

treatment as prescribed fire, herbicides and 

biological control agents, and mechanical and 

manual extraction.

As part of the EIS, the BLM will also 

evaluate the potential risks to humans, fish, 

and wildlife from several new herbicides 

that were not evaluated in earlier EISs. The 

BLM will also develop protocols as part of 

the EIS that will allow it to evaluate risks 

from chemicals that may be developed in the 

future. 

The Vegetation Treatment EIS 

would analyze restoration activities such 

as prescribed fire, understory thinning, forest 

health treatments, or other activities related to 

restoring fire-adapted ecosystems.

BLM Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation 

Strategy 

The BLM is presently working to help 

reverse the declining populations of the 

greater sage-grouse, a species under review 

for federal listing under the ESA, through 

development of a comprehensive agency 

habitat conservation strategy. In addition, 

the BLM is working closely with each of 

the eleven state wildlife agencies that are 

completing state-level conservation plans. 

The BLMʼs conservation efforts will be 

1-29
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 1

Introduction

integrated into these state-level conservation 

plans. 

Before the arrival in the West of settlers 

of European descent, sage-grouse were 

widely distributed, inhabiting sagebrush 

habitats across areas that are now portions 

of at least 12 western States and three 

provinces in Canada. Sage-grouse have 

since been extirpated from 1 State and 1 

Province. In 1998, a leading sage-grouse 

researcher estimated that overall distribution 

of all sage-grouse had decreased by an 

estimated 50 percent since settlement of the 

West began, and that the apparent breeding 

population size had decreased from 45 to 80 

percent since the early 1950ʼs, with much of 

that decrease occurring since 1980. At that 

time, the rangewide spring population of 

sage-grouse was estimated at 142,000 birds. 

This estimate included what in 2000 was 

recognized as the Gunnison sage-grouse, 

a new species whose decline in range and 

numbers far exceeds that of the now greater 

sage-grouse. There is no single factor 

responsible for the declines. Rather, it is 

primarily a combination of the continuing, 

loss, degradation and fragmentation of the 

habitats to which they are so closely tied, 

exacerbated by periodic drought. 

Today the BLM manages over 50 percent 

of the remaining greater sage-grouse habitat. 

The BLM Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation 

Strategy describes the actions necessary 

to conserve sage-grouse and their habitats 

on BLM land. Each BLM state within the 

range of the sage-grouse will develop a 

state-level, BLM-specific strategy. Both the 

BLM national and state strategies are being 

developed to complement state wildlife 

agency led conservation efforts.

The Strategy will provide BLM managers 

in different states with consistent guidance to 

aid the development of their respective sagegrouse BLM state-level habitat conservation 

strategies by making recommendations to 

ensure conservation of sagebrush habitat and 

sagebrush dependent species. The strategy is 

a sage-grouse range-wide effort that involves 

a diverse group of cooperators including 

multiple Federal, state and Tribal agencies 

as well as special interest groups and private 

landowners.

Appropriate and timely conservation 

measures for sage-grouse are critical to 

preventing further population declines and 

ESA listing of the species. Once a species 

is listed, land management activities and 

uses become more restrictive. Pro-active 

conservation measures on BLMʼs part may be 

the key to preventing the ESA listing of the 

sage-grouse.

1-30 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed 

Action and Alternatives

2-1

Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

Chapter 2 Table of Contents

2.0 Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5

2.1 Alternative One: No Change in Regulations (No Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9

 2.1.1 Social, Economic, and Cultural Considerations in the

 Decision-Making Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9

 2.1.2 Implementation of Changes in Grazing Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9

 2.1.3 Range Improvement Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10

 2.1.4 Cooperation with State, Local, and County Established Grazing Boards . . . . 2-11

 2.1.5 Review of Biological Assessments and Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11

 2.1.6 Temporary Nonuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12

 2.1.7 Basis for Rangeland Health Determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12

 2.1.8 Timeframe for Taking Action to Meet Rangeland Health Standards . . . . . . . . 2-13

 2.1.9 Conservation Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13

 2.1.10 Definition of Preference, Permitted Use, and Active Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13

 2.1.11 Definition and Role of the Interested Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13

 2.1.12 Water Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14

 2.1.13 Satisfactory Performance of Permittee or Lessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14

 2.1.14 Changes in Grazing Use Within the Terms and Conditions

 of Permit or Lease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15

 2.1.15 Service Charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15

 2.1.16 Prohibited Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15

 2.1.17 Grazing Use Pending Resolution of Appeals When

 Decision Has Been Stayed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-18

 2.1.18 Treatment of Biological Assessments and Evaluations in the

 Grazing Decision-Making Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-18

2.2 Alternative Two: Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-18

 2.2.1 Social, Economic, and Cultural Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-19

 2.2.2 Implementation of Changes in Grazing Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-19

 2.2.3 Range Improvement Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-19

 2.2.4 Cooperation with Tribal, State, County, or Local

 Government-Established Grazing Boards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-20

 2.2.5 Review of Biological Assessments and Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-20

 2.2.6 Temporary Nonuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-20

 2.2.7 Basis for Rangeland Health Determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-21

 2.2.8 Timeframe for Taking Action to Meet Rangeland Health Standards . . . . . . . . 2-21

 2.2.9 Conservation Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-22

 2.2.10 Definition of Preference, Permitted Use, and Active Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-23

 2.2.11 Definition and Role of the Interested Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-24

 2.2.12 Water Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-25

 2.2.13 Satisfactory Performance of Permittee or Lessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-25

 2.2.14 Changes in Grazing Use Within the Terms and

 Conditions of Permit or Lease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-26

2-3
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

 2.2.15 Service Charges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-27

 Table 2.2.15-A. BLM costs to process billings

 and miscellaneous permits, 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-28

 Table 2.2.15-B. BLM costs to process grazing preference transfers

 and related actions, 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-29

 2.2.16 Prohibited Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-29

 2.2.17 Grazing Use Pending Resolution of Appeals When

 Decision Has Been Stayed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-30

 2.2.18 Treatment of Biological Assessments and Evaluations

 in the Grazing Decision-Making Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-30

2.3 Alternative Three: Modified Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-31

 2.3.1 Implementation of Changes in Grazing Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-31

 2.3.2 Temporary Nonuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-31

 2.3.3 Basis for Rangeland Health Determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-31

 2.3.4 Prohibited Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-31

2.4 Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed in Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-32

2.5 Comparison of the Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-38

 Table 2.5. Proposed revisions to grazing regulations for the public lands: 

 comparison of alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-38

2.6 Comparison of the Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-49

 Table 2.6. Comparison of the effects across alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-49

2-4 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

2.0 Description of the Proposed Action and 

Alternatives

Chapter 2 contains detailed descriptions 

of the grazing regulation alternatives. These 

alternatives provide an array of options that 

respond to both the purpose of and need 

for regulatory changes and the issues and 

concerns raised in scoping as discussed in 

Chapter 1. 

As indicated in Chapter 1, this 

rulemaking is relatively narrow in scope and 

is an attempt to address several distinct issues 

that have been identified since the 1995 

grazing reforms. Each proposed regulatory 

change is largely independent and may 

have been triggered by concerns that do not 

directly apply to the others. The collection 

of proposed changes has been grouped 

together into a single Proposed Action 

Alternative. The modified-action alternative 

is a collection of other possibilities that were 

worthy of extended analysis. Although the 

changes have been grouped into broader 

alternatives, BLM will continue to maintain 

a focus on the individual proposals during 

the decisionmaking process. It is thus 

quite possible that the final action may 

include pieces from all three of the broader 

alternatives.

The alternatives include: Alternative 

One—No Change in Regulations, which is 

also known as the “No Action” Alternative 

(Section 2.1); Alternative Two—the Proposed 

Action, which presents the BLMʼs proposed 

amendments to the regulations (Section 2.2); 

and Alternative Three—the Modified Action 

Alternative, which is similar to the proposed 

action with some modifications (Section 2.3). 

The proposed regulation revisions as 

reflected in the Proposed Action Alternative 

address 18 key issues as follows: 

• Social, Economic and Cultural 

Considerations in the Decision-Making 

Process 

• Implementation of Changes in Grazing 

Use 

• Range Improvement Ownership 

• Cooperation with state, Local, and 

County Established Grazing Boards 

• Review on Biological Assessments and 

Evaluations 

• Temporary Nonuse 

• Basis for Rangeland Health 

Determinations 

• Timeframe for Taking Action to Meet 

Rangeland Health Standards 

• Conservation Use 

• Definition of Grazing Preference, 

Permitted Use, and Active Use 

• Definition and Role of the Interested 

Public 

• Water Rights 

• Satisfactory Performance of Permittee or 

Lessee 

• Changes in Grazing Use Within Terms 

and Conditions of Permit or Lease 

• Service Charges 

• Prohibited Acts 

2-5
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

• Grazing Use Pending Resolution of 

Appeals When Decision Has Been Stayed 

• Treatment of Biological Assessments 

and Evaluations in the Grazing DecisionMaking Process 

In addition to the key issues identified 

above, there are some additional regulatory 

text clarifications and minor modifications 

being proposed. These latter changes are 

shown in the strike-and-replace version of 

the proposed rule in Appendix A.1. A clean 

version of the proposed regulations without 

strike-and-replace is shown in Appendix A.2.

Alternatives considered but not analyzed 

in detail are presented in Section 2.4. These 

alternatives include some proposals that 

were initially considered by the BLM a 

well as recommendations from the public. 

The rationale for not considering these 

alternatives is also discussed.

A comparison of all alternatives by key 

elements is presented in Section 2.5 (Table 

2.5) of this Chapter. In Section 2.6 (Table 

2.6) a summary comparison of effects across 

the alternatives is presented.

Changes in Chapter 2 between the draft 

and final EIS are listed below:

• Changes in proposed action based on 

comments and review of draft EIS:

o 2.2.4 Cooperation with Tribal, 

state, county, or Local GovernmentEstablished Grazing Boards – Added 

Tribal agencies and boards to list 

of entities with which BLM would 

cooperate; also added Tribal to title 

of section and to general provision on 

cooperation.

o 2.2.5 Review of Biological 

Assessments and Evaluations 

– Removed reference to review 

of biological assessments and 

evaluations as examples of reports 

subject to review and input by 

affected permittees or lessees, the 

state and the interested public.

o 2.2.6 Temporary Nonuse – Changed 

provision to state that authorized 

officer “may authorize nonuse” as 

opposed to “will authorize nonuse”; 

also clarified that applications for 

temporary changes in use must be in 

writing and submitted on or before the 

date requested for the grazing use to 

begin.

o 2.2.7 Timeframe for Taking Action 

to Meet Rangeland Health Standards 

– Added a provision allowing BLM 

to extend the timeframe to formulate, 

propose and analyze an appropriate 

action to address a failure to meet 

standards or to conform to guidelines 

if a legally required process that 

is beyond the control of the BLM 

prevented the BLM from meeting 

the 24 month deadline for making a 

decision.

o 2.2.10 Definition of Preference, 

Permitted Use, and Active Use – In 

the definition of “active use”, we 

substituted the word “livestock” 

for “rangeland” in the reference to 

carrying capacity.

o 2.2.11 Definition and Role of 

the Interested Public – Modified 

definition to make it clear that a 

request to be considered as interested 

public must identify the specific 

allotment(s) in which the person or 

entity is interested; also when the 

interested public submits comments 

or otherwise participates they must 

address the management of a specific 

allotment.

2-6 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

o 2.2.14 Changes in Grazing Use 

Within the Terms and Conditions of 

Permit or Lease – Removed reasons 

for allowing temporary changes 

in grazing use; also clarified that 

applications for temporary changes in 

use must be in writing and submitted 

on or before the date requested for 

the grazing use to begin; provided 

for more flexibility in period of use 

if such flexibility was specified in an 

appropriate allotment management 

plan.

o 2.2.17 Grazing Use Pending 

Resolution of Appeals When Decision 

Has Been Stayed – Added a provision 

allowing BLM to make full force and 

effect decisions on nonrenewable 

grazing permits or leases or on 

applications for grazing use on annual 

or designated ephemeral rangelands; 

removed the special stay provision 

addressing grazing use if a stay is 

granted related to an appeal of a 

decision on nonrenewable permits 

or leases or ephemeral or annual 

rangeland grazing use; substituted 

“immediately preceding permit or 

lease” for “immediately preceding 

authorization” in the provision 

regarding grazing use when a term 

permit or lease is stayed or when a 

term permit or lease subsequent to a 

preference transfer is stayed; added 

language to clarify that special stay 

provisions may apply to all or part 

of a decision on term permits or 

leases or decisions on those related 

to preference transfers; separated and 

clarified the discussion of grazing 

use when a stay is granted on a term 

permit or lease from the discussion 

of grazing use when a stay is granted 

on a permit or lease subsequent to a 

preference transfer. 

• Additions or changes to improve clarity 

and provide new information:

o 2.1.3 Range Improvement Ownership 

– Added “or other party” to clarify 

that other parties may cooperate 

besides permittee or lessee in 

development and ownership of range 

improvement under cooperative range 

improvement agreements

o 2.1.5 Review of Biological 

Assessments and Evaluations 

– Modified definitions of biological 

assessment and biological evaluation 

to conform with definitions in 

regulations and guidance; clarified 

that BLM is to provide, to the 

extent practical, an opportunity for 

affected permittees, lessees, states 

and interested public to review and 

provide input on reports used as 

basis for decisions to change grazing 

permits or leases. 

o 2.1.18 Treatment of Biological 

Assessments and Evaluations in the 

Grazing Decision-Making Process 

– Modified definitions of biological 

assessment and biological evaluation 

to conform with definitions in 

regulations and guidance. Also 

made some nonsubstantive editorial 

changes; corrected citation to Blake v. 

BLM IBLA case.

o 2.2.4 Cooperation with Tribal, 

state, county, or Local GovernmentEstablished Grazing Boards – Added 

that cooperation satisfies FLPMA 

section 401(b)(1) and that it would 

bring regulations into compliance 

2-7
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

with E.O. 13352 of August 26, 

2004, Facilitation of Cooperative 

Conservation.

o 2.2.7 Basis for Rangeland Health 

Determinations – Clarified that both 

assessments and monitoring are 

required only for determinations 

that existing grazing management 

practices or levels of grazing use 

are significant factors in failing to 

achieve standards and conform with 

guidelines.

o 2.2.8 Timeframe for Taking Acton to 

Meet Rangeland Health Standards – 

Clarified that BLM would be required 

to take action to assist in achieving 

the fundamentals of rangeland health 

only if the fallback standards and 

guidelines are in place. Also provided 

additional rationale for 24 month 

timeframe.

o 2.2.12 Water Rights – Clarified 

description of proposed change 

in regulation pertaining to water 

rights; provided additional rationale 

for removing requirement that, to 

the extent allowed by state law, 

livestock water rights must be 

acquired, perfected, maintained and 

administered in the name of the 

United States.

o 2.2.13 Satisfactory Performance 

of Permittee or Lessee – Clarified 

that this provision also addresses 

applicants for permits or leases 

subsequent to a preference transfer.

o 2.2.14 Changes in Grazing Use 

Within the Terms and conditions 

of Permit or Lease - Clarified that 

nonuse is considered a “change in 

grazing use within the terms and 

conditions of a permit or lease”; 

deleted use of the term “range 

readiness” in discussion of when 

range is “ready” to be grazed; added 

text recognizing that allotment 

management plans could also be used 

to provide for flexibility in grazing 

begin and end dates.

o 2.2.15 Service Charges – Added 

discussion of basis for service charges 

as well as added two tables of cost 

data which was used in helping to 

arrive at proposed service charge 

levels.

o 2.2.18 Treatment of Biological 

Assessments and Evaluations in the 

Grazing Decision-Making Process 

- Modified definitions of biological 

assessment and biological evaluation 

to conform with definitions in 

regulations and guidance; deleted 

references to provisions on review 

of biological assessments and 

evaluations; added rationale and 

further discussion of the Blake 

decision. 

o 2.3.3 Basis for Rangeland Health 

Determinations – Clarified that this 

provision only applies only to those 

determinations that existing grazing 

management practices or levels of 

grazing use are significant factors 

in failing to achieve standards and 

conform with guidelines.

o 2.4 Alternatives Considered But 

Not Analyzed in Detail – Provided 

discussion on why additional 

alternatives were not incorporated 

regarding (1) the timeframe for taking 

action to meet rangeland health 

standards and (2) the implemention 

of changes in grazing use.

2-8 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

o Table 2.5 Comparison of the 

Alternatives – Modified to reflect 

changes in proposed action as 

described above.

o Table 2.6 Comparison of the Impacts 

Across Alternatives – Modified to 

reflect changes in impact analysis as 

described in Chapter Four.

2.1 Alternative One: No 

Change in Regulations 

(No Action)

The regulations that direct the BLM in 

administering its rangeland management 

program are found in 43 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) 4100. The objectives of 

these regulations are to: 

1. Promote healthy, sustainable rangeland 

ecosystems; 

2. Accelerate restoration and improvement 

of public rangelands to properly 

functioning conditions; 

3. Promote the orderly use, improvement, 

and development of the public lands; 

4. Establish efficient and effective 

administration of grazing of public 

rangelands; and 

5. Provide for the sustainability of 

the western livestock industry and 

communities that are dependent on 

productive, healthy public rangelands. 

Under the “No Action” alternative there 

would be no change in the regulations and 

the BLM would continue to operate in 

accordance with existing regulations and 

policies. The following are the key elements 

of the present regulations that are addressed 

in this EIS.

2.1.1 Social, Economic, and Cultural 

Considerations in the DecisionMaking Process

Language would not be added to the 

existing grazing regulations specifically 

addressing the need for compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

of 1969 (Public Law 91-90; 42 U.S.C. 4321 

et seq.) in making decisions on changes in 

grazing use. All grazing decisions would 

continue to be subject to compliance with 

NEPA, including requirements to use a 

systematic interdisciplinary approach that 

ensures the integrated use of natural and 

social sciences in planning and decisionmaking affecting the human environment. 

An environmental assessment is prepared 

for most grazing decisions. Environmental 

analyses prepared under NEPA would 

continue to address the effects of proposed 

actions and alternatives considered, 

including effects defined under NEPA 

to include ecological, aesthetic, historic, 

cultural, economic, social, or health effects, 

whether direct, indirect, or cumulative (40 

CFR 1508.8). If there are no effects in a 

certain category, for example, on health, the 

environmental assessment generally does not 

address that topic. Field interpretation and 

application of guidelines to analyze social, 

economic, and cultural considerations would 

be less consistent in the absence of regulatory 

emphasis. To minimize paperwork, NEPA 

documentation is generally limited to those 

topics involving effects. 

2.1.2 Implementation of Changes in 

Grazing Use

As stated in the present grazing 

regulations, at §4110.3-3(a), after all 

2-9
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

consultation requirements are fulfilled, 

reductions in grazing use would be 

implemented through a documented 

agreement or by decision of the authorized 

officer. Such decisions must be issued as 

proposed decisions subject to the provisions 

of §4160.1, except for the following: (1) 

when immediate protection of resources or 

imminent likelihood of significant resource 

damage necessitates grazing use closures or 

modifications to be effective upon issuance of 

or as specified in the final decision (§4110.3-

3(b)), and (2) when substantial risk of 

wildfire or immediate risk of erosion or other 

damage due to wildfire necessitates rangeland 

wildfire management decisions, such 

as fuel reduction projects using fire, 

mechanical, chemical, or biological 

thinning methods or projects to stabilize 

lands affected by wildfire, to be effective 

immediately or on the date established 

in the decision (§4190.1). No specific 

regulatory requirements would be established 

concerning how decisions to change levels of 

grazing use are to be implemented. 

2.1.3 Range Improvement 

Ownership

Range improvement projects are 

categorized as either “structural” 

or “nonstructural”. Structural range 

improvements may be either “permanent” 

or “temporary.” Examples of permanent 

structural range improvements include 

fences, wells, pipelines, guzzlers, and 

gabions. Examples of temporary structural 

range improvements include dip tanks, 

loading chutes, or portable water troughs. 

Nonstructural range improvements 

include vegetation treatments (spraying, 

vegetative seeding, chaining, and others). 

Either a “Cooperative Range Improvement 

Agreement” or a “Range Improvement 

Permit” is used to authorize construction 

of range improvement projects on lands 

administered by the BLM (§4120.3-1). 

Under the current regulations (No 

Action Alternative), title would continue 

to be held in the name of the United States 

to all permanent range improvements such 

as fences, wells, and pipelines authorized 

under “Cooperative Range Improvement 

Agreements” after August 21, 1995 (§4120.3-

2(b)) regardless of the level of investment 

by the permittee. All new permanent water 

developments such as spring developments, 

wells, reservoirs, stock tanks, and pipelines 

would continue to be required to be 

authorized under a “Cooperative Range 

Improvement Agreement.” “Cooperative 

Range Improvement Agreements” are used 

when the BLM and the livestock permittee or 

lessee or other party cooperatively cost-share 

the labor, equipment, or materials to build 

the project (§4120.3-2(a)). In such instances, 

the “Cooperative Range Improvement 

Agreement” outlines the costs contributed by 

each party and responsibilities for building 

and maintaining the improvement. 

Under Range Improvement Permits, used 

to authorize removable range improvements 

where all costs of the project are borne by 

the livestock permittee or lessee (§4120.3-

3), permittees or lessees would continue to 

have the option to hold title to temporary 

(removable) structural range improvements 

such as corrals, creep feeders, or portable 

water troughs placed on public lands under 

permit (§4120.3-3(c)). 

Permittees or lessees would continue 

to hold a financial interest in proportion to 

their contribution for permanent structural 

and nonstructural range improvements even 

though they do not hold title. If a grazing 

permit or lease is cancelled in order to 

devote the public lands to another public 

purpose, the permittee or lessee shall receive 

reasonable compensation from the United 

2-10 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

States for the adjusted value of their interest 

in the authorized improvement. Where a 

range improvement is authorized by a range 

improvement permit, the livestock operator 

may elect to salvage material owned by 

them and perform rehabilitation measures 

necessitated by that removal rather than be 

compensated for the adjusted value 

(§4120.3-6). 

As provided in §4120.3-1(e), neither 

a “Cooperative Range Improvement 

Agreement” nor “Range Improvement 

Permit” would convey to the permittee or 

cooperator any right, title, or interest in 

any lands or resources held by the United 

States. Furthermore, range improvement 

work performed by a cooperator or permittee 

on the public lands would not confer an 

exclusive right to use the improvement or the 

land affected by the range improvement work 

(§4120.3-2(d)). 

2.1.4 Cooperation with State, Local, 

and County Established Grazing 

Boards

The BLM would continue to be required 

to cooperate with involved agencies and 

governmental entities in managing the 

grazing program consistent with the present 

regulations in §4120.5-2. Requirements to 

cooperate, consistent with applicable laws 

of the United States, would continue to be 

limited to (1) agencies and governmental 

units that have programs and responsibilities 

involving grazing on public lands; (2) state, 

county, and Federal agencies administering 

laws and regulations relating to livestock, 

livestock diseases, sanitation, and noxious 

weeds; and 3) state cattle and sheep sanitary 

or brand boards and county or other local 

weed control districts. 

While it is generally present practice for 

BLM Field Offices to cooperate with state, 

county, or local government-established 

grazing boards, where they exist, cooperation 

would not be required by regulation. Contacts 

with local grazing boards generally include 

reviewing range improvements and allotment 

management plans. 

2.1.5 Review of Biological 

Assessments and Evaluations

Present grazing regulations do not 

specifically mention biological assessments 

or biological evaluations that are prepared 

to satisfy consultation requirements of 

the Endangered Species Act. A biological 

assessment (BA) is prepared by an agency 

to determine whether a proposed action is 

likely to: (1) adversely affect a listed species 

or designated critical habitat, (2) jeopardize 

the continued existence of species that are 

proposed for listing, or (3) adversely modify 

critical habitat. A biological evaluation 

(BE) is a documented review of an agencyʼs 

programs or activities in sufficient detail to 

determine how an action or proposed action 

may affect any threatened, endangered, 

proposed or sensitive species or proposed or 

designated critical habitat. 

Although the present regulations do 

not specifically mention any role for the 

permittee or lessee in the preparation of 

biological assessments or evaluations, su

ch assessments or evaluations are reports 

used as a basis for grazing decisions. The 

BLM is required, to the extent practicable, to 

provide affected permittees or lessees, as well 

as States having lands or responsibility for 

managing resources within the affected area, 

and the interested public, with an opportunity 

to review, comment, and give input during 

the preparation of reports that evaluate 

monitoring and other data that are used as 

a basis for making decisions to increase or 

decrease grazing use or to change the terms 

and conditions of a permit or lease 

(§4130.3-3). 

2-11
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

Thus, under present regulations, the 

BLM would continue to provide permittees, 

lessees, states, and the interested public 

with an opportunity to comment on and 

provide input to the preparation of biological 

assessments or evaluations as reports 

prepared in support of the decision making 

process. 

2.1.6 Temporary Nonuse

Grazing permittees or lessees would 

continue to be able to submit an annual 

application for temporary nonuse under 

existing regulations at §4130.2(g) for 

reasons including but not limited to 

financial conditions or annual fluctuations of 

livestock. Temporary nonuse is defined as the 

authorized withholding, on an annual basis, 

of all or a portion of permitted livestock 

use at the request of a permittee or lessee. 

Approval of temporary nonuse by the BLM 

could continue, on an annual basis, but could 

not continue for more than 3 consecutive 

years. The BLM would continue to have 

authority to annually apportion additional 

forage temporarily available as a result of 

authorized nonuse on a nonrenewable basis to 

qualified applicants (§4130.2(h); §4130.6-2).

2.1.7 Basis for Rangeland Health 

Determinations

The BLM would continue to manage 

activities under livestock grazing permits 

and leases based on standards and guidelines 

for grazing management developed by 

BLM State Directors in consultation with 

affected BLM resource advisory councils 

(§4180.2(b)). The standards and guidelines 

developed by State Directors apply the 

fundamentals of rangeland health set forth 

in §4180.1 of the grazing regulations. The 

fundamentals for rangeland health, as defined 

by BLM, include (1) watersheds that are in 

or are making significant progress toward 

proper functioning physical condition, (2) 

ecological processes that support or are 

making significant progress toward attaining 

healthy biotic populations and communities, 

(3) water quality that complies with state 

standards and achieves or is making 

significant progress toward achieving BLM 

management objectives, and (4) habitats for 

Federal threatened and endangered species, 

Federal Proposed, Category 1 and 2 Federal 

candidate, and other special status species 

that are maintained or restored or are making 

significant progress toward being maintained 

or restored (43 CFR 4180.1). 

The BLM authorized officer would 

continue to be required to take appropriate 

action when a “determination” has been made 

that grazing management practices or levels 

of grazing use on public lands are significant 

factors in failing to achieve the standards 

and conform with the guidelines for grazing 

management (§4180.2(c)). There are no 

requirements under the present regulations on 

how those determinations are made.

2.1.8 Timeframe for Taking 

Action to Meet Rangeland Health 

Standards

The BLM would continue to be required 

under current regulations to take appropriate 

action as soon as practicable but not later 

than the start of the next grazing year 

upon determining that existing grazing 

management needs to be modified to ensure 

that rangeland health conditions exist or 

progress is being made toward achieving 

rangeland health as described in §4180.1, 

Fundamentals of Rangeland Health. Where 

either Secretarial-approved or fallback 

standards and guidelines are effective, the 

BLM would continue to be required to take 

appropriate action as soon as possible but no 

later than the start of the next grazing year 

if existing grazing management practices or 

2-12 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

levels of use are determined by the authorized 

officer to be significant causal factors in 

failing to achieve standards and conform 

with guidelines for grazing administration 

(§4180.2(c)). 

This means that once a “determination” 

has been made, either under §4180.1 or 

§4180.2(c), the BLM authorized officer 

must—no later than the start of the next 

grazing year—consult, cooperate, and 

coordinate with the permittee or lessee, 

the state, and the interested public on 

possible actions to achieve standards; must 

complete any NEPA analysis requirements 

and documentation; must comply with any 

other applicable laws and requirements 

(e.g., Section 7 consultation under the 

Endangered Species Act if the proposed 

action “may affect” a listed species); must 

issue a proposed and final decision subject to 

protest and appeal, and must implement the 

“appropriate action.” 

2.1.9 Conservation Use

Though there are provisions in the present 

regulations, the BLM does not, and would 

not, issue conservation use permits. No 

such permits are in place. The existing 

regulations define conservation use as an 

activity, excluding livestock grazing, on all 

or a portion of an allotment for purposes 

of (1) protecting the land and its resources 

from destruction or unnecessary injury; 

(2) improving rangeland conditions; or (3) 

enhancing resource values, uses, or functions 

(§4100.0-5). Provisions are included in 

the existing regulations for authorizing 

conservation use for as long as 10 years 

under certain conditions. 

The provisions regarding conservation 

use were included in the 1995 grazing 

regulation amendments. These rules were 

challenged and in 1999 the 10th Circuit Court 

of Appeals upheld the lower courtʼs ruling 

that the Secretary of the Interior did not 

have the authority to issue conservation use 

permits. 

2.1.10 Definition of Preference, 

Permitted Use, and Active Use

Grazing administration would continue 

under definitions in the present regulations.

Grazing preference or preference is 

defined as a superior or priority position 

against others for the purpose of receiving 

a grazing permit or lease. This priority is 

attached to base property owned or controlled 

by the permittee or lessee (§4100.0-5). 

Permitted use is defined as the forage 

allocated by, or under the guidance of, an 

applicable land use plan for livestock grazing 

in an allotment under a permit or lease and 

is expressed in AUMS (§4100.0-5). Under 

present regulations, the term permitted use 

encompasses active use and suspended use. 

Active use means present authorized use, 

including livestock grazing and conservation 

use. Because conservation use was 

determined to be illegal by the 10th Circuit 

Court of Appeals, active use encompasses 

only authorized livestock grazing use. 

Active use may constitute a portion, or all, 

of permitted use. Active use doesnʼt include 

temporary nonuse or suspended use within all 

or portion of an allotment (§4100.0-5).

2.1.11 Definition and Role of the 

Interested Public

The BLM would continue to apply 

the definition of interested public and 

related requirements for interested public 

involvement in the grazing decisionmaking process as specified in the present 

regulations.

Interested public is defined as an 

individual, group, or organization that has 

submitted a written request to the authorized 

officer to be provided an opportunity to be 

involved in the decision-making process 

2-13
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

for the management of livestock grazing on 

specific allotments or has submitted written 

comments to the authorized officer regarding 

the management of livestock grazing on a 

specific allotment (§4100.0-5).

Generally, under present regulations, 

whenever the BLM is required to consult, 

cooperate, and coordinate with or seek review 

and comment from affected permittees 

or lessees or the state having lands or 

responsibility for managing resources within 

the area, present regulations also require 

doing so with the interested public. 

The following summarizes those 

instances where the BLM is required, under 

the present regulations, to consult, cooperate, 

and coordinate with the interested public:

• Designating and adjusting allotment 

boundaries (§4110.2-4). 

• Apportioning additional forage (§4110.3-

1(c)). 

• Reducing permitted use (§4110.3-3(a)). 

• Emergency closures or modifications 

(§4110.3-3(b)). 

• Development or modification of allotment 

management plans (§4120.2(a) & (e)). 

• Planning of the range developments or 

improvement programs—Consult only 

(§4120.3-8(c)). 

• Issuing or renewing grazing permit or 

lease (§4130.2(b)). 

• Modifying a permit or lease (§4130.3-3). 

• Issuing temporary nonrenewable grazing 

permits (§4130.6-2). 

Under the present regulations, the BLM is 

also required to provide the interested public 

an opportunity to review and comment and 

give input during the preparation of reports 

that evaluate monitoring and other data used 

as a basis for making decisions to increase or 

decrease grazing use or to change terms and 

conditions of a permit or lease (§4130.3-3). 

In addition, under the present regulations, 

the BLM is required to send copies of 

proposed and final decisions to the interested 

public (§4160.1(a) and §4160.3(b)).

2.1.12 Water Rights

Under the present regulations (§4120.3-

9), any right acquired on or after August 

21, 1995, to use water on public land for 

the purpose of livestock watering would 

be acquired, perfected, maintained, and 

administered under the substantive and 

procedural laws of the state within which 

such land is located. To the extent allowed 

by the law of the state within which the 

land is located, any such water right would 

be acquired, perfected, maintained, and 

administered in the name of the United 

States. 

States have primary authority and 

responsibility for the allocation of water 

(water rights) for specified beneficial 

uses, including livestock watering. Where 

provided for in state law, the BLM applies 

for appropriative water rights in conformance 

with state law and generally protests private 

applications for water rights on lands 

administered by the BLM. 

2.1.13 Satisfactory Performance of 

Permittee or Lessee

The BLM would continue to apply 

present regulations that identify requirements 

for satisfactory performance that must be 

met by applicants for renewal of existing 

or issuance of new permits and leases 

(§4110.1(b)). 

2-14 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

For a renewal, an applicant must be in 

substantial compliance with the terms and 

conditions of the existing permit or lease and 

with the rules and regulations applicable to 

the permit or lease in order to be deemed to 

have a satisfactory record of performance. 

The authorized officer may take into account 

circumstances beyond the control of the 

applicant seeking renewal of a permit or lease 

in making determinations of satisfactory 

performance (§4110.1(b)(1)). 

For a new permit or lease, applicants 

shall be deemed not to have a record of 

satisfactory performance when: 

• they have had any Federal grazing permit 

or lease cancelled for violations of the 

permit or lease within 36 months of their 

application; 

• they have had any state grazing permit 

or lease, for lands within the grazing 

allotment for which they are applying, 

canceled for violations within 36 months 

of their application; or 

• they are barred from holding a Federal 

grazing permit or lease by order of a court 

(§4110.1(b)(2)). 

2.1.14 Changes in Grazing Use 

Within the Terms and Conditions of 

Permit or Lease

The BLM would continue to apply 

present regulations allowing changes in 

grazing use within the terms and conditions 

of the permit or lease to be granted by the 

authorized officer (§4130.4). The regulations 

identify the following applications for 

changes covered by this section: 

• to activate forage in temporary nonuse or 

conservation use; 

• to place forage in temporary nonuse or 

conservation use; or 

• to use forage that is temporarily available 

on designated ephemeral or annual 

ranges. 

There are no provisions that define what 

is meant by “within the terms and conditions 

of the permit or lease” in the existing 

regulations. 

2.1.15 Service Charges

The BLM would continue to assess a 

$10 service charge for each crossing permit, 

transfer of grazing preference, application 

solely for nonuse, and replacement or 

supplemental billing notice (§4130.8-

3). Except for actions initiated by the BLM, 

regulations allow the BLM to assess a 

service fee for such actions. Pursuant to the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1734[a]), the service 

charge should reflect the BLMʼs processing 

costs and should be adjusted periodically as 

the processing costs change. The existing 

regulations do not specify the amount of the 

service charge. 

2.1.16 Prohibited Acts

The BLM would continue to have 

authority and discretion to apply penalties 

for specific prohibited acts to both permittees 

and other public land users. Upon violation of 

any provision of the grazing regulations by a 

livestock permittee or lessee, the BLM would 

be able to (1) withhold issuance of a grazing 

permit or lease; (2) suspend grazing use 

authorized under a grazing permit or lease, 

in whole or in part; or (3) cancel a grazing 

permit or lease and preference in whole or 

in part (§4170.1). Some actions could also 

be subject to the penalty provisions under 

the Taylor Grazing Act or the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act (§4170.2). 

2-15
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

In Subpart 4140, the present regulations 

have several provisions dealing with the 

consequences of committing certain specified 

prohibited acts. Some of the prohibited acts 

apply only to grazing permittees or lessees 

whereas others apply to anyone who commits 

those acts while on lands administered by the 

BLM. 

There are three categories of prohibited 

acts in the present regulations. 

The first category is found in §4140.1(a) 

and states that permittees and lessees who 

perform the prohibited acts listed under this 

section may be subject to civil penalties 

(e.g., withdrawal of issuance, suspension, 

or cancellation of permit or lease). Six 

prohibited acts are identified in this section 

including: 

• violations of terms and conditions of 

permits or leases; 

• failing to make substantial grazing use as 

authorized for 2 consecutive years; 

• placing supplemental feed on public lands 

without authorization; 

• failing to comply with terms, conditions, 

and stipulation of cooperative range 

improvement agreements or range 

improvement permits; 

• refusing to install, maintain, modify, or 

remove range improvements when so 

directed by the BLM; and 

• unauthorized leasing or subleasing. 

This first category of prohibited acts 

allows the BLM to address grazing violations 

and to take direct action against permittees or 

lessees for committing such violations.

A second category of prohibited acts is 

found in §4140.1(b). Any person (not only 

a permittee or lessee) who performs any of 

the 11 prohibited acts in this section will 

be subject to civil and criminal penalties. 

The prohibited acts identified in this section 

include: 

• allowing livestock or other privately 

owned or controlled animals to graze on 

or be driven across public lands without 

a permit or lease and an annual grazing 

authorization or in violation of any 

authorization; 

• installing, using, maintaining, modifying, 

or removing range improvements without 

authorization; 

• cutting, burning, spraying, destroying, 

or removing vegetation without 

authorization; 

• damaging or removing U.S. property 

without authorization; 

• molesting, harassing, injuring, poisoning, 

or causing death of livestock authorized 

to graze on these lands and removing 

authorized livestock without the ownerʼs 

consent; 

• littering; 

• interfering with lawful uses or users 

including obstructing free transit through 

or over public lands by force, threat, 

intimidation, signs, barriers, or locked 

gates; 

• knowingly and willfully making a 

false statement or representation in 

base property certifications, grazing 

applications, range improvement 

permit applications, cooperative range 

improvement agreements, actual use 

reports, or amendments thereto; 

2-16 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

• failing to pay any fee required by the 

authorized officer pursuant to this part, or 

making payment for grazing use of public 

lands with insufficiently funded checks 

on a repeated and willful basis; 

• failing to reclaim and repair any lands, 

property, or resources when required by 

the authorized officer; and 

• failing to reclose any gate or other entry 

during periods of livestock use. 

This second category of prohibited acts 

allows generally applicable enforcement 

actions on BLM public lands.

The third category of prohibited acts is 

found in §4140.1(c). Under this provision, 

the BLM may take civil action against a 

grazing permittee or lessee who commits 

these prohibited acts if the following four 

conditions are met: (1) public land is 

involved or affected, (2) the action is related 

to grazing use authorized by a BLM-issued 

permit or lease, (3) the permittee or lessee has 

been convicted or otherwise found to be in 

violation of any of these laws or regulations 

by a court or by final determination of any 

agency charged with the administration of 

these laws, and (4) no further appeals are 

outstanding. 

For this category of prohibited acts, 

unlike the first two categories, the primary 

responsibility for enforcement generally 

rests with another Federal or state agency, 

not the BLM. Prohibited acts in this category 

include: 

• Violation of Federal or state laws or 

regulations pertaining to the: 

o placement of poisonous bait or 

hazardous devices designed for the 

destruction of wildlife; 

o application or storage of pesticides, 

herbicides, or other hazardous 

materials; 

o alteration or destruction of natural 

stream courses without authorization; 

o pollution of water sources; 

o illegal take, destruction, or 

harassment, or aiding and abetting 

in the illegal take, destruction, or 

harassment of fish and wildlife 

resources; and 

o illegal removal or destruction of 

archaeological or cultural resources.

• Violation of the: 

o Bald Eagle Protection Act; 

o Endangered Species Act; or 

o the regulations concerning the 

protection and management of wild 

horses and burros.

• Violation of state livestock laws or 

regulations relating to: 

o the branding of livestock; 

o breed, grade, and number of bulls; 

o health and sanitation requirements; 

and 

o violating state, county, or local laws 

regarding the stray of livestock to 

areas that have been formally closed 

to open range grazing. 

Under this category, the BLM-issued 

permit or lease is not required to be related 

geographically to the location where the 

prohibited act occurred.

2-17
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

2.1.17 Grazing Use Pending 

Resolution of Appeals When 

Decision Has Been Stayed

The BLM would continue to operate 

under the administrative remedies regulations 

set forth in Subpart 4160. Described in 

detail are the procedures for issuing and 

protesting proposed decisions (§4160.1 and 

§4160.2) and issuing and appealing final 

decisions (§4160.3 and §4160.4). Procedures 

for requesting a stay of a final decision and 

allowable grazing use if a final decision is 

stayed are identified in §4160.3.

When the Office of Hearings and Appeals 

stays a final decision regarding an application 

for grazing authorization, an applicant who 

was granted grazing use in the preceding 

year may continue at that level of authorized 

grazing use during the time the decision 

is stayed. This provision does not apply if 

the grazing use in the preceding year was 

authorized on a temporary nonrenewable 

basis under §4110.3-1(a). Where the 

applicant had no authorized grazing use 

during the previous year, or the application 

is for designated ephemeral or annual 

rangeland grazing use, the grazing use under 

the stay is consistent with the final decision 

pending a final determination on the appeal 

(§4160.3(d)). 

When the Office of Hearings and Appeals 

stays a final decision to change the authorized 

grazing use, the grazing use authorized 

to the permittee or lessee during the time 

that the decision is stayed shall not exceed 

the permitteeʼs or lesseeʼs authorized use 

in the last year during which any use was 

authorized (§4160.3(e)).

2.1.18 Treatment of Biological 

Assessments and Evaluations in the 

Grazing Decision-Making Process

The present regulations do not 

specifically address biological assessments 

or biological evaluations prepared in 

compliance with consultation requirements 

of the Endangered Species Act. A biological 

assessment (BA) is prepared by an agency 

to determine whether a proposed action is 

likely to: (1) adversely affect a listed species 

or designated critical habitat, (2) jeopardize 

the continued existence of species that are 

proposed for listing, or (3) adversely modify 

critical habitat. A biological evaluation 

(BE) is a documented review of an agencyʼs 

programs or activities in sufficient detail to 

determine how an action or proposed action 

may affect any threatened, endangered, 

proposed or sensitive species or proposed or 

designated critical habitat. 

The IBLA has ruled that a biological 

assessment prepared under Section 7 of 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for a 

proposed action to permit grazing must 

be treated as a BLM decision subject to 

protest and appeal. Blake v. Bureau of Land 

Management, 145 IBLA 154 (1998), affʼd, 

156 IBLA 280 (2002).

Thus, under the No Action Alternative, 

biological assessments and evaluations would 

be treated as decisions subject to protest and 

appeal.

2.2 Alternative Two: 

Proposed Action

Alternative Two is the BLMʼs Proposed 

Action, which responds to the purpose and 

need described in Chapter 1 by changing 

certain elements of the agencyʼs present 

grazing regulations. The proposed changes 

are described below by element. In addition 

to the key elements, there are several 

nonsubstantive or editorial changes that 

would be made under this alternative. 

Nonsubstantive or editorial changes are 

shown in the strike-and-replace copy of the 

proposed regulations in Appendix A. 

2-18 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

2.2.1 Social, Economic, and Cultural 

Considerations

The Proposed Action would add a 

provision in §4110.3 that would require 

the BLM to analyze and, if appropriate, 

document the relevant social, economic, 

and cultural effects of the proposed action 

to change grazing preference. Such 

documentation would be incorporated in the 

appropriate NEPA document. The regulation 

would promote consistent treatment of effects 

when analyzing proposed grazing changes.

2.2.2 Implementation of Changes in 

Grazing Use

The BLM would modify how changes 

in active use are implemented through the 

proposed regulation. This modification to 

§4110.3-3 would provide that changes in 

active use of more than 10 percent would 

be phased in over a 5-year period unless 

the affected permittee or lessee agrees to a 

shorter period or the changes must be made 

before 5 years have passed to comply with 

applicable law. For example, if a biological 

opinion issued under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) required 

immediate implementation of a change in 

active use, then compliance with ESA would 

take precedence and there would not be a 5-

year phase-in in that instance. 

It is anticipated that, in practice, portions 

of the total change would be applied in years 

1, 3, and 5. The 5-year phase-in period for 

changes in active use would provide time 

for more gradual operational adjustments by 

grazing permittees or lessees to lessen sudden 

adverse economic effects that may arise from 

a reduction, or to allow time to plan livestock 

management changes or to adjust herd 

size. The phase-in period would also allow 

the BLM to monitor and observe the effects 

of the changes in increments. This 5-year 

phase-in period is similar to the regulations in 

effect in 1994.

2.2.3 Range Improvement 

Ownership

Under the proposed action, title to new, 

permanent, structural grazing-related range 

improvements such as fences, wells, and 

pipelines authorized under a Cooperative 

Range Improvement Agreement and 

constructed on public lands would be 

shared between the cooperator(s) and 

the United States in proportion to their 

initial contribution to on-the-ground 

project development and construction 

costs (§4120.3-2(b)). Cooperators would 

include any individual or organization that 

contributes funding, materials, or labor to 

the construction or development of a range 

improvement. 

Structural improvements include wells, 

pipelines, or fences constructed on BLMmanaged public lands. This would return 

the provision on how title for improvements 

constructed under Cooperative Range 

Improvement Agreements was shared before 

the 1995 change in regulations. Granting 

title to a structural improvement on public 

lands does not grant exclusive right to use 

the improvement or title to the underlying 

lands themselves. Cooperative Range 

Improvement Agreements will continue 

to include provisions that protect the 

interests of the United States in its lands and 

resources. The ownership of existing range 

improvements would not be affected. This 

provision is expected to provide an incentive 

for permittees and lessees to cooperate in 

the development of range improvements to 

achieve management or resource condition 

objectives.

Permittees would continue to own 

temporary structures such as dip tanks, 

loading chutes, or portable water troughs 

2-19
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

placed on public lands under a Range 

Improvement Permit. The United States 

would continue to have title to nonstructural 

range improvements (e.g., seeding).

2.2.4 Cooperation with Tribal, State, 

County, or Local GovernmentEstablished Grazing Boards

As a result of comments on the draft EIS, 

the proposed action was modified to include 

Tribal agencies and grazing boards to the list 

of entities and boards with which BLM will 

cooperate. Changes were also made to make 

it clear that BLM is required to cooperate 

only with Tribal, state, county or local 

grazing boards that are established under 

Tribal or government authority, as opposed 

to private organizations that assume the title 

“grazing board.” 

The proposed action now calls for 

amendment of §4120.5-2 to include Tribal 

agencies in both the title to the section 

and the list of agencies with which we 

would routinely cooperate in administering 

laws and regulations relating to livestock, 

livestock diseases, sanitation, and noxious 

weed eradication and control. The proposed 

action would specifically require that BLM 

cooperate with Tribal, state, county, or local 

government-established grazing boards in 

reviewing range improvements and allotment 

management plans on public lands. In many 

States there are Tribal, state, county, or local 

government-established grazing advisory 

boards whose function is to provide guidance 

on grazing administration—generally 

focusing on range improvements—on 

public lands. These locally established 

grazing boards, where they exist, would be 

a valuable tool for gathering additional local 

input for BLMʼs decision-making processes 

and would help satisfy the FLPMA Section 

401(b)(1) provision that calls for the BLM to 

consult with local user representatives when 

considering range rehabilitation, protection, 

and improvement actions. The changes would 

also bring the regulations into compliance 

with Executive Order 13352 of August 26, 

2004 (69 FR 52989), on Facilitation of 

Cooperative Conservation. 

2.2.5 Review of Biological 

Assessments and Evaluations

Based on the review of the proposed 

rule in the draft EIS, we decided to delete 

the references to biological assessments 

(BAs) and biological evaluations (BEs) in 

section §4130.3-3 because it is unnecessary 

to highlight BAs and BEs as examples of 

reports during the preparation of which BLM 

seeks input from affected permittees, lessees, 

states and the interested public. The reason 

for this change is to avoid implying that BAs 

and BEs have greater value or emphasis 

than other reports also used by BLM when 

evaluating grazing use. It is more efficient 

and appropriate to use manual and handbook 

guidance rather than regulations to ensure 

that BLM field offices are consistently 

providing an opportunity for affected 

permittees, lessees, states, and the interested 

public to review and provide input, to the 

extent practicable, during preparation of such 

reports, including BEs and BAs. 

The revised proposed action does clarify 

that, although reports prepared in support of 

decisions to modify grazing use are subject 

to review during preparation, the review 

opportunity does not include a regulatory 

obligation for comment. Reviewing parties 

may still elect to provide comments during 

preparation of such reports, including BAs 

and BEs. 

2.2.6 Temporary Nonuse

Based on comments on the draft EIS, 

the BLM made some modifications to the 

proposed action related to temporary nonuse. 

2-20 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

We changed the provision from stating the 

authorized officer “will authorize nonuse” 

to “may authorize nonuse” to avoid the 

interpretation that the BLM is required to 

approve temporary nonuse regardless of the 

reason offered by the permittee or lessee. 

We also modified the provision to clarify 

that applications for temporary changes 

in use, including nonuse, within the terms 

and conditions of a permit or lease must be 

submitted in writing to the BLM on or before 

the date the permitte or lessee wishes the 

change in grazing use to begin. 

The proposed action includes moving 

the provisions addressing approval of 

“temporary nonuse” from §4130.2 to §4130.4 

and revising them to allow the BLM to have 

the discretion to approve applications to 

temporarily not use all or part of the grazing 

use authorized by a permit or lease on a yearto-year basis when the nonuse is warranted 

by rangeland conditions or the personal or 

business needs of the permittee or lessee. 

There would be no limit on the number of 

years of consecutive nonuse allowed under 

the proposed regulations; however, nonuse 

would only be approved by the BLM for a 

legitimate purpose or need to provide for (1) 

natural resource conservation, enhancement, 

or protection, including more rapid progress 

toward meeting resource condition objectives 

or attainment of rangeland health standards; 

or (2) the business or personal needs of the 

permittee or lessee. 

Events such as drought, fire, or less than 

average forage growth typically result in 

“rangeland conditions” that will prompt the 

need for temporary nonuse of all or part of 

the grazing use allowed by the permit or 

lease. When the BLM, in consultation with 

the grazing operator, determines rangeland 

conditions are such that less grazing use 

would be appropriate, the BLM encourages 

operators, if they have not already done so, 

to apply for nonuse for “conservation and 

protection of rangeland resources.” This is 

the simplest way to temporarily reduce use 

in response to rangeland conditions. In some 

instances, approval of an application for 

temporary nonuse also precludes the need for 

the BLM to issue a decision to temporarily 

suspend use under §4110.3-3(b), although 

the BLM retains the discretion to do this. 

“Personal and business needs” of the grazing 

operator are actions operators take in the 

course of managing their business, such as 

livestock sale, that result in temporary herd 

size reductions.

2.2.7 Basis for Rangeland Health 

Determinations

Present policy and procedural guidance 

recommends that both standards assessments 

and monitoring data be used as the basis 

for making determinations. However, use 

of both assessments and monitoring is not 

required either by policy or regulation. 

Under the proposed regulations in §4180.2, 

determinations that existing grazing 

management practices or levels of grazing 

use are significant factors in failing to 

achieve standards and conform with 

guidelines would be required to be based 

on the results of standards assessment and 

monitoring data. Assessments and monitoring 

would not both be required as a basis for 

other determinations. 

2.2.8 Timeframe for Taking 

Action to Meet Rangeland Health 

Standards

Based on concerns raised during the 

review of the draft EIS, the proposed action 

for §4180.2 was revised to allow for more 

time to formulate, propose, and analyze an 

appropriate action to address a failure to 

meet standards or to conform to guidelines 

for grazing administration if a legally 

required process that is beyond the control 

2-21
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

of the BLM, such as issuance of a biological 

opinion, prevented us from meeting the 

proposed 24-month deadline for making 

a decision. This provision for extension is 

likely to be used rarely. It recognizes the 

reality that the BLM is not always able to 

control timeframes when other agencies are 

involved. 

Under the proposed action, the BLM 

would, under §4180.1, be required to take 

action to assist in achieving the fundamentals 

of rangeland health only if the fallback 

standards and guidelines are in place. Most 

BLM states have completed establishment 

of Secretarial-approved standards and 

guidelines, therefore this section would 

have limited applicability under present 

circumstances. This provision would provide 

for implementation of appropriate action 

no later than the start of the next grazing 

year after completing all consultation 

requirements and compliance with other laws 

and requirements.

Changes in timeframes would also 

be implemented through modifications 

in §4180.2(c). To allow sufficient time to 

complete all consultation and other legally 

mandated requirements, the Proposed 

Action would require the BLM to formulate, 

propose, and analyze appropriate actions 

to address the failure to meet the rangeland 

health standards or to conform to the 

guidelines for grazing management no later 

than 24 months after the determination. 

The conclusion of this process would 

be documented by either execution of 

an applicable and relevant documented 

agreement or issuance of an applicable final 

decision. The BLM would be able to extend 

the deadline for meeting the above timeframe 

requirements when legally required processes 

that are the responsibility of another agency 

prevent completion of all legal obligations 

within the 24-month timeframe. Upon 

executing the agreement or in the absence 

of a stay of the final decision, the authorized 

officer will implement the appropriate action 

as soon as practicable but not later than the 

start of the next grazing year (§4180.2(c)).

The timeframe adjustments in both 

§4180.1 and §4180.2(c) are based on the need 

for providing adequate time for the BLM to 

complete mandated consultation and other 

legal requirements prior to taking action. The 

BLM has certain specific requirements for 

consultation, cooperation, and coordination 

prior to issuing any proposed decisions, 

including those proposed decisions related to 

changes in active use, renewal, issuance, or 

modification of grazing permits and leases; 

changes in allotment boundaries; preparation 

and modification of allotment management 

plans and resource activity plans; and 

plans for range improvements. As part of 

the planning and decision-making process, 

the BLM is also required to comply with 

applicable laws and regulations, including 

but not limited to the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA), the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA), and the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). After a 

determination has been made that livestock 

grazing management practices or levels of 

use are significant factors in the failure to 

achieve the rangeland health standards or 

conform with the guidelines for grazing 

administration, the BLM must comply 

with the above analysis and consultation 

requirements mandated by these laws and 

regulations prior to implementing any 

decision. It is the BLMʼs belief that allowing 

additional time to develop, formulate, and 

analyze appropriate actions with sufficient 

opportunity for consultation and satisfaction 

of legal requirements will result in better and 

more sustainable decisions. 

2.2.9 Conservation Use

Under the Proposed Action, all references 

to and provisions on “conservation use” 

2-22 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

would be deleted from the regulations. This 

would bring the regulations into conformance 

with the 1999 10th Circuit Court decision 

(Public Lands Council v. Babbitt, 929 F.Supp. 

1436 (D. Wyo. 1996), revʼd in part and affʼd 

in part, 167 F.3d 1287 (10th Cir. 1999), affʼd, 

529 U.S. 728 (2000)).

2.2.10 Definition of Preference, 

Permitted Use, and Active Use

The BLM would define “grazing 

preference” or “preference” as “the total 

number of animal unit months on public 

lands apportioned and attached to base 

property owned or controlled by a permittee, 

lessee, or an applicant for a permit or lease. 

Grazing preference includes active use and 

use held in suspension. Grazing preference 

holders have a superior or priority position 

against others for the purpose of receiving a 

grazing permit or lease.” 

This definition is similar to how the term 

was defined when it first was defined in the 

grazing regulations in 1978, and to how it 

was defined before 1995. The concept of 

grazing preference as it would be defined 

in this rulemaking includes two elements: 

(1) a livestock forage allocation on public 

lands; and (2) that priority for receipt of 

that allocation is attached base property. 

Ownership or control of base property gives 

the owner preference for receipt of a grazing 

permit or lease authorizing grazing use to 

the extent of the active preference, as well as 

priority for receipt of forage that may later 

be determined to be available for livestock 

grazing to the extent of any preference that is 

in suspension.

Under the proposed regulations, the 

BLM would also remove the term “permitted 

use” from the definitions (§4100.0-5) and 

generally replace this term wherever it 

occurs in the regulations with either “grazing 

preference” or “preference,” or “active use,” 

depending on the regulatory context. 

With respect to the definition of “active 

use”, we did make one minor change based 

on comments on the draft EIS. We substituted 

the word “livestock” for “rangeland” in the 

reference to carrying capacity to make the 

definition consistent with all other references 

to carrying capacity in the regulations. Under 

the proposed action, the definition of “active 

use” would be modified to mean that portion 

of the grazing preference that is available 

for livestock grazing use based on livestock 

carrying capacity and resource conditions 

in an allotment under a permit or lease, and 

that is not in suspension (§4100.0-5). This 

change would remove the term “conservation 

use” and “livestock use” and make it clear 

that “active use” refers to a forage amount 

that it is based on the carrying capacity of, 

and resource conditions in, an allotment and 

that it does not refer to forage that had been 

allocated at some point in the past, but has 

since been determined to no longer be present 

and which now is held in suspension. 

Although the connection between land 

use plans and grazing preference would 

not be stated in the definition of “grazing 

preference” as it is being proposed, the 

regulatory text would reflect the relationship 

between “active use” and land use plans at 

§4110.2-2 , §4110.3(a)(3), §4110.3-1 and 

between grazing permits and leases and land 

use plans at §4130.2.

The forage amount available on public 

lands that is available for livestock grazing 

use would continue to fluctuate because of 

changed resource conditions, or changed 

administrative or management circumstances. 

It is well settled that livestock forage 

allocations made before enactment of the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 

1976 may be adjusted based on BLM land 

use planning decisions, or the need to change 

grazing use to meet objectives specified 

in land use plans (see, for example, Public 

2-23
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

Lands Council v. Babbitt, 529 U.S. 728 

(2000)).

2.2.11 Definition and Role of the 

Interested Public

Based on concerns raised during the 

review of the draft EIS, we modified the 

proposed definition of interested public to 

make it clear that a request to be considered 

as interested public must identify the specific 

allotments in which the person or entity is 

interested. We also added language providing 

that when the interested public submits 

comments or otherwise participates, they 

must address the management of a specific 

allotment. 

Under the proposed action, the BLM 

proposes amending the present definition of 

“interested public” to mean an individual, 

group, or organization that has either (1) 

submitted a written request to the authorized 

officer to be given an opportunity to be 

involved in the BLM decision-making 

process as to the management of a specific 

allotment and who has followed up on that 

request by commenting on or otherwise 

participating in the decision-making process 

as to the management of a specific allotment; 

or (2) submitted written comments to the 

authorized officer regarding the management 

of livestock grazing on a specific allotment as 

part of the process leading to a BLM decision 

on the management of livestock grazing on 

the allotment. 

Under the proposed rule, the BLM 

would retain requirements for consultation, 

cooperation, and coordination with the 

interested public for the following BLM 

actions:

1. Apportioning additional forage on BLMmanaged lands; 

2. Developing or modifying an allotment 

management plan or grazing activity 

plan; 

3. Planning of the range development or 

improvement program; and 

4. Reviewing and commenting on grazing 

management evaluation reports. 

In addition, the requirement for the 

authorized officer to provide copies 

of proposed and final grazing decisions 

would be retained.

This proposed rule would remove the 

regulatory requirement that the authorized 

officer consult, cooperate, and coordinate 

with the interested public on the following 

actions:

1. Designating and adjusting allotment 

boundaries; 

2. Changing active use; 

3. Issuing emergency closures or 

modifications: 

4. Issuing or renewing a grazing permit or 

lease; 

5. Modifying a grazing permit or lease; and 

6. Issuing temporary nonrenewable grazing 

permits. 

Generally, the above actions involve 

the day-to-day operational aspects of the 

grazing program. These changes would not 

remove the BLMʼs discretion to consult with 

the interested public at its option on these 

actions. 

This change would not affect the 

requirement to consult with the interested 

public where such input would be of the 

greatest value in setting management 

2-24 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

direction for public lands, such as when 

planning vegetation management objectives 

in an allotment management plan, or by 

providing input to reports evaluating range 

conditions. The change would allow the 

authorized officer and the grazing operator 

the discretion to determine appropriate onthe-ground management actions to achieve 

plan objectives or respond to variable 

resource conditions. The BLM would retain 

the discretion to consult, cooperate, and 

coordinate on any item if the authorized 

officer determined that value would be added 

to grazing management decisions or actions, 

above and beyond what the regulation 

requires. Also, this proposed revision will 

not affect the BLMʼs practice of making 

all National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) documents available to the public in 

accordance with Council of Environmental 

Quality regulations. As previously indicated, 

the interested public will be provided a copy 

of the proposed decision and associated 

NEPA documents and will be able to protest 

proposed decisions. The interested public will 

also receive a copy of the final decision.

2.2.12 Water Rights

The BLM proposes to amend this section 

by removing the reference to the effective 

date of this provision in the first sentence 

and removing the second sentence. This 

would remove the provision stating that, to 

the extent allowed by state law, livestock 

water rights must be acquired, perfected, 

maintained, and administered in the name of 

the United States. The proposed provision 

would read as follows: Any right acquired 

by the United States to use water on public 

land for the purpose of livestock watering 

shall be acquired, perfected, maintained, 

and administered under the substantive and 

procedural laws of the state within which 

such land is located. Under the revised 

provision, the BLM would have whatever 

flexibility state law provides and would 

clarify BLMʼs administrative options, 

including joint ownership of water rights with 

permittees and lessees. 

2.2.13 Satisfactory Performance of 

Permittee or Lessee

The BLM would move provisions 

regarding what constitutes “satisfactory 

performance” of an applicant for a permit or 

lease from §4110.1, Mandatory qualifications, 

to §4130.1-1, Filing applications, to better 

organize the regulations. The provisions 

addressing what constitutes satisfactory 

performance for applicants for new permits 

and leases would also be revised.

The present rule provides that applicants 

for renewal of permits and leases would 

be deemed to have a satisfactory record 

of performance if they have substantially 

complied with the terms and conditions of 

the expiring permit or lease and other rules 

applicable to the permit or lease, whereas 

applicants for new permits or leases would 

be deemed to not have a satisfactory record 

if they have had a Federal or state lease 

canceled within the previous 36 months, 

or have been legally barred from holding 

a grazing permit or lease. The existing 

sentence construction does not specify the 

circumstances under which the BLM will 

consider an applicant for a new permit 

or lease to have a satisfactory record of 

performance. 

The changes proposed would clarify 

that the scope of the criteria that the 

BLM would consider when determining 

whether an applicant for a new permit has a 

satisfactory record of performance is limited 

to the criteria stated in the regulations. The 

proposed rules do this by changing the 

sentence construction for applicants for new 

permits or leases to reflect what would be 

required for an applicant for a new permit 

or lease to have a satisfactory record of 

2-25
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

performance. Basically, the regulations would 

now clearly state that the BLM would deem 

applicants for new permits or leases and for 

permits and leases after a preference transfer 

to have a record of satisfactory performance 

when the applicant or affiliate has not had 

any Federal grazing permit or lease canceled 

for violations of the permit or lease within 

the 36 months immediately preceding the 

date of the application; or the applicant 

or affiliate has not had any state grazing 

permit or lease, for lands within the grazing 

allotment for which a Federal permit or lease 

is sought, canceled for violation of the permit 

or lease within 36 months of the date of the 

application; or the applicant or affiliate is not 

barred from holding a Federal grazing permit 

or lease by order of a court of competent 

jurisdiction. 

2.2.14 Changes in Grazing Use 

Within the Terms and Conditions of 

Permit or Lease

Based on concerns raised during the 

review of the draft EIS, we made changes in 

the proposed action addressing changes in 

grazing use within the terms and conditions 

of a permit or lease. We removed the reasons 

listed in the draft for allowing temporary 

changes in grazing use. In the draft, we 

indicated that changes could be granted either 

in response to annual fluctuation in time 

and amount of forage production or to meet 

locally established range readiness criteria. 

Comments objected to the use of range 

readiness criteria, claiming that it has many 

interpretations and we would not be able to 

adequately define it to serve as a regulatory 

criterion. We were also concerned that, by 

listing the reasons, we would unnecessarily 

restrict our management options. We also 

added language that would allow for greater 

flexibility in the period of use if specified in 

the appropriate allotment management plan. 

As indicated in the discussion of “temporary 

nonuse” (see 2.2.6), we also clarified in 

this section that applications for changes in 

grazing use within the terms and conditions 

of a permit or lease had to be made in writing 

on or before the date they wish the change in 

grazing use to begin.

Under the revised proposed action the 

BLM would amend section §4130.4 to 

indicate what is meant by the phrase “within 

the terms and conditions of the permit or 

lease.” The BLM would define “temporary 

changes within the terms and conditions of 

the permit or lease,” to mean changes to the 

number of livestock and period of use, or 

both, that would: 

1. Result in temporary nonuse of all or part 

of the allotment; or

2. Result in forage removal that does 

not exceed the amount of “active use” 

specified by the permit or lease; and 

that, unless otherwise specified in the 

appropriate allotment management plan, 

occurs not earlier than 14 days before 

the grazing begin date specified by the 

permit or lease, and not later than 14 days 

after the grazing end date specified by the 

permit or lease; or

3. Result in both of the above conditions. 

The new provisions would also require 

that the BLM consult, cooperate, and 

coordinate with the permittees or lessees 

regarding their applications for changes 

within the terms and conditions of their 

permit or lease.

Livestock periods-of-use established 

by the grazing permits are based on the 

anticipated average dates that the range is 

“ready” to be grazed. The range is considered 

“ready” when plant growth has reached the 

stage at which grazing may begin without 

2-26 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

doing permanent damage to vegetation or 

soil. The point where the range is “ready” 

for grazing use can and does vary from year 

to year around a long-term average date of 

readiness. The BLM believes that a 14-day 

flexibility period on either side of the grazing 

begin and end dates specified by the permit or 

lease is a reasonable way to allow for minor 

adjustments in grazing use in response to 

these variations. 

The BLM would consider applications 

for changes in grazing use “within the terms 

and conditions of the permit or lease” on 

a case-by-case basis. If the BLM approves 

the change, no formal action other than the 

issuance and payment of a relevant grazing 

fee billing would be required. The change 

would not constitute a formal permit or lease 

modification. In other words, a temporary 

change that was allowed in 1 year to respond 

to the conditions of that year would not 

be carried forward to the next year. An 

application for grazing use that falls outside 

of this flexibility would be not be considered 

“within the terms and conditions” of the 

authorizing permit or lease unless a special 

term or condition was attached to the permit 

or lease that allowed for greater flexibility. 

In some cases, allotment management plans 

identify conditions which would allow for 

greater flexibility.

Temporary changes in grazing use that 

are determined to be “within the terms and 

conditions of the permit or lease” would not 

typically require additional NEPA analysis 

because the effects would fall within the 

scope of those effects analyzed in the existing 

applicable NEPA document for the permit or 

lease. Exceptions would only occur if the 

14-day period overlapped some critical time 

periods that were not addressed or were time 

periods that were required to be avoided in 

the existing NEPA document (e.g., desert 

tortoise emergence in spring or fall). 

2.2.15 Service Charges

Based on concerns raised during the 

review of the draft EIS, we incorporated 

language in the proposed action to provide 

procedures for periodically adjusting the 

service charges through publication of a 

notice in the Federal Register. 

Comments on the draft EIS also 

suggested that we did not provide detailed 

information on the basis for our changes 

in the service charges proposed. The BLM 

does not collect itemized cost data on the 

specific processing actions addressed in this 

rulemaking. 

Although we do not specifically collect 

cost data on just crossing permits or billings, 

we do collect such data in one of the cost 

categories in our management information 

system. Data on the costs to process billings 

and miscellaneous permits are shown by 

BLM State Office in Table 2.2.15 A. The 

average Bureauwide unit cost for the items 

in that cost category was $339.00 in fiscal 

year 2003. Based on our professional 

judgment, we determined that the processing 

costs of issuing a crossing permit and 

canceling and replacing a grazing billing fee 

that more closely reflects our actual costs 

was a proportionally smaller amount than 

represented by that subset of costs. 

Cost data on the transfer of grazing 

preference and related actions are also 

collected by the BLM in our management 

information system. Those data are shown 

by BLM State Office in Table 2.2.15 B. 

The average Bureauwide unit cost for the 

items in that cost category was $2,255.00 

in fiscal year 2003. We estimated that 

the actual processing costs for just the 

preference transfer is substantially less than 

represented by that cost category. Most of 

the costs captured in that cost category are 

for processing the permit or lease issuance 

following the transfer, including the NEPA 

2-27
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

and other legal compliance actions that 

are labor intensive. The actual processing 

of the preference transfer is relatively 

straightforward and quickly accomplished—a 

small component of that cost category. Again, 

we based our estimate of the appropriate 

service charge for preference transfers to 

more closely reflect our actual costs on our 

best professional judgment.

Under the proposed regulations at 

§4130.8-3, the service charge for processing 

various actions would more closely reflect the 

actual processing costs. Except when initiated 

by the BLM, the following service charges 

would be assessed for the processing of the 

following actions:

• Issuance of a crossing permit—$75 

• Transfer of grazing preference—$145 

• Cancellation and replacement of a 

grazing fee billing—$50 

A crossing permit may be issued to any 

applicant showing a need to cross the public 

land or the land under BLM control with 

livestock for proper and lawful purposes. A 

crossing permit for trailing livestock would 

contain terms and conditions deemed 

necessary by the authorized officer for 

temporary grazing use that would occur 

(§4130.6-3). 

A grazing preference 

transfer occurs when base property is sold or 

leased and an application is made to the BLM 

for the transfer of the grazing preference to 

the new owner or lessee. A grazing 

preference may also be transferred from one 

base property to another. 

2003 State Units State Direct Cost State Direct 

Unit Cost

Bureauʼs Full 

Cost

Bureauʼs 

Unit Cost

Arizona 775 $203,044 $262 $439,854 $568

California 657 $275,013 $419 $657,748 $1,001

Colorado 2359 $355,784 $151 $762,549 $323

Idaho 2660 $389,775 $147 $790,500 $297

Montana 4879 $429,643 $88 $956,003 $196

New Mexico 3137 $215,507 $69 $473,115 $151

Nevada 1284 $425,181 $331 $839,903 $654

Oregon 1710 $442,353 $259 $973,603 $569

Utah 2728 $510,525 $187 $1,115,804 $409

Wyoming 3788 $554,581 $146 $1,124,855 $297

Total 23977 $3,801,406 $159 $8,133,935 $339

Table 2.2.15-A. BLM costs to process billings and miscellaneous permits, 2003.

Costs associated with issuance of billings, free use permits, exchange of use permits, 

trailing permits, temporary nonrenewable permits. Includes: 1) Preparing stipulations for the 

authorization; 2) Data management support of range records and GIS support; 3) Generating 

the billing; and 4) Collection of the grazing fee.

Source: BLM Management Information System.

2-28 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

2003 State Units State Direct 

Cost

State Direct 

Unit Cost

Bureauʼs 

Full Cost

Bureauʼs 

Unit Cost

Arizona 50 $75,947 $1,519 $162,632 $3,253

California 31 $20,401 $658 $47,980 $1,548

Colorado 93 $65,748 $707 $137,830 $1,482

Idaho 123 $71,934 $585 $144,269 $1,173

Montana 242 $201,307 $832 $441,669 $1,825

New Mexico 113 $244,320 $2,162 $511,458 $4,526

Nevada 50 $106,687 $2,134 $207,504 $4,150

Oregon 70 $68,674 $981 $151,266 $2,161

Utah 99 $64,132 $648 $138,468 $1,399

Wyoming 194 $231,317 $1,192 $458,880 $2,365

Total 1065 $1,150,467 $1,080 $2,401,956 $2,255

Table 2.2.15-B BLM Costs to process grazing preference transfers and related 

actions, 2003.

Costs associated with processing a preference transfer. Includes costs of complying with 

National Environmental Policy Act, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, Land Use Plan and other concerns as appropriate; 

cost of preparing a Final Decision on transfer of preference; costs associated with processing 

an appeal and participating in a hearing on the appeal; and costs of data management support 

of range records and Global Information System. 

The service charge for cancellation 

and replacement of a grazing fee billing is 

intended to cover the administrative costs 

associated with canceling and issuing a new 

billing when a permittee or lessee requests 

changes in grazing use after the bill has been 

issued.

2.2.16 Prohibited Acts

As indicated in the discussion of the 

No Action Alternative, there are three 

categories of prohibited acts. Under the 

proposed change, the third category of 

prohibited acts found in §4140.1(c) would be 

changed to clarify that this section would be 

applicable only when the permittee or lessee 

commits a prohibited act on an allotment for 

which he holds a permit or lease from the 

BLM. Otherwise, permittees or lessees would 

be treated similarly to any other individuals 

committing a similar prohibited act (i.e., 

other laws or regulations may apply). The 

effect of this change is to limit applicability 

of the section to circumstances where there 

is a geographical connection between the 

prohibited act and the grazing permit or 

lease. This change is also intended to ensure 

that the performance of the prohibited act is 

related to the operatorʼs permit or lease.

Editorial changes to improve the clarity 

of the regulations are also incorporated in the 

proposed changes for this section.

2-29
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

2.1.17 Grazing Use Pending 

Resolution of Appeals When 

Decision Has Been Stayed

The BLM would continue to operate 

under the administrative remedies regulations 

set forth in Subpart 4160. Described in 

detail are the procedures for issuing and 

protesting proposed decisions (§4160.1 and 

§4160.2) and issuing and appealing final 

decisions (§4160.3 and §4160.4). Procedures 

for requesting a stay of a final decision and 

allowable grazing use if a final decision is 

stayed are identified in §4160.3.

When the Office of Hearings and Appeals 

stays a final decision regarding an application 

for grazing authorization, an applicant who 

was granted grazing use in the preceding 

year may continue at that level of authorized 

grazing use during the time the decision 

is stayed. This provision does not apply if 

the grazing use in the preceding year was 

authorized on a temporary nonrenewable 

basis under §4110.3-1(a). Where the 

applicant had no authorized grazing use 

during the previous year, or the application 

is for designated ephemeral or annual 

rangeland grazing use, the grazing use under 

the stay is consistent with the final decision 

pending a final determination on the appeal 

(§4160.3(d)). 

When the Office of Hearings and Appeals 

stays a final decision to change the authorized 

grazing use, the grazing use authorized 

to the permittee or lessee during the time 

that the decision is stayed shall not exceed 

the permitteeʼs or lesseeʼs authorized use 

in the last year during which any use was 

authorized (§4160.3(e)).

2.2.18 Treatment of Biological 

Assessments and Evaluations in the 

Grazing Decision-Making Process

The Proposed Rule, at §4160.1(d), 

would clarify that a biological assessment or 

biological evaluation prepared in accordance 

with Section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act would not be a decision for purposes of 

protest or appeal. 

A biological assessment (BA) is prepared 

by an agency to determine whether a 

proposed action is likely to: (1) adversely 

affect a listed species or designated critical 

habitat; (2) jeopardize the continued 

existence of species that are proposed for 

listing; or (3) adversely modify critical 

habitat. A biological evaluation (BE) is a 

documented review of an agencyʼs programs 

or activities in sufficient detail to determine 

how an action or proposed action may affect 

any threatened, endangered, proposed or 

sensitive species, or proposed or designated 

critical habitat 

This regulatory revision would 

address concerns regarding the Blake

decision wherein the Interior Board of Land 

Appeals ruled that BAs were to be treated as 

decisions subject to the protest and appeals 

provisions of §4160. Blake v. Bureau of 

Land Management, 145 IBLA 154 (1998), 

affʼd on reconsideration, 156 IBLA 280 

(2002). The Blake ruling raised concerns 

about the potential for major delays in the 

decision-making process as a result of this 

requirement.

The Blake decision has led to a situation 

where a BLM BA or BE addressing possible 

grazing changes may trigger the need for two

final decisions, the first of which cannot be 

directly implemented. The BLM believes a 

BA or BE is better viewed as an intermediate 

step that may later lead to a single final 

decision that can be implemented. This 

regulatory change is designed to implement 

that view—a view that formed the basis of 

BLM actions prior to the Blake decisions

.

2-30 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

2.3 Alternative Three: 

Modified Action

Alternative Three is essentially the 

same as Alternative Two (Proposed 

Action) with modifications to four key 

elements. Modifications involve the 

following elements: Implementation of 

Grazing Decisions, Temporary Nonuse, Basis 

for Rangeland Health Determinations, and 

Prohibited Acts.

2.3.1 Implementation of Changes in 

Grazing Use

This provision is the same as the 

proposed action, except that the 5-year phasein of changes in use would be discretionary 

rather than mandatory. In other words, 

changes in active use in excess of 10 percent 

may not have to be implemented over a 5-

year period. The BLM-authorized officer 

may, at his or her discretion, determine that 

a shorter period is appropriate or no phase-in 

period is warranted. For example, if a special 

status species that is not presently covered by 

the Endangered Species Act is being affected 

by levels of active use, the BLM could 

decide to immediately implement a reduction 

in active use without agreement of the 

affected permittees, following the required 

consultations and allowing for protest and 

appeal of the decision. 

2.3.2 Temporary Nonuse

Under this proposal, permittees or lessees 

could submit and the BLM could approve 

applications for nonuse for no more than 5 

consecutive years. All other provisions 

related to the authorization of temporary 

nonuse would be the same as for the 

Proposed Action.

2.3.3 Basis for Rangeland Health 

Determinations

This provision would be similar to the 

proposed action except that the BLM would 

not be required to use both assessments and 

monitoring as the basis for determinations 

that existing grazing management practices 

or levels of grazing use are significant factors 

in failing to achieve standards and conform 

with guidelines; that is, rangeland health 

determinations such as those could be based 

on either standards assessments or monitoring 

data, or both. This would increase BLM 

manager flexibility and discretion over the 

proposed action.

2.3.4 Prohibited Acts

Section 4140, Prohibited Acts, would be 

the same as the proposed action except for 

changes described below.

The following would be added to 

the second category of prohibited acts 

(§4140.1(b)): “Failing to comply with 

the use of certified weed seed free forage, 

grain, straw or mulch when required by the 

authorized officer.” This would enable the 

BLM to enforce weed seed free requirements 

in states which do not have weed seed free 

certification programs.

The following would be deleted

from the third category of prohibited 

acts (§4140.1(c)): Violation of Federal or 

state laws or regulations pertaining to the 

placement of poisonous bait or hazardous 

devices designed for the destruction of 

wildlife; application or storage of pesticides, 

herbicides, or other hazardous materials; 

alteration or destruction of natural stream 

courses without authorization; pollution of 

water sources; illegal take, destruction or 

harassment, or aiding and abetting in the 

illegal take, destruction or harassment of fish 

and wildlife resources; and illegal removal 

or destruction of archaeological or cultural 

2-31
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

resources. Such acts would still be prosecuted 

by the appropriate Federal or state agency, 

however, after conviction, the permittee or 

lessee could not be additionally penalized by 

having his permit or lease denied, suspended, 

or canceled. 

2.4 Alternatives Considered 

But Not Analyzed in Detail

Some comments on the draft EIS stated 

that additional alternatives should have been 

considered for the timeframe for taking 

action to meet rangeland health standards and 

for implementing changes in grazing use. In 

the draft EIS, we proposed allowing as long 

as 24 months following the determination 

on whether or not an allotment met standards 

or conformed to guidelines to formulate, 

propose and analyze an appropriate action 

and complete all legal and consultation 

requirements. We also proposed a 5-year 

phase-in of changes in active use in excess of 

10 percent.

We believe that we examined an 

appropriate range of alternatives and we have 

not added additional ones in this final EIS. 

When considering time limitations, an infinite 

array of options is theoretically possible. The 

alternatives considered here were reasonable 

given the nature of this rule and sufficiently 

distinct to allow for meaningful comparisons 

in the analysis. 

With respect to the timeframe for taking 

action to meet rangeland health standards, the 

current regulations, in §4180.2(c), provide 

that corrective action should be taken by 

the start of the next grazing season when 

grazing is determined to be a significant 

factor in the failure to achieve a rangeland 

health standard. Although the BLM desires 

to take effective corrective action as 

quickly as possible, recent experience has 

demonstrated that complex circumstances 

can sometimes require extended periods of 

time to form effective long-term solutions. 

Rangeland standards failures have often 

developed slowly over many years and may 

take years to remedy completely. Factors 

complicating the formulation of action plans 

include the legal requirements of NEPA, 

NHPA, and ESA; water rights adjudications; 

and the presence of multiple permittees on 

an allotment. We determined the proposed 

action timeframe of 24 months to be the 

shortest reasonable timeframe that would 

accommodate the vast majority of corrective 

actions. The proposed regulation in this 

final EIS adds language to recognize that, 

in some instances, even more time may be 

required due to delays outside the control 

of the BLM. We initially considered other 

timeframes, such as 12 or 18 months, but we 

viewed them as inadequate to deal with the 

more complicated situations. Removal of any 

timeframe guidance was also considered, but 

we determined that a reasonable deadline 

would be useful to help ensure that BLM 

actions were not inadvertently delayed.

With respect to the implementation 

of changes in grazing use, the current 

regulations, in §4110.3-3, do not include 

any provisions regarding a phase-in period. 

We examined two alternatives for active 

use changes greater than 10 percent in the 

EIS, in addition to the current regulations. 

Scoping indicated that permittees and lessees 

supported a 5-year option to address the 

financial shocks that can come in the rare 

instances when large decreases are made in 

active use. Scoping did not indicate strong 

support for longer or shorter timeframes. The 

BLM addressed the impacts associated with 

mandatory or discretionary phase-in systems. 

This was a reasonable range of alternatives 

for this issue.

Many substantive issues and 

recommendations were also provided by 

the public during the scoping period. Public 

2-32 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

comments were fully considered and many 

of their recommendations are reflected in 

the proposed action or in the modified action 

alternative. Many other issues raised or 

recommendations made were considered but 

not analyzed in detail in this EIS, because 

they are either beyond the scope of the 

document, did not meet the basic purposes of 

these proposed changes to the regulations, or 

the BLM decided it could better address the 

issues through the development of policy. 

The following are alternatives the BLM 

has considered but has not analyzed in detail 

in this EIS:

• Increasing grazing fees or providing 

for competitive bidding for assignment 

of permits and leases. In the Advance 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) 

for proposed amendments to BLMʼs 

grazing administration regulations, 

the BLM stated that grazing fees 

would not be addressed in this 

rulemaking. However, several 

commenters raised the issue of fees and 

requested changes to the grazing fee 

system. Some commenters asked the 

BLM to develop a competitive bidding 

process to replace the present system for 

assigning grazing permits and allocating 

grazing preference and the present 

grazing fee formula. Modifications to the 

fees and the method for allocating permits 

or leases would require legislative 

action. The BLM determined that such 

proposals are outside the scope of this 

rulemaking. 

• Removing Grazing Fee Surcharge 

Requirements. Several commenters 

requested that the BLM consider 

removing the grazing fee surcharge 

provisions from the regulations. The 

grazing fee surcharge was added by the 

1995 regulations to address concerns 

raised by to the General Accounting 

Office and Office of the Inspector General 

regarding the potential for rancher 

windfall profits arising from the BLMʼs 

practice of allowing for the subleasing 

of public land grazing privileges. Some 

BLM grazing permittees enter pasturing 

agreements wherein they take temporary 

control of a third partyʼs livestock 

and graze them under their permit or 

lease. The permittee pays the Federal 

grazing fee and charges the third party 

an amount negotiated between them for 

the forage and care of the livestock. The 

BLM assesses a fee surcharge in this 

circumstance that equals 35 percent of the 

difference between the present Federal 

grazing fee and the private grazing land 

lease rate. An exception to the surcharge 

requirement is provided for children 

of permittees and lessees. The BLM 

continues to believe that the surcharge is 

an equitable way in which to address this 

issue. In addition, this is a grazing fee 

issue and, as indicated in the ANPR, the 

BLM has determined that grazing fees are 

outside the scope of this rulemaking. 

• Reestablishing BLM Grazing 

Advisory Boards. A number of 

commenters recommended that the BLM 

reestablish BLM Grazing Advisory 

Boards to provide local advice and 

recommendations to BLM on grazing 

issues. The BLM Grazing Advisory 

Boards were “sunset” on December 31, 

1985, by FLPMA. The 1995 grazing 

regulation amendments incorporated 

several requirements for BLM to 

consult, cooperate, and coordinate with 

BLM Resource Advisory Councils that 

were established in 1995 to advise and 

recommend strategies for managing 

public lands under the multiple-use 

mandate. The Resource Advisory 

2-33
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

Councils have generally assumed the 

role of the previous Grazing Advisory 

Boards, and it would be duplicative 

and unnecessary to establish another 

advisory body. Although the BLM does 

not consider the reestablishment of 

BLM Grazing Advisory Boards in this 

rulemaking, it is proposing a provision 

requiring BLM to cooperate with state, 

county, or locally established grazing 

boards in reviewing range improvements 

and allotment management plans 

on public lands. This review would 

supplement the advice of Resource 

Advisory Councils. 

• Changing management of wild 

horses and burros. Some commenters 

identified the need to change how the 

BLM manages wild horses and burros 

as necessary to address rangeland health 

issues. Any changes to the Wild Horse 

and Burro Act or management regulations 

are, however, outside the authority and 

scope of this rulemaking. 

• Changing Conversion Ratio for Sheep 

for Billing Purposes. Counting seven 

sheep, rather than the present five, as 

the equivalent of one animal unit for 

the purposes of calculating grazing 

fee billings was recommended by 

commenters during scoping. However, as 

indicated in the ANPR, matters involving 

grazing fees are outside the scope of this 

rulemaking.

• Establishing “Reserve Common 

Allotments.” In the ANPR, the BLM 

identified that it was considering 

proposing provisions to define, establish 

a regulatory framework, and otherwise 

support the creation of Reserve 

Common Allotments. The BLM has 

decided not to proceed with developing 

Reserve Common Allotments at this 

time for several reasons. During the 

BLMʼs public scoping period, many 

commenters expressed concern about 

adding special provisions for Reserve 

Common Allotments in the grazing 

regulations. Many commenters said they 

did not think such regulatory provisions 

were warranted or necessary. Ranching 

interests indicated they would rather 

have “normal” allotments, whereas 

environmental interests questioned 

whether this would be the best use of the 

land. After considering the unenthusiastic 

reception to this concept, the BLM 

determined it was not in the public 

interest to proceed with this provision 

through regulations. The BLM mayl 

continue to examine the concept of forage 

reserves through policy making processes 

• Assigning Burden of Proof. Several 

commenters recommended that the 

BLM consider including a provision 

in the regulations requiring the BLM 

to assume the burden of proof in an 

appeal before the Office of Hearings and 

Appeals. The Administrative Procedure 

Act (APA) at 5 U.S.C. 556(d) provides 

that “except as otherwise provided by 

statute, the proponent of a rule or order 

has the burden of proof.” The burden of 

proof has recently been clarified by the 

Supreme Court to mean the “burden of 

persuasion,” which refers to “the notion 

that if evidence is evenly balanced, 

the party who bears the burden of 

persuasion must lose.” (Director, Office 

of Workersʼ Compensation Program v. 

Greenwich Collieries, 512 U.S. 267, 

272 (1994)). Previously, the burden 

of proof had been confused with the 

burden of production, which refers to 

a partyʼs obligation to come forward 

2-34 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

with evidence to support its claim. The 

burden of proving a fact remains where 

it started, but once the party with this 

burden establishes a prima facie case, 

the burden to produce evidence shifts. 

The burden of persuasion, on the other 

hand, does not shift except in the case 

of affirmative defenses. The APA, as 

interpreted by the courts, establishes 

the burden of persuasion and it is not 

necessary to further treat this issue in 

these regulations. 

• Monitoring. Few commenters directly 

addressed the definition of “monitoring,” 

although many of the comments the BLM 

received pertained to procedural matters; 

that is, recommendations on how the 

BLM should conduct monitoring. The 

BLM received many comments from the 

livestock industry and environmental 

and conservation groups, asking that 

the BLM increase monitoring efforts 

on public lands. The BLM considered 

including new language regarding 

monitoring intending to provide 

explicit direction on the development of 

allotment-specific resource management 

objectives and short- and long-term 

monitoring programs in consultation 

with the permittee or lessee. The 

present regulations already allow the 

BLM to develop resource management 

objectives and monitoring plans as part 

of its allotment management plans. The 

BLM determined that establishing 

monitoring methodologies and working 

with permittees and lessees in collecting 

and interpreting data and developing 

monitoring reports are more appropriately 

handled through BLMʼs policy guidance 

in Manuals and Handbooks. The 

BLM did incorporate a requirement for 

using monitoring as a basis for rangeland 

health determinations (see proposed 

action). 

• Requiring Applications for Permit or 

Lease Renewals. The present regulations 

do not explicitly state whether or 

not permittees or lessees must submit an 

application to BLM when their permit 

expires. Although there is no explicit 

requirement for an application when 

a permit expires, the actions involved 

in processing a renewal are the same 

as if there were an application, thus it 

was determined that the regulations did 

not have to be changed. 

• Providing for Appeals to the 

State Director. During the scoping 

period, the BLM received comments 

recommending we consider adding 

another opportunity for administrative 

remedy by allowing a protesting party to 

appeal a BLM field office decision to the 

BLM State Director. Such a provision 

would allow the BLM State Director 

to have authority to stay a decision 

pending further review. The BLM 

determined it was not advisable to 

include this provision in the regulations 

as it did not meet BLMʼs objective of 

increasing administrative efficiency and 

effectiveness. 

• Redefining Affected Interest and 

Interested Public. Some commenters 

urged the BLM to remove the definition 

of interested public from the grazing 

regulations and incorporate the use of 

“affected interest” as it was defined in 

the regulations before 1995. Under such 

a change, the BLM would consider an 

“affected interest” to be a party who has 

expressed an interest in management of a 

specific allotment and that the BLM has 

2-35
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

determined to be an affected interest. This 

change would require that the BLM focus 

its limited resources on determining who 

is, and who is not, an affected interest. 

The BLM desires that meaningful 

public involvement in developing 

grazing-related resource management 

objectives or actions not be unduly 

restricted or hindered by BLM processes 

and procedures. In working with the 

interested public provisions of these 

regulations, the BLM has found that there 

are interested public who express initial 

interest in management of a grazing 

allotment but do not maintain meaningful 

involvement in the process leading to 

creating allotment resource objectives and 

strategies to achieve those objectives. The 

regulations would modify the definition 

of interested public to provide that once 

a party becomes an interested public 

by expressing in writing an interest in 

management of an allotment, it maintains 

that status by continued participation 

in the decision-making process for that 

allotment. This modification would also 

narrow the circumstances in which the 

BLM must involve the interested public 

before taking a management action. The 

BLM believes that these changes will 

maintain meaningful public involvement 

while streamlining BLM processes 

leading to day-to-day, on-the-ground 

grazing management decisions. 

• Providing for control of water 

developments authorized under a 

range improvement permit. During 

the scoping period, the BLM received 

recommendations that the regulations 

include provisions explicitly stating 

that the use of stock ponds, wells, and 

pipelines authorized under a range 

improvement permit should be controlled 

by the permittee or lessee holding the 

permit. The present rule does not allow 

for water developments under a range 

improvement permit. Other commenters 

asked that the BLM include in the 

regulations a provision requiring that 

the permittee or lessee enter into a 

Memorandum of Understanding with the 

BLM to allow the use of improvements 

by livestock owned or controlled by 

anyone other than the permit holder. This 

is an administrative detail that is not 

appropriate for inclusion in a regulation. 

• Establishing criteria for full force and 

effect decisions. Some commenters 

recommended that the BLM develop 

criteria for decisions implemented under 

§4110.3-3 for immediate implementation 

(i.e., full force and effect). The specific 

proposal was to use the same criteria as 

are applied to a request for a stay. The 

BLM disagrees that such criteria are 

necessarily relevant to the decision to 

issue a full force and effect decision to 

protect resources. 

• Modifying exchange of use agreements 

provisions. The BLM received comments 

requesting that it remove the requirement 

that private lands offered in exchange 

of use be located in the same allotment 

being permitted for grazing to allow for 

“trade-of-use” arrangements such as 

that described below. A possible need 

for a trade-of-use arrangement, for 

example, is illustrated by the situation 

where one permittee or lessee owns or 

controls unfenced intermingled private 

lands that are not within his allotment, 

but are within a second permitteeʼs 

allotment. Because the first permittee 

is not authorized to graze in the second 

permitteeʼs allotment, the first permittee 

cannot derive economic gain from the 

grazing use made on his private lands 

2-36 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

by the second permittee, absent action to 

proactively control use of his land such 

as through fencing or through sale of the 

land or assignment of the land lease to 

the second permittee. The commenter 

urged that the BLM facilitate the tradeof-use between these permitteeʼs by 

collecting a grazing fee from the second 

permittee for grazing use of lands owned 

by the first permittee but located in the 

second permitteeʼs allotment, and by 

crediting the fees collected from the 

second permittee for these lands to the 

first permitteeʼs grazing fee billing. The 

BLM does not agree that this type of 

arrangement is best handled through 

the regulation change suggested by the 

commenter. 

• Nonwillful unauthorized livestock 

use. The BLM received comment urging 

that it modify the regulations to allow 

the BLM to have unfettered discretion 

to determine circumstances that would 

warrant nonmonetary settlement of a 

nonwillful grazing trespass. The present 

regulations identify the following 

four conditions—all of which must be 

satisfied before the BLM can approve a 

nonmonetary settlement for nonwillful 

unauthorized livestock use: evidence 

shows that the unauthorized use occurred 

through no fault of the livestock operator; 

the forage use is insignificant; the 

public lands have not been damaged; 

and nonmonetary settlement is in the 

best interest of the United States. The 

BLM believes this is a reasonable 

approach, and therefore has decided not 

to change this provision. 

• Eliminate Secretarial approval of 

amendments to regional standards for 

healthy rangelands. The BLM received 

comments urging that it revise the process 

for approving standards for rangeland 

health to allow approval of revisions to 

the standards by BLM State Directors, 

Resource Advisory Councils, and other 

advisory boards established by state or 

local governments. The BLM believes 

that the requirement for Secretarial 

approval of Standards developed by 

BLM State Directors ensures that the 

basic components of rangeland health 

are reflected by the regionally developed 

standards and is not proposing any 

changes to the applicable provisions of 

the regulations. 

• Locked gates. Commenters were nearly 

unanimously opposed to the idea of 

the BLM allowing grazing operators 

to temporarily lock gates on public 

lands when necessary to protect private 

property or livestock. This provision was 

not considered further. 

• Requiring posting of a bond before 

filing an appeal. The BLM received 

comments asking it to require a bond 

before a party filed an appeal. The 

BLM considered the implications and 

challenges to such a provision and has 

determined that this provision is not 

feasible. Therefore, it is not included in 

either the rulemaking or the EIS. 

• Fundamentals of Rangeland 

Health. Some commenters recommended 

that the BLM move the general 

requirements related to the fundamentals 

of rangeland health and the standards and 

guidelines for grazing administration to 

BLMʼs planning regulations at 43 CFR 

1610. The BLM did not consider the 

timing of such an action appropriate and 

therefore it is not included in either the 

rulemaking or the EIS. 

2-37
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

2.5 Comparison of the Alternatives

Table 2.5. Proposed revisions to grazing regulations for the public lands: 

comparison of alternatives.

Improving Working Relations with Permittees and Lessees

Elements No Action/No Change 

Alternative 1

Proposed Action

Alternative 2

Modified

Alternative 3

Social,

Economic, and

Cultural

Considerations

in the DecisionMaking Process

* No provisions specifically 

address NEPA documentation of 

social, economic, and cultural 

considerations in the regulations 

regarding changes in permitted 

use.

* Before changing grazing 

preference, the BLM would 

undertake appropriate 

analysis as required by NEPA. 

The BLM would analyze and 

document, if appropriate, the 

relevant social, economic, and 

cultural effects of the proposed 

action.

* Same as 

Proposed Action

Implementation

of Changes

in Grazing Use

* The present regulations 

do not address the timing of 

implementation of decisions to 

change grazing use.

* Changes in active use in 

excess of 10% would be 

implemented over a 5-year 

period unless: an agreement is 

reached with the permittee or 

lessee to implement the increase 

or decrease in less than 5 years; 

or the changes must be made 

before 5 years to comply with 

applicable law (e.g., Endangered 

Species Act).

*Same as 

proposed action, 

except that the 

5-year phase-in 

of changes in 

use would be 

discretionary, 

i.e., change 

in active use 

in excess of 

10% may be 

implemented 

over a 5-year 

period.

Range

Improvement

Ownership 

* The United States holds title to 

permanent range improvements 

such as fences, wells, and 

pipelines authorized after August 

21, 1995.

* Title to permanent range 

improvements such as fences, 

wells, and pipelines authorized 

under a cooperative range 

improvement agreement would 

be shared among cooperators

in proportion to their initial

contribution to on-the-ground 

project development and 

construction costs.

* Same as 

Proposed Action

2-38 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

Improving Working Relations with Permittees and Lessees (continured

Elements No Action/No Change 

Alternative 1

Proposed Action

Alternative 2

Modified

Alternative 3

Cooperation with 

Tribal, State, 

County, or Local 

GovernmentEstablished

Grazing

Boards

* The BLM is required to 

cooperate with state, county, 

and Federal agencies in the 

administration of laws and 

regulations relating to livestock 

diseases, sanitation, and noxious 

weeds, including state cattle and 

sheep sanitary or brand boards 

and county or other weed control 

districts.

* Tribal agencies would be 

added to the list of agencies 

with which BLM would be 

required to cooperate in the 

administration of laws and 

regulations relating to livestock 

diseases, sanitation, and noxious 

weeds

* In addition, BLM would be 

required to cooperate with 

Tribal, state, county, or local 

government-established 

grazing boards in reviewing 

range improvements and 

allotment management plans on 

public lands. 

* Same as 

Proposed Action

Review of 

Biological 

Assessments

and Evaluations

* BLM is required, to the extent 

practicable, to provide affected 

permittees or lessees, the State 

having lands or responsible for 

managing resources within the 

area, and the interested public an 

opportunity to review, comment, 

and give input during the 

preparation of reports that evaluate 

monitoring and other data that 

are used as a basis for making 

decisions to increase or decrease 

grazing use, or to change the 

terms and conditions of a permit 

or lease. This provision has been 

interpreted to include biological 

assessments and biological 

evaluations as among the body of 

reports subject to this requirement.

* Same as existing regulations 

except for some minor edits 

Note: In the draft EIS, it was 

proposed to specifically identify 

biological assessments (BAs) 

and biological evaluations (BEs) 

prepared under the Endangered 

Species Act as reports during 

the preparation of which BLM 

would be required to provide 

affected permittees or lessees, 

the State, and the interested 

public an opportunity to 

review and give input. Based 

on concerns raised during the 

review of the draft EIS, it was 

determined to be inappropriate 

to highlight BAs and BEs in this 

fashion; implying that they had 

greater value or emphasis than 

other reports such as grazing 

management evaluations.

* Same as 

existing 

regulations 

Table 2.5 (continued). Proposed revisions to grazing regulations for the public lands: 

comparison of alternatives.

2-39
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

Protecting the Health of the Rangelands

Elements No Action/No Change 

Alternative 1

Proposed Action

Alternative 2

Modified

Alternative 3

Temporary 

Nonuse

* Grazing permittees or lessees 

may submit and the BLM may 

approve an annual application for 

temporary nonuse for no more 

than 3 consecutive years. Reasons 

for temporary nonuse include 

but are not limited to financial 

conditions or annual fluctuations 

of livestock.

* Grazing permittees or lessees 

could submit and the BLM 

could approve nonuse for no 

longer than 1 year at a time 

for resource reasons as well as 

for business or personal needs 

of the permittee or lessee (i.e., 

there would be no limit on 

consecutive years of nonuse 

allowed).

* Same as 

Proposed Action 

except that 

permittees or 

lessees could 

submit and 

the BLM could 

annually approve 

an application 

for nonuse for 

no more than 5 

consecutive 

years.

Basis for 

Rangeland Health 

Determinations

* The present regulations do 

not prescribe how the BLM 

determines that existing grazing 

management practices or levels 

of grazing use on public lands 

are significant factors in failing 

to achieve the rangeland health 

standards and conform with the 

guidelines.

* Determinations that existing 

grazing management practices 

or levels of grazing use are 

significant factors in failing to 

achieve standards and conform 

with guidelines would be based 

on standards assessments and 

monitoring.

* Same as 

proposed action 

except that the 

BLM would 

not be required 

to use both 

assessments 

and monitoring

as basis for 

determinations, 

i.e., may be 

based on 

assessment or 

monitoring.

Table 2.5 (continued). Proposed revisions to grazing regulations for the public lands: 

comparison of alternatives.

2-40 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

Protecting the Health of the Rangelands (continued)

Elements No Action/No Change 

Alternative 1

Proposed Action

Alternative 2

Modified

Alternative 3

Timeframe for 

Taking Action to

Meet

Rangeland Health 

Standards

* The BLM is required to take 

appropriate action as soon as 

practicable but not later than the 

start of the next grazing year upon 

determining that existing grazing 

management needs to be modified 

to ensure that the fundamentals of 

rangeland health conditions exist 

or progress is being made toward 

achieving the fundamentals of 

rangeland health

* Where standards and 

guidelines have not been 

established, the BLM would 

take appropriate action as soon 

as practicable but not later than 

the start of the next grazing 

year following completion 

of relevant and applicable 

requirements of law, 

regulations and consultation 

requirements to ensure 

fundamentals of rangeland 

health conditions exist or 

progress is being made toward 

achieving rangeland health.

* Same as 

Proposed Action.

* Upon determining that existing 

grazing practices or levels of use 

are significant factors in failing to 

achieve standards and conform 

with guidelines for grazing 

administration, the authorized 

officer shall take appropriate 

action as soon as practicable but 

not later than the start of the next 

grazing year.

* Upon determining that existing 

grazing practices or levels of 

use are significant factors in 

failing to achieve standards and 

guidelines, the BLM would, in 

compliance with applicable 

laws and with the consultation 

requirements, formulate, 

propose, and analyze 

appropriate action to address 

failure to meet standards 

or conform to guidelines no 

later than 24 months after 

determination is made. Upon 

execution of agreement or 

documented decision, the BLM 

would implement appropriate 

actions as soon as practicable 

but not later than start of next 

grazing year. 

* BLM could extend the 

deadline when legally 

required processes that are 

the responsibility of another 

agency prevent completion of 

all legal obligations within the 

24 month timeframe.

* Same as 

Proposed Action.

Table 2.5 (continued). Proposed revisions to grazing regulations for the public lands: 

comparison of alternatives.

2-41
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

Increasing Administrative Efficiency and Effectiveness

Elements No Action/No Change 

Alternative 1

Proposed Action

Alternative 2

Modified

Alternative 3

Conservation Use *Conservation use is defined, 

is identified as a component 

of permitted use, may be 

authorized for up to 10 years, 

and is addressed in other 

provisions. However, no 

conservation use permits can or 

have been issued due to the 10th

Circuit Court decision in 1999 

that issuance of conservation use 

permits exceeds the Secretaryʼs 

authority under the Taylor Grazing 

Act. 

* All references to and 

provisions on conservation use

would be deleted.

* Same as 

Proposed Action.

Definition of

Grazing 

Preference,

Permitted Use, 

and

Active Use

* Grazing preference or preference

is defined as a superior or priority 

position against others for the 

purpose of receiving a grazing 

permit or lease. This priority is 

attached to base property owned 

or controlled by the permittee or 

lessee.

* Grazing preference or 

preference would mean the 

total number of animal unit 

months on public lands 

apportioned and attached 

to base property owned or 

controlled by a permittee, 

lessee or an applicant for 

a permit or lease. Grazing 

preference would include 

active use and use held in 

suspension. Grazing preference 

holders would have a superior or 

priority position against others 

for the purpose of receiving a 

grazing permit or lease.

* Same as 

Proposed Action.

* Permitted use is defined as the 

forage allocated by, or under the 

guidance of, an applicable land 

use plan for livestock grazing 

in an allotment under a permit 

or lease and is expressed in 

AUMS. The term permitted 

use encompasses authorized use 

including livestock use, suspended 

use and conservation use.

* The term permitted use

would be dropped from the 

regulations and replaced with 

the term grazing preference, 

preference or active use, 

depending upon the context, 

throughout the regulations.

* Same as 

Proposed Action.

* Active use means present 

authorized use, including livestock 

grazing and conservation use. 

Active use may constitute a 

portion, or all, of permitted 

use. Active use doesnʼt include 

temporary nonuse or suspended 

use within all or a portion of an 

allotment.

* Active use would be redefined 

to mean that portion of the 

present authorized use that 

is available for livestock 

grazing based on livestock 

carrying capacity and resource 

conditions in an allotment 

under a permit or lease and 

that is not in suspension. 

* Same as 

Proposed Action.

Table 2.5 (continued). Proposed revisions to grazing regulations for the public lands: 

comparison of alternatives.

2-42 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

Increasing Administrative Efficiency and Effectiveness (continued)

Elements No Action/No Change 

Alternative 1

Proposed Action

Alternative 2

Modified

Alternative 3

Definition and 

Role of Interested 

Public 

* Interested public is defined 

as an individual, groups or 

organization that has submitted a 

written request to the authorized 

officer to be provided an 

opportunity to be involved in the 

decision-making process for the 

management of livestock grazing 

on specific allotments or has 

submitted written comments to the 

authorized officer regarding the 

management of livestock grazing 

on a specific allotment.

* Interested public would be 

defined as an individual, group 

or organization that has: (1) 

Submitted a written request 

to BLM to be provided an 

opportunity to be involved in 

the decision-making process 

as to a specific allotment 

and followed up on that 

request by commenting on 

or otherwise participating in 

the decision-making process 

on management of a specific 

allotment; or (2) Submitted 

written comments to the BLM 

regarding management of 

livestock grazing on a specific 

allotment.

* Same as 

Proposed Action.

* The BLM is required to consult, 

cooperate and coordinate with 

interested public on the following:

• Designating/adjusting 

allotment boundaries.

• Apportioning additional 

forage

• Reducing permitted use

• Emergency closures or 

modifications 

• Development or 

modification of grazing 

activity plan.

• Planning of the range 

development or 

improvement program

• Renewing/issuing grazing 

permit/lease

• Modifying a permit/lease

• Reviewing/commenting on 

grazing evaluation reports.

• Issuing temporary nonrenewable grazing permits.

* Requirements to consult, 

cooperate and coordinate with 

the interested public would be 

modified as follows:

• Removed

• Retained

• Removed

• Removed

• Retained

• Retained

• Removed

• Removed

• Retained (dropped 

reference to commenting) 

• Removed

* Same as 

Proposed Action.

Table 2.5 (continued). Proposed revisions to grazing regulations for the public lands: 

comparison of alternatives.

2-43
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

Increasing Administrative Efficiency and Effectiveness (continued)

Elements No Action/No Change 

Alternative 1

Proposed Action

Alternative 2

Modified

Alternative 3

Definition and 

Role of Interested 

Public

(continued) 

* BLM is required to send copies 

of proposed and final decisions to 

the interested public.

* Same as existing regulations. * Same as 

existing 

regulations.

Water Rights * Any right acquired on or after 

8/21/95 to use water on public 

land for the purpose of livestock 

watering shall be acquired, 

perfected, maintained, and 

administered under the substantive 

and procedural laws of the State 

within which land is located. To 

the extent allowed by State law, 

any such water right shall be 

acquired, perfected, maintained, 

and administered in the name of 

the United States.

* The phrase – “on or after 8/

21/95” - would be dropped from 

the first sentence. The second 

sentence of this provision

- stating that, to the extent 

allowed by State law, any 

water right would be acquired, 

perfected, maintained, and 

administered in the name of 

the United States - would be 

removed.

* Same as 

Proposed Action.

Satisfactory 

Performance 

of Permittee

or Lessee

* Requirements for satisfactory 

performance for renewal of 

permits and leases and for new 

permits or leases are defined in 

terms of when the applicant for 

such permits or leases is deemed 

not to have a satisfactory record of 

performance.

* The provisions on satisfactory 

performance would be moved

from the section on “mandatory 

qualifications” to the section on 

“filing applications”. Minor 

editorial changes would 

be made in the definition of 

“satisfactory performance” for a 

new applicant for a permit or 

lease or for a permit or lease 

subsequent to a preference 

transfer – basically changing 

the definition from a negative 

(what “is not” satisfactory 

performance) to a positive 

(what “is” satisfactory 

performance).

* Same as 

Proposed Action.

Table 2.5 (continued). Proposed revisions to grazing regulations for the public lands: 

comparison of alternatives.

2-44 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

Increasing Administrative Efficiency and Effectiveness (continued)

Elements No Action/No Change 

Alternative 1

Proposed Action

Alternative 2

Modified

Alternative 3

Changes in 

Grazing use 

Within Terms 

and Conditions 

of Permit or Lease 

* Changes within the terms and 

conditions of the permit or lease 

may be granted by the authorized 

officer.

* Same as existing regulations. * Same as 

existing 

regulations.

* The present regulations do 

not define what is meant by 

“temporary changes in grazing use 

within the terms and conditions of 

the permit or lease.”

* “Temporary changes in 

grazing use within the terms 

and conditions of the permit 

or lease” would be defined 

to mean temporary changes to 

livestock number, period of use, 

or both that would: 

(1) Result in temporary nonuse; 

or 

(2) Result in forage removal 

that does not exceed the 

amount of active use specified 

in the permit or lease; and, 

unless otherwise specified in 

an allotment management plan,

occurs no earlier than 14 days 

before the begin date specified 

on the permit or lease, and 

no later than 14 days after 

the end date specified on the 

permit or lease; or 

(3) Result in both temporary 

nonuse and forage removal as 

defined above.

* Same as 

Proposed Action.

* The present regulations do not 

include consultation requirements 

for such changes.

*The BLM would consult, 

cooperate and coordinate with 

the permittee or lessee on such 

changes. 

* Same as 

Proposed Action.

Service Charges * A service charge may be 

assessed for each crossing permit, 

transfer of grazing preference, 

application solely for nonuse and 

each replacement or supplemental 

billing notice except for actions 

initiated by the authorized officer. 

A specific fee is not identified in 

the present regulations, however 

the present fee for these actions is 

$10.

* Except where BLM initiates 

the action, BLM would assess 

a service charge as shown 

below:

(1) Issuance of crossing 

permit: $75; 

(2) Transfer of grazing 

preference: $145; 

(3) Cancellation and 

replacement of grazing fee 

billing: $50

* Same as 

Proposed Action.

Table 2.5 (continued). Proposed revisions to grazing regulations for the public lands: 

comparison of alternatives.

2-45
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

Increasing Administrative Efficiency and Effectiveness (continued)

Elements No Action/No Change 

Alternative 1

Proposed Action

Alternative 2

Modified

Alternative 3

Prohibited Acts * There are three categories of 

acts that are prohibited on public 

lands.

* Same as existing regulations. * Same as 

existing 

regulations. 

* The first category provides 

that permittees or lessees may be 

subject to civil penalties if they 

perform any of the 6 prohibited 

acts listed in this section.

* Same as existing regulations 

with several minor editorial 

changes and clarifications.

* Same as 

Proposed Action. 

* The second category provides 

that anyone, not just permittees or 

lessees, shall be subject to civil or 

criminal penalties if they perform 

any of the 11 prohibited acts listed 

in this section. Prohibited acts 

in this category include actions 

such as littering, damaging or 

removing U.S. property without 

authorization, and failing to 

reclose any gate or other entry 

during periods of livestock use.

* Same as existing regulations 

with some minor editorial 

changes.

* Same as 

the Proposed 

Action plus 

the following 

prohibited act 

would be added 

to this section:

“Failing to 

comply with the 

use of certified 

weed seed 

free forage, 

grain, straw or 

mulch when 

required by 

the authorized 

officer.”

* The third category provides 

that permittees or lessees could 

be subject to civil penalties for 

performance of acts listed in 

this section where: public lands 

are involved or affected; the 

violation is related to grazing use 

authorized by BLM; the permittee 

has been convicted or otherwise 

found to be in violation of any of 

these laws or regulations; and no 

further appeals are outstanding.

* The performance of prohibited 

acts in the third category of 

prohibited acts would be further 

limited to the performance 

of such acts on an allotment 

where the permittee or lessee 

is authorized to graze under a 

BLM permit or lease.

In addition, there would be some 

minor editorial changes. 

* Same as 

Proposed Action.

Table 2.5 (continued). Proposed revisions to grazing regulations for the public lands: 

comparison of alternatives.

2-46 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

Increasing Administrative Efficiency and Effectiveness (continued)

Elements No Action/No Change 

Alternative 1

Proposed Action

Alternative 2

Modified

Alternative 3

Prohibited Acts

(continued)

* The third category consists 

of three sets of prohibited acts 

including:

• Specific laws or regulations 

(e.g., Endangered Species Act)

• Federal or state laws pertaining 

to natural, environmental, or 

cultural resources 

• State laws related to livestock 

operations

* Same as existing regulations. The third 

category would 

consist of only 2 

sets of prohibited 

acts including:

• Specific laws 

or regulations

(e.g., Endangered

Species Act)

• State laws

related to 

livestock

operations

* Federal or

state laws 

pertaining to 

natural,

environmental,

or cultural 

resources would

be deleted from

the prohibited

acts list.

Table 2.5 (continued). Proposed revisions to grazing regulations for the public lands: 

comparison of alternatives.

2-47
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

Increasing Administrative Efficiency and Effectiveness (continued)

Elements No Action/No Change 

Alternative 1

Proposed Action

Alternative 2

Modified

Alternative 3

Grazing Use 

Pending

Resolution

of Appeals

When Decision

Has Been

Stayed

* If a decision is stayed, the 

permittee or lessee will graze in 

accordance with the authorization 

issued the previous year.

* If a stay is granted on an 

appeal to a decision to cancel, 

suspend, change or renew a 

term permit or lease or to deny 

or offer a permit or lease to a 

preference transferee, then the 

BLM will authorize grazing 

under the immediately preceding 

permit or lease, or the relevant 

term or condition thereof.

* Same as 

Proposed Action.

* If the applicant had no 

authorized grazing use the 

previous year or the application is 

for ephemeral or annual grazing 

use, then grazing use will be 

consistent with the final decision 

pending resolution of the appeal.

* Decisions on ephemeral or 

annual rangeland grazing use 

and nonrenewable grazing 

permits would be effective 

immediately or on the date 

specified in the decision. There 

would be no special provisions 

for grazing use if a stay is 

granted on such decisions, 

therefore if a stay is granted the 

decision would be inoperative 

and, if appropriate considering 

the specific stay, the livestock 

may have to be removed from 

the allotment.

Treatment of

Biological 

Assessments and 

Evaluations in the

Grazing 

Decision-Making

Process

* Present regulations do not 

specifically address biological 

assessments or biological 

evaluations prepared in 

compliance with the Endangered 

Species Act. However, in 

accordance with the IBLA Blake

decision, biological assessments 

are to be treated as decisions 

subject to protest and appeal.

* A biological assessment or 

biological evaluation prepared 

for Endangered Species Act 

consultation or conference 

would not be a decision for 

purposes of protest or appeal.

* Same as 

Proposed Action.

Table 2.5 (concluded). Proposed revisions to grazing regulations for the public lands: 

comparison of alternatives.

2-48 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

Table 2.6. Comparison of the effects across alternatives.

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Grazing Administration

*BLM grazing administration 

would provide some partnership 

opportunities. 

*Mechanisms for changing 

grazing management would be 

hurried, impractical, inefficient, 

and discourage partnerships, 

and may result in decisions of 

inconsistent quality. 

*The consideration and 

documentation of social, 

economic and cultural effects of 

grazing decisions would remain 

inconsistent.

*The timeframe for implementing 

changes in use would be 

determined on a case-by case 

basis.

*Cooperation with government 

established grazing boards would 

be inconsistent.

*Decisions on day-to-day 

operations would cumbersome, 

inefficient and untimely.

*Biological assessments and 

evaluations could be appealed, 

creating workloads that would 

displace other high priority work 

such as monitoring, and delaying 

implementation of grazing 

decisions.

*The regulations would promote 

greater partnership with grazing 

permittees, lessees, and grazing 

advisory boards. 

*The extended timeframe for 

developing appropriate action 

following a determination would 

yield reasoned, comprehensive 

and sustainable decisions. This 

timeframe would delay on-theground action in a relatively small 

number of allotments but would 

improve cooperation and build 

partnerships with permitees and 

lessees. 

*Ensure greater consistency in the 

consideration and documentation 

of relevant social, economic, and 

cultural impacts. 

*The requirement to use monitoring 

data to support determinations 

on allotments that fail to meet 

standards because of existing 

grazing management may result in 

an additional workload for BLM. 

*Reprioritizing data collection 

efforts to conduct monitoring 

may effect watershed assessment 

schedules and could delay permit 

renewal where current monitoring 

data is not available.

*Allowing shared title to permanent 

structural range improvements may 

stimulate private investment.

*BLM would focus 

communications with interested 

public on significant issues 

occurring on grazing allotments 

where input would be of the 

greatest value.

*By providing that biological 

assessments are not subject to 

appeal, BLM would be able to 

more efficiently and timely make 

changes in grazing management. 

*Similar to Alternative 2 but with 

additional overall flexibility at the 

local level.

*Allowing BLM discretionary 

authority for phase-in period instead 

of requiring 5-year timeframe could 

provide additional protection for 

wildlife or other sensitive resources.

*Allowing discretionary use of 

monitoring data for standards 

determinations rather than requiring 

it would allow BLM to flexibility at 

the local level to prioritize data and 

information collection.

*The provision allowing the 

requirement to use weed seed free 

forage, grain, straw or mulch would 

provide enforcement authority as a 

preventative measure to reduce the 

spread of noxious weeds.

2.6 Comparison of the Effects

2-49
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

Table 2.6 (continued). Comparison of the effects across alternatives.

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Vegetation

*Vegetation would move toward 

achievement of management 

objectives. 

*Timelines for formulating 

management changes may 

limit vegetation management 

alternatives and strain working 

relationships with permittees or 

lessees. 

*Riparian vegetation would 

remain static or improve slightly.

*Vegetation would move toward 

achievement of management 

objectives. 

*Potential for short-term adverse 

effects where vegetative conditions 

are in a downward trend and 

recovery is delayed.

*Additional resources may be 

invested in improvements due to 

partnerships and improved working 

relationships. 

*Increased flexibility for 

temporary nonuse may result in 

greater alignment between forage 

production and utilization levels.

*Increased flexibility to negotiate 

cooperative water developments 

may stimulate private investments 

and assist BLM to achieve 

vegetation management objectives.

*Riparian vegetation would remain 

static or improve slightly.

*Similar to Alternative 2 but the 

flexibility in the use of monitoring 

or standards assessments data 

for making determinations and 

the timeframe for implementing 

management changes would allow 

BLM to accelerate short-term 

vegetative recovery. 

*Weed seed-free forage enforcement 

authority would result in slower 

weed expansion rates..

Fire and Fuels

*A minimal effect on the ability 

to reach a more historical fire 

regime.

*A slight improvement in the 

ability to reestablish historical fire 

regimes resulting in vegetation 

improvements.

*Similar to Alternative 2.

Soils

*Short-term adverse impacts 

would be minimal except at the 

local scale. 

*Would result in maintenance 

of or slight improvement in 

conditions in the long term. 

*Short-term adverse impacts would 

be minimal except at the local 

scale where watershed cover is 

inadequate. 

*Maintenance or slight 

improvement would be expected in 

the long-term due to maintenance 

of adequate watershed cover.

*Overall the effects would be 

neutral to slightly beneficial 

because of maintenance or slight 

improvement in watershed cover.

* Allowing greater discretion 

in the phase-in schedule, and 

choice of data used for making 

determinations may allow more 

rapid implementation of changes, 

accelerating recovery of watershed 

cover.

A weed-seed free forage provision 

that reduces the spread of weeds 

might enhance watershed cover.

2-50 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

Table 2.6 (continued). Comparison of the effects across alternatives.

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Water Resources

*The proposed changes would 

have little or no impact on shortterm water resource conditions. 

*Slow improvement in watershed 

conditions would be expected for 

the long term. 

*Water quality would remain static 

or improve slowly.

*Similar to Alternative 1. *Similar to Alternative 1.

Air Quality

*Air quality would be expected 

to be maintained or improved and 

within standards.

*Similar to Alternative 1. *Similar to Alternative 1.

Wildlife

*Risks and benefits to wildlife and 

wildlife habitat, are not expected 

to change.

*Current timeframes for 

developing grazing management 

changes would impede adequate 

analysis and consultation, resulting 

in less effective and acceptable 

decisions on wildlife. 

*In the long-term, there would be 

little or no effect on wildlife due to 

better partnerships with permittees 

and lessees and longer timeframes 

for developing effective and 

acceptable decisions. 

*Implementation of changes in 

grazing use and timeframes for 

taking action could have an adverse 

effect on wildlife in the short-term 

in a small number of allotments.

*The elimination of the 3 

consecutive year limit on 

temporary non-use could improve 

opportunities for cooperation 

to benefit wildlife resources by 

allowing a longer recovery period.

*The extended timeframe would 

allow formulation of reasoned, 

comprehensive and sustainable 

decisions that, in the long term, 

may benefit wildlife.

*Changes in temporary non-use 

over current regulations from 3 to 

5 consecutive years would slightly 

benefit wildlife.

*Allowing greater discretion for 

BLM managers to schedule phasing 

in changes in grazing use would 

allow more rapid implementation 

benefiting wildlife.

* Allowing greater discretion on 

the type of data used for making 

rangeland health determinations 

would allow more rapid 

implementation, benefiting wildlife 

resources.

*A weed-seed free forage provision 

that reduces the spread of weeds 

would enhance wildlife habitat.

*Removal of certain prohibited acts 

would eliminate a mechanism for 

protecting wildlife.

Special Status Species

* Risks and benefits to special 

status species, are not expected to 

change 

*Effects similar to wildlife in 

Alternative 1.

*No effect on most special status 

species. 

*At risk species and those 

designated by each BLM State 

Director as BLM-sensitive may be 

affected in the short-term in a small 

number of allotments however, in 

the long-term, there would be little 

or no effect.

*Similar to wildlife effects in 

Alternative 3. 

2-51
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Wild Horses and Burros

*Little affect on wild horse and 

burro populations on public lands.

*Slight long-term beneficial impact 

from improved condition of the 

vegetation on habitat areas through 

an improved decision making 

process.

*Similar to Alternative 2.

Recreation

*Minimal impacts to the 

Recreation Program. 

*Slight improvement where the 

vegetation is improved.

*Minimal impacts to the Recreation 

Program. 

*Slight improvement where the 

vegetation is improved. *Effects 

could be adverse in the short term 

if corrective actions are delayed.

*Similar impacts to alternative 2. 

*The reduction of weed expansion 

would have an additional benefit to 

recreation interests.

Special Areas

*Little impact due to existing 

good conditions and Special Area 

mandates.

*Little impact due to existing 

good conditions and Special Area 

mandates.

*Slight improvement of conditions 

on the long term due to reduction of 

weed expansion. 

Heritage Resources: Paleontological and Cultural Resources (Properties)

*Heritage resources are protected 

through case-by-case, site specific 

surveys and analysis.

*Prohibited act regarding removal 

or destruction of cultural resources 

may act as a deterrent.

*There would be little to no effect 

on heritage resources. 

* New on-the-ground projects 

would be analyzed on a case-bycase basis. 

* There would be little to no effect 

on heritage resources. 

* New on-the-ground projects would 

be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. 

Economic Conditions

*Local/regional economic effects 

would be minor. 

*On-going effects include: 1) low 

flexibility; 2) lack of incentive to 

participate in range improvements; 

3) lack of time to implement land 

health determinations; and 4) lack 

of cost recovery.

*Local/regional economic effects 

would be minor. 

*Primary effects would be: 1) 

Increased flexibility; 

2) Increased BLM costs; 3) reduced 

adverse impacts on ranchers from 

herd reductions; 4) increased 

service charges for ranchers and 

increased cost recovery for BLM.

*Similar to Alternative 2. *Greater 

discretion for BLM managers in 

implementing changes in use and 

using monitoring data for land 

health determinations could have 

an adverse economic impact on 

ranchers.

Table 2.6 (continued). Comparison of the effects across alternatives.

2-52 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 2

Description of the Proposed

Action and Alternatives

Table 2.6 (concluded). Comparison of the effects across alternatives.

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Social Conditions

*Ranchers would continue to face 

increasing stress related to public 

land grazing. 

*Ranchers would continue to have 

difficulty passing ranch on to the 

next generation.

*Ranchers would continue to sell 

ranches for amenity reasons and 

subdivision.

*Ranching, environmental and 

recreation interests perceive the 

monitoring requirements as being 

positive and believe this provision 

would provide beneficial social 

impacts. 

*Ranchers would experience 

beneficial social effects as a result 

of most provisions – particularly 

documentation of social, economic, 

and cultural impacts, phasing in 

of implementation of changes, 

required cooperation with grazing 

boards, focusing stock water 

rights provision on following 

state law and providing more 

time for developing appropriate 

action following rangeland health 

determination.

*Ranchers would experience 

adverse social effects from the 

removal of the limit on consecutive 

years of nonuse. 

*Environmental groups would 

experience adverse social effects 

from the stock water rights 

provision change.

*Social effects on environmental 

interests and recreation interests 

would generally be minimal 

or neutral for most of the other 

proposed revisions.

*There could be minimal social 

effects on ranchers and conservation 

groups due to BLM having 

discretion to use monitoring for 

rangeland health determinations.

*Elimination of certain prohibited 

acts would have an adverse effect 

on conservation, environmental and 

recreation groups.

Environmental Justice

*No disproportionate effects on 

low-income, minority, or Tribal 

populations.

*Would not result in violation of 

environmental justice principles.

*No disproportionate effects on 

low-income, minority, or Tribal 

populations.

*Would not result in violation of 

environmental justice principles..

*No disproportionate effects on 

low-income, minority, or Tribal 

populations.

*Would not result in violation of 

environmental justice principles.

2-53

Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

3-1

Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

Chapter 3 Table of Contents

3.0 Affected Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7

3.1 General Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8

3.2 Physiographic Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8

 3.2.1 Marine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9

 3.2.2 Mediterranean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9

 3.2.3 Tropical–Subtropical Steppe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9

 3.2.4 Tropical-Subtropical Desert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10

 3.2.5 Temperate Steppe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10

 3.2.6 Temperate Desert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11

3.3 Drought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11

3.4 Grazing Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11

 3.4.1 Issuing, Modifying, or Renewing Permits or Leases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12

 3.4.2 Implementing Changes in Grazing Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13

 3.4.3 Range Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13

 Table 3.4.3.1. Number of rangeland improvement projects by state. . . . . . . . . . 3-15

 3.4.4 Involvement of Interested Publics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-15

 3.4.5 Authorizing Temporary Changes in Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-16

 Table 3.4.5.1. Estimated authorized use and non use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-16

 3.4.6 Prohibited Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-17

 3.4.7 Appeals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18

 3.4.8 Rangeland Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18

3.5 Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-19

 Figure 3.5.1. Vegetation classification: subclass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-20

 Table 3.5.1. Vegetation classification noting the division, order,

 and subclass of vegetation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-21

 Table 3.5.2. Plant communities depicted within each of the 14 vegetation types. . . 3-21

 3.5.1 Upland Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-25

 Figure 3.5.1.1. State-and-transition model incorporating the concepts

 of community pathways between plant community phases within

 states, reversible transitions, multiple thresholds, irreversible

 transitions, multiple pathways of change, and multiple steady

 states. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-27

 3.5.2 Riparian and Wetland Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-28

 Figure 3.5.2.1. Condition of lotic riparian areas on BLM lands

 (lower 48 states), 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-30

 Figure 3.5.2.2. Condition of lentic riparian areas on BLM lands

 (lower 48 states), 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-30

 Table 3.5.2.1. Comparison of condition of lotic riparian habitat

 on BLM lands, 1998 vs. 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-31

 Table 3.5.2.2. Comparison of lentic riparian–wetland habitat

 on BLM lands, 1998 vs. 2001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-31

3-3
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

3.6 Fire and Fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-31

 3.6.1 Fire Regimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-33

 3.6.2 Understory Fire Regimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-33

 3.6.3 Mixed Fire Regimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-34

 3.6.4 Stand Replacement Fire Regimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-34

3.7 Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-35

 3.7.1 Upland Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-35

 Figure 3.7.1.1. Generalized soil map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-36

 3.7.2 Riparian Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-38

3.8 Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-38

 3.8.1 Riparian Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-38

 3.8.2 Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-39

 3.8.3 Water Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-40

 Table 3.8.3. Ownership of livestock water rights (by state). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-41

3.9 Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-42

3.10 Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-43

 3.10.1 Terrestrial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-43

 3.10.2 Migratory Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-44

 Table 3.10.2.1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service birds of

 conservation concern 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-45

 Table 3.10.2.2 Species with increasing and decreasing trends during

 the breeding season on the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation

 Area, Arizona, before and after removal of cattle in late 1987, sorted by

 significance level of the trend. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-50

 3.10.3 Riparian, Wetland, and Aquatic Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-52

 3.10.3.1 Cold Water Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-53

 Figure 3.10.3.1.1. Sequential degrading of a stream channel and

 its associated riparian community (BLM 1993). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-54

 Figure 3.10.3.1.2. Stages in the recovery of a stream-associated

 riparian area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-55

3.11 Special Status Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-55

3.12 Wild Horses and Burros . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-57

 Figure 3.12.1. Herd Management Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-58

3.13 Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-59

3.14 Special Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-60

 3.14.1 National Landscape Conservation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-60

 Figure 3.14.1. Bueau of Land Management National Landscape

 Conservation System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-61

 3.14.2 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-62

 3.14.3 Research Natural Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-62

 3.14.4 National Natural Landmarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-63

 3.14.5 National Recreation Trails . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-63

3-4 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

3.15 Heritage Resources: Paleontological and Cultural Resources (Properties) . . . . . . 3-63

 3.15.1 Paleontological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-63

 3.15.2 Heritage Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-63

 Table 3.15.2.1. Bureau of Land Management cultural

 resource inventory data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-64

 Table 3.15.2.2. Bureau of Land Management significant cultural

 resource areas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-64

 3.15.3 Heritage Resources Through Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-65

3.16 Economic Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-66

 Table 3.16.1. Permits, leases, and authorized use, 2002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-67

 Table 3.16.2. Number of permits or leases and active or

 nonuse AUMs since 1996. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-68

 Table 3.16.3. Percent dependency of counties in 11 western States on

 Federal forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-68

 Table 3.16.4. Average dependency level for cattle and sheep by state for

 the 11 western States (includes both BLM and Forest Service rangelands). . . . 3-69

3.17 Social Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-70

 Table 3.17.1. State and regional population change in the West, 1990 to 2000. . . . 3-71

 Table 3.17.2. Rural and urban populations in the West, 1990 and 2000. . . . . . . . . . 3-72

 Table 3.17.3. Metropolitan, nonmetropolitan, and public land county

 population change in western States, 1990 to 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-72

 Table 3.17.4. Ranch income by source. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-74

 Table 3.17.5. Goals and objectives for ranching. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-75

 Table 3.17.6. Months of labor required to run the ranch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-76

 Table 3.17.7. Example of social organization process in

 ranching communities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-79

 Table 3.17.8. Recent population change in census subdivisions,

 Lemhi County, Idaho. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-82

 Table 3.17.9. Attendance, graduates, and local taxes per ADA,

 1995 to 2002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-83

3-5

Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

Chapter 3 describes the physical, 

biological, social, and economic environment 

of the West that would be affected by the 

proposed action or alternatives. Prime and 

unique farmlands, floodplains, and hazardous 

and solid wastes have been determined as not 

being affected by the proposed regulation and 

are not discussed.

Changes in Chapter 3 include the 

following:

• Clarifications or additions to avoid 

misunderstanding of intent or meaning, 

or to elaborate on a particular topic which 

the public requested further information:

o Section 3.4, Grazing AdministrationAdded additional information 

concerning the responsibilities of the 

BLM to protect public rangelands.

o Section 3.4.2, Implementing Changes 

in Grazing Use- Added a sentence to 

explain that not all changes in grazing 

use are due to undesirable resource 

conditions; some are made due to land 

use planning.

o Section 3.4.3, Range ImprovementsText was added in response to the 

request for explanation of the process 

used to transfer any interest in range 

improvement between permittees or 

lessees.

o Section 3.6, Fire and Fuels- language 

was added in response to a request 

for more information regarding 

the influence of human activities, 

including grazing, on the proliferation 

and spread of exotic annual grasses.

o Section 3.8.3 and Table 3.8.3 were 

added to address water rights. 

o Section 3.12, Wild Horses and 

Burros- Removed reference to 

the year in the strategic goal of 

establishing AML. The year is 

only a strategic goal; however, it 

caused confusion because it was 

not consistent with the assumption 

upon which the EIS is based, and 

commenters felt it was unrealistic.

o Section 3.15, Paleontological 

and Cultural Resources- The title 

was modified by adding the term 

“Heritage Resources” to denote that 

both paleontological and cultural 

properties are considered heritage 

resources. The term “properties” was 

also added to the title to help clear up 

confusion in the comments regarding 

physical expressions of culture and 

the social lifeways that ascribe them 

significance. 

o Section 3.15.2, Cultural ResourcesThe first paragraph was modified 

to remove language that caused 

confusion of the physical properties 

of culture and the lifeways which are 

abstract aspects of a social group.

o Section 3.15.3, Cultural Resources 

Through Time- The last paragraph 

was modified to clear up confusing 

text regarding cultural properties and 

social lifeways.

• Changes in text to correct errors or 

misleading statements made in draft EIS:

o Section 3.13, Recreation- the text 

made the incorrect statement that 

“recreationists from local or rural 

areas” tend to be less affected by 

3.0 Affected Environment

3-7
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

rangeland conditions. Comments 

correctly identified this as incorrect 

and the reference to “recreationists 

from local or rural areas” was 

removed.

o Section 3.4.8, Rangeland Health- The 

acreage corresponding to allotments 

meeting (58,711,307) and not meeting 

(32,332,345) standards was removed. 

The number of acres not meeting 

rangeland health standards has been 

inconsistently reported since 1997. 

Some BLM State offices reported the 

actual acres not meeting standards 

when it was determined that an 

allotment did not meet all standards; 

other offices reported all acres in an 

allotment as not meeting standards 

if a determination was made that the 

allotment did not meet standards, 

even if a large proportion of the acres 

within the allotment met all standards. 

Therefore, it was determined that 

the numbers of acres are not reliable 

for analysis. However, the number 

of allotments has been consistently 

reported and is valid data for analysis.

• Changes in Chapter 3 to update 

information:

o Section 3.4.1, Issuing, Modifying, 

or Renewing Permits or LeasesThe entire first paragraph has been 

replaced with a new paragraph which 

includes updated information and 

data, as well as language which 

further explains and clarifies the state 

of the permit renewal process.

3.1 General Setting

Bureau of Land Management land is 

grazed by livestock on 160 million acres 

of land in 15 States in the West, excluding 

Alaska. The area covered by this action is 

shown in Figure 1.1. 

3.2 Physiographic Setting

The physiographic setting is classified 

according and directly derived from Robert 

G. Baileyʼs ecoregion division classifications 

and descriptions for the United States (Bailey 

1995, 1997). Bailey delineated ecoregions 

utilizing a scale based on macroclimates. 

Through consideration of macroclimatic 

conditions, in combination with the plant 

formations produced by the macroclimates, 

Bailey subdivided the United States into 

ecoregions composed of three levels of detail.

The broadest level of detail is reflected 

within the domain level. The two domain 

levels within the effected environment in 

the United States are delineated primarily 

by the related climate, for example, the 

humid domain versus the dry domain. 

Within the two domain levels in the affected 

environment, Bailey further delineated 6 

divisions. These divisions are classified 

according to the seasonality of precipitation 

or the degree of dryness and cold. 

Corresponding climate diagrams that assist 

in explaining the division description can be 

found in Bailey 1998a and 1998b. 

The six divisions are divided further 

into 13 providences and 6 mountain 

providences. The providence level provides 

the greatest level of detail. The organization 

of providences is mainly concentrated on 

the uniformity of climate subtypes and 

corresponding plant formations. Mountain 

environments that further characterized 

3-8 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

providences through altitudinal zonation 

compromise the mountain providences.

3.2.1 Marine

Situated on the Pacific coast between 

latitudes 40 ° and 60 ° N is a zone that 

receives abundant rainfall from maritime 

polar air masses and has a rather narrow 

range of temperatures because it borders on 

the ocean. 

Trewartha (1968) classifies the marine 

west coast climate as Do—temperate and 

rainy, with warm summers. The average 

temperature of the warmest month is below 

72 ° F (22 ° C), but at least 4 months per 

year have an average temperature of 50 ° F 

(10 ° C). The average temperature during the 

coldest month of the year is above 32 ° F (0 ° 

C). Precipitation is abundant throughout the 

year, but is markedly reduced during summer. 

Although total rainfall is not great by tropical 

standards, the lower air temperatures here 

reduce evaporation and produce a very damp, 

humid climate with much cloud cover. Mild 

winters and relatively cool summers are 

typical. Coastal mountain ranges influence 

precipitation markedly in these middle 

latitudes. The mountainous coasts of British 

Columbia and Alaska annually receive 

60 to 80 inches (1,530 to 2,040 mm) of 

precipitation and more. Heavy precipitation 

greatly contributed to the development of 

fiords along the coast—heavy snows during 

the glacial period fed vigorous valley glaciers 

that descended to the sea, scouring deep 

troughs that reach below sea level at their 

lower ends. 

Natural vegetation in the Marine Division 

is needleleaf forest. In the coastal ranges of 

the Pacific Northwest, Douglas-fir, red cedar, 

and spruce grow to magnificent heights, 

forming some of the densest of all coniferous 

forests with some of the worldʼs largest trees. 

Soils are strongly leached, acid 

Inceptisols and Ultisols. Because of the 

regionʼs low temperatures, bacterial activity 

is slower than in the warm tropics, so 

vegetative matter is not consumed and forms 

a heavy surface deposit. Organic acids from 

decomposing vegetation react with soil 

compounds, removing such bases as calcium, 

sodium, and potassium. 

3.2.2 Mediterranean

Situated on the Pacific coast between 

latitudes 30 ° and 45 ° N is a zone subject to 

alternate wet and dry seasons, the transition 

zone between the dry west coast desert and 

the wet west coast. 

Trewartha (1968) classifies the climate 

of these lands as Cs, signifying a temperate, 

rainy climate with the dry, hot summers 

indicated by the symbols. The combination 

of wet winters with dry summers is unique 

among climate types and produces a 

distinctive natural vegetation of hardleaved 

evergreen trees and shrubs called sclerophyll 

forest. Various forms of sclerophyll woodland 

and scrub are also typical. Trees and shrubs 

must withstand the severe summer drought (2 

to 4 rainless months) and severe evaporation. 

Soils of this Mediterranean climate are 

not susceptible to simple classification. 

Alfisols and Mollisols typical of semiarid 

climates are generally found.

3.2.3 Tropical–Subtropical Steppe

Tropical steppes border the tropical 

deserts on both the north and south, and in 

places on the east as well. Locally, because of 

altitude, plateaus and high plains within what 

would otherwise be desert have a semiarid 

steppe climate. Steppes on the poleward 

fringes of the tropical deserts grade into the 

Mediterranean climate in many places. In 

the United States, they are cut off from the 

Mediterranean climate by coastal mountains 

that allow tropical deserts to extend farther 

north. 

3-9
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

Trewartha (1968) classifies the climate 

of tropical–subtropical steppes as BSh, 

indicating a hot, semiarid climate where 

potential evaporation exceeds precipitation, 

and where all months have temperatures 

above 32 ° F.

Steppes typically are grasslands of short 

grasses and other herbs, and with locally 

developed shrub- and woodland. On the 

Colorado Plateau, for example, there is 

pinyon–juniper woodland. To the east, in 

Texas, the grasslands grade into savanna 

woodland or semideserts composed of 

xerophytic shrubs and trees, and the climate 

becomes semiarid–subtropical. Cactus 

plants are present in some places. Soils 

are commonly Mollisols and Aridisols, 

containing some humus. 

3.2.4 Tropical-Subtropical Desert

South of the Arizona–New Mexico 

mountains are the continental desert 

climates, which are arid with high air and 

soil temperatures. Direct sun radiation is 

strong, as is outgoing radiation at night, 

causing large variations between day and 

night temperatures and a rare nocturnal 

frost. Annual precipitation ranges from 4 

to 8 inches. These areas have climates that 

Trewartha (1968) calls BWh. 

The region is characterized by dry-desert 

vegetation, a class of xerophytic plants that 

are widely dispersed and provide negligible 

ground cover. In dry periods, visible 

vegetation is limited to small, hard-leaved 

or spiny shrubs, cacti, or hard grasses. Many 

species of small annuals may be present after 

rains have saturated the soil.

In the Mojave–Sonoran Deserts 

(American Desert), plants are often so large 

that some places have a near-woodland 

appearance. Well known are the treelike 

saguaro cactus, the prickly pear cactus, the 

ocotillo, creosote bush, and smoke tree. 

But much of the desert of the southwestern 

United States is in fact scrub, thorn scrub, 

savanna, or steppe grassland. Parts of this 

region have no visible plants; they are made 

up of shifting sand dunes or almost sterile 

salt flats. 

A dominant pedogenic process is 

salinization, which produces areas of salt 

crust where only salt-loving (halophytic) 

plants can survive. Calcification is 

conspicuous on well-drained uplands, 

where encrustations and deposits of calcium 

carbonate (caliche) are common. Humus is 

lacking and soils are mostly Aridisols and dry 

Entisols.

3.2.5 Temperate Steppe

Temperate steppes are areas with a 

semiarid continental climatic regime in 

which, despite summer rainfall, evaporation 

usually exceeds precipitation. Trewartha 

(1968) classifies the climate as BSk; the 

letter k signifies a cool climate with at least 

1 month of average temperatures below 

32 ° F (0 ° C). Winters are cold and dry, 

summers warm to hot. The vegetation is 

steppe, sometimes called shortgrass prairie, 

and semidesert. Typical steppe vegetation 

consists of numerous species of short grasses 

that usually grow in sparsely distributed 

bunches. Scattered shrubs and low trees 

sometimes grow in the steppe; all gradations 

of cover are present, from semidesert to 

woodland. Because ground cover is generally 

sparse, much soil is exposed. Many species 

of grasses and other herbs occur. Buffalo 

grass is typical of the American steppe; 

other typical plants are the sunflower and 

locoweed. 

The semidesert cover is xerophytic 

shrub vegetation accompanied by a poorly 

developed herbaceous layer. Trees are 

generally absent. An example of semidesert 

cover is the sagebrush vegetation of the 

middle and southern Rocky Mountain region 

and the Colorado Plateau. 

3-10 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

In this climatic regime, the dominant 

pedogenic process is calcification, with 

salinization on poorly drained sites. Soils 

contain a large excess of precipitated 

calcium carbonate and are very rich in bases. 

Mollisols are typical in steppe lands. The 

soils of the semidesert shrub are Aridisols 

with little organic content, pedogenic 

and (occasionally) clay horizons, and (in 

some places) accumulations of various 

salts. Humus content is small because the 

vegetation is so sparse.

3.2.6 Temperate Desert

Temperate deserts of continental regions 

have low rainfall and strong temperature 

contrasts between summer and winter. In 

the intermountain region of the western 

United States between the Pacific coast and 

Rocky Mountains, the temperate desert has 

characteristics of a sagebrush (Artemisia) 

semidesert, with a pronounced drought 

season and a short humid season. Most 

precipitation falls in winter, despite a peak in 

May. Aridity increases markedly in the rain 

shadow of the Pacific mountain ranges. Even 

at intermediate elevations, winters are long 

and cold, with temperatures falling below 32 

° F (0 ° C). 

Under the Koppen-Trewartha system, this 

is true desert, BWk. The letter k signifies that 

at least 1 month has an average temperature 

below 32 ° F (0 ° C). These deserts differ 

from those at lower latitudes chiefly in their 

far greater annual temperature range and 

much lower winter temperatures. Unlike 

the dry climates of the tropics, dry climates 

in the middle latitudes receive part of their 

precipitation as snow. 

Temperate desert climates support the 

xerophytic shrub vegetation typical of 

semidesert. One example is the sagebrush 

vegetation of the Great Basin and northern 

Colorado Plateau. Soils of the temperate 

desert are Aridisols low in humus and high 

in calcium carbonate. Poorly drained areas 

develop saline soils, and dry lake beds are 

covered with salt deposits.

3.3 Drought

Drought is a temporary component of 

climate; it differs from aridity, which is 

restricted to ecosystems where low rainfall 

is a permanent feature of climate. On the 

majority of rangelands managed by the BLM, 

it is not a question of if drought will occur, 

but rather when it will occur and how long 

will it persist.

During drought, the quantity of moisture 

drawn from storage by transpiration 

increases, reducing soil moisture early in the 

growing season. This is reflected in lower 

water levels in shallow wells and in deep 

wells subject to recharge in the drought area. 

High temperatures aggravate the situation 

by increasing transpiration and evaporation 

requirements.

During drought, low soil moisture levels 

limit plant growth. Further, root growth is 

limited, making plants less able to extract 

scarce soil moisture. Litter, the dead portion 

of the previous seasonʼs plant growth, 

insulates soils and thus reduces evaporative 

water loss, which provides more moisture for 

plant growth.

Many areas of the West have been 

experiencing mild to severe drought 

conditions since 1999. 

3.4 Grazing Administration

Excluding Alaska, the BLM administers 

about 160 million acres within grazing 

allotments. Congressional authority and 

direction expressed through laws authorize 

or affect the BLM grazing administration on 

these allotments. These authorities primarily 

include the Taylor Grazing Act of June 30, 

3-11
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

1934, as amended; the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act of 1976; and the Public 

Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978. The 

responsibilities of BLM to protect public 

rangelands include:

• The Secretary shall, by regulation or 

otherwise, take any action necessary to 

prevent unnecessary or undue degradation 

of the lands, Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act, U.S.C. § 1732(b)}.

• The goal of (public rangeland) 

management shall be to improve the 

range conditions so that they become as 

productive as feasible, Public Rangelands 

Improvement Act, 43 U.S.C. § 1903(b). 

• Do any and all things necessary to 

stop injury to the public grazing lands 

by preventing overgrazing and soil 

deterioration and provide for the orderly 

use, improvement, and development of 

the public range, Taylor Grazing Act , 43 

U.S.C. § 315a and 48 Stat. 1269.

The Department of Interior Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR), BLM manuals 

and manual handbooks, Instruction 

Memorandums, Information Bulletins, and 

the Interior Board of Land Appeal orders and 

decisions further guide the BLMʼs grazing 

administration program. The CFR are the 

regulations that the Department of Interior 

establishes to carry out the laws enacted by 

the legislative branch. The regulations that 

govern grazing administration (excluding 

Alaska) are contained within 43 CFR Part 

4100 Grazing Administration—Exclusive of 

Alaska. 

The grazing administration program 

includes the issuing of permits, leases, 

and annual grazing licenses; billings and 

collections of grazing fees; inspections to 

verify that permittees and lessees are in 

compliance with the terms and conditions 

of their permits; leases, authorizations, and 

Federal regulations; preparing land use and 

activity plans; identifying and planning 

rangeland improvement projects; obtaining 

livestock management agreements; reviewing 

base property for compliance; conducting 

vegetative monitoring studies; and evaluating 

whether grazing management is achieving 

objectives. 

3.4.1 Issuing, Modifying, or 

Renewing Permits or Leases

Between 1999 and the end of 2003, 

12,119 grazing permits expired. BLM has 

completed the analysis and documentation 

required by NEPA and any necessary Section 

7 ESA consultation on 85 percent (10,234) 

of those expired permits. In 1999 Congress 

recognized the difficulty of completing all 

NEPA and ESA requirements, as well as the 

new land health standards evaluations that 

have become part of the renewal process. 

Consequently, Congress has provided for 

conditional permit renewal under existing 

terms and conditions through a series of 

budget appropriation riders. This relief 

was provided to allow the backlog of 

permits that had developed by 1999 to 

carry over while BLM completes analysis 

of environmental impacts under NEPA and 

any necessary Section 7 consultation under 

ESA. Compliance with analysis requirements 

of NEPA has only been delayed, not 

circumvented. Between 2004 and 2009, 9,549 

permits will expire. During this same time 

period 4,662 permits that have been or will 

be temporarily renewed under Congressional 

authority will be re-issued with full NEPA 

analysis and documentation, completely 

eliminating the backlog. 

For each of the permits or leases issued 

in which there was a change in management 

(i.e., duration of use, class of livestock, 

numbers of livestock, or season of use), the 

3-12 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

BLM analyzes the effects according to the 

NEPA process. The critical environmental 

elements are analyzed to document whether 

an effect occurred or did not occur to the 

element. While NEPA guidelines contain the 

process for analysis, the grazing regulations 

contain no context to the NEPA requirements 

for grazing permit or lease actions, or specify 

any additional critical elements that must be 

analyzed prior to the issuance of a permit 

or lease. Changes in grazing management 

require coordination with the grazing 

permittee or lessee, the state having lands or 

responsibility for managing resources within 

the area, and interested public, and often 

involve consultation under the Endangered 

Species Act. 

A grazing permit or lease specifies 

permitted use (subpart 4110.2-2). Permitted 

use is granted to qualified holders of grazing 

preference. Permitted use shall include active 

use, any suspended use, and conservation use. 

The animal unit months (AUMs) of permitted 

use are attached to the base property. 

3.4.2 Implementing Changes in 

Grazing Use

The BLM may modify the terms and 

conditions of the permit or lease (subpart 

4130.3) when needed to manage, maintain, 

or improve rangeland productivity; assist in 

restoring ecosystems to properly functioning 

condition; conform with land use plans 

or activity plans; or comply with the 

provisions of Subpart 4180 (Fundamentals 

of Rangeland Health and Standards and 

Guidelines for Grazing Administration). 

These changes are supported by monitoring, 

field observations, ecological site inventory, 

or other data acceptable to the authorized 

officer. Additional forage available on a 

sustained yield basis may be apportioned to 

qualified applicants for livestock grazing use 

consistent with multiple-use management 

objectives. The authorized officer will 

consult, cooperate, and coordinate with 

the affected permittees or lessees; the 

state with lands or managing resources 

within the area; and the interested public 

(subpart 4110.3-1). When monitoring or field 

observations show grazing use or patterns 

of use are not consistent with provisions in 

subpart 4180, or grazing use is otherwise 

causing an unacceptable level or pattern of 

utilization, or when use exceeds the livestock 

carrying capacity as determined through 

monitoring, the authorized officer shall 

reduce use or otherwise modify management 

practices (subpart 4130.3-2).

After consultation, cooperation, and 

coordination with the affected permittees 

or lessees; the state with lands or managing 

resources within the area; and the interested 

public; changes to permitted use shall 

be implemented through a documented 

agreement or decision (subpart 4110.3-

3). Decisions shall be issued as proposed 

decisions, as described in subpart 4160.1, 

unless the authorized officer determines 

that resources on the public lands require 

immediate protection due to catastrophic 

events (flood, fire, or insect infestations) 

or when continued grazing use poses an 

imminent likelihood of significant resource 

damage. In this instance, after at least a 

reasonable attempt to consult with the abovementioned parties, the authorized officer 

shall close all or a portion of an allotment or 

require modification of authorized grazing 

by issuing a final decision, which becomes 

effective upon issuance or on a date specified 

in the decision (subpart 4110.3-3(b)).

Most reductions to permitted use greater 

than 10 percent were made prior to the late 

1980s. Since that time, most changes to 

grazing use involve changes to season of use 

or duration, and not livestock numbers. Some 

changes in grazing use may be made because 

of a reallocation of resources in a land use 

3-13
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

plan rather than because of undesirable 

resource conditions.

3.4.3 Range Improvements

The BLM cooperates in planning 

and financial partnership with permittees 

or lessees in the construction and 

maintenance of range improvement 

projects. Range improvements are 

“authorized physical modifications or 

treatments...designed to improve production 

of forage; change vegetation composition; 

control patterns of use; provide water; 

stabilize soil and water conditions; restore, 

protect and improve the condition of 

rangeland ecosystems to benefit livestock, 

wild horses and burros, and fish and 

wildlife.” (43 CFR 4100.0-5). Typical 

range improvements include fences, wells, 

reservoirs, seedings, and corrals. 

The BLM uses two instruments to 

authorize range improvements and provide 

for maintenance of structural improvements; 

the Cooperative Range Improvement 

Agreement (CRIA) and the Range 

Improvement Permit (RIP). The CRIA is 

used to authorize permanent improvements, 

and may be used by any person, organization 

or other government agency to share costs 

for constructing the improvement. Costs 

contributed by each party are documented 

in the CRIA. Title to permanent structural 

improvements constructed since 1995 is held 

by the United States. Title to these types of 

improvements constructed prior to 1995 is 

held jointly between the cooperators. Title to 

all nonstructural improvements is held solely 

by the United States.

The Range Improvement Permit (RIP) 

allows livestock permittees and lessees to 

construct or place removable improvements 

on public land. The permittee or lessee 

may hold title to the improvement if it is a 

livestock handling facility such as a corral, 

creep feeder, loading chute, or temporary 

water trough. Prior to 1995, the permittee 

could also hold title to other removable 

structures (e.g., fences, corrals) authorized by 

a RIP.

The three major changes to BLM range 

improvement construction policy made by 

the 1995 rules change are:

• All permanent water developments must 

be authorized under a CRIA 

• Title to all permanent structural 

improvements are in the name of the 

United States rather than being shared 

with the cooperator in proportion to their 

contribution 

• The permittee or lessee can hold title to a 

range improvement authorized by a RIP 

only if it is a livestock handling facility. 

From 1982 to 1994, the BLM authorized 

25,280 rangeland improvement projects 

under a CRIA or RIP; an average of 1,945 

improvements per year. From 1995 to 

2002, the BLM authorized 9,684 rangeland 

improvement projects, an average of 1,210 

per year. The decrease in the number of 

range improvements constructed each year is 

attributable to a number of factors, including 

decreasing availability of public funds and 

shifting BLM work priorities. The 1995 

change in CRIA title provisions may also 

have been a factor in the decrease. Table 

3.4.3.1 provides the number of rangeland 

improvement projects by state and year.

 The transfer of any interest or obligation 

in permanent range improvements is 

provided for in section 4110.2-3(a) (2) 

and section 4120.3-5. An application to 

transfer grazing preference must “evidence 

assignment of interest and obligation in 

range improvements authorized on public 

lands...”and “The terms and conditions of the 

cooperative range improvement agreement 

3-14 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

and range improvement permits are binding 

on the transferee.” Under section 4120.3-5 

the authorized officer shall not approve the 

transfer of grazing preference unless the 

transferee of existing range improvements as 

agreed to compensate the transferrer for their 

interest in authorized range improvements.

3.4.4 Involvement of Interested 

Publics

The grazing administration regulations 

include a definition for the involvement 

of interested publics in the decisionmaking process. The regulations define 

interested publics as an individual, group, 

or organization that has submitted a written 

request to the authorized officer to be 

provided an opportunity to be involved in the 

decision-making process for the management 

of livestock grazing on a specific allotment 

or has submitted written comments to the 

authorized officer regarding the management 

of livestock grazing on a specific allotment 

(subpart 4100.0-5). Within the present 

Table 3.4.3.1. Number of rangeland improvement projects by state.

Fiscal Year AZ CA CO ID MT NM NV OR UT WY Total

1982 120 125 280 290 410 209 243 318 227 177 2399

1983 180 103 245 333 481 242 191 491 428 211 2905

1984 120 128 192 245 437 161 165 202 232 183 2065

1985 112 173 181 213 332 148 159 209 188 390 2105

1986 110 88 180 232 312 148 181 149 198 135 1733

1987 114 119 216 231 284 113 159 159 246 238 1879

1988 168 120 275 164 255 155 121 146 257 161 1822

1989 155 70 189 214 246 228 117 190 243 196 1848

1990 142 34 179 233 300 183 141 138 183 183 1716

1991 66 64 267 192 328 180 163 228 145 204 1837

1992 56 46 282 156 329 249 102 160 133 217 1730

1993 61 47 286 147 323 300 62 214 119 134 1693

1994 69 46 213 133 286 218 125 197 107 154 1548

1995 67 44 242 116 159 278 70 241 102 181 1500

1996 44 34 172 91 118 106 70 204 125 98 1062

1997 25 35 225 91 211 118 76 161 118 141 1201

1998 20 38 183 104 224 92 82 161 102 102 1108

1999 29 44 178 133 165 99 111 217 86 167 1229

2000 58 55 243 112 209 106 122 244 140 169 1458

2001 31 41 130 133 141 50 132 140 40 138 976

2002 83 49 180 145 283 49 52 114 34 161 1150

Total 1830 1503 4538 3708 5833 3432 2644 4283 3453 3740 34964

Source: (BLM 2002c).

3-15
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

regulations, the interested public may decline 

to participate in the preliminary decision 

making process (i.e., formulation of a 

proposed grazing decision), but at a later date 

may become involved in the final decision 

making process (Appeals, subpart 4160.4). 

In addition, the grazing regulations specify 

that the BLM will cooperate, within the 

applicable laws, with state, county, or Federal 

agencies in regard to the administration of 

laws and regulations related to state cattle or 

sheep sanitary or brand boards and county 

or other local weed control districts (subpart 

4120.5-2).

The BLM is required to consult, 

cooperate, and coordinate or seek review 

from the interested publics on the following 

actions:

1. Designating and adjusting allotment 

boundaries, 

2. Increasing active use, 

3. Implementing reductions in permitted 

active use, 

4. Emergency closures or modifications to 

grazing use, 

5. Development or modification of allotment 

management plans, 

6. Planning (NEPA) of the range 

development or improvements, 

7. Issuing grazing permits or leases, 

8. Modification of permits or leases, 

9. Reviewing or commenting on grazing 

evaluation reports, and 

10. Issuing temporary, nonrenewable grazing 

permits or leases 

Table 3.4.5.1. Estimated authorized use 

and non use.

Fiscal 

Year

Authorized 

Use Nonuse

2002 7,872,819 4,824,362

2001 8,112,008 4,664,361

2000 9,837,588 2,972,899

1999 10,087,988 2,906,895

1998 10,353,032 2,662,271

1997 9,445,482 3,624,694

1996 9,738,638 3,547,697

Source BLM Public Land Statistics FY96-02 (BLM 

2002c)

3.4.5 Authorizing Temporary 

Changes in Use

In 2002, there were 18,142 grazing 

permits or leases on lands administered 

by the BLM. Grazing permits and leases 

are normally issued for a 10-year term, 

but in some circumstances may be issued 

for less, (e.g., rule of law, estate rules, and 

base property lease; subpart 4130.2). In 

2002, 12.7 million Animal Unit Months 

(AUMs) were available for use, with 7.9 

million AUMs authorized as active use and 

4.8 million AUMs authorized as temporary 

nonuse or conservation use. (Table 3.4.5.1)

Temporary nonuse is typically requested 

by a permittee or lessee for convenience 

(such as for personal or financial reasons) 

and resource management. The permittee 

or lessee may apply for temporary nonuse 

for as long as 3 years, and the BLM 

has the discretion to accept or reject the 

application for nonuse. However, the BLM 

may use other methods to provide longer 

periods of rest from grazing (nonuse), 

for example, permittee or lessee mutual 

agreements, allotment closures, suspension 

through grazing decisions, and others, to 

achieve a variety of resource or vegetative 

objectives. This nonuse is not at the request 

3-16 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

of the permittee or lessee. Examples of this 

type of nonuse may be for post-wildfire 

rehabilitation, drought, prescribed fire 

management, riparian area recovery, or other 

reasons.

A permittee or lessee may apply for 

changes in permitted use that is maintained 

within the terms and conditions of the permit 

and the BLM may approve the application. 

The regulations do not address what is 

meant by “within the terms and conditions 

of the permit.” If the application for changes 

in use is received after the billing notice has 

been issued, the permittee or lessee would be 

subject to a service charge. 

3.4.6 Prohibited Acts

The authorized officer has the ability 

to withhold issuance, suspend, or cancel 

a grazing permit or lease in whole or part, 

a free-use permit, or any other grazing 

authorization if a grazing permittee or lessee 

violates any of the provisions listed in 

prohibited acts (§4140.1). These prohibited 

acts are classified under three sections within 

the grazing regulations.

In general, the first set of prohibited 

acts states that permittees and lessees who 

perform the prohibited acts listed under 

subsection 4140.1(a) may be subject to 

civil penalties (e.g., cancellation of permit 

or lease in whole or part). Included in the 

list of prohibited acts under section (a), 

for example, are: “violating special terms 

and conditions incorporated in permits or 

leases”; “unauthorized leasing or subleasing”; 

and “failing to comply with the terms, 

conditions, and stipulations of cooperative 

range improvement agreements or range 

improvement permits.” This first section of 

prohibited acts is a major vehicle used by 

BLM to address grazing violations or to take 

direct action against permittees or lessees 

who are violating terms and conditions or 

their grazing permit or lease.

The second set of prohibited acts 

classified under §4140.1(b) applies to any 

persons (not just permittees or lessees) 

performing the prohibited acts included 

in this subsection. Anyone who violates 

these prohibited acts is subject to civil and 

criminal penalties. Included in this list are 

actions such as “allowing livestock....to graze 

on [BLM-administered] lands...without a 

permit or lease”; “damaging or removing 

U.S. property without authorization”; 

“molesting, harassing, injuring, poisoning, 

or causing death of livestock authorized to 

graze on these lands and removing authorized 

livestock without the ownerʼs consent”; 

“littering”; and “interfering with lawful uses 

or users including obstructing free transit 

through or over public lands by force, threat, 

intimidation, signs, barrier or locked gates.” 

The third set of prohibited acts is 

included within §4140.1(c). Performance by a 

permittee or lessee of any of these prohibited 

acts is subject to civil penalties. However, 

there is an important distinction between 

these prohibited acts and those identified in 

the first two sets. Violations of these acts are 

subject to civil penalties if the following four 

conditions are met: 

1. public land is involved or affected, 

2. the violation is related to grazing use 

authorized by a BLM-issued permit or 

lease, 

3. the permittee or lessee has been convicted 

or otherwise found to be in violation of 

any of these laws or regulations by a 

court or by final determination of any 

agency charged with the administration of 

these laws, and 

4. No further appeals are outstanding. 

3-17
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

The BLM has been unable to find an 

instance in which the BLM has utilized the 

third set of prohibited acts to take an adverse 

action against or penalize a BLM permittee 

or lessee. 

3.4.7 Appeals

In order to provide permittees, lessees, 

and others an opportunity to communicate 

on BLMʼs grazing actions, the grazing 

administrative process contains a decision 

process that includes opportunities for public 

input. In general, the BLM issues a proposed 

grazing decision in which the interested 

publics and the permittee or lessee have 15 

days to protest the proposed decision. If 

no protests are received by the authorized 

officer, the proposed grazing decision 

automatically becomes the final grazing 

decision. The final decision contains a 30-day 

appeal period upon receipt.

If the interested public or the permittee 

or lessee protest the proposed decision, the 

authorized officer must review the protest and 

either address or dismiss the protest rationale 

within the final grazing decision. The 

interested public or the permittee or lessee 

may appeal the final decision to the Office of 

Hearings and Appeals and request a stay of 

the decision. If a stay is granted, the decision 

is usually suspended pending the Office of 

Hearings and Appeals final determination. 

If a stay is denied, the final grazing decision 

is in force until the Office of Hearings and 

Appeals final determination. 

This process is used within the permit 

or lease transfer process. For example, a 

permittee or lessee appeals a final decision 

concerning the grazing season on a permit 

or lease and a stay of the final decision is 

granted. The permittee or lessee must graze 

in accordance with the previous permit. If 

the permittee or lessee is a new applicant for 

the allotment and therefore has no previous 

permit for the allotment, the applicant must 

graze in accordance with the final decision. 

3.4.8 Rangeland Health

Over time, many terms have been 

used to describe rangeland condition. The 

term “health” gained acceptance when the 

National Research Council used the term 

in the title of its 1994 report, Rangeland 

Health—New Methods to Classify, Inventory, 

and Monitor Rangelands. Although this 

was not the first time “health” was used to 

describe rangeland condition, it was the first 

time the term was applied in a broad sense 

and made available for the general public in 

a book published for non-technical audiences. 

In an effort to provide a definition for 

rangeland health that multiple audiences 

could understand and accept, a working task 

force composed of research institutions, 

Federal agencies, and private organizations 

met in 1995 to develop standardized 

definitions for range management terms. 

The task force defined rangeland health as 

“the degree to which the integrity of the 

soil, vegetation, water, and air, as well as 

the ecological processes of the rangeland 

ecosystem, are balanced and sustained. 

Integrity is defined as maintenance of 

the structure and functional attributes 

characteristic of a locale, including normal 

variability” (SRM 1999).

Whereas the soil, vegetation, water, and 

air are visible components of rangeland 

health, several essential ecological processes 

are often overlooked as important factors 

that contribute to rangeland health. The 

ecological processes include the water cycle 

(the capture, storage, and redistribution of 

precipitation), energy flow (conversion of 

sunlight to plant and animal matter), and 

nutrient cycle (the cycle of nutrients through 

the physical and biotic components of the 

environment; Pellant 2000). Within normal 

variation, these ecological processes will 

3-18 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

enable a rangeland to support a specific plant 

community. Maintenance of stable ecological 

processes within plant communities 

contributes to overall rangeland health. 

Once one of the ecological processes has 

deteriorated past the point of self-repair, the 

rangeland no longer meets the definition of a 

healthy rangeland. Since plant communities 

depend on ecological processes, management 

now focuses on ecological processes to 

evaluate if rangeland is healthy. (Pellant 

2000; Stringham 2003). 

The grazing regulation changes in 

1995 initiated assessment of allotments for 

conformance to the standards for rangeland 

health. In general, these regulations specify 

that allotments must meet certain standards 

for rangeland health. The determination 

of whether an allotment meets or does not 

meet the standards for rangeland health is 

formulated through an allotment assessment 

and, if available, historical monitoring data. 

When an allotment does not meet one 

of the standards for rangeland health and 

livestock grazing is a significant factor 

for the standard not being met or for nonconformance with a guideline, the grazing 

regulation directs the authorized officer to 

ensure that some type of action (e.g., grazing 

plan, noxious weed treatment, or another 

action) is implemented before the start of the 

next grazing season.

The BLM had assessed 7,437 allotments 

comprising 58,711,307 acres by the 

conclusion of fiscal year 2002 (BLM 2002). 

The BLM concluded that 5,671 allotments 

met all the standards for rangeland health. 

The remaining 1,766 allotments did not 

meet one or more of the standards. Existing 

grazing management practices or levels 

of grazing use were determined to be a 

significant factor in failing to achieve the 

standards and conform with the guidelines on 

1,213 of these 1,766 allotments. 

Expressed as a percent for additional 

perspective; 35 percent of all 21,273 BLM 

grazing allotments had been evaluated by 

the end of fiscal year 2002. This represents 

evaluation of more than 36 percent of all 

BLM land in allotments (BLM 2002). 

Of these assessed allotments, 76 percent 

were meeting all standards, 8 percent 

were not meeting all standards for reasons 

other than livestock grazing, and current 

livestock grazing management practices 

or levels of grazing use were determined 

to be a significant factor in the failure of 

the remaining16 percent of all allotments 

assessed to achieve the standards and 

conform to the guidelines. 

3.5 Vegetation

The dominant vegetation within the 

affected environment exists on a type of land 

that is referred to as rangeland. Rangeland 

is classified as an area where the natural 

vegetation is dominated by grasses, forbs, 

and shrubs and the land is managed as a 

natural ecosystem (SRM 1999). In addition 

to providing forage for livestock and wildlife, 

rangelands also provide clean air, high 

quality water, habitat for native plant species, 

open space, and recreational opportunities. 

Vegetation Types 

The classification of vegetation types 

within the affected environment are displayed 

in Table 3.5.1. The map units in Figure 

3.5.1 represent the subclass level of Table 

3.5.1. These vegetation types were selected 

due to their consistency with the Federal 

Geographic Data Committee and the National 

Vegetation Classification Standard. The 

plant communities contained within the 14 

vegetation types are listed in Table 3.5.2.

3-19
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

Figure 3.5.1. Vegetation classification: subclass.

3-20 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

Table 3.5.1. Vegetation classification noting the division, order, and subclass of vegetation.

Division Order Class Subclass

Vegetated Tree Dominated Closed Canopy Evergreen Forest

Deciduous Forest

Mixed Evergreen–Deciduous 

Forest

Open Tree Canopy Evergreen Woodland

Deciduous Woodland

Mixed Evergreen–Deciduous 

Woodland

Shrub Dominated Shrubland Evergreen Shrubland

Deciduous Shrubland

Evergreen Dwarf–Shrubland

Deciduous Dwarf–Shrubland

Herb Dominated Herbaceous Vegetation Perennial Graminoid

Annual Graminoid or Forb

Perennial Forb

Not included in National Vegetation Classification Standard Riparian–Wetland

Table 3.5.2. Plant communities depicted within each of the 14 vegetation types.

Vegetation State Plant Communities within Vegetative State

Evergreen Forest Subalpine Spruce Fir–Mountain Hemlock, Red Fir, Mixed 

Sugar Pine, Ponderosa Pine, Ponderosa Pine/Shrub, 

Ponderosa Pine/Oak–Juniper–Pinyon, Jeffery Pine, 

Monterey Pine, Bishop Pine, Lodgepole Pine–Douglas 

Fir, White Fir–Douglas Fir, White Fir–Douglas Fir/Shrub, 

Douglas Fir–White Fir–Blue Spruce, Coastal Lodgepole 

Pine, California Bay, Eucalyptus, Inland Douglas Fir, 

Inland Douglas Fir–Western Red Cedar, Inland Western 

Red Cedar–Western Hemlock, Douglas Fir–Tanoak–

Pacific Madrone, Douglas Fir–Sugar Pine–Ponderosa 

Pine, Douglas Fir–Ponderosa Pine–Incense Cedar, Pacific 

Silver Fir, Sitka Spruce, Ponderosa Pine–Lodgepole Pine, 

Colorado Mixed Forest, Western Larch–Grand Fir, Western 

White Pine, Grand Fir–Douglas Fir, Western Larch–

Douglas Fir, Westside Western Hemlock–Western Red 

Cedar, Westside Douglas Fir–Western Hemlock, Westside 

Douglas Fir, Mountain Shrub/Clearcut, Costal Redwood

Deciduous Forests Aspen, Aspen–Conifer, Bur Oak, Cypress, Ash, Maple, 

Russian Olive

3-21
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

Vegetation State Plant Communities within Vegetative State

Mixed Evergreen–Deciduous 

Forest

Combinations of the Evergreen and Deciduous Forest 

Types 

Evergreen Woodland Subalpine Fir, Knobcone Pine, Limber Pine, Manrean Pine, 

California Foothill Pine, Juniper, Pinyon Pine, Pinyon–

Juniper, Chihuahua–Apache Pine, Madrean Pinyon Juniper

Deciduous Forest Oregon White Oak, California Oak, Mixed Oak, Mesquite

Mixed Evergreen–Deciduous 

Woodland

Oregon White Oak–Conifer, California Oak–Conifer

Evergreen Shrubland Southern Rockies Oak–Mahogany Shrub, Southern Rockies 

Oak–Manzanita Scrub, Bitterbrush, Interior Chaparral, 

California Chaparral, Mountain Mohogany, Sagebrush, 

Sagebrush/Perennial Grass, Rabbitbrush, Salt Desert 

Shrub, Blackbrush, Creosote–Bursage, Mojave Mixed 

Scrub, Great Basin Mormon Tea, Joshua Tree, Great Basin 

Saltbush Scrub, Mojave Creosotebush–Yucca, Shadscale–

Mixed Grass–Mixed Scrub, Paloverde–Mixed Cacti–Scrub, 

Crucifixon Thorn

Chihuahuan Creosotebush Scrub, Costal Dune Scrub, 

Costal Sage, Costal Scrub, Sandsage Shrubland

Deciduous Shrubland Mesic Upland Shrub/Hardwoods, Warm Mesic Shrub, 

Greasewood, Hopsage, Catclaw Acacia, Smoketree, Scotch 

Broom

Evergreen Dwarf Shrubland No examples on BLM Lands

Deciduous Dwarf Shrubland Alaska and not within the affected environment of this EIS

Perennial Graminoid Introduced Wheatgrass (e.g. Crested Wheatgrass, 

Intermediate Wheatgrass), Meadow, Forest Meadow, 

Alpine/Subalpine Meadows, Great Basin Grassland

California Native Perennial Grassland, Foothills Grassland, 

Shortgrass Prairie

Midgrass Prairie, Tallgrass Prairie, Desert Grassland, 

Semidesert Tobosa Grass–Scrub, Semidesert Mixed Grass, 

Chihuahuan Grassland

Table 3.5.2 (continued). Plant communities depicted within each of the 14 vegetation 

types.

3-22 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

Evergreen Forests 

Evergreen forests are a tree dominated 

landscape. The canopy of the trees has 

overlapping crowns generally forming 60 

to 100 percent of the vegetative cover. In 

the evergreen forests subclass the evergreen 

species contribute greater than 75 percent of 

the total tree cover. 

Deciduous Forest 

Deciduous forests are a tree dominated 

landscape. The canopy of the trees has 

overlapping crowns generally forming 60 to 

100 percent of the vegetative cover. In the 

deciduous forests subclass the deciduous 

species contribute greater than 75 percent of 

the total tree cover.

Mixed Evergreen–Deciduous Forests 

Mixed evergreen–deciduous forests are 

a tree dominated landscape. The evergreen 

and deciduous species each generally 

contribute 25 to 75 percent of the total tree 

cover. This would include semideciduous, 

semievergreen, mixed evergreen–deciduous 

xeromorphic and mixed needle-leaved 

evergreen-cold deciduous woody vegetation. 

 

Evergreen Woodland 

Evergreen woodland is a tree dominated 

landscape. The area is classified as open 

stands of trees with crowns not usually 

touching. The trees generally form 25 to 60 

percent of the vegetative cover. There are 

instances when tree cover may be less than 

25 percent in cases when the cover of each 

of the other life forms present (i.e. shrub, 

dwarf shrub, herb, nonvascular) is less than 

25 percent and tree cover exceeds the cover 

of the other life forms. Evergreen species 

contribute greater than 75 percent of the total 

tree cover. 

Deciduous Woodland 

Deciduous woodland is a tree dominated 

landscape. The area is classified as open 

stands of trees with crowns not usually 

touching. The trees generally form 25 to 60 

percent of the vegetative cover. There are 

instances when tree cover may be less than 

Vegetation State Plant Communities within Vegetative State

Annual Graminoid or Forb California Disturbed Grassland (the annual plant dominated 

Central Valley portion of California), Cheatgrass/Mustard, 

Medusahead, Red Brome, Japanese Brome

Ventenata, Diffused Knapweed (annual or perennial), 

Yellow Starthistle

Perennial Forb Spotted Knapweed, Russian Knapweed, Squarrose 

Knapweed, Rush Skeletonweed, Canada Thistle, Scotch 

Thistle (biennial), Whitetop (Cardaria spp.), Leafy Spurge, 

Mediterranean Sage, Purple Loosestrife, Dalmatian 

Toadflax

Riparian–Wetland Wet Graminoid, Wet Forb

Table 3.5.2 (concluded). Plant communities depicted within each of the 14 vegetation 

types.

3-23
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

25 percent in cases when the cover of each 

of the other life forms present (i.e. shrub, 

dwarf shrub, herb, nonvascular) is less than 

25 percent and tree cover exceeds the cover 

of the other life forms. Deciduous species 

contribute greater than 75 percent of the total 

tree cover. 

Mixed Evergreen–Deciduous Woodland 

Mixed evergreen–deciduous woodland 

is a tree dominated landscape. The area is 

classified as open stands of trees with crowns 

not usually touching. The trees generally 

form 25 to 60 percent of the vegetative 

cover. There are instances when tree cover 

may be less than 25 percent in cases when the 

cover of each of the other life forms present 

(i.e., shrub, dwarf shrub, herb, nonvascular) 

is less than 25 percent and tree cover exceeds 

the cover of the other life forms. Evergreen 

and deciduous species contribute 25 to 75 

percent of the total tree cover. This would 

include semideciduous, semievergreen, 

mixed evergreen–deciduous xeromorphic 

and mixed needle-leaved evergreen-cold 

deciduous woody vegetation. 

Evergreen Shrubland 

Evergreen shrubland is a shrub dominated 

landscape. The shrubland classification 

has shrubs greater than 0.5 meters tall 

with individuals or clumps not touching to 

overlapping. The shrub component generally 

forms greater than 25 percent of the canopy 

cover. The tree cover is generally less than 

25 percent. Shrub cover may be less than 25 

percent in cases where each of the other life 

forms present is less than 25 percent and the 

shrub cover exceeds the other life forms. The 

evergreen shrub species contribute greater 

than 75 percent of the total shrub cover. 

Deciduous Shrubland 

Deciduous shrubland is a shrub 

dominated landscape. The shrubland 

classification has shrubs greater than 0.5 

meters tall with individuals or clumps 

not touching to overlapping. The shrub 

component generally forms greater than 25 

percent of the canopy cover. The tree cover is 

generally less than 25 percent. Shrub cover 

may be less than 25 percent in cases where 

each of the other life forms present is less 

than 25 percent and the shrub cover exceeds 

the other life forms. The evergreen shrub 

species contribute greater than 75 percent of 

the total shrub cover.

Evergreen Dwarf Shrubland 

There are no examples of evergreen 

dwarf shrublands on BLM lands.

Deciduous Dwarf Shrubland 

Vegetation types included within the 

deciduous shrubland subclass are located 

in Alaska and are not within the affected 

environment.

Perennial Graminoid 

A perennial graminoid area is dominated 

by at least 25 percent of the total vegetative 

cover formed of perennial graminoids. 

Trees, shrubs, and dwarf-shrubs form less 

than 25 percent of the total vegetative cover. 

Perennial graminoid cover may be less than 

25 percent of the total vegetative cover, but it 

will still exceed the total vegetative cover of 

other life forms.

Annual Graminoid or Forb 

An annual graminoid or forb area is 

dominated by at least 25 percent of the 

total vegetative cover formed of annual 

graminoid or forb. Trees, shrubs, and dwarfshrubs form less than 25 percent of the 

3-24 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

total vegetative cover. Annual graminoid 

or forb cover may be less than 25 percent 

of the total vegetative cover, but it will still 

exceed the total vegetative cover of other life 

forms. Vegetation types included within the 

annual graminoid or forb subclass are:

Perennial Forb 

A perennial forb area is dominated by at 

least 25 percent of the total vegetative cover 

formed of perennial forb. Trees, shrubs, 

and dwarf-shrubs form less than 25 percent 

of the total vegetative cover. Perennial 

forb cover may be less than 25 percent of 

the total vegetative cover, but it will still 

exceed the total vegetative cover of other life 

forms. Vegetation types included within the 

perennial forb subclass are

Riparian–Wetland 

Various definitions of riparian–wetlands 

exist in the publications. In general, 

the riparian–wetland subclass is highly 

influenced by the presence of water in the 

form of flowing rivers, streams, creeks, 

groundwater or in the form of standing water 

as in reservoirs, bogs, and pits. Vegetation 

types within riparian–wetland areas would 

include wet graminoids and wet forbs.

Other 

Other is largely classified as private 

farm lands and is not within the affected 

environment. 

BLM Vegetation Management 

BLMʼs goal is to manage the public lands 

on a multiple-use and sustained yield basis. 

Among the uses and values of the vegetation 

are forage for livestock and wildlife. Land 

use plans may provide broad vegetation 

management objectives. More specific 

managment objectives are found in activity 

plans. For example, grazing allotment 

management plans generally contain 

vegetation management objectives.

In this document, the rangeland 

vegetation is divided into upland and riparian 

sections. 

3.5.1 Upland Vegetation

Vegetation on the public lands can be 

described and evaluated in many ways. In the 

early 1900s, the rangeland management field 

was undergoing a formation of theories for 

the understanding of how vegetation responds 

to introduced activities, such as livestock 

grazing, and natural disturbances, such as 

fire. In 1916 Clements introduced the theory 

that rangeland has a single persistent state, 

“the climax” (Clements 1916). This theory is 

referred to as the Clementsian theory of range 

succession and became widely embraced 

within the ecological field. 

The Clementsian theory provides a linear 

nature of vegetation succession. According 

to Stoddard, Smith, and Box (1975), 

“retrogression may be caused by 

drought, fire, or grazing. If this action is 

temporary, a succession leading back to 

climax follows.” In other words, once a 

disturbance such as grazing was removed 

from an area, that area would return to the 

vegetative community that existed before the 

disturbance. 

In 1949, Dyksterhuis utilized the 

principles of the Clementsian theory to 

classify the condition of rangeland. This 

rangeland condition classification and 

succession process relied on comparing 

the present vegetation of an area to the 

vegetation that was thought to be original 

to the site, referred to as the “climax 

vegetation” (Dyksterhuis 1949). Using the 

climax vegetation at the pristine condition, 

Dyksterhuis proposed classifying rangeland 

as excellent (climax vegetation), good, fair, 

or poor. 

3-25
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

The Dyksterhuis range succession 

model was adopted worldwide to provide 

the framework for the management of 

rangelands. But over time researchers 

and land managers recognized that the 

Clementsian theory and the Dyksterhuis 

range condition model did not adequately 

describe the ecological situation that exists 

in arid and semiarid rangelands. These arid 

and semiarid rangelands were not returning 

to the original vegetative community once a 

disturbance was removed from the system.

Westoby et al. (1989) introduced the 

state-and-transition model that provided 

the framework for modeling the vegetative 

changes occurring on arid and semiarid 

regions. The main departure from the 

Clementsian theory was that arid or semiarid 

rangelands may never return to the original 

vegetative community once a disturbance 

is removed. The framework they provided 

allowed for “states” and “transitions”. A state 

is”an abstraction encompassing a certain 

amount of variation in space and time”; a 

transition is “the movement between states”.

Freidel (1991) added to the state-andtransition model by envisioning that once a 

threshold is crossed a new state is formed. 

Without intensive inputs, a return to the 

original state is not possible. Additional 

research and comments (Laycock 1991; 

Tauch et al. 1993; Iglesias and Kothmann 

1997; Stringham 2003; and Bestelmeyer 

2003) provided additional refinement and 

illustrated applications of the state-andtransition model. 

A state-and-transition model for arid and 

semiarid rangeland contains state, transitions, 

and threshold definitions: 

• State—A variety of vegetative 

communities that are a function of the soil 

complex and the vegetative community 

that inhabits the complex (Stringham et 

al. 2003). 

• Transition—A change from the present 

stable state that is triggered by natural 

events, management actions, or both 

(Stringham et al. 2003). A transition can 

be: 

o Reversible if it occurs within the 

state and it is possible to return the 

existing vegetative community back 

to the original vegetative community 

without large inputs and is in 

managerial timeframe 

o Irreversible if the transition crosses 

a threshold where it is impossible 

to return to the original vegetative 

community without large inputs of 

energy. 

• Threshold—A point in space and time at 

which a state is no longer able to maintain 

its present condition. Once this threshold 

is crossed a new state is formed and it 

is not possible to revert back to original 

state without significant inputs. 

With the incorporation of the additional 

information, state-and-transition models 

continue to be refined to provide an accurate 

description of how upland vegetation 

responds to management activities or natural 

disturbances. Figure 3.5.1.1 illustrates how a 

state-and-transition model would be applied 

to upland vegetation.

Condition and Trends

The vegetation on the public lands is a 

dynamic, living system that changes over 

time. As mentioned above, methods to assess 

the condition of vegetation has also changed 

over time. However, since 1934 the public 

lands have had managed livestock grazing 

and conditions have continued to improve. 

Although conditions have improved, there 

are still a number of acres that are dominated 

by invasive or exotic species and have not 

returned to the potential natural community.

3-26 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

The BLM National Rangeland Inventory 

reporting system is based on a vegetative 

condition rating by comparing percent 

composition, by weight and species, of 

the existing vegetation to the potential 

natural plant community that the site can 

produce. The 2002 National Rangeland 

Inventory reflects the following:

Potential Natural Community—6%

Late Seral—31%

Mid Seral—34%

Early Seral—12%

Unknown or Unclassified—17%

Monitoring and data collection used to 

determine upland conditions are also used 

to formulate trend for upland vegetation. 

Trend is classified as up, static, down, 

or undetermined. An “up” trend rating 

is correlated with the upland vegetation 

progressing toward the potential natural 

community. A downward trend is correlated 

with the upland vegetation moving away 

from the potential natural community. Static 

trend is classified as the vegetation not 

moving away from or toward the potential 

natural community for the upland vegetative 

communities. The national trend from the 

2002 National Rangeland Inventory for 

vegetation is:

Up—21%

Static—51%

Down—12%

Undetermined—16% 

Figure 3.5.1.1. State-and-transition model incorporating the concepts of community 

pathways between plant community phases within states, reversible transitions, multiple 

thresholds, irreversible transitions, multiple pathways of change, and multiple steady 

states (Stringham et al. 2003). 

State 1

Threshold

Reversible Transition

Community Pathway

Irreversible Transition

Community Phases or

seral stages within a state

Threshold

State 2

State 3

3-27
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

3.5.2 Riparian and Wetland 

Vegetation

Riparian areas are highly productive and 

unique wetland environments that are found 

adjacent to rivers and streams. Riparian 

communities are often referred to as “ribbons 

of green” in the arid western United States. 

Though estimates vary, it is generally 

agreed that riparian ecosystems comprise 

less than 1 percent of the surface area in the 

11 western States (Cooperrider et al. 1986; 

Ohmart 1996). Riparian communities in the 

western United States are the most productive 

habitats in North America (Johnson et al. 

1977), and provide important wildlife habitat 

for breeding, wintering, and migration. An 

estimated 75 percent of the vertebrate species 

in Arizona and New Mexico depend on 

riparian habitat for some portion of their life 

history (Johnson et al. 1977). 

Riparian areas combine the presence of 

water, increased vegetation, shade, and a 

favorable microclimate to create the most 

biologically diverse habitat found on BLM 

lands. Riparian areas are highly prized for 

their recreation, fish and wildlife, water 

supply, and cultural and historic values, as 

well as for their economic values related 

to livestock production, timber harvest, 

and mineral extraction (BLM 1998). In the 

semiarid West, healthy functioning riparian 

areas perform several critical functions: 

• Improve water quality through filtering 

and sediment removal 

• Stabilize streambanks 

• Soil retention 

• Dissipate stream energy during high flow 

events (reduced flood damage) 

• Provide water, forage, and shade for 

wildlife and livestock 

• Act as migration corridors for wildlife 

and birds 

• Create opportunities for recreation 

(fishing, camping, picnicking, hiking) 

• Maintain in-stream flows and restore 

perennial flow 

• Maintain aquatic habitat for healthy fish 

populations 

• Raise and maintain the water table 

• Increase habitat diversity for wildlife and 

plants 

• Enhance aesthetics 

Problems with riparian function generally 

occur in four ways:

• Alterations in streamside vegetation and 

soil conditions, 

• Changes in channel morphology (water 

velocity, water table, width-to-depth ratio, 

substrate composition), 

• Altered water temperatures, nutrient 

loads, sediment loads, bacterial counts, or 

• Degradation and erosion of streambanks 

(Platts 1989; Johnson 1992). 

Grazing effects on vegetation and 

streambank vegetation are important to 

riparian function (Elmore and Beschta 

1987; Platts 1989; Johnson 1992). A range 

of livestock management strategies that 

are compatible with riparian restoration 

are available including timing, duration, 

and frequency of grazing use or livestock 

exclusion (Elmore and Kaufman 1994; 

Platts 1990; Kovalchik and Elmore 1991; 

and Johnson 1992). A number of successful 

3-28 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

approaches have relied on applying grazing 

management in cooperation with the grazing 

operator, sometimes on both public and 

private lands. 

Riparian areas were greatly altered by 

early grazing practices prior to the Taylor 

Grazing Act of 1934 which established 

control over livestock grazing practices on 

the public domain (Leopold 1946). Riparian 

restoration is becoming more widespread 

and common in every region of the country 

(Natural Resources Law Center, 1996). The 

Government Accounting Office review of 22 

stream restoration efforts in the West (1988) 

concluded that there were “no major technical 

impediments” to riparian restoration. In fact, 

stream classification systems and assessment 

tools are well developed (Kenna et al. 1999). 

Successful restoration efforts consider the 

complex relations of riparian function and the 

role of vegetation, which again suggests the 

importance of grazing management (Elmore 

and Beschta 1990; Elmore and Kaufman 

1994). 

Multiple factors, including livestock 

grazing, often affect riparian systems, 

indicating the need for careful analysis of 

contributing factors and management options 

(Elmore and Kaufman 1994; Adams and 

Fitch 1995; Hunter 1991; Reeves et al 1991; 

Robbins and Wolf 1994; Todd and Elmore 

1997; Furniss et al 1991). But the primary 

focus is restoring streamside vegetation 

(Elmore and Beschta 1987). While livestock 

exclusion can be a solution (Elmore and 

Kaufman 1994), changes in livestock 

management can often also be effective 

without the expenditures for exclosure fences 

(Elmore and Beschta 1987; Kinch 1989). 

Strategies for riparian restoration involving 

timing, duration and frequency of grazing 

use have been addressed by Elmore and 

Kaufman (1994), Platts (1990) Kovalchik and 

Elmore (1991), and Johnson (1992). Some 

of the most prominent, large-scale riparian 

restoration successes, such as Bear Creek 

drainage and Trout Creek Mountains in 

Oregon, have relied on cooperation to create 

long-term, sustainable restoration and grazing 

management actions (Kenna et al. 1999).

The potential for long-term restoration 

results through a cooperative effort are 

probably best illustrated by the changes 

implemented on Bear Creek in Oregon, 

initiated under a 1973 watershed plan. Based 

primarily on changes in grazing management 

(timing and duration), the riparian plant 

community increased by 76 percent, eroding 

and damaged banks decreased by 90 percent, 

and 17 percent to 26 percent increases 

occurred in the grass–sedge–rush community 

between 1978 and 1994 (Rasmussen 1995; 

Chaney et al. 1990), at the same time 

available livestock forage increased. Bear 

Creek and other case studies suggest that 

reliance on reducing numbers of livestock, 

while it may produce changes in upland 

vegetation, may be less important to riparian 

improvement than other factors (Platts 1990; 

Kenna et al. 1999). 

The response to restoration practices may 

vary according to riparian area characteristics 

or conditions. Clary et al. (1996) suggested 

that past grazing practices at their study 

site in eastern Oregon probably altered 

conditions, such that a wide range of grazing 

treatments (including no grazing) for a 

period of 7 years resulted in few differential 

responses by plants or animals. In some 

cases, recovery of native riparian vegetation 

may be very slow due to deterioration of 

stream condition (downcutting, widening), 

dominance of non-native annuals within the 

riparian area, or loss of native seed sources 

(Clary et al. 1996). 

In 1993, the BLM adopted the 

Process for Assessing Proper Functioning 

Condition (PFC; BLM 1993) as its standard 

methodology for determining the condition 

3-29
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

on riparian resources on public lands. The 

BLM has aggressively undertaken the 

task of conducting PFC assessments on 

its lands, resulting in a decrease of sites 

classified as Unknown from 55 percent in 

1993 to only 4 percent in 2001. As a result 

of its commitment to the standardized PFC 

assessment technique, the BLM has compiled 

several years of information on the status and 

trends of riparian conditions on lands under 

its management. 

Riparian habitat on BLM lands in the 

lower 48 States includes 34,137 miles 

adjacent to flowing water (lotic systems) and 

328,660 acres of riparian habitat associated 

with standing water (lentic systems). As of 

October 2001, the condition of approximately 

96 percent of lotic riparian areas on BLM 

lands in the lower 48 States had been 

assessed using the Proper Functioning 

Condition (PFC) assessment technique (BLM 

2002). Overall, 42 percent were classified as 

being in Proper Functioning Condition, 43 

percent as Functioning-At-Risk (FAR), 11 

percent as Non-Functional, and 4 percent as 

Unknown (see Figure 3.5.2.1; BLM 2002). 

Of the miles in the FAR category, 36 percent 

were in an upward trend, indicating that the 

condition is improving and no changes in 

management are immediately needed. In 

September 1990, the BLM published its 

Figure 3.5.2.2. Condition of lentic 

riparian areas on BLM lands 

(lower 48 states), 2001.

NF 2% FAR 15%

Unk 32%

PFC 51%

Riparian-Wetland Initiative for the 1990s 

(BLM 1990). The Initiative set the goal of 

restoring or maintaining riparian–wetland 

areas so that 75 percent or more would be in 

PFC by 1997. The fact that only 42 percent 

of BLMʼs lotic riparian areas were classified 

as PFC in 2001 illustrates riparian systems 

have not responded as quickly as desired. 

As of October 2001, the condition of 

approximately 67 percent of lentic riparian 

areas on BLM lands in the lower 48 States 

had been assessed using the PFC assessment 

technique (BLM 2002). Overall, 51 percent 

were found to be in PFC, 15 percent in FAR, 

2 percent in Non-Functional, and 32 percent 

were Unknown (BLM 2002; see Figure 

3.5.2.2. Over the past 15–20 years, the BLM 

has focused a great deal of its restoration 

efforts on riparian areas. Riparian areas 

typically respond quickly to management 

changes, and in some instances recovery has 

been dramatic. Many of the restoration efforts 

have been in highly visible areas, providing 

opportunities to increase public exposure 

to, and understanding of, riparian function. 

While the apparent trend based on the 

percentage in Properly Functioning Condition 

shows improvement from 36 percent to 

42 percent in miles of stream, and from 

41 percent to 51 percent in wetland acres, 

these percentages are affected by shifts of 

Figure 3.5.2.1. Condition of lotic 

riparian areas on BLM lands 

(lower 48 states), 2001.

Unk 4%

FAR 43%

PFC 42%

NF 11%

3-30 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

16 percent and 12 percent percent out of the 

unknown classification, reflecting the BLMʼs 

effort to develop a more complete inventory 

of the condition of riparian resources (see 

Table 3.5.2.1 and Table 3.5.2.2). In future 

years, the aggregate condition trend for 

streams should be more readily apparent 

with the relatively low mileage (4%) in the 

unknown classification.

3.6 Fire and Fuels

Recurring fires are often an essential 

part of the natural environment—as natural 

as the rain, snow, or wind (Hardy et al. 

2001). Evidence of past fires can be found 

in charcoal layers of lakes, in fire scars 

on trees, and adaptations of many plants. 

Many ecosystems in North America are fire 

dependant (Heiselman 1978).

Before European settlement, fire was the 

most common influence on the landscape in 

the Intermountain West (Gruell 1983), and 

in most of the Southwest (Wright 1990). In 

the drier parts of the West, the significance 

of the effects of fire on vegetation is difficult 

to separate from the effects of drought 

(Wright 1990). Woody species have become 

dominant in areas where frequent fires used 

to inhibit them. A loss of species diversity 

and site degradation has occurred from 

human intervention in fire regimes. This has 

correlated into larger and more severe fires in 

the last few decades.

Table 3.5.2.2. Comparison of lentic riparian–wetland habitat on BLM lands, 1998 vs. 

2001.

Condition of Riparian 

Area

1998 2001

Change Total Acres in (%) Lower 48 States (%)

Total Acres in 

Lower 48 States (%)

Proper Functioning 

Condition 147,923 41% 166,796 51% +10%

Functioning-At-Risk 45,135 13% 48,320 15% +2%

Non-Functional 7,557 2% 6,409 2% 0%

Unknown 166,819 44% 107,135 32% –12%

Table 3.5.2.1. Comparison of condition of lotic riparian habitat on BLM lands, 1998 vs. 

2001.

Condition of Riparian 

Area

1998 2001

Change Total Miles in (%) Lower 48 States (%) Total Miles in 

Lower 48 States (%)

Proper Functioning 

Condition

13,230 36% 14,314 42% +6%

Functioning-At-Risk 12,900 35% 14,657 43% +8%

Non-Functional 3,251 9% 3,688 11% +2%

Unknown 7,310 20% 1,478 4% –16%

Source: BLM 2002c

3-31
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

After Europeans settled the West, grazing 

and cultivation reduced fuels and organized 

fire suppression began. Thus the number and 

size of fires was drastically decreased (Gruell 

1983; Swetnam 1990). Fire exclusion 

has had the greatest affect on ecotones 

where naturally occurring fires previously 

removed woody species. Ferry and others 

(1995) concluded that altered fire regimes 

are the principal agent of change affecting 

the vegetative structure, composition, and 

biological diversity in five major plant 

communities totaling over 350 million acres 

in the United States. Leenhouts (1998) 

compared the estimated land area burned 

200–400 years ago (preindustrial) to data in 

the contemporary contiguous United States. 

The result suggests that ten times more 

acreage burned annually in the preindustrial 

era than does in modern times. 

For more than 50 years the fire policy 

of fire exclusion has had major effects on 

ecosystem health. The problems have 

been foreseen for some time. Sixty years 

ago Weaver (1943) reported that the 

“complete prevention of forest fires in 

the ponderosa pine region of California, 

Oregon, Washington, northern Idaho, and 

western Montana has certain undesirable 

ecological and silvicultural effects [and 

that]...conditions are already deplorable 

and are becoming increasingly serious over 

large areas.” Also, Cooper (1961) stated, 

“...fire has played a major role in shaping 

the worldʼs grassland and forests. Attempts 

to eliminate it have introduced problems 

fully as serious as those created by accidental 

conflagrations.” Recently, concerns about the 

loss of biodiversity have surfaced as a result 

of the suppression of fire.

In 2000, the fire season was one of the 

worst on record and thus prompted then 

President Clinton to ask the Secretaries of 

Agriculture and Interior to prepare a report, 

known as the National Fire Plan, which 

recommended how best to respond to the 

yearʼs severe wildfires, reduce the effects 

of those fires on rural communities, and 

ensure sufficient firefighting resources 

in the future. This report, prepared by 

the Department of the Interior and the 

Department of Agriculture in collaboration 

with the National Association of State 

Foresters, has shaped the role of fire 

management for the past few years. In 

August 2001, the Federal Land Management 

Agencies published the Ten-Year 

Comprehensive Strategy, thus setting the 

stage for fire management practices for the 

next 10 years. In this document, one of 

the five key goals is to restore fire-adapted 

ecosystems. Under this goal are the driving 

forces of fire and fuels treatments that are to 

enhance ecological health.

In August of 2002, President Bush visited 

the Squires fire in Oregon and announced his 

Forest and Rangeland Health Initiative. This 

Initiative is meant to help the Federal Land 

Management agencies conduct fuels projects 

more efficiently. 

Another major factor affecting ecosystem 

health and fire frequency is the spread of 

flammable exotic annual grasses such as 

cheatgrass. The proliferation and spread 

of exotic annual grasses can largely be 

attributed to human activities such as 

farming, railroad activities, road production 

and fire after European settlement. Since 

the early 1900ʼs, these annual grasses have 

spread across the West, occupying the open 

interspaces between the native grass, forb, 

shrub, and tree species. According to Young 

and Allen 1997 one cheatgrass plant per m2

can produce as many seeds as 10,000 m2. 

This is the significance of a few cheatgrass 

plants being able to establish and persist in 

high ecological condition perennial grass 

conditions. Young also states that most 

native perennial plants have irregular seed 

production, complex dormancies and/or low 

3-32 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

viability. This aids in the aggressive spread 

of cheatgrass. Once established, these highly 

flammable annual grasses provide a fuel 

source for uncharacteristically frequent fires. 

As fire frequency increases so do the annual 

grasses, which are more competitive for the 

limited moisture in the arid portions of the 

West than are the native grasses. Cheatgrass 

has the ability to take advantage of the 

post-fire nitrogen enriched soil conditions. 

With the increase in fire frequency and 

the increased competition from these 

flammable exotic grasses, more and more 

native rangeland converts to a more exotic 

dominated landscape. Fire frequency changes 

from a more historic 25–75 year cycle to a 

3–5 year cycle. Once converted to an exotic 

annual vegetation type, these landscapes 

require major rehabilitation efforts of 

spraying the exotic annuals and reseeding to 

desirable perennial plant species to convert 

them to a fire regime that more closely 

resembles what occurred historically. Grazing 

did play a role in the initial dispersal of 

cheatgrass but its perpetuation has been aided 

by the human activities mentioned above. 

The increase of human caused ignitions over 

the last 50 years combined with cheatgrassʼ 

phonological ability to capitalize on fire 

events has contributed to its rapid rate of 

spread over the last three decades.

3.6.1 Fire Regimes 

There are many different fire regimes 

throughout the West. These range from 

frequent, low-intensity fires to long fire return 

intervals with stand replacement fires. Fire 

regimes are classified as understory, mixed, 

and stand replacement. 

3.6.2 Understory Fire Regimes

Fires were frequent and of low intensity. 

Light surface fires burned at intervals 

averaging less than 10 years and as often as 

every 2 years (Weaver 1951; Dieterich 1980). 

All material was consumed on the forest floor 

during a fire. Trees were not usually killed 

and the damage was highly variable (Paysen 

et al. 2000).

Over the past 100 years, the structural 

and compositional changes in ponderosa pine 

have been repeatedly documented (Cooper 

1960; Biswell et al. 1973; Brown and Davis 

1973). What was once an open, parklike 

ecosystem maintained by frequent, lowintensity fires is now a crowded, stagnated 

forest. In addition to stand changes, general 

fire absence has lead to uncharacteristically 

large accumulations of surface and ground 

fuels (Kallender 1969). 

Pre-1900 and early 1900s photos 

document that ponderosa pine stands were 

much more open. Explorers, soldiers, and 

scientists described a forest quite different 

from that seen today. The open presettlement 

stands, characterized by well-spaced older 

trees and sparse pockets of younger trees, 

had vigorous and abundant herbaceous 

vegetation (Cooper 1960; Biswell et al. 

1973; Brown and Davis 1973). Frequent, 

naturally occurring fires maintained this 

situation. Large woody fuels in the form 

of branches or tree boles, which fall 

infrequently, rarely accumulated over a large 

area. When they were present, subsequent 

fires generally consumed them, reducing 

grass competition and creating mineral soil 

seedbeds, which favored ponderosa pine 

seedling establishment (Cooper 1960). 

In the early 1900s, forest practices and 

reduced incidence of fire led indirectly to 

stagnation of naturally regenerated stands and 

unprecedented fuel accumulation (Biswell et 

al. 1973). Stand stagnation occurs on tens of 

thousands of acres throughout the southwest 

(Cooper 1960; Schubert 1974) and still exists 

where mechanical treatments or fire have not 

taken place. 

3-33
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

A combination of heavy forest floor fuels 

and dense sapling thickets acting as ladder 

fuels, coupled with drought conditions, 

frequent lightning, and human-caused 

ignitions, has resulted in a drastic increase in 

high-severity wildfires in recent years. 

3.6.3 Mixed Fire Regimes 

The pinyon–juniper woodlands cover 

about 47 million acres in the western 

United States (Evans 1988). Pinon–juniper 

woodlands in the United States are 

commonly divided into the Southwestern 

and the Great Basin woodland ecosystems 

on the basis of species composition (Paysen 

et al. 2000). True pinyon is common in the 

Southwest and is usually associated with one 

or several species of junipers, including oneseed, Utah, alligator, and Rocky Mountain 

junipers. Singleleaf pinyon is identified with 

the Great Basin and is generally associated 

with Utah juniper. Other species of pinyon 

occur in southern California, Arizona, 

south of the Mogollon Rim, along the 

United States–Mexico border, and in Texas 

(Bailey and Hawksworth 1988). Longterm fire frequencies for pinyon–juniper 

woodlands have not been clearly defined 

and are the topic of continuing study and 

discussion. However, there is an agreement 

that fire was the most important natural 

disturbance before the introduction of 

livestock, particularly the large herds of the 

nineteenth century (Gottfried et al. 1995). 

It is suspected that before the introduction 

of livestock use, large areas of savanna 

and woodland periodically burned. These 

fires could have occurring during dry years 

that followed wet years when substantial 

herbaceous growth developed (Rogers and 

Vint 1987; Swetnam and Baisan 1996).

In the Intermountain West, presettlement 

mean fire intervals of less than 15 years were 

documented in the sagebrush steppe where 

western juniper now dominates (Miller and 

Rose 1999). In three sample areas in New 

Mexico, pinyon trees have mean fire return 

intervals of 28 years with a range of 10–49 

(Wilkins 1997). In areas of low productivity, 

fire return intervals could be greater than 

100 years, and occurred more frequently 

in extreme conditions. However, where 

grass cover was more continuous, fire return 

intervals were more frequent (10 years; 

Paysen et al. 2000). In the Great Basin, fire 

susceptibility depends on the stage of stand 

development (Meeuwig et al. 1990). In 

young stands, ground cover may be sufficient 

to carry a fire, but in older stands ground 

cover is sparser and may not be sufficient to 

carry a fire. 

In western oak forest, the fire regimes 

have historically been classified as frequent 

low intensity; however, in more recent times 

these have become more intense with longer 

return intervals. 

3.6.4 Stand Replacement Fire 

Regimes 

Vegetation types with this fire regime 

are varied. Broadly speaking, they include 

grassland and shrubland vegetation types. 

Shrublands consist of desert shrublands and 

the chaparral mountain shrub type.

Fire frequencies cannot be measured 

precisely, but most likely occurred every 

4 to 20 years (Gruell 1985a). Lightning 

was probably more important in valleys 

surrounded by forests than in the grasslands 

(Gruell 1985b). Fires would burn over large 

areas in the grasslands, with only natural 

barriers or weather changes to stop them. 

These fires would sometimes cover hundreds 

of square miles (Paysen et al. 2000). 

In Wyoming, big sage fire intervals 

ranged from 10 to 70 years (Young and 

Evans 1981; Vincent 1992). In arid land, fire 

history reports fire intervals between 5 and 

100 years (Wright 1986). Griffiths (1910) 

and Leopold (1924) reported that before 

3-34 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

1880, desert grasslands produced more grass 

and fire recurred at approximately 10-year 

intervals. 

In chaparral, fire intervals for large fires 

(more than 5,000 acres) typically ranged from 

20 to 40 years (Wright and Bailey 1982).

3.7 Soils

3.7.1 Upland Soils 

Soils in the analysis area are highly 

diverse, reflecting the enormous range in 

environmental conditions found on public 

lands in the West. Soil development and 

formation are controlled by five, soil-forming 

factors:

1. climate, especially temperature and 

precipitation; 

2. living organisms, such as native 

vegetation, microorganisms, and animals; 

3. parent material properties, such as 

chemical and mineralogical composition, 

grain size, and resistance to weathering; 

4. topographic variables such as slope 

steepness and shape, aspect, position on 

the landscape, and drainage pattern; and 

5. the relative time soils are subject to the 

soil forming processes (Jenny 1961). 

These soil-forming factors have 

combined in the development of seven 

major soil orders common on public lands 

in the West. The soils represented by these 

soil orders have unique properties that 

greatly influence the productivity, ability to 

respond to management, and susceptibility to 

degradation of the public lands of the West 

(Figure 3.7.1.1).

Alfisols are moderately leached forest 

soils that occur in cool, moist regions. They 

are moderately well developed soils that 

contain an appreciable clay accumulation 

in their subsoil. Alfisols are common in 

the coniferous and deciduous forests and 

mountain shrub communities at higher 

elevations, and areas influenced by moist 

maritime weather patterns in the West. These 

soils are relatively productive and respond 

favorably to improved land management 

practices. 

Andisols are soils that formed in volcanic 

ash or other volcanic ejecta. The poorly 

crystalline volcanic glass composition 

give them unique chemical and physical 

properties, including high water-holding 

capacity and the ability to make large 

quantities of phosphorus unavailable to 

plants. These soils are mainly concentrated 

in forested mountains of the Marine and 

Temperate Steppe Divisions. They are 

highly productive and respond favorably to 

improved land management practices.

Aridisols are soils that developed in 

very dry conditions. They are light colored; 

low in organic matter; and may contain 

accumulations of calcium carbonate, soluble 

salts, sodium, or gypsum. Aridisols are 

extensively found in the Temperate Desert 

and Tropical–Subtropical Desert Divisions 

and drier regions of the Temperate Steppe 

and Tropical–Subtropical Steppe Divisions. 

They support millions of acres of rangeland 

vegetation communities such as desert 

shrub, sagebrush, and pinyon-juniper. Their 

dry moisture status much of the year and 

low organic matter content reduce their 

productivity. This results in a slower or 

decreased ability to respond favorably to 

improved land management practices. The 

typically harsh environmental conditions 

can also make them more susceptible to 

degradation from poor land management 

practices. 

3-35
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

Figure 3.7.1.1. Generalized soil map.

3-36 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

Entisols are soils with weakly developed 

profiles and are considered young in terms 

of soil forming processes. They often occur 

in recently deposited material or on steep, 

highly erosive topographic positions. Entisols 

are very extensive on public lands in the 

West and are most common in the Temperate 

Desert and Tropical–Subtropical Desert 

Divisions arid and semiarid environments 

supporting desert shrub and sagebrush 

communities. These soils may respond 

more slowly to improved land management 

practices and are often susceptible to 

degradation from poor land management 

practices.

Inceptisols have more well-developed 

profiles than Entisols but are still considered 

young soils with weakly developed profiles. 

They are widely distributed and occur under 

a wide range of ecological settings, including 

steep slopes, young geomorphic surfaces, 

and resistant parent materials. Inceptisols 

are common in the coniferous and deciduous 

forests of mountainous portions of the 

Marine and Temperate Steppe Divisions, are 

fairly productive when provided adequate 

moisture, and respond well to improved land 

management practices. 

Mollisols are characterized by a thick, 

dark surface horizon with high organic 

matter content. These fertile soils are 

extensive in the grasslands of the Temperate 

Steppe, Mediterranean, Temperate Desert 

and Tropical–Subtropical Steppe Divisions. 

Mollisols support the plains grassland, 

chaparral-mountain shrub, mountain and 

plateau grasslands, higher precipitation 

sagebrush steppe, and coniferous-deciduous 

forest community types with an appreciable 

grass understory. These soils are highly 

productive and respond well to improved 

land management practices.

Vertisols are soils very high in clay 

content that have extreme shrink-swell 

properties. These soils are found on minor 

acreage in the Mediterranean, Tropical–

Subtropical Steppe, and Temperate Steppe 

Divisions. Vertisols support a variety 

of grassland and shrubland vegetation 

communities. These soils present 

considerable engineering problems, including 

fence building. Depending upon available 

rainfall, Vertisols can be productive and 

respond well to improved land management 

practices.

The long-term productivity and health 

of the soil depends on maintaining the 

soilʼs physical, chemical, and biological 

properties in a favorable condition. Water 

and wind erosion are influenced by climate, 

topography, soil properties and condition, 

watershed cover, and land use. Cover 

is especially important in protecting the 

soil from the erosive forces of water and 

wind. Live plant cover and litter intercept 

precipitation, reducing raindrop impact and 

overland flow, and allowing more infiltration 

and less runoff and erosion. Cover and soil 

surface roughness also reduce wind speed, 

thus minimizing wind erosion. 

Upland rangeland water erosion processes 

include sheet-rill erosion, gully erosion, 

and landslides. Sheet-rill erosion is less 

noticeable but is very widespread and can 

slowly reduce the productivity of rangeland 

soils. Gully erosion is more noticeable and 

can alter the hydrology of the landscape. 

Uplands on many rangeland landscapes have 

an extensive gully network, replacing former 

grass-covered swales. This has altered water 

flow patterns, resulting in increases in size 

and frequency of runoff, and sediment yield 

to streams. Landslides mainly occur on very 

steep slopes with enough precipitation to 

saturate the soil to a restrictive layer and are 

not prevalent on the majority of rangelands.

Soil compaction can result from persistent 

trampling or vehicle traffic during periods 

when the soil is moist and least able to resist 

structural degradation. Soil compaction can 

3-37
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

reduce water infiltration, water movement 

through the soil profile, water availability to 

plants, and soil aeration, and it can increase 

runoff. 

Soil organisms have a profound effect 

on the maintenance of soil productivity 

and health. Biological soil crusts play a 

critical role in carbon and nitrogen fixation, 

soil surface stability, and reduction of 

annual grass invasion in many rangeland 

ecosystems. They can also influence 

infiltration, runoff, and soil moisture 

retention depending on crust structural 

characteristics, soil surface texture, and 

other factors. Many rangeland shrubs and 

bunchgrasses depend on mycorrhizal fungi 

to help them obtain water and nutrients. Soil 

bacteria are important in nitrogen fixation 

and formation of stable soil aggregates on 

rangelands. Bacteria are capable of filtering 

and degrading a large variety of human-made 

pollutants in the soil and groundwater so that 

they are no longer toxic. Soil arthropods 

and other soil animals create large soil 

pores essential for infiltration and soil water 

movement. They also help mix soil layers 

and incorporate soil organic matter into the 

soil. These and other soil organisms help 

maintain the soil food web that is essential 

for cycling of nutrients and other vital 

functions on rangelands. As much as 90 

percent of rangeland productivity occurs in 

the soil (Coupland and Van Dyne 1979). Soil 

organisms depend on soil organic matter 

to survive. Any activities that permanently 

reduce soil organic matter content will have a 

profound effect on rangeland health and longterm productivity.

3.7.2 Riparian Soils 

Riparian soils are formed by sediment 

eroded from adjacent uplands and deposited 

in the valley bottoms, stream sediment 

deposition during overbank flooding, lateral 

deposition of sediment from stream meander 

migration, and sediment deposition on 

lake bottoms and shores. The pedogenic 

properties of riparian soils dominantly 

result from repeated periods of saturation, 

flooding, or ponding. Saturation combined 

with anaerobic (without oxygen), microbial 

activity often causes a depletion of oxygen 

in the soil. This process can result in the 

accumulation of organic matter and the 

reduction, translocation, or accumulation of 

iron, manganese, sulfur, or other reducible 

elements (USDA, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service 1998). These 

processes create complex patterns of soil 

characteristics, such as texture, age, and 

degree of formation, over relatively small 

areas in riparian systems.

Riparian soils are vitally important 

for capturing, storing, and releasing water 

in riparian areas, supporting productive 

vegetation communities, groundwater 

recharge, perching groundwater, streambank 

formation, storing nutrients, filtering 

pollutants, streambank erosion protection, 

and determination of sediment characteristics. 

Disturbances that result in reduction of 

plant cover or deep rooting characteristics, 

streambank sloughing, accelerated erosion, 

compaction, loss of the capability to perch 

water, or other soil characteristics can 

degrade the functional integrity of a riparian 

area. 

3.8 Water Resources

3.8.1 Riparian Hydrology 

The interaction between flowing water, 

the stream channel, hydrologic processes, 

riparian vegetation, and aquatic life is 

complex and interdependent. Vegetation 

overhanging streambanks helps regulate 

water temperature, indirectly maintaining 

dissolved oxygen levels needed for 

aquatic life. Streambank and floodplain 

3-38 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

vegetation slow runoff, stabilize stream 

banks, trap sediment, filter pollutants 

and allow groundwater to recharge. The 

alluvial floodplain stores winter runoff as 

groundwater, then releases the water into the 

stream during dry season, thereby extending 

perennial flow even during extended 

droughts.

Alluvial stream channel structure and 

stability are influenced by the adjacent 

riparian vegetation and soil characteristics. 

Channels respond to the energy of flowing 

water by adjusting channel features, 

including width and depth, streambed slope, 

and the roughness of the channel bed and 

banks. (Features such as vegetation, bed 

materials, and gravel bars cause roughness.) 

Soil characteristics such as texture or rock 

fragment content influence erodibility of 

streambanks and channel migration. Streams 

functioning in a state of dynamic equilibrium, 

in which there is a balance between erosion 

and deposition, experience no net loss or 

gain in sediment load. As flow and sediment 

supply vary, channel features adjust in an 

attempt to achieve a new balance. Stream 

channel adjustments are related to the 

dissipation or conservation of energy, and 

to the distribution of energy expenditure 

(Leopold 1994). Stream channels and riparian 

areas are resilient and naturally dynamic 

landforms, constantly adjusting to natural 

disturbances resulting from floods or changes 

to landscapes upstream such as fire.

Stream channels and riparian 

communities may be degraded as a result 

of local or off-site disturbance. Sensitive 

hydrologic interrelations exist between the 

condition of uplands and their associated 

riparian communities. Uplands in 

nonfunctioning condition often experience 

accelerated surface runoff, higher sediment 

yields, and increased erosion within the 

channel systems (DeBano and Schmidt 

1989). Changes in the vegetative cover 

of floodplains and streambanks influence 

the function and stability of the riparian 

community.

Stream–riparian systems that experience 

increases in runoff and sediment from upland 

sources or increased susceptibility to erosion 

from direct disturbance often cannot adjust 

their channel features to achieve equilibrium. 

If sediment increases beyond the streamʼs 

ability to carry it, channels tend to aggrade 

and form multiple, interwoven braided 

channels. In another type of stream system, 

where channel erodibility or streamflow 

is increased, with relatively low sediment 

production, channels may erode. Streams 

with coarse-textured substrates and finetextured banks tend to laterally erode, 

becoming shallower and wider, often creating 

braided conditions. Stream channels with 

fine-textured substrates, common at lower 

elevations, usually erode vertically, forming 

gullies.

When disturbance factors are manageged, 

most stream–riparian systems begin a 

relatively rapid recovery. Incised or laterally 

widened streams, however, with low 

sediment yields, with or without fluctuating 

flow patterns, recover slowly.

3.8.2 Water Quality 

The primary water quality issues related 

to livestock grazing on Federal lands have 

been associated with nonpoint-sources 

of sediment, fecal coliform bacteria (used as 

an indicator for other fecal-borne pathogens), 

nutrients, and salinity. The leading causes of 

nonpoint-source water quality impairment 

are siltation (sediment), nutrients, bacteria, 

metals (primarily mercury), and oxygendepleting substances. 

The Water Quality Act of 1987 (P.L. 

100-4) sets forth agency responsibility for 

nonpoint-source water quality management 

on public lands (Section 313). 

3-39
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

It is recognized that Best Management 

Practices (BMPs) are the primary 

mechanism for enabling the achievement of 

water quality standards. The BLM strategy 

by which nonpoint source controls, including 

BMPs, are selected to achieve water quality 

standards includes the following iterative 

process: (1) design of BMPs based on sitespecific conditions; technical, economic, 

and institutional feasibility; and the water 

quality standards of those waters potentially 

effected; (2) monitoring to ensure that 

practices are correctly designed and 

applied; (3) monitoring to determine a) the 

effectiveness of practices in meeting water 

quality standards, and b) the appropriateness 

of water quality criteria in reasonably 

assuring protection of beneficial uses; and 

(4) the adjustment of BMPs when it is found 

that water quality standards are not being 

protected to a desired level, or the possible 

adjustments of water quality standards on the 

basis of considerations in 40 CFR 131. 

The Clean Water Act section 305(b) 

reports to the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) in 2000 provide information 

concerning state assessments of water quality 

within their boundaries (EPA 2000). The state 

reports provide detailed information and are 

available from each state, or through links 

from the EPA online summary (EPA 2000). 

Assessment data from the 11 western States 

reports that stream water quality ranges 

from 15 percent of rivers and streams in 

good condition for aquatic life to 93 percent 

of rivers and streams in good condition for 

aquatic life (EPA 2000). However, this data is 

not comparable because the states do not use 

comparable criteria and monitoring strategies 

to measure water quality (EPA 2000). 

Nonpoint-sources of pollution from urban 

and agricultural lands are reported as the 

leading source of water quality impairment. 

Siltation, pathogens, nutrients, and metals 

are all frequently cited as being the primary 

contaminants.

The BLM participates in a Federal 

program directed by the Colorado River 

Salinity Control Act (PL 98-569) to reduce 

salt loading in the Colorado River. Salt 

concentrations on Federal lands are highest in 

marine shale geologic settings, where annual 

precipitation averages less than 12 inches.

It has been estimated that Federal land 

contributes 8 percent of the total salt load 

of the Upper Colorado River Basin from 

nonpoint-sources (BLM 1980). Salinity from 

nonpoint-sources increases with sediment 

yield. Vegetation cover is the most important 

management variable influencing runoff and 

sediment yields (BLM 1987). Salinity and 

vegetation management are a consideration 

in all projects initiated in the Colorado River 

Basin.

3.8.3 Water Rights

Each state is responsible for granting, 

adjudicating and administering appropriative 

water rights. All decisions regarding 

the qualifications of the applicant, what 

constitutes beneficial use, and quantity and 

place of use are addressed through state 

procedural and substantive law. The Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

mandates that the public lands administered 

by the BLM be managed for multiple 

use benefits. Under the current grazing 

regulations the BLM applies for water rights 

from the states for multiple use benefits 

including livestock, wildlife, fisheries, wild 

horses and burros, riparian, and recreation 

where permitted by state law. The regulations 

include a provision that was part of the 1995 

rulemaking directing the BLM to acquire 

stock water rights in the name of the United 

States to the extent allowed by state law. 

The preamble to the final rule in 1995 noted 

that “co-application or joint ownership of 

the water right [by the United States and 

3-40 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

State

Is Joint 

Ownership 

Allowed?

Can the 

BLM 

Own 

Livestock 

Water 

Rights?

Notes

Arizona No Yes; see 

Notes 

The BLM can retain stockwater rights already in BLMʼs 

name, or transferred to BLM in a land transaction. 

Whether the BLM can apply for new stockwater rights 

has been pending in Arizona Superior Court since 1995. 

California Yes Yes California statute requires landowner permission prior 

to issuance of a stockwater permit.

Colorado Yes Yes The state does not require co-holders to be land owners.

Idaho Yes Yes

The state allows for joint ownership, but the BLM 

usually seeks the water right in the name of the United 

States.

Montana Yes Yes

There has been no test of what would happen should 

either owner attempt to sever his or her portion of the 

water right from the property or transfer it to another 

location. Montana has Exempt Stockwater Permit 

Filings.1

Nevada Yes; see 

Notes No

Nevada allows individuals to have joint ownership, but 

not with BLM. A recent law prohibits the BLM from 

owning stockwater rights. The rational is that the BLM 

does not own the cattle so they cannot put the water to 

beneficial use.

New 

Mexico Yes Yes Co-applicant (grazing permittee) must include proof of access to the property in the water right application.

North 

Dakota Yes Yes

Oregon Yes; see 

Notes Yes

Individuals have filed and hold water rights in their 

names on BLM land. The BLM also owns stockwater 

rights. Joint ownership is allowed by the state, but there 

have not been many joint applications. Oregon statute 

requires landowner permission prior to issuance of a 

stockwater permit. There is an adjudication involving 

BOR that may be relevant when settled.2

South 

Dakota Yes Yes

Utah Yes; see 

Notes Yes

Permittees can hold livestock water rights acquired in 

the past in their own names. Today, the state would not 

grant joint ownership if the BLM protested. The BLM 

would hold the water right in the name of the United 

States. However, co-ownership would be allowed if it 

was at BLMʼs request.

Table 3.8.3. Ownership of livestock water rights (by state).

3-41
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

the grazing permittee] will be allowed 

where state policy permits it...” Table 3.8.3 

summarizes the statesʼ current rules for 

federal ownership and co-ownership of water 

rights. 

Water rights are property rights of 

use conferred by the state. The current 

regulations directed BLM to apply for the 

water rights on public land in the name 

of the United States, because ownership 

of the appurtenant water, when available, 

gave public land managers and permittees 

flexibility in putting the land to use. 

The regulations refer only to state 

appropriative water rights. Federal reserved 

water rights differ from state appropriative 

rights and are not addressed by the grazing 

regulations. Federal reserved water rights are 

granted by legislation or Executive Order(s) 

for a use on federal land by the designated 

federal agency. These water rights are limited 

to the amount of water needed to fulfill the 

purpose of the order or the act. 

3.9 Air Quality

The Clean Air Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-549) 

required the EPA to develop standards for the 

maximum concentration of certain pollutants 

that should appear in healthy ambient air. 

These standards are called National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The EPA 

reevaluates the NAAQS periodically to 

ensure the limits accurately reflect the most 

up-to-date health data for air pollution.

Regions are required to monitor 

ambient area for compliance with NAAQS 

standards. If a region exceeds a standard for 

a pollutant, the EPA can designate the area as 

a nonattainment area. Nonattainment areas 

then must submit plans to EPA called State 

Implementation Plans (SIPs) that show the 

limits and regulations the region will impose, 

as well as modeling data to show EPA the SIP 

will bring the area into compliance with the 

NAAQS standard.

Attainment regions are regulated by 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

State

Is Joint 

Ownership 

Allowed?

Can 

BLM 

Own 

Livestock 

Water 

Rights?

Notes

Wyoming Yes Yes;see 

Notes

BLM normally does not want to have a co-applicant, 

but the state allows it. The state has an MOU with BLM 

- if the point of use is on BLM land they automatically 

add BLM as a co-applicant.

1

 Montana’s exempt stockwater permit Filings (Montana form 605) allows for the construction of a stockwater 

impoundment of not more than 15 acre-feet capacity (30 acre-feet per year water right) prior to receiving a permit 

to appropriate water from the state. These impoundments may be constructed on a minimum 40-acre parcel and 

must be on land owned by or under the control of the applicant. The state of Montana considers a BLM grazing 

lease to be sufficient control of the lands to meet the requirements of the statute. This has resulted in the unauthorized construction of several reservoirs on public lands for which a private party holds the water right.

2 There is a dispute over who owns the water rights in Klamath Lake—the Bureau of Reclamation or the irriga- tors who put it to beneficial use. If decided in favor of the irrigators, it potentially could lead to a policy similar to 

Nevada’s regarding stockwater rights.

Table 3.8.3 (concluded). Ownership of livestock water rights (by state).

3-42 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

(PSD) requirements. To ensure that the 

levels of pollutants in clean air areas do 

not rise unnecessarily, the Clean Air Act 

separates areas into PSD Classes I, II, and 

III designations, depending on the need for 

significant protection. 

PSD Class I areas, predominantly 

National Parks and certain wilderness areas, 

have the greatest limitations. Virtually any 

degradation would be significant. Areas 

where moderate, controlled growth can occur 

are designated PSD Class II. PSD Class III 

areas allow the greatest degree of effects. 

All BLM-administered lands are classified 

as PSD Class II.

The air quality above most western 

Federal lands cannot be easily described, 

since monitoring data have not been gathered 

for most pollutants outside urban areas. In 

less-developed portions of the West, ambient 

pollutant levels are expected to be near or 

below the measurable limits. Air quality 

on public lands is directly affected by the 

protection of soil by vegetation. Where 

soil is exposed, there is a possibility for air 

quality problems as a result of dust caused 

by wind over exposed soil. Vegetative cover 

of soil is affected by many factors including, 

drought, fire, grazing by livestock and 

wildlife, disease, and insects. 

3.10 Wildlife

3.10.1 Terrestrial

The Bureau of Land Management 

administers more than 262,000,000 acres 

of terrestrial wildlife habitat on the public 

lands in the western States. 160 million 

of these acres outside of Alaska are grazed 

by domestic livestock. These public lands 

sustain a nationally significant, rich heritage 

of diverse fish and wildlife by providing 

seasonal or permanent habitat for more 

than 3,000 species of mammals, birds, 

reptiles, amphibians, and fish that are 

significant for their aesthetic, recreational, 

and scientific values.

Increasing human populations in the 

West place ever-increasing consumptive and 

nonconsumptive demands on the wildlife 

and habitat. The settlement of the West has 

had a widespread and significant influence 

on wildlife habitats and species on the public 

and private lands. Urbanization, agriculture, 

roads, livestock grazing, and noxious weeds 

have been major factors affecting habitat for 

wildlife species. Grazing, when improperly 

managed, (such as during the uncontrolled 

grazing in the late 1800s through the mid1930s), has had negative effects on the arid 

rangelands of the West and has reduced the 

quality of wildlife habitats. 

 

Temperate Desert 

The Temperate Desert generally occurs 

within the Columbia Plateau–Great Basin. 

This large, complex region is relatively 

arid due to its position in the rain shadow 

of the adjacent western mountain ranges 

(Cascade and Sierra Nevada Mountains). 

The vegetation complexes are dominated 

by sagebrush, pinyon–juniper woodlands, 

mountain shrub, ponderosa pine, lodgepole 

pine–subalpine fir forests, grasslands, and 

some very significant wetlands. Mammals 

typical of this region include pygmy rabbit 

(Brachylagus idahoensis), mule deer 

(Odocoileus hemionus), Rocky Mountain elk 

(Cervus canadensis), pronghorn (Antilocapra 

americana), bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) 

mountain lion (Felis concolor), bobcat (Lynx 

rufus), coyote (Canis latrans), kit fox (Vulpes 

velox), and numerous species of squirrels and 

voles. Reptiles and amphibians typical of the 

region include sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus 

graciosus) and western rattlesnake (Crotalus 

viridis).

3-43
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

Temperate Steppe 

The temperate steppe, generally occurring 

within the Colorado Plateau–Wyoming 

Basin, is a complex of mountain ranges 

dominated by a variety of coniferous forest 

types, interspersed with aspen communities, 

pinyon–juniper woodlands, and separated by 

the tablelands of the Colorado Plateau. The 

Colorado Plateau–Wyoming Basin is also 

occupied by mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, 

and pronghorn. 

Tropical–Subtropical Steppe 

The Tropical–Subtropical Steppe in 

the rainshadow of the Rocky Mountains 

is characterized by shortgrass prairie with 

its greatly reduced vegetation stature and 

diversity, and the significant playa lakes 

shorebird and waterfowl wintering areas. 

Precipitation increases from west to east 

and temperature increases from north 

to south. These climatic gradients have 

created the lush, tallgrass prairie east of 

the 100th Meridian, midgrass prairie in 

the northwestern plains, and shortgrass 

prairie in the west-central plains (Bailey 

1978). Improper livestock grazing, through 

consumption of fire fuels, has encouraged 

woody plant invasions by reducing the 

natural frequency and intensity of wildfires 

(Bock et al. 1993). Historically, American 

bison (Bos bison) played a significant role 

in the ecosystem that favored shortgrasspreferring species such as mountain plover 

(Charadrius montanus) and burrowing owl 

(Athene cunicularia). The shortgrass prairie 

was also home to the wolf (Canis lupus), as 

well as elk.

Tropical–Subtropical Deserts (Mojave, 

Sonoran, and Chihuahuan) 

The Tropical–Subtropical Deserts include 

the Mojave, Sonoran, and Chihuahuan 

deserts that are composed of arid scrublands 

and grasslands at the lower elevations, and 

oak–juniper woodlands and coniferous 

forests in the higher elevations. While 

grazing by native ungulates tended to 

be widely scattered and of low intensity, 

historical improper livestock grazing was 

heavier and degraded many grasslands into 

permanent desert scrub (Schlesinger et al. 

1990). Historically, pronghorn occurred 

in all of the major valleys; wild turkey 

(Meleagris gallopavo) and grizzly bears 

(Ursus arctos) occurred in all major riparian 

areas; and wild turkey and black bear 

(Ursus americanus) in all mountain ranges. 

Reptiles include the desert tortoise (Gopherus 

agassizzi).

3.10.2 Migratory Birds

Executive Order 13186 (Responsibilities 

of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory 

Birds) recognized that migratory birds are 

of great ecological and economic value to 

the United States and many other countries. 

Migratory birds bring tremendous enjoyment 

to millions of Americans who study, watch, 

feed, or hunt these birds. The United States 

has recognized the critical importance of this 

shared resource by ratifying international, 

bilateral conventions for the conservation of 

migratory birds. Such conventions include the 

Convention for the Protection of Migratory 

Birds with Great Britain on behalf of Canada 

1916, the Convention for the Protection of 

Migratory Birds and Game Mammals—

Mexico 1936, the Convention for the 

Protection of Birds and Their Environment—

Japan 1972, and the Convention for the 

Conservation of Migratory Birds and Their 

Environment—Union of Soviet Socialist 

Republics 1978. These migratory bird 

conventions impose substantive obligations 

on the United States for the conservation of 

migratory birds and their habitats. Through 

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the United 

3-44 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

Region 1 

(Pacific Region)

Region 2 

(Southwest Region)

Region 6 

(Mountain-Prairie Region)

Black-footed Albatross Reddish Egret Northern Harrier

Ashy Storm-Petrel Swallow-tailed Kite Swainsonʼs Hawk

Swainsonʼs Hawk Northern Harrier Ferruginous Hawk

Peregrine Falcon Gray Hawk Golden Eagle

Prairie Falcon Common Black-Hawk Peregrine Falcon

Greater Sage-Grouse 

(Columbia Basin population 

only)

White-tailed Hawk Prairie Falcon

Yellow Rail Ferruginous Hawk Gunnison Sage-Grouse

Black Rail Peregrine Falcon Lesser Prairie-Chicken

Snowy Plover (except where 

Endangered) Lesser Prairie-Chicken Yellow Rail

Mountain Plover Yellow Rail Black Rail

Black Oystercatcher Black Rail American Golden-Plover

Whimbrel American Golden-Plover Snowy Plover

Long-billed Curlew Snowy Plover Mountain Plover

Marbled Godwit Wilsonʼs Plover Solitary Sandpiper

Black Turnstone Mountain Plover Upland Sandpiper

Red Knot American Oystercatcher Long-billed Curlew

Short-billed Dowitcher Long-billed Curlew Marbled Godwit

Gull-billed Tern Hudsonian Godwit Buff-breasted Sandpiper

Elegant Tern Red Knot Wilsonʼs Phalarope

Table 3.10.2.1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service birds of conservation concern 2002.

States has implemented these migratory bird 

conventions with respect to the United States.

Birds are particularly affected by 

changes in their physical environment (i.e., 

nesting and foraging habitat; Cody 1985). 

When improper livestock grazing results 

in physical changes in the environment, 

such as conversion of grassland habitats to 

shrublands, native avian populations may 

be adversely affected. Table 3.10.2.1 is a 

list of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) Western Regions (FWS Regions 1, 

2, and 6) Birds of Conservation Concern 

2002 (BCC 2002). The BCC 2002 is a 

result of the 1988 amendment to the Fish 

and Wildlife Conservation Act mandate to 

“identify species, subspecies, and populations 

of all migratory nongame birds that, without 

additional conservation actions, are likely 

to become candidates for listing under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973.” The BCC 

2002 is primarily derived from assessment 

scores from three major bird conservation 

plans: Partners in Flight, the United States 

3-45
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

Region 1 

(Pacific Region)

Region 2 

(Southwest Region)

Region 6 

(Mountain-Prairie Region)

Black Skimmer Stilt Sandpiper Black-billed Cuckoo

Xantusʼs Murrelet Buff-breasted Sandpiper Flammulated Owl

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Gull-billed Tern Burrowing Owl

Flammulated Owl Least Tern (except where 

Endangered) Short-eared Owl

Burrowing Owl Black Skimmer Lewisʼs Woodpecker

Black Swift Red-billed Pigeon Red-headed Woodpecker

Lewisʼs Woodpecker Yellow-billed Cuckoo 

(western BCRs only) Williamsonʼs Sapsucker

Williamsonʼs Sapsucker Flammulated Owl Red-naped Sapsucker

Red-naped Sapsucker Whiskered Screech-Owl White-headed Woodpecker

White-headed Woodpecker Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl 

(Texas only) Loggerhead Shrike

Olive-sided Flycatcher Elf Owl Bellʼs Vireo

Loggerhead Shrike (except 

where Endangered) Burrowing Owl Gray Vireo

Gray Vireo Broad-billed Hummingbird Bewickʼs Wren

Elepaio (except where 

Endangered) Buff-bellied Hummingbird Spragueʼs Pipit

Horned Lark (strigata ssp. 

only) Lucifer Hummingbird Virginiaʼs Warbler

Crissal Thrasher Elegant Trogon Cassinʼs Sparrow

Le Conteʼs Thrasher Lewisʼs Woodpecker Brewerʼs Sparrow

Brewerʼs Sparrow Red-headed Woodpecker Grasshopper Sparrow

Tricolored Blackbird Arizona Woodpecker Bairdʼs Sparrow

Lawrenceʼs Goldfinch Gilded Flicker Henslowʼs Sparrow

Northern BeardlessTyrannulet Le Conteʼs Sparrow

Greater Pewee Nelsonʼs Sharp-tailed 

Sparrow

Buff-breasted Flycatcher McCownʼs Longspur

Scissor-tailed Flycatcher Chestnut-collared Longspur

Rose-throated Becard Dickcissel

Loggerhead Shrike Bobolink

Table 3.10.2.1 (continued). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service birds of conservation concern 

2002.

3-46 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

Region 1 

(Pacific Region)

Region 2 

(Southwest Region)

Region 6 

(Mountain-Prairie Region)

Bellʼs Vireo

Gray Vireo

Brown-headed Nuthatch

Sedge Wren

Bendireʼs Thrasher

Crissal Thrasher

Le Conteʼs Thrasher

Spragueʼs Pipit

Olive Warbler

Colima Warbler

Tropical Parula

Black-throated Gray Warbler

Graceʼs Warbler

Prairie Warbler

Cerulean Warbler

Prothonotary Warbler

Worm-eating Warbler

Swainsonʼs Warbler

Louisiana Waterthrush

Kentucky Warbler

Red-faced Warbler

Rufous-winged Sparrow

Cassinʼs Sparrow

Bachmanʼs Sparrow

Botteriʼs Sparrow

Black-chinned Sparrow

Sage Sparrow

Lark Bunting

Bairdʼs Sparrow

Henslowʼs Sparrow

Le Conteʼs Sparrow

Nelsonʼs Sharp-tailed 

Sparrow

Table 3.10.2.1 (continued). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service birds of conservation concern 

2002.

3-47
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

Region 1 

(Pacific Region)

Region 2 

(Southwest Region)

Region 6 

(Mountain-Prairie Region)

Seaside Sparrow

Harrisʼs Sparrow

McCownʼs Longspur

Smithʼs Longspur

Chestnut-collared Longspur

Varied Bunting

Painted Bunting

Hooded Oriole

Altamira Oriole

Audubonʼs Oriole

Table 3.10.2.1 (concluded). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service birds of conservation concern 

2002.

Shorebird Conservation Plan, and the North 

American Waterbird Conservation Plan.

Temperate Steppe and Temperate Desert 

Birds typical of this region include 

greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus), Gunnison sage-grouse 

(Centrocercus minimus), sage thrasher 

(Oreoscoptes montanus), sage sparrow 

(Amphispiza belli), loggerhead shrike, and 

Brewerʼs sparrow (Spizella breweri) in 

the terrestrial environment and American 

white pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos), 

cinnamon teal (Anas cyanoptera), gray 

vireo (Vireo vicinior), northern pintail (Anas 

acuta), tundra swan (Cygnus columbianus), 

American avocet (Recurvirostra americana), 

black-necked stilt (Himantopus mexicanus), 

willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus), 

Wilsonʼs phalarope, eared grebe (Podiceps

nigricollis), mountain plover, snowy plover 

(Charadrius alexandrinus), white-faced ibis 

(Plegadis chihi), and California gull (Larus

californicus) in the wetlands.

The response to grazing depends on 

the avian species. Among the species 

that respond positively to grazing are the 

golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), brownheaded cowbird (Molothrus ater), and 

sage sparrow. Species such as the northern 

harrier (Circus cyaneus), swainson hawk 

(Buteo swainsoni), savannah sparrow 

(Passerculous sandwichensis), grasshopper 

sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), white 

crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), 

Brewerʼs sparrow, vesper sparrow (Pooecetes 

gramineus), ferruginous hawk (Buteo 

regalis), burrowing owl, short-eared owl 

(Asio flammeus), western (Sturnella neglecta) 

and eastern (S. magna) meadowlarks respond 

adversely to improper grazing (Bock et al. 

1993).

Tropical–Subtropical Steppe 

Birds typical of this region include 

mountain plover, McCownʼs longspur 

(Calcarius mccownii), long-billed curlew, 

ferruginous hawk, burrowing owl, and lesser 

prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus pallidicinctus). 

Playa lakes in this region are significant for 

a myriad of wintering ducks, sandhill cranes, 

and shorebirds, as well as breeding habitat for 

3-48 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus). 

Livestock grazing has resulted in varied 

responses by neotropical migratory birds 

who breed and winter in the Tropical–

Subtropical Steppe region. Species such 

as killdeer (Charadrius vociferans), 

mountain plover, burrowing owl, common 

nighthawk (Chordeiles minor), horned 

lark (Eremophila alpestris), northern 

mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), lark 

sparrow (Chondestes grammacus), blackthroated sparrow (Amphispiza bilineata), 

and McCownʼs longspur may often respond 

positively. Among the species that usually 

respond adversely to improper grazing are 

northern harrier, short-eared owl, Botteriʼs 

sparrow (Aimophila botterri), Cassinʼs 

sparrow (Aimophila cassinii), savannah 

sparrow, Bairdʼs sparrow (Ammodramus 

bairdii), Henslowʼs sparrow (Ammodramus 

henslowii). Species such as the sandpiper 

(Bartramia longicauda), Spragueʼs pipit 

(Anthus spragueii) dickcissel (Spiza 

Americana), lark bunting (Calamospiza 

malanocorys), grasshopper sparrow, chestnut 

collard longspur (Calcarius ornatus), 

bobolink (Dolichonix oryzivorus), redwinged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), and 

eastern and western meadowlarks respond 

negatively to heavy grazing (Bock et al. 

1993). 

Tropical–Subtropical Deserts (Mojave, 

Sonoran, and Chihuahuan) 

Birds typical of this region include 

Gambelʼs quail (Callipepla gambelii), scaled 

quail (Callipepla squamata), Montezuma 

quail (Cyrtonyx montezumae), Swainsonʼs 

and ferruginous hawks, lesser nighthawk 

(Chordeiles acutipennis), Chihuahan raven 

(Corvus crypoleucus), verdin (Auriparus 

flaviceps), cactus wren (Campylorhynchos

brunneicapillus), pyrrhuloxia (Cardinalis 

sinuatus), and crissal (Toxostoma crissale), 

Le Conteʼs (Toxostoma lecontei), and curvebilled (Toxostoma curvrostre) thrashers.

Riparian–Wetlands Birds 

Riparian–wetland areas, with a broad 

mixture of grass, forb, and sedge species, 

support the most diverse native plant and 

animal populations of any region. Executive 

Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) 

and Executive Order 11990 (Protection 

of Wetlands) recognize the importance of 

these areas and direct the BLM to avoid, to 

the extent possible, both short- and longterm adverse effects associated with the 

destruction or modification of wetlands and 

riparian areas. 

While riparian–wetland ecosystems have 

always been a relatively minor component 

of the landscape in the West, Chaney et al. 

(1990) reported that riparian habitats are 

also the most modified land type in the West. 

Agricultural and urban development have 

been responsible for the decline of more 

than 80 percent of the riparian–wetland 

ecosystems in the West. Improper livestock 

grazing, and the fragmentation frequently 

associated with it, is of great concern to 

the conservation of riparian–wetlands due 

to their vulnerability to disturbance and high 

wildlife value (Thomas et al. 1979; Knopf 

et al. 1988). In the San Pedro National 

Conservation Area, Arizona, when livestock 

were excluded from a study area, changes 

in avian populations were demonstrated: 

42 species increased, 26 significantly; and 

19 species decreased, 8 significantly (Table 

3.10.2.2). 

Conservation of neotropical migratory 

birds in the West depends very much on the 

protection and eventual restoration of riparian 

ecosystems. Southwestern riparian habitats 

host the highest breeding densities in all 

of North America (Carothers and Johnson 

1975; Ohmart and Anderson 1982; Rice et al. 

3-49
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

Table 3.10.2.2. Species with increasing and decreasing trends during the breeding season 

on the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area, Arizona, before and after 

removal of cattle in late 1987, sorted by significance level of the trend.

Trend and species Detections per kilometer Annual

changea 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990

Increasing Species

Cassinʼs Sparrow (Aimophila cassinii) 0.06 0.92 5.19 5.15 2.15 2.42

Dusky-capped Flycatcher (Myiarchus 

tuberculifer) 0.03 0.07 0.09 0.32 0.31 1.93

N. Beardless-Tyrannulet (Camptostoma 

imberbe) 0.06 0.04 0.17 0.25 0.46 1.82

Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia) 3.21 6.05 8.77 17.68 16.71 1.55

Western Wood-Pewee (Contopus 

sordidulus) 1.51 1.62 2.18 3.23 4.17 1.31

Summer Tanager (Piranga rubra) 3.73 5.91 5.81 10.61 10.13 1.29

Abertʼs Towhee (Pipilo aberti) 6.14 7.28 8.63 13.11 15.43 1.28

Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias) 0.24 0.65 0.42 0.43 0.97 1.27

Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) 0.80 0.61 1.07 0.92 1.81 1.23

Blue Grosbeak (Guiraca caerulea) 2.92 5.20 4.46 6.19 7.22 1.22

Ash-throated Flycatcher (Myiarchus 

cinerascens) 1.81 2.36 2.41 3.66 3.74 1.21

Cassinʼs Kingbird (Tyrannus vociferans) 3.46 3.93 3.06 6.07 5.54 1.15

Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) 1.27 3.24 5.36 12.95 14.71 1.87

Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater) 3.47 5.03 5.58 6.21 8.11 1.21

Vermilion Flycatcher (Pyrocephalus 

rubinus) 2.35 3.22 3.40 5.40 7.30 1.32

White-winged Dove (Zenaida asiatica) 1.93 2.69 3.37 7.54 10.78 1.56

Bewickʼs Wren (Thryomanes bewickii) 10.87 10.85 9.82 14.34 14.97 1.10

Yellow-breasted Chat (Icteria virens) 5.35 6.60 7.94 17.17 20.58 1.44

Lesser Goldfinch (Carduelis psaltria) 5.08 5.17 3.73 7.00 6.13 1.07

Gray Hawk (Asturina nitida) 0.57 0.92 0.54 0.84 1.15 1.14

Hooded Oriole (Icterus cucullatus) 0.00 0.17 0.21 0.20 0.41 1.86

Brown-crested Flycatcher (Myiarchus 

tyrannulus) 2.07 2.32 2.43 3.34 3.54 1.16

Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura) 1.05 1.41 1.80 5.30 4.09 1.50

Common Raven (Corvus corax) 0.02 0.01 0.17 0.13 0.24 2.18

House Finch (Carpodacus mexicanus) 2.17 1.39 1.71 2.80 3.12 1.15

3-50 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

Trend and species Detections per kilometer Annual

changea 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990

Increasing Species (continued)

Black Phoebe (Sayornis nigricans) 0.27 0.15 0.10 0.51 0.92 1.44

Black-chinned Hummingbird (Archilochus 

alexandri) 0.57 0.57 0.50 0.71 1.63 1.26

Indigo Bunting (Passerina cyanea) 0.02 0.02 0.27 0.54 0.58 2.73

Lucyʼs Warbler (Vermivora luciae) 13.80 14.68 13.76 16.03 20.81 1.10

Bellʼs Vireo (Vireo bellii) 0.91 1.50 1.22 1.89 2.69 1.27

Phainopepla (Phainopepla nitens) 0.11 0.10 0.78 0.16 0.64 1.47

Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus 

americanus) 0.43 0.63 0.78 0.96 1.19 1.28

Common Ground-Dove (Columbina 

passerina) 0.08 0.18 0.07 0.54 0.41 1.57

Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius 

phoeniceus) 0.08 0.01 0.16 0.12 0.31 1.71

Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia) 1.09 0.80 1.39 3.00 4.18 1.49

Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura) 0.51 0.00 3.68 1.37 0.85 1.40

Ladder-backed Woodpecker (Picoides 

scalaris) 1.52 1.67 1.62 1.59 2.10 1.06

Gila Woodpecker (Melanerpes uropygialis) 2.63 2.41 2.47 3.07 2.79 1.04

Bullockʼs Oriole (Iceterus bullockii) 1.55 1.67 1.56 2.21 1.69 1.05

Botteriʼs Sparrow (Aimophila botterii) 1.83 2.61 1.47 4.21 2.40 1.11

White-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta 

carolinensis) 1.24 1.72 1.30 1.66 1.50 1.03

Decreasing Species

Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus) 0.43 0.42 0.21 0.47 0.33 0.96

Northern Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) 0.46 0.20 0.25 0.43 0.25 0.95

Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) 1.43 0.67 0.57 0.56 0.50 0.80

European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) 0.64 0.72 0.70 0.55 0.21 0.78

House Sparrow (Passer domesticus) 0.34 0.49 0.38 0.09 0.00 0.51

Greater Roadrunner (Geococcyx 

californianus) 0.72 0.43 0.33 0.21 0.26 0.76

Table 3.10.2.2 (continued). Species with increasing and decreasing trends during the 

breeding season on the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area, Arizona, before 

and after removal of cattle in late 1987, sorted by significance level of the trend.

3-51
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

Trend and species Detections per kilometer Annual

changea 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990

Decreasing Species (continued)

Black-throated Sparrow (Amphispiza 

bilineata) 1.86 0.91 0.89 0.64 0.76 0.81

Verdin (Auriparus flaviceps) 0.69 0.79 0.33 0.10 0.34 0.71

Red-tailed Hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) 0.22 0.17 0.16 0.20 0.09 0.84

Cactus Wren (Campylorhynchus 

brunneicapillus) 0.53 0.55 0.40 0.39 0.18 0.78

Crissal Thrasher (Toxostoma crissale) 0.93 0.44 0.60 0.68 0.44 0.90

Cooperʼs Hawk (Accipiter cooperii) 0.26 0.10 0.07 0.16 0.14 0.92

Bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus) 2.16 1.23 1.85 1.89 1.31 0.94

Gambelʼs Quail (Callipepla gambelii) 3.12 2.52 1.28 2.64 1.79 0.90

Northern Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) 1.72 1.34 1.28 1.17 1.05 0.89

Western Kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis) 2.08 1.52 1.56 1.61 1.70 0.97

Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus) 1.83 1.85 1.45 1.77 1.66 0.98

Canyon Towhee (Pipilo fuscus) 0.52 0.39 0.37 0.51 0.36 0.96

(Source: Krueper et al. 2003)

Table 3.10.2.2 (concluded). Species with increasing and decreasing trends during the 

breeding season on the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area, Arizona, before 

and after removal of cattle in late 1987, sorted by significance level of the trend.

1983). In Idaho, 60 percent of all breeding 

neotropical migratory birds are found in 

riparian habitats (Saab and Groves 1992). In 

Colorado, 82 percent of all nesting species 

use riparian areas (Knopf 1985). 

As in the Tropical–Subtropical Steppe 

region, avian species utilizing riparian–

wetland regions vary in their response to 

livestock grazing. Species such as killdeer, 

Lewisʼ woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis), 

house wren (Troglodytes aedon), mountain 

bluebird (Sialia currucoides), American 

robin (Turdus migratorius), Brewerʼs 

blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), pine 

siskin (Carduelis pinus), and brown-headed 

cowbird usually responded positively to 

grazing while species such as the Calliope 

hummingbird (Stellula calliope), willow 

flycatcher (Empidonax traillii), cedar 

waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum), yellowrumped warbler (Dendroica coronata), 

MacGillivrayʼs warbler (Oporornis tolmiei), 

savannah sparrow, chipping sparrow (Spizella 

passerine), Linclolnʼs sparrow (Melospiza 

lincolnii), Wilsonʼs warbler (Wilsonia 

pusilla), Bullockʼs oriole (Icterus bullockii), 

and Cassinʼs sparrow responded adversely to 

grazing (Bock et al. 1993). 

3.10.3 Riparian, Wetland, and 

Aquatic Communities

Riparian ecosystems are extremely 

productive and offer a unique combination 

3-52 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

of habitat niches critical to fish and wildlife. 

Riparian communities provide abundant 

food, cover, nesting sites, and water and are 

used extensively by wildlife at all stages of 

their life history. Riparian ecosystems are 

important for a wide range of physical and 

biological features, including: 

• Dense vegetation cover for shelter, shade, 

nesting, and resting 

• Presence of surface water and abundant 

soil moisture 

• Diverse vegetation structure which 

provides a range of habitat types 

• Linear nature which provides protected 

pathways for wildlife migration 

Because of their importance to a wide 

range of both terrestrial and aquatic species, 

riparian ecosystems serve as repositories for 

biodiversity throughout the West. In the arid 

West, riparian habitats comprise less than 1 

percent of the total acreage of public lands, 

but are utilized by approximately 72 percent, 

77 percent, 80 percent, and 90 percent of 

all reptiles, amphibians, mammals, and bird 

species, respectively. Approximately 30 

percent of the bird species in the region use 

wetlands and other aquatic areas exclusively. 

Riparian areas attract a disproportionate 

number of migrating birds and provide 

primary habitat for waterfowl and shorebirds 

(BLM 1994). 

Riparian areas are critical to a wide 

variety of species, including many special 

status species. For example, wet meadow 

areas and riparian zones serve as critical 

feeding and watering sources for sage grouse 

(Hockett 2002). Larger vertebrate species 

depend on riparian areas. Mule deer and elk 

use riparian areas for food and cover and 

for travel and migration corridors (Thomas 

et al. 1979). Pronghorn use riparian areas 

extensively in summer (Cooperrider et 

al. 1986). Invertebrate species such as the 

springsnails, species that occur primarily as 

relict populations of formerly widespread 

species, also rely on riparian ecosystems 

(BLM 2001). 

3.10.3.1 Cold Water Fisheries

Fish populations are directly affected 

by changes in riparian habitat. Numerous 

studies document reduced trout populations 

as a result of habitat loss and degradation 

caused by improper livestock grazing (Platts 

1991; Behnke 1992). The native cutthroat 

trout population in Huff Creek, Wyoming, 

increased from 36 fish per mile to 444 fish 

per mile in response to livestock exclusion 

followed by improved livestock management 

(Chaney et al. 1990). Measurements showed 

that Huff Creekʼs channel narrowed by 

about one-third and doubled in depth, and 

water temperatures declined in response to 

changes in livestock management (Chaney et 

al. 1990). Studies have shown that improper 

livestock grazing that causes changes 

in riparian and aquatic habitat, such as 

increased sediment loads and higher summer 

water temperatures resulting from riparian 

degradation, may give exotic, introduced 

trout species a competitive advantage over 

native trout (Griffith 1988; Stefferud 1988). 

Excessive improper streamside grazing 

may remove vegetation, leading to higher 

water temperatures due to loss of shade, and 

higher levels of sediment in the stream as 

a result of increased soil erosion. Increased 

sediment can smother fish eggs in spawning 

areas, decreasing the abundance of young 

fish. Further, improper livestock grazing can 

remove vegetative cover and compact soils, 

slowing the rate of water percolation and 

infiltration and resulting in unnaturally high 

and frequent run-off. The increased erosion 

and subsequent frequent flooding can, in turn, 

3-53
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

Figure 3.10.3.1.1. Sequential degrading of a stream channel and its associated riparian 

community (BLM 1993).

alter cold-water fish habitat by filling pools 

and substrate with silt, uprooting riparian 

vegetation, widening stream channels, and 

lowering water tables (Bock et al. 1992). 

There is a clear and documented connection 

between the health of upland vegetation 

and the health of riparian communities and 

aquatic habitat. Chaney et al. (1993) noted 

that accelerated runoff from uplands triggers 

downcutting of soft substrate streams. The 

Wet Meadow/Marsh Mesic Meadow

Water

Table

Mesic/Wet Meadow Sagebrush Meadow

Sagebrush Meadow

Sagebrush Meadow

Stratified

Soil Material

Fragmental

Substrate

Basalt

Bedrock

D

C

B

A

Sequential Degrading of Stream Channel

Water

Table

Water

Table

Water

Table

downcutting lowers both the streambed and 

water table, desiccates the riparian area, 

destabilizes streambanks, increases erosion, 

and further accelerates runoff. Downcutting 

may in turn lead to fish passage problems 

if the downcutting works its way to a grade 

control, such as bedrock or a culvert, often 

resulting in an impasse to migration.

Figure 3.10.3.1.1 shows the sequential 

degrading of a stream channel and its 

3-54 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

Figure 3.10.3.1.2. Stages in the recovery of 

a stream-associated riparian area.

A

Source: BLM 1993g

Recovery of Stream-Associated Riparian Area

B

C

D

E

forage. In the absence of protective riparian 

vegetation, the stream channel is likely to 

become incised and form a new base level 

(State C in Figure 3.10.3.1.1). Once the 

channel becomes incised, it is classified 

as nonfunctional. Over time, the incised 

channel widens and a new floodplain begins 

to develop at the new base level (State D 

in Figure 3.10.3.1.1). Figure 3.10.3.1.2 

shows the stages in the recovery of a streamassociated riparian area.

3.11 Special Status Species

Even though it is preferable to manage 

native plant and animal communities or 

ecosystems, the ESA necessitates that 

threatened and endangered species be 

managed by the BLM, species by species. 

Species that are considered special status 

species include species that are officially 

listed under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) as threatened 

or endangered; are proposed for listing or 

are candidates for listing as threatened or 

endangered under the provisions of the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA); listed by 

a state in a category such as threatened or 

endangered, implying potential endangerment 

or extinction; and those designated by each 

BLM State Director as BLM-sensitive. 

Appendix B provides the most up-to-date list 

of BLM special status species in each western 

state. The species included in Appendix 

B may change at any time according to 

changes in the listings by the FWS, updated 

data from recent investigations, and further 

verification of a species presence on public 

land. 

The BLM Special Status Species 

Management Policy (Manual 6840) 

provides policy and guidance, consistent 

with appropriate laws, for special status 

species conservation with two primary 

policies: conserving listed species and 

associated riparian community (BLM 1993). 

A healthy riparian community protects 

streambanks from erosion and maintains a 

high water table and productive habitat for 

fish and aquatic invertebrates (State A in 

Figure 3.10.3.1.1). As the stream channel 

erodes, the wet meadow areas become 

disconnected from the water table and dry out 

(State B in Figure 3.10.3.1.1). Sagebrush and 

rabbitbrush encroach on the site, resulting 

in a reduction in the amount and quality of 

3-55
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

the ecosystems on which they depend 

and ensuring that actions authorized or 

approved by the BLM do not contribute to 

the need to list further special status species 

as threatened or endangered. To this end, 

the 6840 manual provides that it is policy 

of the BLM to conserve federally listed 

species and designated critical habitat using 

existing authorities. It is also the policy of 

the BLM that candidate species be managed 

so that no action authorized or funded by 

the BLM contributes to the need to list the 

species. 

Improper livestock grazing has the 

potential to directly and indirectly affect 

special status species. The effects of 

improper livestock grazing on native plant 

and animal communities depend on the 

particular plant or animal. Factors which 

are important to management of livestock 

grazing for protection of special status 

species are grazing intensity, season of use, 

and long-term weather patterns (Milchunas 

et al. 1988). Direct grazing effects include 

livestock consumption of palatable special 

status plants and direct trampling of special 

status species. Indirect grazing effects may 

result from removing palatable forage and 

affecting nesting areas and cover for species 

such as desert tortoise and sage-grouse.

Animals 

BLM management of the public 

lands is becoming become increasingly 

complex because of the listing of additional 

species as threatened or endangered under 

the ESA in the West. With the last decadeʼs 

dramatic increase (more than 200%) in 

ESA-listed species on BLM lands, the BLM 

is now responsible for managing more 

than 300 federally proposed or listed species 

and large tracts of other speciesʼ habitat, 

such as greater than 50 percent of the sagegrouseʼs remaining habitat. Once listing 

occurs, land management processes become 

more cumbersome and land uses become 

more restricted and the resulting restrictions 

affect the land manager, permittees or lessees, 

and other public land users. Appropriate and 

timely conservation measures for candidate 

species and other species of concern are 

critical for preventing decline of at-risk 

populations to the level where listing is 

necessary. Of special concern is the ability to 

make timely and effective grazing decisions 

with respect to Gunnison and greater sagegrouse, pygmy rabbits, mountain plover, 

and mountain quail. These species may be 

affected by improper grazing practices across 

their range and are all being considered for 

listing in the future. The BLM is presently 

in the draft stage of developing a “Sage 

Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy.” This 

strategy will be closely tied in to all grazing 

activities. 

The mountain plover (Charadrius 

montanus) provides a recent example of 

the significance of proactive conservation. 

On September 9, 2003, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS) published a Federal 

Register notice withdrawing their proposal 

to list the mountain plover as threatened. The 

species had been proposed for listing in 1999 

and 2002 because the best data available at 

the time indicated that breeding populations 

were declining due to the loss of appropriate 

habitat from grassland conversion, prairie 

dog declines, and agricultural practices. 

After collecting additional data for 4 

years, the FWS determined that listing the 

mountain plover under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) was not warranted. The 

five listing factors that must be considered 

in the determination of threatened or 

endangered status are (1) present or 

threatened destruction, modification, 

or curtailment of habitat or range; (2) 

overutilization for commercial, recreational, 

scientific, or educational purposes; (3) 

3-56 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

disease or predation; (4) inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms; and (5) other 

natural or human-caused factors affecting the 

speciesʼ continued existence. A key factor to 

the “not warranted” listing determination was 

the greater involvement in mountain plover 

management on the part of the Federal land 

management agencies, state and county 

governments, and the private sector. 

The BLM carefully coordinates with 

other Federal agencies, land managers, and 

interested public to implement appropriate 

special status species management. When 

grazing permits are issued, BLM offices are 

required to review the adequacy of existing 

environmental analyses. At this time, if it is 

determined that federally listed threatened 

or endangered species may be affected, a 

Section 7 consultation is performed. All 

interested parties, to the extent practical, have 

the opportunity to review, comment, and give 

input on Biological Assessments. Timely 

implementation of effective grazing decisions 

for correcting environmental damage may 

benefit wildlife and result in healthier 

ecosystems. If a species becomes federally 

listed after the issuance of a grazing permit, 

additional conservation measures may be 

added. 

3.12 Wild Horses and Burros

The Wild and Free Roaming Horse and 

Burro Act of 1971, as amended, states that 

wild horse and burros are living symbols of 

the historic West and as such contribute to 

diversity of life forms within the Nation. It 

is the policy of Congress that wild and freeroaming horses and burros shall be protected 

and managed for a thriving natural ecological 

balance within areas they were found in 

1971. These Herd Management Areas 

(HMAs) are found in 10 western States—

Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, 

Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, 

Utah, and Wyoming. BLMʼs strategic goal is 

to establish Appropriate Management Levels 

(AMLs) for all Herd Management Areas. 

The estimated AML for the Bureau is 25,732 

horses and 3,117 burros. Removals are 

conducted on HMAs that exceed appropriate 

levels, and excess animals are either adopted 

to qualified publics or transported to longterm holding facilities in the Midwest 

to live out their lives. Management on 

the range to reduce and maintain viable 

populations consists of selective removals, 

fertility control, population modeling, 

gathering genetics information, and research 

applications. 

At the end of the 2002–2003 gather 

season (July to February), there were 32,145 

horses and 5,041 burros occupying 206 

HMAs. Horses are not removed during the 

foaling season, March through June. Burros 

are not removed during peak summer months 

(July through August) because of the heat. 

Wild horses use the same forage 

species—usually grasses and forbs—and 

water sources as domestic livestock. Wild 

horses and burros range significant distances 

from water to graze. Burros tend to be 

browsers, using shrubs, forbs, and some 

grasses. Wild horses normally move in 

bands, with numbers ranging from 2 to 

40 animals. Burros are more solitary, but 

will form small bands of jennies and their 

offspring. Within an HMA, wild horses 

move into the higher country in the summer 

(because temperature and insects) and 

lower country in the winter (to avoid snow). 

Most of the burros are located in southern 

California, southern Nevada, and Arizona. 

Their movements are temperature-related, 

mostly looking for shade in the summer. 

During the rainy season they will disperse in 

search of available forage. 

Wild horses and burros will affect upland 

and riparian areas when their numbers 

3-57
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

Figure 3.12.1. Herd management area.

3-58 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

are not kept in balance with the available 

resources. Achieving and maintaining 

AML is an important component of any 

management system. A map of the herd 

management areas managed by the BLM is 

shown in Figure 3.12.1. 

3.13 Recreation

Public lands managed by the BLM 

provide important recreational opportunities 

in the western United States in the form of 

camping, sightseeing, hiking, horseback 

riding, off-highway vehicle activities, water 

activities, hunting, fishing, snow activities, 

and other specialized or newly emerging 

interests. The recreational setting varies 

from primitive, nonmotorized access onto 

the public lands to dispersed motorized 

activities and to highly developed access on 

paved scenic drives and overlooks. Most 

recreational uses depend on the natural 

qualities of the land and some facilities 

to aid in use or access. Some recreational 

activity includes use of livestock for riding 

or packing and may include grazing of those 

animals on the public lands.

The effect rangeland conditions have 

on recreation activities varies as widely as 

the activities vary. More highly developed 

recreational activities tend to be less affected 

by rangeland conditions. More dispersed 

recreational activities tend to be more 

affected by rangeland conditions. Studies 

suggest that recreationists perceive that 

grazing detracts from, or is compatible with, 

their activity on the public lands in roughly 

equal numbers. 

The availability of the public lands for 

recreation contributes to many regional 

economies in the West. In 2002, recreational 

use on BLM-administered lands exceeded 

67 million visitor use days. Demand for new 

developed sites and facilities and greater 

general availability of public lands for 

dispersed recreational activities is increasing 

in some areas. Increasing demand is most 

evident in regions near urban areas and where 

populations are rapidly growing.

Concentrated recreation occurs at 

approximately 2,700 developed sites. 

Less than 1 percent of BLM-administered 

rangeland contains developed recreation 

sites and facilities. More than half of all 

recreational visits to the public lands are 

dispersed visits. Dispersed recreation depends 

on open landscapes, with few developments, 

that allow for self-initiated exploration and 

discovery. Most areas providing dispersed 

recreation opportunities are used for livestock 

grazing. Where water and adjacent riparian 

areas exist, recreational use occurs during all 

or a portion of many visits. Riparian areas 

account for approximately 1 percent of BLMadministered rangeland.

Recreational use permits are issued 

for competitive and commercial activities. 

These include off-highway vehicle races, 

outfitter and guide services, equestrian races, 

sightseeing tours, and festivals. Recreational 

use permits are also issued for individuals 

and groups at many developed sites, high-use 

areas, and environmentally sensitive areas. 

Permits may limit the number of visitors to 

an area at any one time. Recreation permits 

usually require a fee and, in 2002, brought 

revenues of more than $9 million to BLM.

Public lands administered by the BLM 

contain diverse scenic and visual resources. 

In many areas, expansive views, steep terrain, 

colorful and varied geology, or appealing 

plant communities create highly scenic 

settings. In areas where scenery may be 

plain, openness and limited development 

create a pleasing aesthetic. These qualities 

attract visitors for the purpose of sightseeing, 

as well as to form the backdrop for many 

outdoor recreation activities. 

3-59
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

3.14 Special Areas

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

provides special management consideration 

for public lands possessing unique and 

important historical, anthropological, 

ecological, biological, geological, and 

paleontological features. These lands include 

undisturbed wilderness tracts, critical habitat, 

natural environments, open spaces, scenic 

landscapes, historic locations, cultural 

landmarks, and paleontologically rich 

regions. Management designations for public 

lands containing special features are created 

by Congress, presidential proclamation, 

or established under BLM administrative 

procedures. The BLM manages these special 

areas to preserve, protect, and evaluate 

significant components of our national 

heritage.

3.14. 1 National Landscape 

Conservation System

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

provides special management consideration 

for public lands possessing unique and 

important historical, anthropological, 

ecological, biological, geological, and 

paleontological features. These lands include 

undisturbed wilderness tracts, critical habitat, 

natural environments, open spaces, scenic 

landscapes, historic locations, cultural 

landmarks, and paleontologically rich 

regions. Management designations for public 

lands containing special features are created 

by Congress, presidential proclamation, 

or established under BLM administrative 

procedures. The BLM manages these special 

areas to preserve, protect, and evaluate 

significant components of our national 

heritage.

The National Landscape Conservation 

System (NLCS), established in June 

2000 by the BLM, provides guidance, 

organization, and leadership for protecting 

many of the Nationʼs most remarkable 

and beneficial working landscapes (Figure 

3.14.1). The NLCS consists of National 

Monuments, designated by the President, 

and congressionally designated National 

Conservation Areas, National Wilderness 

Areas, Wilderness Study Areas (also 

designated by agency), National Wild 

and Scenic Rivers, and National Scenic 

and Historic Trails (descriptions follow). 

The NLCS contains 828 units totaling 

approximately 15 percent (42 million 

acres) of BLM-managed public land—an 

area larger than the State of Florida. These 

NLCS units provide preservation, protection, 

conservation, and enhancement of open 

space; solitude; recreation opportunities; 

and scientific, cultural, educational, and 

ecological values, while allowing compatible 

resource uses.

NLCS remote wildlands and working 

landscapes, managed within the BLM 

multiple-use framework, provide sources of 

livelihood as well as havens of solitude and 

peacefulness. Specifically, livestock grazing, 

an authorized activity within the NLCS, is 

managed through existing applicable law, 

regulation, and proclamation.

The following definitions briefly describe 

the NLCS units:

National Monument: An area designated 

by the President, under the authority of the 

Antiquities Act of 1906, to protect objects 

of scientific and historical interest that are 

located on Federal lands.

National Conservation Area: An area 

designated by Congress to provide for 

the conservation, use, enjoyment, and 

enhancement of certain natural, recreational, 

paleontological, and other resources, 

including fish and wildlife habitat. The BLM 

presently manages 13 National Conservation 

Areas encompassing a total of nearly 4 

million acres.

3-60 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

Figure 3.14.1. Bueau of Land Management National Landscape Conservation System.

Wilderness: An area designated by 

Congress and defined by the Wilderness Act 

of 1964 as a place “where the earth and its 

community of life are untrammeled by man, 

where man himself is a visitor who does not 

remain.” Designation is aimed at ensuring 

that these lands are preserved and protected 

in their natural condition. Wilderness areas, 

which are generally at least 5,000 acres or 

more, offer outstanding opportunities for 

solitude or a primitive and unconfined type 

of recreation; such areas may also contain 

ecological, geological, or other features 

that have scientific, scenic, or historical 

value. The BLM manages 148 Wilderness 

Areas encompassing 6.3 million acres. 

Wilderness Study Area: An area 

designated by a Federal land management 

3-61
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

agency (Bureau of Land Management, Forest 

Service, National Park Service, or the Fish 

and Wildlife Service) as having wilderness 

characteristics, thus making it worthy of 

consideration by Congress for wilderness 

designation. While Congress considers 

whether to designate a Wilderness Study 

Area (WSA) as permanent wilderness, the 

Federal agency managing the WSA does so 

in such a way as to prevent impairment of the 

areaʼs suitability for wilderness designation. 

The BLM manages 604 WSAs encompassing 

17.2 million acres.

Wild and Scenic River: A river or river 

section designated by Congress or the 

Secretary of the Interior, under the authority 

of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, 

to protect outstandingly remarkable scenic, 

recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, 

historic, cultural, or other similar values and 

to preserve the river or river section in its 

free-flowing condition. The law recognizes 

three classes of rivers—wild, scenic, and 

recreational. The BLM manages 36 Wild 

and Scenic Rivers (20 percent of the national 

system) amounting to 2,056 miles of river, 

equaling about 1 million acres.

National Scenic Trail: A trail designated 

by Congress under the National Trails System 

Act of 1968 as an extended trail that offers 

maximum outdoor recreation potential and 

provides enjoyment of the various qualities—

scenic, historical, natural, and cultural—of 

the areas through which the trail passes. The 

BLM manages portions of the Continental 

Divide and Pacific Crest National Scenic 

Trails, amounting to 641 miles of trail.

National Historic Trail: A trail designated 

by Congress under the National Trails 

System Act as an extended trail that follows 

as closely as possible the original trails 

or routes of travel with national historical 

significance. Designation identifies and 

protects historical routes and their historical 

remnants and artifacts for public use and 

enjoyment. A designated trail must meet 

certain criteria, including having a significant 

potential for public recreational use or 

interest based on historical interpretation 

and appreciation. The BLM manages nine 

National Historic Trails totaling 3,623 miles, 

including the Iditarod, Juan Bautista De 

Anza, California Immigrant, Nez Perce, 

Lewis and Clark, Oregon, Mormon Pioneer, 

Pony Express, and the El Camino Real de 

Tierra Adentro.

The BLM manages other special 

designation areas outside of the NLCS, 

including Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern, Research Natural Areas, National 

Natural Landmarks, and National Recreation 

Trails.

3.14.2 Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACEC) are BLM designations meant 

to highlight public lands where special 

consideration is warranted. The BLM 

establishes and manages ACECs to protect 

and prevent irreparable damage to historical, 

cultural, and scenic values; fish or wildlife 

resources; as well as other natural systems 

or processes. ACECs can also be established 

to protect human life and provide safety 

from natural hazards. The designation 

recognizes that an area has significant values, 

and that those values will be protected 

through planned special management 

measures. ACEC resources and values must 

be accommodated as directed through their 

designation documents when planning for 

future management actions and land use 

proposals.

3.14.3 Research Natural Areas

Research Natural Areas (RNAs) contain 

important ecological and scientific values 

and are managed for minimum human 

3-62 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

disturbance. RNAs are primarily used for 

nonmanipulative research and baseline data 

gathering on relatively unaltered community 

types. Since natural processes are allowed to 

dominate, RNAs also make excellent controls 

for similar communities that are being 

actively managed. In addition, RNAs provide 

an essential network of diverse habitat types 

that will be preserved in their natural state for 

future generations. The BLM manages 152 

RNAs containing more than 300,000 acres.

3.14.4 National Natural Landmarks

The BLM cooperates with the National 

Park Service to implement the National 

Natural Landmarks Program. The program 

recognizes and encourages the conservation 

of outstanding examples of natural history. 

Landmarks are designated by the Secretary 

of the Interior and are the best examples of 

biological and geological features in both 

public and private ownership. The program 

includes 45 landmarks comprising more 

than 4,000,000 acres. 

3.14.5 National Recreation Trails

The Recreational Trails Program provides 

funds for developing and maintaining 

recreational trails and trail-related facilities. 

The program supports both nonmotorized and 

motorized recreational trail pursuits.

3.15 Heritage Resources: 

Paleontological and Cultural 

Resources (Properties)

3.15.1 Paleontological Resources

Paleontological resources are the remains 

of plants and animals preserved in soils 

and sedimentary rocks. They are important 

for understanding past environments, 

environmental change, and the evolution of 

life. Federal legislation (e.g., Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act) directs agencies 

to manage paleontological resources to 

preserve them for scientific and public uses.

The BLM has more than 25 million 

acres of sensitive, fossil-bearing geological 

deposits on western BLM-administered 

land. The fossils range in age from the 

Precambrian (more than 500 million years 

ago) to the recent (the last 10,000 years) and 

include examples of all extinct and living 

phyla.

Paleontological remains range 

from mammoths associated with the 

Ice Ages about 10,000 years ago to the 

microorganisms associated with the earliest 

evidence of life some 2.8 billion years 

ago. Paleontological items discovered 

on Federal land include dinosaur remains 

in Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, 

California, and Montana; fossil fish deposits 

from the Green River Formation; insect and 

plant fossils found in Nevada; and large 

petrified trees in Arizona and Nevada.

Paleontological resources can be found in 

any sedimentary formation or soil deposition 

context, but badlands shale, sandstone, 

limestone outcrops, fault scarps, and eroded 

lands have a high potential for containing 

fossils. 

3.15.2 Cultural Resources

Cultural resources (cultural properties) 

are definite locations of human activity, 

occupation, or use which include 

archaeological, historic, or architectural sites, 

structures, or places with important public 

and scientific uses. Cultural resources may 

include definite locations (sites or places) of 

traditional cultural or religious importance 

to specified social and/or cultural groups. 

Traditional values are a social or cultural 

groupʼs traditional systems of religious belief, 

cultural practice, or social interaction, and 

may represent abstract, nonmaterial, ascribed 

ideas that may only be discovered through 

3-63
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

discussion with members of the group. 

Traditional values frequently provide the 

context for the interpretation and evaluation 

of cultural resources, but are not the same 

thing as cultural resources. Traditional values 

are further discussed in the sections on social 

conditions (e.g. Section 3.17).

About 15,475,300 acres of the 

264,200,000 acres of BLM-administered 

lands have had cultural resource inventories. 

The results of cultural resource inventories 

are shown in Table 3.15.2.1 and significant 

areas are listed by designation in Table 

3.15.2.2.

Cultural resources are managed 

through several legal authorities, but 

mainly through the Section 106 (National 

Historic Preservation Act) compliance 

process. Other legal authorities include the 

Antiquities Act of 1906, Recreation and 

Public Purposes Act of 1926, Historic 

Sites Act of 1935, Executive Order 11593 

(“Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural 

Environment”), American Indian Religious 

Freedom Act of 1978, Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act of 1979, Native 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act of 1990, Executive Order 13007 (“Indian 

Sacred Sites”), and Executive Order 13287 

(“Preserve America”). Before authorizing 

surface disturbance, the BLM must identify 

cultural properties eligible for inclusion 

on the National Register of Historic Places 

and consider the effects of the proposed 

undertaking through the consultation 

process in Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, 

as amended. This process is implemented 

in accordance with 36 CFR 800. In many 

States, procedures for adapting the process 

to local needs have been developed through 

programmatic agreements between the BLM, 

the State Historic Preservation Officer, 

and the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation.

Section 106 of NHPA does not prohibit 

disturbing cultural resources. In fact, an 

authorized officer may permit activities 

that damage or destroy them. In addition, 

mitigation is required only if disturbance 

would affect a propertyʼs attributes that make 

it eligible for the National Register.

In recent years, with an awareness and 

appreciation of cultural properties, the 

Table 3.15.2.2. Bureau of Land 

Management significant cultural resource 

areas.

Designation Number

National Historic 

Trails

9 (total mileage: 

3,650 miles)

Properties listed 

on the National 

Register of Historic 

Places

4,247

National Historic 

Landmarks 21

Source: BLM Cultural and Fossil Resources and Tribal 

Consultation Group.

Table 3.15.2.1. Bureau of Land 

Management cultural resource inventory 

data.

Total BLM-administered 

lands (acres) 264,200,000

Total acres inventoried 15,475,300

Percentage of lands 

inventoried 5.9%

Number of cultural 

properties recorded 255,252

Number of cultural 

properties eligible for 

the National Register of 

Historic Places

13,952

From “Public Land Statistics 2001”

3-64 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

inventory, protection, stabilization, and 

enhancement of cultural resources have 

become integral parts of BLM management 

practices and planning initiatives. 

3.15.3 Cultural Resources Through 

Time

Cultural resources in the United States 

extend back to the earliest human migrations 

to the Western Hemisphere, some 15,000 

years ago. These resources range from 

isolated artifacts, to small-scale habitation 

sites, to complex agricultural villages 

and densely populated pueblos, to natural 

landscape features of special significance. 

Prehistoric human occupations were rarely 

uniform over large areas, particularly where 

there were significant ecological changes 

over short distances. Consequently, site 

types, sizes, and densities are extremely 

variable.

Across the western region, however, 

water was (and continues to be) one of the 

most important factors affecting human 

settlement and survival. As such, many 

prehistoric, historic, and modern era cultural 

properties are located near or around water 

sources.

Prehistoric cultural resources have been 

organized into early, middle, and late periods, 

with the early period commonly referred to 

as Paleoindian (15,000–8,000 years ago), the 

middle period as Archaic (8,000–2,000 years 

ago), and the final period as Late Prehistoric 

(2,000–200 years ago).

Cultural resources from the Paleoindian 

period are found in high-elevation coniferous 

and deciduous forests as well as lower 

elevation plains grasslands and in areas of the 

desert Southwest, mainly near water sources 

and in alluvial and colluvial soil deposits. 

People surviving during this period often 

hunted megafauna, such as mammoth and 

giant bison, that are now extinct.

Prehistoric cultural resources from 

the Archaic period reflect a shift from an 

exploitation of megafauna to an emphasis 

on hunting and collecting a variety of 

resources, such as fish, large and small 

game, and edible plants and nuts. Hunting 

sites, plant gathering sites, and temporary 

camps are probably scattered in most western 

ecosystems.

Beginning about 2,000 years ago, 

the Archaic period phased into the Late 

Prehistoric period with the introduction of 

agriculture, ceramics, the bow and arrow, 

and sedentary lifeways as major adaptive 

elements. In general, site types and patterns 

were similar during archaic times except 

where lifeways shifted to an agricultural 

base.

The Prehistoric era began blending into 

the Historic era in 1492 when Europeans 

started migrating to and settling in the 

Americas; however, the Historic era did not 

start at the same time everywhere across the 

West. In the Southwest, the historic period 

began in the 1500s with the Spanish entrada. 

In the Pacific Northwest and the Great Basin, 

significant Euro-American migrations did 

not begin before the middle of the 1800s; in 

the Rocky Mountains and Plains the Historic 

era did not begin until the exploitation of 

the region by the fur trade in the late 1700s 

and early 1800s. As many Euro-Americans 

moved north and west, they took with them 

a lifeway emphasizing livestock ranching; 

in the Southwest, ranching began as early 

as the 1600s, whereas in the northern areas 

it began in the 1850s. The identity of many 

small towns and communities in the West is 

associated with this tradition.

Cultural properties related to the 

Historic era continue to include indigenous 

remains such as Indian agency buildings and 

missions. A majority of historic resources 

in the West, however, are artifacts, sites, 

3-65
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

and landscapes associated with early EuroAmerican exploration, the fur trade, mining, 

logging, ranching, farming, transportation, 

manufacturing, and early urban development.

Beginning about 1900, the Historic era 

merged into modern times. At the turn of 

the century, the picture of the “Wild West” 

was changing; the people and places that 

characterized the “western frontier”—the 

cowboys, outlaws, Indians, prospecting 

miners, and military cavalry—were all 

fading into memory as stories and icons 

of a bygone era. American society began 

to shift from a largely rural society to a 

more urban society. People moved off 

of farms and ranches into the big cities 

with increasing industrialization. Native 

Americans were settled onto reservations 

with a government policy of assimilation and 

acculturation. Many mining towns boomed 

only to become busted ghost towns within a 

few decades.

These recent changes can be seen in an 

array of cultural resources and traditional 

cultural properties. Depression and later 

era mining camps, abandoned rural hamlets 

and post offices, World War II bases and 

installations, artifacts and objects left 

behind by migrant sheep herders, Civilian 

Conservation Corps construction works 

and camps, or even the Interstate Highway 

System, all document the changing West.

Despite attempts at assimilation and 

settlement, many Native American tribes 

have held onto their traditional lifeways and 

beliefs. They have continued to use their 

environment to gather native plants, animals, 

and minerals for use in religious ceremonies, 

folk medicine, subsistence, and crafts. They 

have maintained treaty rights into the Modern 

era to exploit traditional plant gathering and 

hunting areas. For Native American tribes 

and individuals, any environment can contain 

specific places that are significant for spiritual 

purposes. Those sacred places embodying 

spiritual values are often associated with 

indigenous rock art, medicine wheels, rock 

cairns and effigy figures, spirit trails and 

spirit gates, caves, rock formations, and 

springs or lakes. Contemporary use areas are 

associated with traditional plant and mineral 

collection locales, vision quest sites, sun 

dance grounds, shrines, and traditional trails.

Notwithstanding the radical and 

sometimes rapid changes undergone in the 

West in the twentieth century, the western 

ranching way of life has carried forward 

a significant part of the worldʼs image of 

America and Americaʼs image of itself. 

Modern western ranching communities 

have traditional activities, social behaviors, 

and values that are part of the Nationʼs 

historical and cultural heritage. This way of 

life is represented on the landscape through 

numerous cultural resources, including 

developed springs, wells and watering tanks, 

fence lines, wild horse traps, corrals, ranch 

houses, sheep herding camps, shearing pens, 

loading chutes, grange halls, and one-room 

school houses. 

3.16 Economic Conditions

General Economic Conditions and Trends 

The population of the western United 

States has been growing faster than any other 

region of the country in both urban and rural 

areas. During the 1990s, the rural West grew 

by 20 percent—twice the national average. 

Moderate climates, scenic features, and 

other natural amenities spurred much of this 

growth, especially rural growth in the Rocky 

Mountain West (USDA Economic Research 

Service 2003). 

This population growth has been 

accompanied by economic growth and 

diversification of western Statesʼ economies. 

The agriculture industry in general, and 

livestock production in particular, has 

declined in relation to the growth of other 

3-66 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

industries in the region (USDA ERS 2000). 

However, livestock production remains 

an important contributor to many rural 

economies of the West, particularly in areas 

where population growth has not occurred or 

where populations continue to decline. 

While agriculture has declined in relative 

importance, other industries have increased 

their importance to rural and urban areas of 

the West. With respect to economic uses of 

public lands, outdoor recreation in particular 

has increased in importance (USDA ERS 

2002). Outdoor recreation of all types, 

including hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, 

OHV use, mountain biking, hiking, camping, 

have been contributing to significant 

increases in spending and employment. Many 

of the multiple-use management conflicts 

occurring on public lands in recent years are 

due to increased recreation use in relation to 

other activities such as livestock grazing. 

Livestock Grazing on Public Lands 

BLM grazing statistics for 2002 show 

there were 18,142 permits and leases for 

livestock grazing with a total of about 12.7 

million active AUMs (PLS 2002) in the 15 

western States. Most of these permits and 

AUMs are located in the 11 western-most 

States, while Nebraska, North Dakota, 

Oklahoma, and South Dakota have relatively 

few permits and leases. Because many 

livestock operators hold more than one 

permit, the total number of operators is 

less than the number of permits. About 

95 percent of the operators graze cattle, 8 

percent graze sheep and goats, and another 7 

percent graze horses and burros (PLS 2002). 

These percentages do not add to 100 percent 

because many operators run more than one 

kind of livestock. Table 3.16.1 shows, by 

state for 2002, the number of permits or 

leases and AUMs. 

Table 3.16.1. Permits, leases, and authorized use, 2002.

State

Permits 

or Leases Active AUMs Billed AUMs Nonuse AUMs

Percent 

Nonuse 

Arizona 770 684,270 369,164 315,106 46%

California 608 375,246 178,879 196,367 52%

Colorado 1,603 643,520 341,751 301,769 47%

Idaho 1,939 1,317,041 843,937 473,104 36%

Montana 4,297 1,370,028 1,053,142 316,886 23%

Nevada 2,312 1,865,779 1,321,494 544,285 29%

New Mexico 642 2,162,719 1,131,608 1,031,111 48%

Oregon 1,624 1,067,465 711,816 355,649 33%

Utah 1,557 1,237,940 746,236 491,704 40%

Wyoming 2,790 1,973,173 1,174,792 798,381 40%

Total 18,142 12,697,181 7,872,819 4,824,362 38%

Note: Montana includes North and South Dakota, New Mexico includes Oklahoma, Oregon includes Washington, 

and Wyoming includes Nebraska. Source: PLS 2002.

Source: BLM 2002c.

3-67
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

Of the 12.7 million active AUMs in 

2002, about 4.8 million were in nonuse, for 

a westwide average of 38 percent. Nonuse 

ranged from 23 percent in Montana to 

52 percent in California. Many factors 

contribute to operatorsʼ reasons to take 

nonuse, but drought and financial conditions 

are among the most important. Table 3.16.2 

shows the trend since 1996 of the number of 

permits or leases, active AUMs, and nonuse 

AUMs. 

Table 3.16.3 shows a downward trend 

in numbers of permits or leases and active 

use, as well as an increase in nonuse. The 

downward trend in numbers of permits or 

leases and active use reflects the continuation 

of a decades-long trend both for public lands 

livestock operators as well as the livestock 

industry as a whole. The industry as a whole 

continues to experience consolidation and a 

trend toward fewer but larger operations. 

The livestock-raising subsector of the 

agriculture industry in the western United 

States still depends on public lands in a 

variety of ways, including local economic 

activity, types of animals grazed on public 

lands, rancher dependence on Federal forage, 

and size of ranch operations with Federal 

permits. 

Table 3.16.3. Percent Dependency of Counties in Eleven Western States on 

Federal Forage

Dependency Level Number of Counties Percentage of 

Total

Cumulative Percentage 

of Total

 0–0% 258 62% 62%

10–30% 82 20% 82%

30–50% 36 9% 91%

50–80% 27 6% 97%

80–100% 13 3% 100%

Total 416 100% 100%

Source: USDA ERS 2002

Table 3.16.2. Number of permits or leases and active or nonuse AUMs since 1996.

 Year Permits or 

Leases Active AUMs Billed AUMs Nonuse AUMs

Percent

Nonuse

1996 18,795 13,086,335 9,738,638 3,347,697 26%

1997 18,769 13,070,176 9,445,482 3,624,694 28%

1998 18,698 13,015,303 10,353,032 2,662,271 20%

1999 18,468 12,994,883 10,087,988 2,906,895 22%

2000 18,393 12,810,487 9,837,588 2,972,899 23%

2001 18,382 12,776,369 8,112,008 4,664,361 37%

2002 18,142 12,697,181 7,872,819 4,824,362 38%

Source: BLM 2002c.

3-68 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

In a recent study of public lands and 

western communities, the Economic 

Research Service grouped 416 Counties in 

the 11 western States according to the share 

of total countywide AUMs estimated to come 

from Federal lands, including both BLM 

and Forest Service (USDA ERS 2002). That 

analysis shows that about 9 percent of all 

Counties are 50–100 percent dependent on 

public lands, whereas 91 percent were less 

than 50 percent dependent on public lands 

(see Table 3.16.3). Counties showing more 

than 50 percent dependence on Federal lands 

tend to be among the least densely populated 

Counties. 

The importance of Federal rangelands 

also varies by the type of animal grazed. In 

a 1989 study of forage demand by cattle, 

Federal lands (including both BLM and 

Forest Service) were estimated to make up 

about 7 percent of beef cattle forage and 

about 2 percent of the total feed consumed 

by beef cattle in the lower 48 States (Joyce 

1989). In the 11 western States, Federal land 

grazing was estimated to make up about 25 

percent of beef cattle forage. About a third 

of beef cattle in the West graze at least part 

of the year on Federal rangelands. In a 1991 

study of forage demand by sheep, Federal 

lands grazing was estimated to make up less 

than 20 percent of forage demand (Shapouri 

1991). 

Rancher dependency on Federal forage 

is another measure of the importance of 

Federal rangelands. Average dependency of 

permittees on Federal forage is highest in 

Arizona (60 percent) because of the large 

amount of Federal land in relation to private 

lands, the availability of yearlong grazing, 

and the relatively high number of operators 

with both BLM and Forest Service permits. 

Montana has the lowest average dependency 

(11 percent) because it has seasonal grazing 

and more private than Federal forage. Table 

3.16.4 shows average dependency for 

operators in each of the 11 western States. 

Note that these are statewide averages; 

individual rancher dependency within each 

state would vary substantially. 

Characteristics and Profitability of Livestock 

Operations on Public Lands 

Public land ranches are highly 

individualized operations, but there are 

also some similarities from which general 

characteristics can be drawn. Ranches in 

the western United States, where BLM 

public lands ranchers are located, tend to 

be larger than operations in other regions 

of the country. The majority are cow–calf 

operations that operate seasonally on public 

lands, although operations in some areas are 

Table 3.16.4. Average Dependency Level 

for Cattle and Sheep by State for the 11 

Western States (includes both BLM and 

Forest Service rangelands).

State

Average 

Cattle 

Dependency

Average 

Sheep 

Dependency

Arizona 60% 1

California 15% 24%

Colorado 25% 37%

Idaho 23% 35%

Montana 11% 35%

Nevada 36% 43%

New 

Mexico 44% 49%

Oregon 23% 27%

Utah 35% 47%

Washington 13% 1

Wyoming 23% 29%

1

 Sheep budgets were not prepared since few sheep 

graze on Federal land in these States.

Source: Forest Service and BLM 1992.

3-69
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

year-round. The average size of cow–calf 

operations in the West is 146 bred cows and 

132 weaned calves. The region with the next 

highest average size, the Southern Plains, 

had an average herd size of 79 bred cows 

and 60 weaned calves. Although 10 percent 

of the nationʼs cow–calf operations are in 

the western United States, they produce 20 

percent of the weaned calves (Short 2001). 

An earlier study of cow–calf production 

costs made a further distinction between 

operations with Federal permits versus those 

without permits (USDA ERS 1991). In 

general, permittees were found to have lower 

per-cow cash receipts than nonpermittees, but 

they also had lower per-cow cash expenses 

and lower capital expenses. Overall net 

cash returns were higher for permittees, on 

average, than for nonpermittees. The more 

recent study of cow–calf production costs 

(Short 2001) shows that cow–calf operations 

in the West generally have some significant 

cost advantages over operators in other 

regions, though these data are not broken out 

for permittees and nonpermittees.

Ranching tends to be a low- or negativeprofit enterprise, and public land ranchers are 

no exception. Recent cow–calf production 

costs and returns data show that operations in 

all regions had, on average, negative returns 

above operating and ownership costs (i.e., all 

costs), but in the West, these negative returns 

were lower than for other regions (Short 

2001). Considering strictly returns above 

operating costs (i.e., not including ownership 

costs), the western United States had, on 

average, higher positive returns than all other 

regions.

Others have studied profit motives 

of ranchers, and public lands ranchers in 

particular. Van Tassell et.al. (2001) found 

that profitability is one among several 

issues considered by ranchers with public 

lands grazing permits. Torell et.al. (2001), 

found that in many instances, profit ranks 

behind such things as family, tradition, and 

a desirable way of life as factors in ranch 

purchase decisions. Torell notes that studies 

have shown that western ranches will not 

“pencil out,” and that there seem to be 

many reasons other than profit that motivate 

ranchers to stay in business. 

Tanaka and Gentner (2001) surveyed 

public lands ranchers and gauged their 

responses to three policy questions related 

to public land grazing. They grouped the 

respondents into eight categories based 

on specific characteristics and noted each 

groupʼs response to potential policy changes 

to see if they differed according to each 

groupʼs motivations for holding Federal 

grazing permits (see Social Conditions 

section of the DEIS for further discussion of 

these groups, or “clusters”). One interesting 

finding was that for all eight groups, the 

objectives of “owning land and ranch is 

consistent with my familyʼs tradition, culture, 

and values,” and a “ranch is a good place to 

raise a family” ranked first or second as the 

most important reasons for continuing in 

ranching, ahead of the profit motive.

In summary, it seems that profit is one 

of many reasons that ranchers may continue 

to hold Federal grazing permits, and that 

the importance of profit varies by type of 

operation. 

3.17 Social Conditions

Demographic Trends 

The West is the fastest growing region in 

the United States. Table 3.17.1 indicates that 

the populations of all but two of the States 

in the West grew at rates greater than the 

nation as a whole from 1990 to 2000. The 

populations of five States grew faster than 

25 percent during this period, with Nevada 

growing by more than 66 percent. In addition, 

the West as a region grew faster than other 

regions in the country. While the nation as 

3-70 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

Table 3.17.1. State and regional population change in the West, 1990 to 2000.

State Population 1990 Population 2000 Change 1990 to 2000 (%)

Nevada 1,201,833 1,998,257 66.3

Arizona 3,665,228 5,130,632 40.0

Colorado 3,294,394 4,301,261 30.6

Utah 1,722,850 2,233,169 29.6

Idaho 1,006,749 1,293,953 28.5

Washington 4,866,692 5,894,121 21.1

Oregon 2,842,321 3,421,399 20.4

New Mexico 1,515,069 1,819,046 20.1

California 29,760,021 33,871,648 13.8

Montana 799,065 902,195 12.9

Wyoming 453,588 493,782 8.9

Regions and Nation Population 1990 Population 2000 Change 1990 to 2000 (%)

West 52,786,082 63,197,932 19.7

South 85,445,930 100,236,820 17.3

Midwest 59,668,632 64,392,776 7.9

Northeast 50,809,229 53,594,378 5.5

Nation 248,709,873 281,421,906 13.2

Source: United States Census Bureau 2003

a whole grew about 13 percent, the West 

grew more than 19 percent, far outpacing the 

Northeast and Midwest in population growth.

As a region, the West is the most 

urbanized area in the United States. 

Urbanization is the proportion of a population 

that lives in urban areas. Table 3.17.2 shows 

that more than 88 percent of the population 

of the West lived in urban areas in 2000. This 

proportion is even greater than the heavily 

urbanized northeastern region. Nationally, 

79 percent of the population lived in urban 

areas in 2000. Seven States in the West 

exceeded the national urban proportion, 

with six States having more than an 80 

percent urban population. This proportion 

grew rapidly for some western States. Urban 

populations in Idaho and Oregon grew at 9 

percent and 8 percent, respectively, between 

1990 and 2000. Where growth occurs will 

significantly determine its effect on uses of 

and involvement in the politics of public 

lands. Growing pressure to use public lands 

for recreation and solitude will continue to 

come from population growth in both urban 

centers and rural places.

A relevant trend is the relation between 

the amount of public land and population 

growth in western Counties. In creating a 

typology of rural Counties, the Economic 

Research Service (ERS) of the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture designated a 

county as a “Federal Lands County” if 

federally owned lands made up 30 percent or 

more of a Countyʼs land area in 1987. In the 

eleven western States in 1994, ERS classified 

89 Counties as metropolitan Counties; 128 as 

nonmetropolitan, nonpublic land Counties; 

3-71
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

Table 3.17.3. Metropolitan, nonmetropolitan, and public land county population change 

in western States, 1990 to 2000.1

County type Population 

1990

Population 

2000

Proportion 

of population 

1990

(%)

Proportion 

of population 

2000

(%)

Population 

change 1990 

to 2000

(%)

Nonmetropolitan, 

nonpublic land 

counties

2,728,251 3,139,775 5.3 5.1 15.1

Metropolitan 

counties 44,476,002 53,251,277 86.9 86.8 19.7

Nonmetropolitan 

public land 

counties

3,974,974 4,968,411 7.8 8.1 25.0

1 Totals do not include Hawaii and Alaska. Source: United States Census Bureau 2003 (Cook and Mizer 1994).

Table 3.17.2. Rural and urban populations in the West, 1990 and 2000.

State Urban 1990 

(%)

Rural 1990 

(%)

Urban 2000 

(%)

Rural 2000 

(%)

Urban change 

1990 to 2000 

(%)

California 92.6 7.4 94.4 5.6 1.8

Nevada 88.3 11.7 91.5 8.5 3.2

Utah 87.0 13.0 88.2 11.8 1.2

Arizona 87.5 12.5 88.2 11.8 0.7

Colorado 82.4 17.6 84.5 15.5 2.0

Washington 76.4 23.6 82.0 18.0 5.6

Oregon 70.5 29.5 78.7 21.3 8.3

New Mexico 73.0 27.0 75.0 25.0 2.0

Idaho 57.4 42.6 66.4 33.6 9.0

Wyoming 65.0 35.0 65.1 34.9 0.1

Montana 52.5 47.5 54.1 45.9 1.5

Nation

by region

Urban 1990 

(%)

Rural 1990 

(%)

Urban 2000

(%)

Rural 2000 

(%)

Urban change 

1990 to 2000 

(%)

West 86.3 13.7 88.6 11.4 2.4

Northeast 78.9 21.1 84.4 15.6 5.5

Midwest 71.7 28.3 74.7 25.3 3.0

South 68.6 31.4 72.8 27.2 4.2

Nation 75.2 24.8 79.0 21.0 3.8

Source: United States Census Bureau 2003

3-72 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

and 194 as nonmetropolitan, public land 

Counties (Cook and Mizer 1994). Population 

growth rates from 1990 to 2000 differed for 

these three categories of Counties. Table 

3.17.3 displays population change during this 

period for metropolitan, nonmetropolitan, 

and nonmetropolitan public land Counties in 

the West. The proportion of the population in 

western States accounted for by metropolitan 

Counties was stable at about 87 percent from 

1990 to 2000. However, nonmetropolitan 

public land Counties grew by 25 percent 

more than the period, much faster than the 

other two types of Counties. While the West 

was growing rapidly as a region, public land 

Counties were growing faster as a group than 

other Counties. Such growth is changing the 

social context of ranching throughout the 

West (Sheridan 2001).

Ranchers 

These population trends, their cause 

and numerous arguments concerning 

their effect on communities are well 

documented. Migration is clearly the major 

force underlying this population growth 

(Nord and Cromartie 1997; McGranahan 

1999). In addition, the role of physical 

amenities, quality of life, proximity to 

designated wilderness, and other arguments 

are frequently forwarded as both a cause 

of migration to public land Counties and 

as a policy goal (Clark and Murphy 1996; 

Duffy-Deno 1998; McGranahan 1999; Deller 

et al. 2001; Hansen et al 2002; Lorah and 

Southwick 2003). 

The effect of these population changes 

on ranches is difficult to generalize because 

ranchers and ranch operations in the West 

present a very heterogeneous population. 

The local and regional variations in terrain, 

climate, and ecological systems are almost 

matched by local and regional differences 

in the social, economic, and institutional 

contexts within which ranches operate 

(Gentner and Tanaka 2002). Each ranch has 

a unique economic structure, participates 

in a certain type of regional economy, has 

a particular type of family relationship to 

the business, and maintains certain types 

of ties to a local community and a larger 

regional, possibly urban, area (Darden 

et al. 2001). Ranchers make decisions in 

different ways for different reasons, and will 

therefore experience differing social effects 

from changes in their economic, social, and 

institutional relations. This heterogeneity 

must be accounted for to understand potential 

social effects on ranchers, their operations, 

and their communities.

Gentner and Tanaka (2002) provide a 

comprehensive classification of public land 

grazing permittees. A random sample of 

2,000 ranchers was drawn from more than 

21,000 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) permittees 

and evaluated by using a mail survey. A set 

of rancher attributes was used to capture 

goals and objectives of ranchers, educational 

attainment, business organization, number of 

livestock, sources of labor, income by source, 

debt load and financial stress, and other social 

and economic indicators. Cluster analysis 

identified eight groups of ranchers on the 

basis of these attributes. Two general groups 

emerged—hobby ranchers (50.5 percent) and 

dependent ranchers (49.5 percent). The two 

main groups are differentiated most notably 

by their dependence on ranch income for 

their livelihoods: the hobby group received 

less than 22 percent of their family income 

from the ranch, whereas the dependent 

group received more than 72 percent of their 

income from the ranch (see Table 3.17.4). 

This detachment of the ranch operation 

from the majority of household income for 

more than half of this sample has social 

ramifications. Part-time and hobby ranchers 

may retain attitudes and local social ties 

3-73
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

similar to full-time ranchers and be relatively 

immune to the economic fluctuations of 

ranching. The motivation and ability of 

these ranchers to remain in ranching even 

under difficult economic circumstances may 

actually be higher than those relying directly 

on the ranch for their livelihood.

The general characteristics and 

percentage of the Gentner and Tanaka (2002) 

sample for each group are as follows:

• Small Hobbyist (11%): Small operations, 

small herds, lowest dependence on ranch 

income, high dependence on off-ranch 

income, highly educated, slightly lower 

dependence on Federal forage. 

• Retired Hobbyist (18%): Older, small 

operations, higher dependence on 

ranch income, very high dependence 

on retirement income, slightly lower 

dependence on Federal forage. 

• Working Hobbyist (15%): Highest 

dependence on off-ranch income, 

youngest, small operations, ranching the 

longest, highest dependence on Federal 

forage among hobbyists. 

• Trophy Hobby Rancher (6%): Large 

operations, large deeded acreage, 

highest use of hired labor among 

hobbyists, highest reliance on corporate 

organizations among hobbyists, highly 

educated. 

• Diversified Family Rancher (13%): 

Dependent on ranch income, more 

diversified into other nonranching 

income sources, smallest herd size among 

professional ranches, relative dependence 

on family labor, highest reliance on sole 

proprietorship as business organization, 

higher reliance on Federal forage. 

• Dependent Family Rancher (19%): 

Highest dependence on ranch income, 

lowest diversification into other income 

sources, least educated, highest debt load, 

highest reliance on formal partnerships 

for ranch business organization, higher 

reliance on Federal forage. 

• Corporate Rancher (13%): High reliance 

on ranch income, largest herd size, 

large deeded acreage, lowest reliance 

on Federal forage among professional 

Table 3.17.4. Ranch income by source.1

Rancher type

Ranch Income by Source

Ranch (%) Other Agriculture/Forestry

(%) All Other (%)

Dependent Family Rancher 84.7 6.0 9.2

Sheep Rancher 80.8 2.1 17.0

Diversified Family Rancher 74.9 10.4 14.4

Corporate Rancher 71.9 9.2 18.8

Retired Hobbyist 21.5 21.4 56.3

Trophy Rancher 21.1 7.7 70.6

Working Hobbyist 18.2 2.3 79.5

Small Hobbyist 13 5 84

1 Totals may not sum due to rounding. Source: (Gentner and Tanaka 2000).

3-74 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

ranches, high reliance on corporations as 

business organization. 

• Sheep Herder Rancher (4%): Depend on 

sheep for primary ranching operations, 

large herds, large deeded acreage, highest 

use of hired labor, highly dependent on 

ranch income, highest dependence on 

Federal forage. 

Clearly, permittees have very different 

attributes, motivations, and goals. An 

important question concerns whether 

ranchers seek to maximize profit or whether 

other factors as important or even primary 

in explaining why ranchers continue in a 

difficult environment. Many studies lead to 

a firm conclusion that most ranchers do not 

hold maximizing profit as their sole, or even 

primary, goal in ranching (Smith and Martin 

1972; Harper and Eastman 1980; Bartlett, 

et al. 1989; Torell et al. 2001; Rowe et al. 

2001). Smith and Martin (1972) used such 

terms as “farm fundamentalism” to describe 

social motivations for ranching when 

economic returns were consistently poor. 

Bartlett et al. (1989) found that an ethic of 

the land and the role ranching plays in family 

life were important to Colorado ranchers. 

Rowe et al. (2001) provided a confirmation 

that rural ways of life coupled with family 

concerns were more important to ranchers in 

two Colorado Counties than profit alone. 

Gentner and Tanaka (2002) found 

that professional ranchers valued family 

tradition, ranching as a good way to raise a 

family, living closer to friends and families, 

desire to pass the ranch on to children, and 

return on investment more than did hobby 

ranchers (See Table 3.17.5). Maintaining a 

Table 3.17.5. Goals and objectives for ranching.1

Rancher type Family

Tradition

Raise

Family

Close 

to

Friends

Pass to

Children Profit LackSkills

Environmental

Purposes

Hobbyists

Small Hobbyist 3.7 3.7 2.8 1.5 2.6 1.5 2.4

Retired 

Hobbyist 4.6 4.6 3.9 4.3 3.7 2.3 2.2

Working 

Hobbyist 4.5 4.6 3.5 4.2 3.6 1.8 2.3

Trophy Rancher 3.4 3.3 2.1 4.0 2.6 1.3 2.1

Professionals

Diversified 

Family Rancher 4.1 4.2 2.9 2.3 3.7 2.0 1.9

Dependent 

Family Rancher 4.9 4.9 4.4 4.8 4.2 3.3 2.3

Corporate 

Rancher 4.5 4.5 3.5 4.1 3.6 2.3 2.0

Sheep Rancher 4.4 4.5 3.2 3.8 3.5 2.3 2.0

P - value ns 0.0001 0.001 ns 0.0001 0.001 0.001

1 Average on a scale of 1 = low to 5 = high. Source: (Gentner and Tanaka 2002).

3-75
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

family tradition and passing the ranch on to 

children were the most highly ranked goals 

for both categories of ranchers, resulting in 

no significant statistical difference between 

categories. Other goals did show significant 

differences. Professional ranchers strongly 

believed that ranches were a good place to 

raise a family, to stay near friends and family, 

as well as to pursue profit. Hobby ranchers 

did not hold these goals as strongly.

Significant family labor is required for 

some of the ranchers in this sample. Table 

3.17.6 shows that most of the professional 

ranchers require from 20 to 27 months of 

family labor to run the ranch. This is mixed 

with very different levels of hired labor. 

Diversified and dependent professional 

ranchers use little hired labor in relation to 

use by corporate and trophy ranchers. The 

nature of sheep ranching requires significant 

hired labor in addition to the two full-time 

family laborers required to run a modern 

operation.

The social environment of ranching 

therefore has multiple dimensions. With 

the exception of the trophy hobbyists, the 

permittees in the Gentner and Tanaka survey 

had family tenure on their ranches of well 

over 20 years, with most having tenure of 

30 years or more. Most of these permittees 

have ranched as Federal grazing permittees 

for decades and are familiar with the growing 

complexities and stress associated with being 

a public land grazer.

This willingness to accept low economic 

returns to meet other goals is also reflected 

in the economics of ranch real estate. Torell 

and Bailey (2000) estimated that only 27% of 

the value of New Mexico ranches is related 

to their livestock productivity. Thus, recent 

buyers of New Mexico ranches are motivated 

not by their value to produce livestock, but 

rather by a host of other values commonly 

associated with ranches. Torell and Bailey 

found wildlife amenities, proximity to a 

population center, and type of terrain were 

more important determinants of ranch sale 

prices than cattle operations. These new 

ranchers, along with new residents, bring 

different demands for space as an amenity 

(Huntsinger et al. 1997; Bastian et al. 2002; 

Inman et al. 2002). Even in this environment, 

many ranches continue to operate with the 

knowledge that the ranch can be sold at a 

significant premium to people with other 

interests in the land.

Communities 

As mentioned previously, populations 

in the rural West have grown dramatically 

over the last decade. Population growth 

complicates any assessments of how changes 

in public land policy might affect ranches 

and the communities in which they operate. 

To understand the broader implications range 

policy changes may have for a community, 

a discussion of four general social forces 

Table 3.17.6. Months of labor required to 

run the ranch (Gentner and Tanaka 2000).

Rancher type

Family 

laborer 

(months)

Hired 

laborer 

(months)

Sheep Rancher 27.5 45.3

Corporate Rancher 26.7 32.0

Dependent Family 

Rancher 24.6 3.6

Diversified Family 

Rancher 20.7 4.3

Retired Hobbyist 17.2 4.8

Working Hobbyist 14.9 2.3

Trophy Rancher 13.5 28.2

Small Hobbyist 10.5 4.5

Source: (Gentner and Tanaka 2002).

3-76 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

affecting communities is necessary. These 

four community social organization processes 

occur within and are affected by the social 

interactions in rural communities, their social 

and economic histories, and other factors. 

Differentiation is the process of 

expanding the range of values and interests 

represented in a community. In the West, this 

is presently influenced by population growth 

and the decreasing reliance on traditional 

resource industries for employment. As 

population increases, social diversity 

increases and brings about differentiation in 

the needs, demands, and expectations people 

have of their community. Economic and 

employment changes can result in greater 

differentiation of occupational characteristics 

in the community, along with shifts between 

interest groups that enter into community 

interaction. This process often produces 

short-run social conflict as those seeking 

some ideal about their rural community clash 

with those who lives are not compatible with 

that ideal (Walker 2003). In addition, conflict 

over how to view “nature,” ranching, and 

landscapes in general seems to be inherent in 

the process of differentiation (Chilson 1997; 

Eisenhauer et al. 2000; Hull et al. 2001; 

Sheridan 2001; Paolisso 2002; Bieling and 

Plieninger 2003).

Extra-local linkage is a process through 

which resources and demands flow back and 

forth between communities and the larger 

society. This is best viewed as the extent 

to which local institutions, economies, and 

decision makers are influenced by people and 

social processes outside of the community, 

and the extent to which they might call upon 

those resources for support. Issues like public 

land management are highly visible and 

increase local linkages to extra-local social 

units. In this sense, public land controversy 

engenders a higher degree of extra-local 

linkages to outside groups. Population 

growth stemming from the conscious 

choice to move to a public land community 

implies that people will bring their extralocal social networks with them, complete 

with values, attitudes, and beliefs. Further, 

the very nature of the Federal public land 

management process engenders significant 

extra-local involvement in decisions affecting 

local communities. The opportunities of 

many different groups, local and extra-local, 

to become directly involved in decisions 

affecting even small changes in management 

is much greater in this arena than are 

opportunities to affect private land decisions.

Stratification refers to the differential 

distribution of access to resources for meeting 

needs among populations. This is one of 

the most important processes—perhaps the 

most important process. It has wide-ranging 

implications for local populations. A primary 

social process affected by public land policies 

is the distribution of access to local economic 

opportunity. As traditional resource industries 

(timber, mining, ranching) are supplanted by 

the new resource industries (commodification 

of nature and its amenities), the economic 

opportunity structure, family status, and 

arrangements of social power in communities 

change as well. For example, ranching 

communities have historically been stratified 

by access to and control of property 

(Stinchcombe 1961). Ranchers continue to 

hold property in greater proportion to most 

local people, but many landowners now 

have significant access to land, wealth, and 

political power, both local and extra-local. 

In addition, this change is accompanied by a 

shift in the nature of the local economy. This 

shift puts significant pressure on ranchers 

and other residents: “The irony of the New 

West is that newcomers attracted to diverse 

imaginaries of rural lifestyles often make 

real rural livelihoods unavailable” (Walker 

2003; see also Jobes 1987). Thus, significant 

dimensions of stratification now include 

3-77
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

access to employment that allows families to 

live well and remain in the community.

Integration is the process by which 

relations among people in a community 

are coordinated and interconnected. This is 

the most complex and rich aspect of social 

organization, for it focuses on the process 

of organizing and focusing the activities of 

various elements of a community. Cohesion, 

attachment, density of acquaintanceship, 

social capital, and sense of place are all 

examples of social relations either derived 

from or dependent on social integration. 

Increased differentiation and extra-local 

linkages present specific challenges for 

integration, but also carry the potential 

for new forms of integration to emerge. 

The degree of integration in a community 

before the implementation of a policy 

determines, to a great degree, the ability 

of that community to take any actions 

necessary to manage change (Harp et al. 

2001). Sufficient community integration is 

a necessary condition for communities to 

take action to mitigate social and economic 

effects of policy decisions (Wilkinson 1970, 

1991). Low levels of integration are often 

associated with community discussions and 

decisions being dominated by small groups 

whose interests may not be attributable to the 

community as a whole. This is historically 

the situation in rural communities dominated 

by one industry, such as timber. However, 

the question is less one of dominance than 

it is one of the generalized legitimacy of the 

decisions being made. Hence, a small group 

may make a decision and the community as a 

whole generally agrees with both the process 

and the outcome of the decision. Thus, social 

integration plays a part in the legitimization 

of the decisions. 

These organization processes overlap and 

interact, sometimes working in concert and 

other times not. Examples of their application 

to ranching communities are presented 

in Table 3.17.7. Few empirical studies of 

how these processes play out in ranching 

communities are available. These processes 

and their relations to local economic 

processes in ranching are reviewed in Harp et 

al. (1998). 

One related example is a study that 

examined the relations between social 

network ties and community cohesion, 

integration, and attachment in Owyhee 

County, Idaho (Harp et al. 2001). Seven 

communities were examined and survey 

methods were used to estimate the 

importance of social networks and to 

construct scales of community cohesion, 

community integration, and community 

attachment. Cohesion is high when social 

relations between people produce a sense 

of belonging to a group with shared beliefs 

and common behavioral assumptions, and 

a feeling of recognition as members of that 

group (Buckner 1988; Jensen 1998; McClure 

and Broughton 2000; Rajulton, et al. 2003). 

In essence, people come to see themselves 

as part of a larger social group that shares 

their own beliefs and actions. Integration 

is high when people do not feel isolated or 

anonymous in their community, and can 

participate actively in community life (Brown 

et al. 1989). Activities that are evidence of 

integration include visiting, and borrowing 

and lending between neighbors. When 

integration is high, people are more willing 

to trust their neighbors in both a social and 

material fashion (Brown 1993; Cowell and 

Green 1994). Attachment is high when people 

feel a strong sense of social connection to 

their community that makes them reluctant 

to leave or withdraw from social relations 

(Kasarda and Janowitz 1974; Goudy 1990; 

Brown 1993; Liu et al. 1998). 

Social networks are patterns of repeated 

relations between social actors. They have 

a number of conceptually useful attributes, 

such as the number or strength of social ties 

3-78 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

to family and friends. The standard measure 

of “density of acquaintanceship” was applied. 

This is the most empirically important 

single network measure used in community 

research. It is measured simply by the 

proportion of close friends a respondent has 

living in his or her community. The higher 

the proportion, the more “dense” the local 

social network for an individual. In other 

words, the more friends you have where you 

live, the more likely you will be to see your 

community in a positive light and choose 

to interact with people there (Goudy 1990; 

Stinner et al 1990; OʼBrien and Hassinger 

1992; Beggs et al. 1996; Sharp 2001). In 

addition, respondents were asked whether 

they had a friend in the ranching business or 

one who ran a local business. This tied these 

economic activities to local social networks.

Having more of your friends living in the 

same community as you, having ranchers and 

local business owners in your social network, 

being White, and which community you 

live in all increased respondentsʼ beliefs that 

theirs was a cohesive and highly integrated 

community. The significant indicators 

of attachment attitudes were the size of 

community the respondent resided in until 

age 18, respondentʼs community, density 

of acquaintanceship, close friends having a 

business, and how far they drove to work. 

Hence, the positive social role of ranching 

was to raise the attitude that the community 

is a cohesive and integrated place, though not 

for non-Whites. This is not surprising in the 

West, given that Latino and Hispanic people 

are generally stratified into a lower visibility 

rank with little social or political power. 

Moreover, this would not be a surprising 

result even if ethnic groups were themselves 

Table 3.17.7. Example of social organization process in ranching communities.

Social Organization Process

Differentiation Extra-Local Ties Stratification Integration

Dilutes local 

economic and social 

power of ranchers 

and their values

Globalization of 

industry reduces 

value of local 

economic ties

Stratification 

becomes an 

actionable value, e.g. 

ranchers criticism of 

new economy 

Highly capable 

of incorporating 

community-oriented 

values into actions

Differentiation goes 

up, web of affiliation 

for ranchers can 

narrow or expand—

often has community 

focus 

Extra-local ties can 

increase value of 

local social networks

Equitable 

stratification reduces 

utility of status or 

creates social leveling

High integration 

facilitates 

community-oriented 

actions by ranchers

Reduces value of 

group membership; 

can extend to rancher 

unwillingness to see 

community as locus 

of support

Extra-local ties 

include increased 

conflict between 

ranchers and nonlocal 

groups

New dimensions of 

stratification reduce 

community as source 

of mutual support for 

ranching

Degree of integration 

affects extent and 

density of local 

social networks 

3-79
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

ranchers (Raish and McSweeney 2001). 

Finally, ranching had little effect on the 

degree to which respondents felt attached to 

their communities.

There is little doubt that public land 

ranching and its relation to the land is a social 

process (Huntsinger and Hopkinson 1996). 

The relation between social, economic, 

and ecological issues has been recognized 

for many years (Adams 1916; Simpson 

1975; Abruzzi 1995; Raymond 2002). In 

many small communities, ranchers play an 

important social role as decision makers, 

volunteers, elected officials, and as socially 

relevant commodity interests. As populations 

grow, ranches change hands, and this 

generation of ranchers fades, this role will 

change. However, the need to recognize 

community social organization in making 

management decisions remains important 

(Curtin 2002). 

National Attitudes 

National attitudes toward ranching 

in general tap into social and political 

institutions that may affect public land 

grazing management. Three studies of 

attitudes toward grazing are pertinent, 

although only one is national. 

Brunson and Steel (1996) used a national 

sample and two Oregon samples to examine 

how attitudes toward Federal rangeland 

management vary across the country. First, 

they split the national sample into eastern 

and western groups. They found slight 

differences in regional variations of attitudes 

and concluded that “...differences in support 

were slight, and never did one region support 

a policy that the other rejected.” 

Second, they used the two samples from 

Oregon to create comparisons among the 

Nation, western Oregon, and eastern Oregon. 

This allowed for comparisons between 

urbanized areas in general and rural regions 

where rangelands are more prominent in 

the landscape and in the local economy. 

They concluded, “In all cases, residents of 

the grazing-dependent region of eastern 

Oregon were more supportive than the 

national or statewide samples of statements 

advocating traditional or utilitarian uses, and 

less supportive of statements urging greater 

protection of non-forage resources.” 

Finally, Brunson and Steel concluded 

that attitudes toward range management 

are frequently simplistic, consisting of 

dichotomies of good and bad. Thus, entire 

sets of attitudes were reduced to a “...poorly 

developed cognitive structure rooted in 

simplistic, value-based ideas about the 

goodness or badness of range practices and 

conditions.” Part of this finding is related to 

a lack of specific knowledge of rangelands 

on the part of many people. This produces 

a disconnection between their attitudes and 

what they actually know about the issue 

(Lybecker et al. 2002). 

Brunson and Gilbert (2003) studied 

visitor attitudes toward grazing in the Grand 

Staircase-Escalante National Monument, 

Utah. They looked at the relations between 

visitorsʼ personal characteristics and their 

reports of how livestock grazing and 

multiple-use management affect recreation 

experiences. Hunters saw more effects 

from grazing but were not put off by them, 

whereas hikers saw fewer effects but were 

more likely to say that their experience was 

degraded by seeing evidence of livestock 

grazing. Designation of the area as a 

monument was seen to have little direct effect 

on attitudes.

Mitchell et al. (1996) found that almost 

equal proportions of visitors to a Colorado 

national forest believed that the presence 

of grazing enhanced their visit (34%) or 

detracted from it (33%). Local residents, 

rural residents, and campers at developed 

3-80 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

campsites were more tolerant of grazing than 

those using more remote areas.

Finally, many organized public interest 

groups apply pressure to remove grazing 

from public land. This debate is certainly 

polarized (Knight et al. 2002; Wuerthner and 

Matteson 2002). Nonetheless, this has an 

effect on local areas in that national, regional, 

and local groups seeking to reduce or end 

grazing on BLM and U.S. Forest Service 

lands are involved routinely in political and 

legal processes down to the allotment level. 

The effect of these activities on ranching 

communities is difficult to quantify, although 

they may be anecdotally cited by local 

ranchers as a source of personal and family 

stress.

Many advocates for the end of public land 

grazing argue that ranchers often have social 

and political clout greatly out of proportion to 

their numbers (Fennemore and Nelson 2001). 

There is a general assumption that agencies, 

particularly the BLM, are “captured agents” 

of the livestock industry and have been since 

their inception (Cawley 1993; Klyza 1994; 

Wilkinson 1994). This approach assumes that 

the agencies were set up to protect livestock 

industries and that they continue to do so. 

Though this attitude still prevails, it has 

recently been challenged with evidence from 

the creation of the BLM (Welsh 2002). 

All of these diverse attitudes compel 

various national, regional, and local groups 

to become involved with public land grazing 

and the ranching industry in many ways. 

In general, they have significantly raised 

the level of scrutiny characterizing grazing 

decisions. It is fair to generalize a conclusion 

that these attitudes and activities have an 

effect on ranchers, communities, and larger 

social institutions, but that this effect is 

difficult to discern or estimate.

 

Case Study of a Small Community: Leadore, 

Idaho 

Many permittees and a few others 

comment frequently about the role ranching 

and public land grazing play in the economic 

and social stability of their communities. 

This short case study of Leadore, Idaho, is 

intended to illustrate how the social process 

discussed in this section can be applied to 

a very ranch-dependent community in a 

concrete fashion.

Leadore, Idaho, is situated in the southern 

reaches of the Lemhi River valley in Lemhi 

County. The Lemhi Mountains sit to the west 

of Leadore and the Continental Divide and 

Montana border it to the east. It is a fairly 

isolated area about 45 miles south of the 

county seat in Salmon and about 120 miles 

north of Idaho Falls. The terrain consists 

generally of river bottoms, sage steppe and 

forested slopes at higher elevations. The 

Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest 

Service manage the majority of the land in 

the area. Leadoreʼs mining heritage is long 

gone, and the geography remains dominated 

by cattle ranching.

Idahoʼs population growth of recent years 

has not affected Leadore to the extent it has 

the remainder of Lemhi County. While Lemhi 

County as a whole grew 13 percent from 

1990 to 2000, Leadoreʼs growth was slower, 

at 7 percent. The Patterson area of the county 

is even more remote than Leadore, yet its 

population grew even faster, at 27 percent. 

Growth, even at low levels, will increase 

social differentiation within the community. 

People moving to Leadore include retirees 

and the wealthy. These groups bring 

potentially differing perspectives and ideas to 

the community.

The economic and social influence of 

ranching in this area is significant. It is the 

primary axis defining stratification in the 

3-81
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

community. According to the 1997 Census 

of Agriculture, 36 of the 40 farms (90%) in 

the Leadore postal code area sold cattle and 

calves; for 22 of the farms (55%), these sales 

exceeded $50,000. Few agricultural products 

other than cattle and sheep are sold from this 

area, with the possible exception of buying 

or selling hay. Total agricultural sales were 

greater than $100,000 for 30 percent of the 

farms. 

In 1991, ranching was estimated to 

constitute 85 percent of the direct and 

induced earnings in the Tendoy-Leadore 

area, and 77 percent of direct and indirect 

employment (Robison 1997; Harp et al. 

2000). More than 70 percent of the jobs 

held in the area by residents were related 

directly or indirectly to agriculture. Retail, 

restaurants, and some small manufacturing 

augment the Federal, state and local 

government employment in the area.

Interviews reported in that research 

confirmed that almost all commercial 

agricultural activity derived from cattle 

ranching. Direct interviews with producers 

and others estimated the production cow 

herd to be just more than 14,500 head in the 

Leadore Census subdivision in 1992 (Harp 

et al. 2000). At that time, dependence on 

Federal forage was estimated at 28 percent. 

This was split almost evenly between BLM 

and U.S. Forest Service permits. Since that 

time, a considerable number of ranches 

have been consolidated. Recent interviews 

indicate that one person has purchased all 

or part of six ranches in the last decade 

and consolidated them into one operation. 

Another consolidation in the area combined 

four ranches. Many of the previous owners 

and their families are no longer in the 

community. This is changing the nature of 

economic stratification in the community.

This focus on ranching has an effect on 

extra-local ties. Many of the challenges to 

BLM and Forest Service grazing come from 

conservation and environmental groups well 

outside of the local area. In addition, ranchers 

have social and economic ties that take them 

well outside of the community in the process 

of doing business.

Community integration processes such 

as cohesion and community actions are 

identifiable as well. One of the dominant 

social features of Leadore is its social 

commitment to support a K-12 school 

district, Southern Lemhi District 292. This is 

a small, rural district with a predominantly 

agricultural tax base. Table 3.17.8 displays 

Table 3.17.8. Recent population change in census subdivisions, Lemhi County, Idaho.

 Census Subdivision

Population

1990 2000 % Change

Forney 67 53 -20.9%

Leadore 594 638 7.4%

Patterson 387 493 27.4%

Salmon 5,851 6,622 13.2%

Lemhi County Total 6,899 7,806 13.1%

Source: U.S. Census 2003

3-82 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

enrollment, graduates, and local tax support 

for the South Lemhi and Salmon Districts 

of Lemhi County, and for the State of Idaho 

as a whole. School enrollments fluctuated 

from a low of 115 to a high of 171. Similarly, 

the number of graduates ranged from 7 to 

23 over the period. This district has two 

elementary schools and a high school, with 

a total of 16 teachers and 1 administrator. In 

addition, it is not a wealthy district. Table 

3.17.9 shows that local taxes per average 

daily attendance (ADA) are well below the 

state average for Idaho. Although low in 

relation to the state, local taxes are roughly 

equivalent to the other major district in the 

county in Salmon. Leadoreʼs enrollment 

is very low in relation to its tax base, with 

$421,148 of base per ADA, whereas Salmon 

(a much larger community) has $340,254 per 

ADA. 

The seasons of ranching and those of 

the school are primary points of social 

organization in this community. The 

dominance of ranches, both economically 

and socially, fosters a common social view 

that the entire communityʼs social future is 

tied to the fate of ranchers. For example, 

everyone feels exhausted during calving and 

its progress dominates discussion at school 

athletic events. Even for those who own 

no cattle, social discourse can often consist 

of talking about cattle. Grappling with the 

challenges of ranching becomes a social 

event that fosters a sense of integration and 

ultimately a sense of community. The social 

fate of the school district is also seen as 

being tied to ranching. This is not a fiscal 

issue. Someone will own the land and pay 

the taxes to the district. Rather, people in 

Leadore credit ranchers with a willingness 

to volunteer for many roles in the schools, 

including service on the school board. People 

find the resources to support sports teams 

and other activities. The reality of social 

cohesion is apparent in the willingness of 

the community to act to maintain its social 

Table 3.17.9. Attendance, graduates, and local taxes per ADA, 1995 to 2002.

School Year

2001–

2002

2000–

2001

1999–

2000

1998–

1999

1997–

1998

1996–

1997

1995–

1996

Average Daily 

Attendance 115 146 147 166 171 156 138

High School 

Graduates 7 23 9 15 6 8 8

Adjusted Local Taxes Per ADA1

South Lemhi 

District $ 1,233 $ 1,119 $ 1,100 $ 1,001 $ 899 $ 901 $ 1,020

Salmon 

District $ 1,101 $ 1,100 $ 1,118 $ 997 $ 947 $ 811 $ 810

State of Idaho $ 1,644 $ 1,627 $ 1,561 $ 1,482 $ 1,416 $ 1,250 $ 1,256

1 1996 = 100.

Source: Idaho Department of Education.

3-83
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

relations regarding the school and the 

ranching industry.

Both ranchers and other community 

members firmly believe that the combination 

of ranch families, community cohesion, and 

a social commitment to Leadore as a ranch 

community provide the social organization 

necessary to maintain the school district. 

The view held by many permittees is that 

ranching is a source, if not the source, 

of social and economic stability for their 

communities. The ability of ranches to keep 

paying the taxes and contributing time and 

other resources to keep a small school district 

functioning reinforces this view. They also 

firmly believe that the economic loss of the 

ranches might keep the local tax base intact 

but that the school itself will not survive. 

Put another way, the social stability of the 

community depends on who is operating the 

ranch rather than on who owns the ranch.

3-84 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

4-1

Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

Chapter 4 Table of Contents

4.0 Environmental Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5

4.1 Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9

4.2 Alternative One: No Change in Regulations (No Action) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10

 4.2.1 Grazing Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10

 4.2.2 Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-14

 4.2.2.1 Riparian and Wetland Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-15

 4.2.3 Fire and Fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-16

 4.2.4 Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-16

 4.2.4.1 Upland Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-16

 4.2.4.2 Riparian Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-17

 4.2.5 Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-17

 4.2.6 Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-17

 4.2.7 Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-18

 4.2.8 Special Status Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-18

 4.2.9 Wild Horses and Burros . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-18

 4.2.10 Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-18

 4.2.11 Special Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-19

 4.2.12 Heritage Resources: Paleontological and Cultural Resources (Properties) . . 4-19

 4.2.13 Economic Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-20

 Table 4.2.13.1. Cost recovery under current service charges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-21

 4.2.14 Social Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-21

 4.2.15 Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-23

4.3 Alternative Two: Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-23

 4.3.1 Grazing Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-23

 4.3.2 Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-30

 4.3.2.1 Riparian and Wetland Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-32

 4.3.3 Fire and Fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-34

 4.3.4 Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-34

 4.3.4.1 Upland Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-34

 4.3.4.2 Riparian Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-35

 4.3.5 Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-36

 4.3.6 Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-37

 4.3.7 Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-37

 4.3.8 Special Status Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-38

 4.3.9 Wild Horses and Burros . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-39

 4.3.10 Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-40

 4.3.11 Special Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-40

 4.3.12 Heritage Resources: Paleontological and Cultural Resources (Properties) . . 4-41

 4.3.13 Economic Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-41

 Table 4.3.13.1. Cost recovery under proposed service charges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-44

 4.3.14 Social Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-44

 Table 4.3.14.1. Social effects of the proposed action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-45

4-3
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

 4.3.15 Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-49

4.4 Alternative Three: Modified Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-51

 4.4.1 Grazing Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-51

 4.4.2 Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-52

 4.4.2.1 Riparian and Wetland Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-53

 4.4.3 Fire and Fuels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-54

 4.4.4 Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-54

 4.4.4.1 Upland Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-54

 4.4.4.2 Riparian Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-55

 4.4.5 Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-55

 4.4.6 Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-55

 4.4.7 Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-56

 4.4.8 Special Status Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-56

 4.4.9 Wild Horses and Burros . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-57

 4.4.10 Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-57

 4.4.11 Special Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-57

 4.4.12 Heritage Resources: Paleontological and Cultural Resources (Properties) . . 4-58

 4.4.13 Economic Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-59

 4.4.14 Social Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-59

 Table 4.4.14.1. Social effects of the modified action, alternative three. . . . . . . 4-60

 4.4.15 Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-60

4.5 Cumulative and Other Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-60

4-4 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

4.0 Environmental Consequences

Chapter 4 describes the effects on the 

human environment of the Proposed Action 

and alternatives described in Chapter 2. 

The human environment is interpreted 

comprehensively to include the natural and 

physical environment and the relationship 

of people within that environment. 

Environmental consequences are usually 

described as being direct or indirect. Direct 

effects are caused by the action and occur 

at the same time and place. Indirect effects 

are caused by the action, and are later in 

time or farther removed in distance, but are 

still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects 

may be induced changes. Effects include 

ecological, aesthetic, historic, cultural, 

economic, social, or health. Effects include 

both beneficial and adverse effects.

Many of the proposed changes are largely 

administrative and would have little direct or 

indirect effect on the environment. They are 

intended to improve agency administrative 

efficiency and effectiveness, improve 

consistency across the BLM or meet other 

non-environmental objectives. This should 

result in management decisions that have 

greater support and sustainability. They 

may, however, result in indirect effects on 

the physical, biological, social, or economic 

aspects of the environment. 

Because these are regulatory 

proposals, the BLM does not have sitespecific information relating to their 

application on the ground. As a result, the 

impact analyses are necessarily general and 

programmatic. The BLM has an obligation 

to consider all relevant impacts related 

to proposals made subsequent to this 

rulemaking. If a key element as listed in 

Chapter 2 is not addressed, then it has been 

determined that it has no direct or indirect 

effect.

Changes in Chapter 4 based on comments 

on the draft EIS or BLMʼs further review and 

analysis include the following:

• Clarifications or additions to avoid 

misunderstanding of intent or meaning 

or to provide greater detail or further 

explanation:

o Section 4.0, Environmental 

Consequences- text added to highlight 

the BLMʼs obligation to consider 

relevant impacts related to proposals 

made subsequent to this rulemaking.

o Section 4.1, Assumptions- time 

periods which equate with shortterm and long-term more adequately 

delineated. Short-term changed from 

“5 years” to “5 years or less”; Longterm changed from “20 years” to “5 to 

20 years.”

o Section 4.2.1, Grazing 

Administration- Language added 

to provide greater detail and further 

explanation of the current situation 

with regard to the timeframe for 

taking appropriate action when a 

failed rangeland health determination 

is made; and language added to 

explain that no improvement in cost 

recovery is indicated if the existing 

service charges were continued.

o Section 4.2.2, Vegetation- greater 

detail was provided concerning 

the effect of current regulations on 

vegetative resources. 

o Section 4.2.12, Paleontological 

and Cultural Resources- The term 

“Cultural” in the title of the section 

was replaced with the term “Heritage” 

4-5
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

because comments found the term 

confusing given some discussions 

in the EIS of cultural lifeways. 

Statements were added to clarify the 

overall effects, and the relationship 

of the no-action alternative to Tribal 

consultation.

o Section 4.3.1, Grazing 

Administration- Additional 

information pertaining to 

quantification of the scope of the 

affect of some of the changes was 

added. Also additional explanation of 

service changes was inserted.

o Section 4.3.12, Paleontological and 

Cultural Resources- replaced the term 

“Cultural” in the title with “Heritage” 

in order to clarify the resources 

analyzed. This was done because of 

comments expressing confusion due 

to discussions in the EIS concerning 

cultural lifeways. Also, the final 

paragraph in this section was entirely 

replaced with text which provides 

greater detail and further explanation.

o Section 4.3.14, Social ConditionsThe text under the sub-heading 

Social, Economic, and Cultural 

Considerations was highly modified 

in order to provide the additional 

detail requested by comments. 

This additional detail examines the 

affect of the rulemaking on certain 

groups in particular. This additional 

detail resulted in new analysis and 

modification detailed below.

o 4.4.12, Paleontological and Cultural 

Resources- replaced the term 

“Cultural” in the title with “Heritage” 

in order to clarify the resources 

analyzed. This was done because of 

comments expressing confusion due 

to discussions in the EIS concerning 

cultural lifeways. Also, a paragraph 

was added to this section which 

provides greater detail and further 

explanation.

o The term “brush” was removed in 

several places within the chapter 

where it had been used to describe 

vegetation which had invaded a 

rangeland site. Comments felt that 

BLM was demonstrating a bias 

against woody plants because they 

are not generally the primary forage 

of livestock. BLM has no such bias, 

but we removed the term and utilized 

“invasive species” as a general 

term that would not single out any 

particular plant life-form.

• Changes in text to correct errors or 

misleading statements made in draft EIS:

o Section 4.2.1, Grazing 

Administration- The number of 

rangeland improvements being 

developed on an annual basis has 

decreased by 38% since 1995, not 

25% as was originally stated in the 

draft EIS. The number has been 

changed to rectify this error.

o Section 4.2.2, Vegetation- The 

statement “Under this alternative, 

substantial rancher participation 

in land treatment projects would 

not be expected” was removed. 

The proposed regulation makes no 

changes pertaining to incentives 

for involvement in land treatment 

projects. Both the current regulations 

and the proposed regulations contain 

the same language concerning land 

treatments: “The United States shall 

have title to nonstructural range 

improvements such as seeding, 

4-6 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

spraying, and chaining.” 43 

CFR 4120.3-2 (c). Therefore, the 

deleted statement was removed 

because it may have fostered the 

false impression that the proposed 

regulations may be different than the 

current regulations in some manner 

calculated to stimulate substantial 

rancher participation in land treatment 

projects. 

o Section 4.2.10, Recreation- Text 

modified to remove the misleading 

statement that highly developed 

recreational activities may not be 

affected by rangeland health. The 

statement was modified to reflect 

the correct assertion that highly 

developed recreational activities 

would experience no or minimal 

effects under existing management. 

o Section 4.3.1, Grazing 

Administration- Text relating to 

the basis for rangeland health 

determinations was added and 

modified to clarify that only

determinations that existing grazing 

management practices or levels of 

grazing use are significant factors 

in failing to achieve standards or 

conform with guidelines are required 

to be based upon assessment of 

standards and monitoring data. The 

original language made it seem as 

though all determinations would 

be required to be based upon both 

assessment and monitoring.

o Section 4.3.2, Vegetation- Removed 

the statement “for all determinations” 

which erroneously characterized 

which determinations would 

require monitoring data with regard 

to the basis for rangeland health 

determinations.

o Section 4.3.2.1, Riparian and Wetland 

Vegetation- The text was modified 

to clarify when both assessment and 

monitoring data are required.

o Section 4.3.5, Water Resources- The 

text was modified to clarify when 

both assessment and monitoring data 

are required.

o Section 4.3.6, Air Quality- The text 

was modified to clarify when both 

assessment and monitoring data are 

required.

o Section 4.3.7, Wildlife- the possible 

adverse effects were quantified 

through the addition of the the 

information that adverse effects 

would be short-term. Also, the 

reference to plants was removed to 

avoid confusion, as this section does 

not directly evaluate vegetation; 

it only evaluates the effects of the 

proposed action on vegetation as 

reflected by effects to wildlife.

o Section 4.3.10, Recreation- modified 

the text to correct the misleading 

statement that highly developed 

recreational activities are not affected 

by rangeland condition and reflect 

the proper statement that highly 

developed recreational activities 

are not affected by any changes to 

rangeland conditions expected under 

the rulemaking.

o Section 4.3.13, Economic ConditionsThe text “or to simply continue 

livestock grazing activities at existing 

levels” was removed. The removed 

text was misleading and incorrect; 

the expectation is that changes will 

be phased during years 1, 3, and 

5. Regardless, livestock grazing 

4-7
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

activities will not be allowed to 

continue at existing levels beyond 

5 years. Additionally, this section 

incorrectly characterized the possible 

adverse effects of the rulemaking, 

specifically the implementation of 

changes in grazing use, on rangeland 

conditions as long-term. This section 

analyses economic conditions, not 

rangeland conditions. The sections 

which characterize rangeland 

conditions as affected by the 

implementation of changes in grazing 

use in the rulemaking determined 

that adverse effects would only 

occur in the short-term. Therefore, 

the text in this section was modified 

to accurately reflect the analysis of 

effects to rangeland conditions as 

short-term. Subsequent analysis based 

on this change is described below.

o Section 4.4.1, Grazing 

Administration- The text under the 

subheading Basis for Rangeland 

Health Determinations has 

been modified to correct the 

mischaracterization of for which 

determinations the authorized officer 

must use either assessments or 

monitoring. 

o Section 4.4.2, Vegetation- The text 

under the subheading Basis for 

Rangeland Health Determinations

has been modified to correct the 

mischaracterization of for which 

determinations the authorized officer 

must use either assessments or 

monitoring.

o Section 4.4.7, Wildlife- The text 

under the subheading Basis for 

Rangeland Health Determinations

has been modified to correct the 

mischaracterization of for which 

determinations the authorized officer 

must use either assessments or 

monitoring.

o Section 4.4.8, Special Status SpeciesThe text under the subheading Basis 

for Rangeland Health Determinations

has been modified to correct the 

mischaracterization of for which 

determinations the authorized officer 

must use either assessments or 

monitoring. 

o Section 4.4.13, Economic ConditionsThe text under the subheading Basis 

for Rangeland Health Determinations

has been modified to correct the 

mischaracterization of for which 

determinations the authorized officer 

must use either assessments or 

monitoring.

• Clarifications or Additions or Deletions 

which reflect new analysis or information:

o Section 4.3.4.1, Upland Soils- Text 

was modified to indicate the proposed 

action would have the net long term 

effects of maintaining or slowly 

improving the upland soil resource. 

This analysis updates the draft EIS 

assertion that both net short-and long 

term effect would be to maintain 

the present condition. Text was also 

added to reflect the new analysis 

that short-term adverse effects are 

possible where watershed cover 

is not adequate due to livestock 

management, and determination 

and implementation of management 

changes is extended due to the 

rulemaking.

o Section 4.3.4.2, Riparian Soils- text 

was added to reflect the analysis that 

short- and long-term consequences 

4-8 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

would be similar to those of upland 

soils except for the possibility of 

accelerated improvements in response 

to improved management practices. 

Additionally, text was added to reflect 

the analysis that short-term adverse 

effects are possible if conducting both 

assessment and monitoring postponed 

determination and implementation of 

management changes on soils with 

poor vegetative cover due to current 

management. 

o Section 4.3.8, Special Status SpeciesText was modified to reflect updated 

analysis.

o Section 4.3.10, Recreation- “shortterm” added to denote quantification 

of the possible negative effects from 

delayed implementation.

o Section 4.3.13, Economic ConditionsNew analysis of the permitteeʼs 

economic viability, based on the 

correct quantification of the possible 

adverse affect of the rulemaking 

on rangeland conditions due to 

implementation of changes in grazing 

use, found possible short-term adverse 

effects. Therefore, the text reporting 

long-term effects was modified 

to reflect the short-term effects as 

determined by the new analysis. 

o Section 4.3.14, Social Conditionscomments requesting additional 

details concerning certain groups 

spurred a more detailed analysis 

which determined the following 

changes were appropriate. The effects 

of the rulemaking are not minimal 

for all groups and that text has 

been stricken. The rulemaking will 

have a minor beneficial effect upon 

permittees and that statement has 

been added.

o The provision Cooperation with State, 

County, and Locally Established 

Grazing Boards was modified to 

reflect new analysis. The title now 

reads Cooperation with State, Tribal, 

County, and Local GovernmentEstablished Grazing Boards and the 

content is reflective of the change as 

well.

o The provision Review of Biological 

Assessments and Evaluations was 

removed to reflect the decision not 

to adopt the proposed changes it 

analyzed.

• Changes to Tables 

o Table 4.3.14.1, Social Effects of the 

Proposed Action. The direct impact 

on Permittees to the Social, Economic 

and Cultural Element was changed to 

minor beneficial due to new analysis 

after public comments.

4.1 Assumptions

The following general assumptions 

were made for purposes of analysis of direct 

and indirect effects of the changes to the 

regulations and alternatives. Many of these 

assumptions represent general trends and are 

not intended to be precise forecasts of the 

future. 

• The time periods for analysis are 

o Short-term—5 years or less

o Long-term—5 to 20 years 

• BLM budgets will be flat over the 20-year 

analysis period. 

4-9
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

• There will be no change or a slight 

decline in demand for forage for livestock 

over the analysis period. 

• There will be continued population 

growth and pressure on public lands for 

multiple uses. 

• Recreation use on public lands will 

continue to increase. 

• Water demands will exceed supplies and 

there will be continued drawdowns. 

• There will be periods of drought. 

• The number of species listed under the 

Endangered Species act will continue to 

increase. 

• Invasive species will continue to spread. 

• Wildfire risk and frequency will increase. 

• Public interest in archaeological sites 

and in heritage tourism will continue to 

increase. 

• BLM will achieve “appropriate 

management level” in the wild horse and 

burro program by 2007. 

• There will be no significant changes in 

the laws governing public lands. 

• PM10 air quality problems will continue 

to increase in the West. 

• There will be continued increases in 

energy–mineral development (regionally 

significant in some areas). 

4.2 Alternative One: No 

Change in Regulations 

(No Action)

The direct and indirect effects on the 

human environment of the continuation of 

existing grazing regulations as outlined in 

Section 2.1 is presented in this section.

4.2.1 Grazing Administration

The present grazing regulations 

provide some opportunities for 

cooperative stewardship of public 

land resources. However, some of the 

administrative mechanisms for changing 

grazing management to achieve desired 

conditions on public rangelands are neither 

practical nor efficient and, as a result, do not 

encourage the development of partnerships. 

Some elements of the present regulations, 

such as the provisions on range improvement 

ownership and the 3-consecutive-year limit 

on nonuse, discourage or impede cooperative 

working relations with the permittees or 

lessees. Consideration of economic and 

social issues in the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) document 

associated with changes in grazing use is not 

prescribed or consistently applied. There 

are also inconsistencies in other processes 

including cooperation with State, Tribal, 

county or local government- established 

grazing boards and data used to support 

rangeland health determinations. Also, 

the present regulations do not conform to 

the 10th Circuit Court decision regarding 

conservation use. Public Lands Council v. 

Babbitt, 929 F.Supp. 1436(D. Wyo. 1996), 

revʼd in part and affʼd in part, 167 F.3d 1287 

(10th Cir. 1999), affʼd, 529 U.S. 728 (2000). 

The BLM would continue to use an 

interdisciplinary team approach to identify 

and analyze the effects of proposed 

4-10 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

actions and alternatives on the human 

environment. Critical elements of the human 

environment identified in NEPA would be 

addressed in all environmental assessments 

or environmental impact statements. If a 

critical element is not affected, a statement 

of no effect would be included in the NEPA 

document. Critical elements include air 

quality, areas of environmental concern, 

cultural resources, farm lands both 

prime and unique, floodplains, Native 

American religious concerns, threatened 

or endangered species, hazardous or solid 

wastes, drinking and groundwater quality, 

wetland or riparian zones, wild and scenic 

rivers, and wilderness. If there is no 

effect on an element not on the critical 

element list, such as social, economic, and 

cultural considerations, then the NEPA 

document would generally be silent on that 

particular issue. 

Changes in grazing use, either a 

suspension or an increase of permitted use, 

would continue to be authorized within the 

existing regulations. 43 CFR §4110.3 et 

seq. (2003). The level of change would be 

established through a grazing decision or 

a documented agreement with the permittee 

or lessee. 43 CFR §4110.3-3(a). The 

timeframe for implementing a change in 

grazing use would be determined on a caseby-case basis, and the BLM would use the 

grazing decision or agreement to establish the 

timeline for the change.

Title to new, permanent rangeland 

improvements developed under Cooperative 

Range Improvement Agreements (CRIAs) 

would be maintained solely in the name of 

the United States. 43 CFR §4120.3-2 (b) 

(2003). Range improvements developed 

before 1995 that are jointly titled between 

permittees or lessees and the United 

States would continue to be jointly titled. 

The number of rangeland improvements 

being developed on an annual basis has 

decreased by 38% since 1995, when 

regulations were changed to require that title 

to cooperative range improvements would 

be solely in the United States, rather than 

shared with a cooperator (see Table 3.4.3.1, 

DEIS). The decrease in the number of range 

improvements is attributable to a number 

of factors; including decreasing availability 

of public funds and shifting BLM work 

priorities. The 1995 change in the CRIA 

title provisions may also have been a factor 

in the decrease. It is projected that there 

would be approximately 1,200 new rangeland 

improvement projects developed each year 

over the next 5 years. 

The present regulations do not contain 

language specifically requiring cooperation 

with State, Tribal, county, or local 

government-established grazing boards. 

However, the regulations do include a 

general requirement that the BLM cooperate 

with state, county, and Federal agencies in 

the administration of laws and regulations 

relating to livestock, livestock diseases, 

sanitation, and noxious weeds. Many BLM 

field offices would continue to cooperate 

and coordinate with local governmentestablished grazing boards based on this 

general provision; however, the level of 

cooperation would be variable, depending on 

the individual field office.

Permittees or lessees could apply for, 

and the BLM could approve, temporary 

nonuse for as long as 3 consecutive years. 

After the 3-year period has elapsed, the 

permittee would be required to make full use 

of the grazing permit or lease. If the BLM 

determines that additional nonuse would 

benefit achieving resource objectives, then 

the authorized officer would issue a grazing 

decision or enter into an agreement with the 

permittee or lessee to suspend the permitted 

use in whole or part. However, this presents 

a possible deterrence from a permitteeʼs or 

lesseeʼs standpoint for requesting nonuse and 

4-11
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

detracts from cooperative management. In 

addition, the grazing decision or agreement 

process would create additional workload 

on the grazing administration and a delayed 

timeframe for addressing needed changes to 

grazing management.

The assessment and evaluation of 

standards of rangeland health would continue 

in accordance with the present regulations. 43 

CFR §4180 et seq. (2003). A determination 

of achievement (or non-achievement) and 

identification of significant causal factors 

for non-achievement would continue to be 

based on available inventory, monitoring, 

or assessment data and information. 

Determinations would continue to be 

made using assessment information where 

monitoring data are not available. The 

credibility of determinations made solely 

on the basis of assessment information 

would continue to be challenged through 

administrative or judicial processes on some 

allotments and watersheds. The BLM would 

continue to invest time responding to these 

administrative and legal challenges at the 

expense of other responsibilities.

The timeframe for taking appropriate 

action when existing grazing management 

is determined to be a significant factor in 

failing to achieve rangeland health standards 

and conform with guidelines is no later 

than the start of the next grazing year. 43 

CFR §4180.2 (c). This timeframe can create 

severe limits on effective communication, 

cooperation, and consultation with Federal, 

State, and local governments; Tribes, 

permittees, and interested publics; for 

conducting Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

consultation; and developing appropriate 

alternatives for NEPA analysis. Because 

of this, decisions to change grazing use 

to achieve standards of rangeland health 

are often subject to appeals and litigation, 

which results in labor and dollars being 

diverted to a hearings process rather than 

developing and implementing a workable 

plan in the first place. At the end of fiscal 

year 2002, about 5% of grazing decisions (or 

about 450) had been appealed. Under this 

restricted timeframe, some grazing decisions 

have produced management actions that 

are impractical or difficult to implement 

and have damaged working relationships 

with permittees and lessees. If a common 

allotment with several permittees or lessees 

fails to meet a standard, and numerous 

public land users wish to participate in 

the formulation of management actions, 

the timeframe for reaching consensus 

may be lengthy. In these instances it is 

very difficult to develop and implement 

appropriate action before the next grazing 

year. These challenges create significant costs 

to the BLM, causing diversion of resources 

from other high-priority tasks. 

In accordance with Public Lands Council 

v. Babbitt, conservation use would not be 

authorized. 167 F.3d 1287. Language in the 

existing rule is inconsistent with this ruling.

Grazing preference would continue 

to refer to the superior or priority position 

against others for the purpose of receiving 

a grazing permit or lease and would not 

include the total number of animal unit 

months (AUMs) on public land apportioned 

and attached to the base property. Permitted 

use would remain defined as the forage 

(expressed as AUMs) allocated under the 

guidance of a land use plan, with active 

use continuing to be the present authorized 

use. These definitions have and continue 

to cause confusion and inconsistent use of 

terminology. 

The interested publics would be required 

to inform the authorized officer in writing 

that they wish to be involved in the decisionmaking process for management of livestock 

grazing on an allotment. When an interested 

public has completed the notification process, 

the BLM would include that entity on the 

4-12 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

mailing list of interested publics. This 

inclusion would be for an indefinite period of 

time and the entity would be maintained on 

the mailing list and provided with documents 

and invitations to participate until he or she 

requested that his or her name be removed. 

This could result in additional administrative 

costs for maintaining the mailing list and 

for sending out mailings, regardless of 

the involvement by the interested publics in 

the consultation process. 

The BLM would notify all interested 

publics on the mailing list of any proposed 

actions that require consultation, cooperation, 

and coordination. The interested public may 

decline to be involved in developing a plan 

for an action or activity requiring a decision. 

After a decision is issued, the party still 

has standing to appeal the decision, even 

though they declined to be involved in the 

development of the proposed action. The lack 

of involvement early in the process would 

increase the administrative costs of providing 

materials when it is not desired, and of 

responding to appeals by those who decline 

to be involved in development processes.

The BLM would continue to consult, 

cooperate, and coordinate or seek review 

from the interested publics on actions that 

relate to day-to-day business activities such 

as designating and adjusting allotment 

boundaries; increasing active use; 

implementing reductions in permitted active 

use; emergency closures or modifications 

to grazing use; reissuing grazing permits 

or leases; modifying permits or leases; and 

issuing temporary, nonrenewable grazing 

permits or leases. This requirement could 

affect the BLMʼs ability to make timely 

decisions, such as reduction of use or 

emergency closure decisions for protection of 

resources. 

The BLM would continue to consult, 

cooperate, and coordinate or seek review 

from the interested publics on actions that 

relate to activities that are not within the dayto-day operations of the BLM. These actions 

would include apportioning additional forage, 

developing or modifying grazing activity 

plans, planning the range development 

or improvement program, and reviewing 

grazing evaluation reports. 

To the extent allowed by the law of the 

State in which public land is located, stock 

water rights acquired for the purpose of 

livestock watering on public land would 

be acquired and maintained in the name 

of the United States. When the United 

States acquires the water right under these 

circumstances in an allotment used by a 

number of permittees, or in an allotment with 

a new permittee resulting from a transfer 

of preference, the BLM would manage the 

water right on behalf of the current and future 

permittee or permittees rather than have the 

water right controlled by a third party.

The present definition of “satisfactory 

performance” would remain in the 

negative form, referring to “what is not 

satisfactory performance” rather than “what 

is satisfactory performance.” Retaining 

the negative statement form would have a 

minimal effect on grazing administration.

Changes in permitted use could be 

authorized by the BLM as long as the 

changes are maintained within the terms and 

conditions of the permit. The regulations 

contain no text regarding what is meant 

for “within the terms and conditions of the 

permit.” Therefore, the approval of the 

applications would be subject to definition by 

the authorized officer. This would create the 

potential for inconsistent application within 

the grazing administration program. 

The present regulation provides that the 

BLM may calculate service charges reflecting 

processing costs, and may adjust the charges 

as costs change. The BLM presently assesses 

a $10 service charge for crossing permits, 

transfers of preference, and replacement or 

4-13
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

supplemental billings that are not initiated 

by the authorized officer. The BLM would 

not recover processing costs based on the 

existing service charges. It is projected that 

the service charge would remain indefinitely 

at $10 under the No Action Alternative. 

Available data indicate no improvement in 

cost recovery if the existing service charges 

were continued (Table 4.2.13.1). 

All three sets of prohibited acts would be 

maintained within the grazing regulations. 

The first and second set of prohibited 

acts would be utilized by the BLM in the 

administration of grazing allotments. The 

third set, regarding prohibited acts related 

to violations of Federal or State laws or 

regulations, would also be maintained, but as 

judged by the historical trend, this set would 

infrequently be used for administration of 

grazing permits. 

The appeal process would continue as 

outlined within the present regulations. A 

proposed grazing decision would be 

issued, and in the absence of a protest or 

comments, the proposed grazing decision 

would become the final grazing decision. If 

an appeal is filed on a decision to modify 

or renew a grazing permit or lease, and 

a stay is requested and granted, then the 

grazing activity would continue at the 

previous yearʼs level of authorized grazing 

use pending resolution of the appeal. If 

the permittee or lessee is an applicant who 

did not have authorized use the previous 

year, including a grazing preference 

transferee, then the grazing activity would be 

authorized according to the final decision. 

If a stay is not requested, or is requested 

and not granted, then the final decision would 

be implemented pending resolution of the 

appeal.

In a 1998 decision, the Interior Board 

of Land Appeals (IBLA) ruled that the 

BLM was to treat biological assessments 

as decisions for the purposes of protest 

and appeal. This requirement to treat all 

biological assessments related to grazing 

actions as grazing decisions would lengthen 

the consultation process under the ESA 

and would delay making implementation 

of grazing decisions, including changes in 

grazing management practices which may 

be required to achieve rangeland health 

standards. 

4.2.2 Vegetation

The vegetation communities on the public 

lands would continue to change over the 

next 20 years. Wildfire, prescribed burning, 

and precipitation patterns would continue 

to be major factors influencing vegetation 

community composition. Vegetation cover 

would be expected to slowly increase. 

Vegetation communities that are 

dominated by invasive species are not 

expected to improve except where the BLM 

has land treatment or weed control programs. 

The BLM would continue to evaluate the 

conditions of the public lands with respect 

to the fundamentals of rangeland health and 

the standards and guidelines for grazing 

administration. 43 CFR §4180 et seq. (2003). 

Appropriate action would be taken as soon 

as practicable, but not later than the start 

of the next grazing season, where the BLM 

determines that existing grazing management 

practices or levels of grazing use are 

significant factors in failing to achieve the 

standards and conform with the guidelines. 

43 CFR §4180.2 (c). The short timeframe 

for developing and implementing appropriate 

action has resulted in, and would continue 

to result in, analysis and deliberation that 

is occasionally insufficient, leading to 

expedient rather than effective decisions (see 

section 4.2.1, FEIS). This could be evident 

in situations where adequate time was not 

provided to formulate a comprehensive plan 

for addressing the vegetative concerns.

4-14 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

The BLM would continue to make 

determinations that existing grazing 

management practices or levels of grazing 

use are significant factors in failing to achieve 

the standards and conform with the guidelines 

without any regulatory requirements as to 

the type of data which may be utilized as the 

basis for such determinations. Consequently, 

subsequent “appropriate” actions may be 

based upon insufficient data, or data which 

only reflects conditions at a single point in 

time. Therefore, “appropriate” actions may 

not be the actions which will best improve 

the condition and health of the vegetation. 

4.2.2.1 Riparian and Wetland Vegetation

Present trends in riparian condition and 

restoration are discussed in Section 3.5.2 

of this FEIS. Although the apparent trend 

in riparian condition at the national level is 

positive, long-term trends are not yet clear, 

as judged by data from 1998 to 2001. Recent 

success in applying grazing management to 

achieve riparian improvement objectives has 

been documented and almost always involves 

cooperation with the livestock operator. 

Under present regulations, overall riparian 

conditions would remain static or improve 

from present conditions in most locations 

over the long term. Some regions would 

show noticeable improvements in riparian 

conditions, while other regions would show 

little change. Assuming the trend in riparian 

conditions observed from 1998 to 2001 is 

representative, improvement of riparian 

areas classified as “properly functioning” 

would continue to occur at a rate of 1.5% 

annually. If improvements in “functioning at 

risk- trend upward” were included, the rate of 

improvement would be 3.5% per year. 

Improvements in riparian and aquatic 

habitat would result from the continuing 

implementation of rangeland health standards 

and grazing guidelines. Where changes in 

management are necessary, they are expected 

to include combinations of segregation of 

riparian pastures from uplands, changes to 

the season of livestock use, changes in the 

duration (or amount) of use, changes in the 

overall amounts of use in riparian pastures, 

and livestock exclusion at some sites. 

The present regulations establish 

a framework within which individual 

management plans for riparian areas are 

developed through close coordination 

with permittees or lessees and interested 

publics. Frequently, time and energy 

are diverted into routine administration issues 

rather than addressing long-term management 

direction. 

Management changes prescribed for 

riparian restoration most often rely on 

changes in the timing, duration, and season 

of use. Present regulations allow flexibility 

in the rate of implementation of new 

management strategies.

The 3-consecutive-year limit for nonuse 

would continue to limit cooperative options 

with the operator that benefit riparian and 

aquatic resources. The BLM could continue 

to address longer periods of rest, by decision 

or agreement, but temporary nonuse beyond 

3 years would not be available. 

The present regulations offer the ability 

to make a determination that existing 

livestock grazing management practices 

or levels of grazing use are significant 

factors in failing to achieve standards of 

rangeland health or conform to guidelines 

without utilizing assessment information 

or monitoring data. 43 CFR §4180.2 (c) 

(2003). While this feature allows flexibility 

to rank the importance of monitoring 

expenditures, it does not set a minimum 

standard for decision making. The absence 

of the monitoring data requirement can 

lead to quicker decisions. However, the 

risk is that the quality of decisions may be 

4-15
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

affected, and inappropriate or unnecessary 

management may be applied. 

Riparian vegetation would benefit 

from quick decisions and management 

responses where the strategies applied are 

effective. However, present regulations donʼt 

always provide a timeframe that allows for 

adequate coordination, consultation, and 

cooperation to fully analyze and develop 

multiple management alternatives, as well as 

complete required administrative processes. 

4.2.3 Fire and Fuels

Overall, the present grazing regulations 

have a minimal affect on the ability to reach a 

more historic fire regime. 

The existing grazing regulations provide 

the necessary tools to allow the resting of 

pastures from livestock use so that vegetation 

manipulation treatments can be conducted 

on the public lands. 43 CFR §§4110.3-2 

(a), 4130.3-2 (f). Provisions are available to 

negotiate with affected permittees or lessees 

and to provide the necessary rest following 

treatment to allow rehabilitation objectives 

to be met. Id.( see also Emergency Fire 

Rehabilitation, H-1742-1). 

The limiting factors for conducting 

treatments would be tied more closely to 

funding levels, the ability of the permittee 

or lessee to be able to withstand the resting 

of a pasture or allotment from livestock 

grazing, and legal challenges to vegetation 

manipulation decisions. 

Interested public participation could lead 

to delays in implementation of treatments. 

4.2.4 Soils

4.2.4.1 Upland Soils

Short-term environmental consequences 

of present regulations are minimal except on 

a local scale. Natural disturbance regimes 

such as wildfire or high- intensity rainfall 

potentially adversely affect local upland 

watershed conditions by increasing erosion, 

sedimentation, and runoff. Restoration 

projects such as prescribed burning and 

seeding potentially benefit local conditions 

by improving watershed cover. Climatic 

events, such as drought, have greater shortterm effects on upland watershed conditions 

than present management in the analysis area.

Long-term environmental consequences 

of present management are maintenance 

or a slow improvement of upland soil and 

watershed conditions due to implementation 

of rangeland health standards and guidelines 

and restoration efforts. These beneficial 

effects derive from improved vegetation 

and plant litter that provides watershed 

cover and decreases soil compaction. This 

results in reduced erosion, sedimentation, 

and runoff; healing of gullies; greater soil 

water availability for plants; improved 

soil aeration; improved biological soil 

crust cover; and greater soil macro- and 

microorganism activity. The beneficial 

impacts would be most pronounced in the 

higher elevation, moister portions of the 

analysis area. Beneficial impacts would be 

slowest and most difficult to achieve in the 

drier portions of the Tropical-Subtropical and 

Temperate Desert divisions. 

The adverse effect of a long-term 

drought could partly limit the enhancement 

of upland soil and watershed conditions 

depending on the severity of the drought. 

The increased acreage of rangeland 

ecosystems dominated by exotic annual 

grasses and noxious weeds would result 

in reduction or alteration of important 

components of the soil biological community 

on affected acres, which would make 

restoration more difficult. Long-term 

erosion, sedimentation, and runoff would 

also be increased on acreage dominated 

by exotic annual grasses because of increased 

wildfire risk and reduced plant cover during 

severe drought years. Cheatgrass die-off has 

4-16 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

occurred on more than two hundred thousand 

acres in Nevada in 2003, leaving these sites 

exposed to severely accelerated erosion and 

loss of long-term sustainability. The cause 

and long-term implications of this die-off are 

unknown. 

4.2.4.2 Riparian Soils

Short- and long-term environmental 

consequences of the present regulations are 

similar to those of upland soils except that 

the high moisture content of riparian soils 

could accelerate responses to improved 

management practices. Improved riparian 

area management would help stabilize lotic 

and lentic riparian areas where the water or 

sediment supplies are out of balance and 

promote the growth of deep-rooted, riparian 

vegetation that helps dissipate stream energ

y, armors streambanks, and filters sediment 

from the stream. Displacement of desirable, 

deep-rooted riparian vegetation by invasive, 

exotic riparian plants would potentially 

reduce streambank protection and reduce 

groundwater available for maintenance 

of healthy riparian conditions on invaded 

acreage.

4.2.5 Water Resources

Water quality will remain highly variable, 

remaining static or improving slightly, with 

improvement in vegetative cover on uplands. 

Nonpoint source pollutants generated by 

livestock grazing, including sediment yields 

and other pollutants (bacteria, salinity, and 

nutrients), would slightly decline. Nonpoint 

source salinity in the Colorado River basin 

would decline less than in other desert shrub 

communities, because of the slow vegetative 

response to management. 

In the short term, climatic variation 

would have more effect on upland 

watershed conditions than would present 

management. Cover, runoff, and accelerated 

erosion would only slightly change, and 

the upland watershed conditions would not 

improve in the short term.

In the long term, improved upland 

watershed condition would result from 

implementation of rangeland health standards 

and guidelines. 43 CFR §4180 et seq. 

Climate, soils, and livestock management 

strategies are key considerations in the 

implementation of management plans to 

improve upland watershed condition. Though 

tempered by site and climatic variability, 

gradual improvement to upland vegetation 

and ground cover may occur. Improvement 

in vegetative cover could, over time, improve 

the precipitation infiltration rates, reducing 

surface runoff and erosion.

Continued efforts to improve and 

maintain vegetative cover may move upland 

drainage networks toward proper functioning 

condition over an extended period of time. 

In the short term, the frequency and size 

of runoff events would not change. The 

overall hydrologic function of riparian 

stream systems would remain static or 

improve slowly. Soil erosion and sediment 

discharge caused by streambank trampling 

in riparian areas would remain static or 

decrease slightly over the long term. Thus, 

the beneficial hydrologic function of these 

riparian areas (floodplain storage and flood 

peak reduction, water quality maintenance, 

and groundwater recharge) would remain 

static or improve slowly. 

4.2.6 Air Quality

Overall, air quality is expected to be 

within standards as the existing grazing 

regulations have maintained or improved the 

vegetative cover on the soils in the West. 

The existing regulations require meeting 

rangeland health standards, which include 

protecting watershed function. 43 CFR §4180 

et seq. (2003). Watershed function and 

rangeland health are related to the vegetative 

4-17
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

resources that protect the watershed and 

cover the soil. Air quality on public lands 

is directly affected by the protection of soil 

by vegetation. Where soil is exposed, there 

is a possibility for air quality problems as a 

result of dust caused by wind over exposed 

soil. The standards for rangeland health help 

protect air quality by ensuring that vegetation 

is adequate to provide soil cover for proper 

watershed function, which in turn protects 

soil from wind erosion. 

4.2.7 Wildlife

This environmental impact analysis 

focuses on how the proposed livestock 

grazing regulations changes may affect 

wildlife and the habitat they require on the 

more than 160 million acres of public lands 

grazed by domestic livestock in the western 

United States. Under Alternative One, the 

No Action Alternative, risks and benefits to 

wildlife and wildlife habitat are not expected 

to change. 

Presently, rangeland standards and 

guidelines continue to be applied (43 CFR 

§4180 et seq. (2003)), phase-in of increases 

or decreases in active use is optional (§4110.3 

et seq.), rangeland health assessments may 

be made with or without monitoring data 

(§4180.2 (c)), and applications for nonuse 

could not be approved beyond 3 years 

(§4130.2 (g) (2)). 

 The BLM may impose civil penalties 

against a permittee or lessee after the 

individual has been convicted or otherwise 

found to be in violation of certain Federal 

or State laws or regulations, if the act which 

constitutes the violation involves or affects 

BLM public land and the violation is related 

to grazing use authorized by the BLM.. 

43 CFR §4140.1(c) (2003). This provision 

may have some beneficial effect on wildlife 

by discouraging grazing permittees from 

violating these laws. However, this section of 

the regulation is rarely applicable. 

The time presently allowed for taking 

appropriate action under the rangeland 

health standards may be too short to allow 

proper coordination for implementing sound, 

sustainable decisions. 43 CFR §4180.2 

(c) (2003). Therefore, actions that would 

help improve upland and riparian wildlife 

habitat are sometimes delayed either by 

the implementation of unsound decisions 

or by litigation. However, there are also 

times that wildlife species may benefit from 

the discretionary rapid implementation of 

changes in grazing use that BLM managers 

can presently implement.

4.2.8 Special Status Species

This environmental impact analysis 

focuses on how the proposed livestock 

grazing regulatory changes may affect special 

status species and the habitat they require 

on the more than 160 million acres of public 

lands grazed by domestic livestock in the 

western United States. Under Alternative 

One, the No Action Alternative, risks and 

benefits to special status species and their 

habitats are not expected to change and are 

the same effects as for wildlife (section 4.2.7, 

FEIS). 

4.2.9 Wild Horses and Burros

This environmental impact analysis 

focuses on existing regulations for livestock 

grazing as they affect wild horse and burro 

populations and their herd management 

areas on the 34 million acres grazed by both 

domestic livestock and wild horses and 

burros in the western United States. Under 

the present regulations, there would be little 

change in wild horse and burro populations 

on public lands. 

4.2.10 Recreation

Many recreational activities are enhanced 

or diminished by the natural condition of 

4-18 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

the lands on which they are located. Under 

the present management on the majority of 

public lands, recreational experiences would 

be maintained or, where land health standards 

are not yet attained, improved as upland and 

riparian conditions improve through actions 

taken to attain rangeland health standards. 

Effects to public lands under existing 

management would continue to be greatest in 

higher and moister areas where grazing use 

is greatest, and least in the driest areas that 

improve at slower rates.

As vegetation cover increases, recreation 

uses—including sightseeing, wildlife 

watching, and enjoyment of naturalness—are 

maintained or improved. Many dispersed 

recreational activities would be expected to 

improve as the vegetation condition in which 

they are set improves.

Fishing and hunting opportunities and 

success rates would be expected to improve 

or diminish as range health improves or 

diminishes. Many recreational activities, 

although not directly focused on pursuits 

such as sightseeing or enjoyment of 

naturalness, benefit from aesthetic land 

qualities that form the background for the 

overall experience. The experience enjoyed 

by more highly developed recreational 

activities (such as use of off highway 

vehicles [OHVs] or developed campsites) 

experience no, or minimal effects under 

existing management. Both commercial and 

noncommercial activities would be similarly 

affected. Revenues from types of commercial 

recreation that rely on healthy ecosystems 

could be increased or decreased as range 

health improves or deteriorates. Revenues 

from some commercial recreation activities 

(for example, races) would generally be 

unaffected by rangeland health. 

4.2.11 Special Areas

The existing grazing regulations mostly 

allow for the protection of special area 

values from inappropriate livestock grazing 

use. However, in application, delays to the 

implementation of actions for improving 

conditions in special areas could occur as 

a result of the lack of time to ensure good, 

sustainable decisions that would result 

in long-term improvement in rangeland 

health. Requiring changes in livestock 

grazing use by the start of the next grazing 

season would not allow sufficient time to 

coordinate with permittees or lessees and 

interested publics. As a result, the decisions 

could be less comprehensive and effective. 

This is deemed a minor effect in most 

special areas, as significant livestock grazing 

issues are not typical. Other key elements 

of the existing regulations would not have 

significant effects on special areas.

4.2.12 Heritage Resources: 

Paleontological and Cultural 

Resources (Properties)

Overall, the local and regional effects 

from the present regulations upon heritage 

resources are minimal. Review of a Federal 

undertaking by a cultural resource specialist 

is required during specific project planning 

or implementation at the local level, land use 

planning initiatives at the State or regional 

level, or for regulation revision at the national 

level.

Of the present regulations, the timeframe 

for taking action to meet rangeland health 

standards could have the potential to affect 

on-the-ground actions, which consequently 

can affect heritage resources. Under the 

present regulations, a very short timeframe 

is specified for implementing appropriate 

action when livestock grazing has been 

determined to be a significant factor in 

not achieving standards or conforming 

to guidelines for grazing administration. 

This timeframe may not be sufficient for 

completing adequate cultural resource 

4-19
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

surveys and, if necessary, developing 

mitigation or protection strategies 

in compliance with legal mandates. 

Additionally, the timeframe is not sufficient 

to complete adequate Tribal consultation and 

coordination on projects or planning efforts 

as mandated in several laws, regulations and 

executive orders. 

New project developments have been 

and will continue to be analyzed for effects 

on heritage resources on a case-by-case 

basis. Cultural resource surveys precede 

management actions that could damage 

cultural resources (BLM Manual 8100, 

Cultural Resource Management). Historic 

and prehistoric archaeological sites found 

during these surveys would be protected 

in accordance with the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966 (revised) and other 

laws or executive orders as stated in the 

Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR §800). 

Additionally, Tribal consultation would begin 

in any case where it appears likely that the 

nature and/or location of the activity could 

affect Native American interests or concerns. 

The present regulations allow grazing 

permits to be canceled following a conviction 

of a violation of a law or regulation related 

to the “illegal removal or destruction of 

archaeological or cultural resources.” This 

clause, which has never been used, could 

give protection to fragile and nonrenewable 

resources that may be important to regional 

and national heritage. 

4.2.13 Economic Conditions

Overall, the local and regional economic 

effects of the No Action Alternative would be 

minor. Effects would come primarily from 

the continuation of some effects that may be 

ongoing, such as: 

1. lower management flexibility for 

permittees and the BLM, 

2. potential lack of incentive for permittees 

to participate in range improvements, 

3. potential economic effects on permittees 

due to the time constraints associated 

with making rangeland health 

determinations and implementing grazing 

decisions, and 

4. continued lack of cost recovery for BLM 

for undertaking specific actions. 

The following are the primary source 

of potential ongoing effects, although none 

of the provisions, either individually or 

cumulatively, is considered noteworthy:

• The present regulations do not specify a 

phase-in period for changes in active use. 

Consequently, changes in use (primarily 

reductions) greater than 10 percent can 

be implemented immediately, which may 

have an adverse effect on permittees in 

that they would have little time to make 

alternative arrangements. However, there 

are no restrictions on phasing in changes 

in use, so grazing decisions can now, at 

the discretion of the decision maker, be 

phased in over a period of time. 

• Statistics on range improvements and 

range improvement funding show there 

was a decline in numbers of projects, 

starting in 1996, after implementation 

of the 1995 regulations, and that over 

the past few years there has been 

somewhat of an increase, although 

this fluctuates annually. However, the 

statistics also show that there has been 

an overall decline in the annual number 

of range improvements since the 1980s. 

Consequently, it isnʼt clear how extensive 

the effect of the 1995 regulations on 

range improvement ownership has been. 

4-20 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

• Maintaining the 3-consecutive-year 

limit on nonuse may pose a hardship for 

permittees who may otherwise want or 

need to take nonuse for longer periods, 

either for resource-related or financial 

reasons. If a longer period of nonuse were 

to create improved rangeland conditions, 

then the 3-year limitation may forestall 

longer term economic benefits that could 

result from improved conditions.

• The BLM would retain flexibility in the 

methods it could use to make rangeland 

health determinations. However, once 

a determination is made that existing 

grazing management needs to be 

modified; the BLM is required to take 

action no later than the start of the next 

grazing year, which has put a strain 

on the agencyʼs resources and has 

limited BLMʼs flexibility in managing 

workloads. For permittees, this relatively 

compressed timeframe could adversely 

affect their operations if potential changes 

in use are made more quickly than 

permittees could efficiently alter their 

operations. However, the requirement 

to take action before the start of the next 

grazing season could have a beneficial 

effect on long-term productivity if 

rangeland resources begin recovery 

sooner rather than later. 

• Service charges do not presently cover 

the costs incurred by the BLM (and, 

consequently, the public) so there 

would be a continued lack of cost 

recovery. Table 4.2.13.1 shows net cost 

recovery for grazing permit transfers, 

crossing permits, and supplemental 

grazing bills. Maintaining the present 

service charges would be beneficial for 

permittees.

4.2.14 Social Conditions

Under the present management, 

ranches would continue to face a difficult 

social climate. Drought, livestock price 

fluctuations, rising costs, and other factors 

will continue to make ranching an economic 

challenge. The number of smaller or “hobby” 

operators will remain stable. Outside sources 

of income will, to a certain extent, buffer 

them from many of the ranch economic 

forces, but their numbers are constrained by 

the limited availability of small allotments. 

Other operators more dependent on the ranch 

for family income will be directly subjected 

to economic and social stress associated with 

public land ranching. Many feel strongly 

about passing the ranch on to children, but 

this is increasingly difficult. The levels of 

personal and family stress associated with 

uncertainty stemming directly from public 

land grazing management will continue to 

grow, though slowly.

The tenure of ranching will continue 

to change as well. Ranches change hands 

for a variety of reasons. Consolidation of 

commercially viable ranches will continue 

Table 4.2.13.1. Cost recovery under current service charges.

Action Current 

Service Charge

Average Unit Cost to 

Complete Action

Net Cost 

Recovery

Transfer Grazing Preference $10 $2,255 –$2,245

Crossing Permit $10 $339 –$329

Supplemental Grazing Billing $10 $339 –$329

Source: BLM Management Information System 2003 (BLM 2003).

4-21
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

as the herd size necessary for retaining 

a family ranch continues to rise. In most 

areas, this will contribute to a decline in 

the number of commercial ranches, and 

operations will grow larger. The other ranch 

tenure issue concerns the nature of the new 

owners. Many ranches are being purchased 

for amenity reasons or subdivision. This 

trend is frequently related to difficulty in 

passing on a ranch to children. In other 

situations it is simply an expression of 

economic reality. In either situation, 

potential (though not certain) social effects 

include the removal of ranchers from local 

social networks, changes to social integration 

processes, a diminished role for ranchers in 

the local power structure and a potential loss 

of open space to subdivision.

Population change in ranching 

communities will continue. Much of the 

change is growth, while some communities 

are experiencing losses in certain populations 

and gains in others. An example would be 

losses to mining jobs where miners move out 

and retirees move into the community. While 

the economic importance of ranching overall 

will continue to decline, it will maintain 

important social dimensions. Ranchers 

buy inputs no matter how their industry is 

fairing. This provides a stable underpinning 

to some economic sectors such as fuel and 

groceries. The contribution may be small 

relative to the nonranching population, but it 

fluctuates little. This produces a belief on the 

part of ranchers and some local businesses 

that ranching provides a certain level of local 

economic stability. This is frequently cited as 

a good reason to keep ranchers in business. 

A similar relation holds for social 

organization of communities. Ranchers 

will continue to have a high profile in their 

communities. Many community members 

view ranchers as a social constant in a 

growing community. As communities 

become more differentiated, ranchers fill a 

commonly held social role as reminders of 

the rural life newcomers and locals seek to 

retain. Ranchers will continue to receive 

some of the benefits from community 

stratification, but those relations will change 

as population growth brings a different 

universe of economic relations to the 

community. Extra-local ties will continue 

to grow along with population. Finally, 

community integration will still rely on longstanding social networks in which ranchers 

play a prominent role. These networks are 

competing with a growing set of networks 

that are tied to larger social contexts outside 

of the community.

Recreation will continue to play a large 

and growing role in public land management 

from both individuals and organized 

groups. People remain in and migrate to 

both urban and rural areas of the West to 

enjoy the proximity of extensive recreation 

opportunities. They will retain strong 

attitudes about public land management for 

recreation and will continue to be readily 

involved in the management process as it 

pertains to grazing and other issues. Urban 

and rural growth throughout the region will 

supply more people each year with a wide 

variety of recreational interests. These 

interests will often clash among recreation 

groups. Primary conflicts will continue 

to revolve around the role of motorized 

vehicles on public lands, designation of 

special management areas that foster certain 

recreational activities and prohibit others, 

and the management of areas for recreational 

values instead of livestock. The primary 

concern of all recreation groups will continue 

to be access to public lands throughout the 

year for a wide variety of uses. 

Under present management, conservation 

and environmental groups play a role in 

public land management that ranges from 

community-based conservation efforts 

to litigation. These efforts will continue. 

4-22 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

Many locally based groups are pursuing 

cooperative management strategies for 

grazing areas deemed to be important for 

their values, in addition to livestock forage. 

Such efforts continue to require much 

more time and resources than traditional 

organizing efforts for such groups. Local 

communities and ranchers will continue 

to have mixed opinions about such efforts, 

even as successful efforts outline how to best 

approach such situations. In addition, groups 

that started out as “local” are expanding and 

opening offices in other areas and States. 

This growth will increase the “watch-dog” 

orientation of these groups. Most such 

groups include educated participants who are 

generally opposed to public land grazing and 

will continue to provide a sharp challenge to 

management decisions concerning grazing. 

4.2.15 Environmental Justice

Environmental justice is defined as the 

“fair treatment and meaningful involvement 

of all people regardless of race, color, 

national origin, or income with respect 

to the development, implementation, 

and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies. Fair treatment 

means that no group of people, including 

racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group, 

should bear a disproportionate share of 

the negative environmental consequences 

resulting from industrial, municipal, and 

commercial operations or the execution of 

Federal, state, local, and Tribal programs and 

policies” (BLM 2002a).

Describing the baseline situation from an 

environmental justice perspective involves 

demarcating the potentially affected area 

and identifying the low-income, minority, 

and Tribal populations within that area. In a 

programmatic EIS of national scope, this is 

not feasible.

In the context of regulations governing 

grazing on public lands, environmental 

justice implications—if any—are likely to be 

driven by social and economic effects. For 

the No Action Alternative, the analyses of 

social and economic effects do not suggest 

any basis for identifying disproportionate 

effects on low-income, minority, or Tribal 

populations.

4.3 Alternative Two: 

Proposed Action

The direct and indirect effects on the 

human environment of implementing 

the proposed regulatory amendments as 

described in Section 2.2 are presented in this 

section.

4.3.1 Grazing Administration

Overall, the amendments to the 

regulations are anticipated to improve the 

efficiency and effectiveness of several of 

the grazing administration processes. The 

proposed regulations would assist BLM 

in accomplishing its multiple use mission 

in a manner that works well in the social 

and economic environment of affected 

communities. The amendments to the 

grazing regulations would highlight practical 

ways for permittees, lessees, affected 

State and local officials, Tribes and the 

interested public to engage with BLM as 

partners to improve watersheds, and habitat 

conditions. The amendments would improve 

cooperation with directly affected permittees 

and landowners; promote utilization of 

monitoring data for decisions regarding 

protection of rangelands; and enhance 

administrative efficiency and effectiveness, 

including addressing legal issues that need 

clarification.

Although efficiency and effectiveness 

should improve for all allotments, three 

amended provisions may delay administrative 

actions on a relatively small number of 

4-23
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

allotments. These three provisions address 

implementation of changes in grazing use, 

the basis for rangeland health determinations, 

and the timeframe for taking action to meet 

rangeland health standards. The second and 

third provisions would only delay actions on 

those allotments for which BLM determines 

that existing grazing management practices 

or levels of grazing use are significant 

factors in failing to achieve the standards 

for rangeland health and conform with the 

guidelines. The majority of actions taken 

under the first provision are expected to be in 

the same category. Therefore, quantification 

of the potential effects of these provisions is 

directly related to the number of allotments 

that will fail to meet standards where 

livestock grazing is a significant factor in the 

future. It is estimated that a small number of 

allotments would be affected; based on the 

results of evaluations of 58 million acres.

At the close of fiscal year 2002, the BLM 

had evaluated 7,437 allotments comprising 

58,711,307 acres of public land for 

conformance to rangeland health standards 

(BLM 2002). This represents 35 percent of 

all allotments and 36 percent of the BLMadministered land contained in allotments. 

The BLM determined that 1,213 (16 percent) 

of the allotments evaluated failed to meet the 

standards and guidelines for rangeland health 

due to existing livestock grazing practices 

or levels of grazing use. These evaluations 

focused on high priority allotments, which 

BLM policy illustrates as follows: “In setting 

priorities for land health assessments and 

evaluations, areas with land health issues 

take precedence” and “Assign high priority 

to areas believed to be at risk—in degraded 

condition or downward trend and in danger 

of losing capability”(BLM 2001). 

Therefore, the past 5 years of assessment 

and evaluation experience indicates that at 

most approximately16 percent of allotments 

evaluated in the future may fail to meet 

standards due to current livestock grazing 

practices. It is likely the percentage may be 

even less considering the allotments already 

evaluated should have been those in the 

most degraded condition or obviously in 

downward trend. This analysis provides a 

basis upon which to estimate the number 

of allotments which may be affected by the 

specific changes in the regulations.

Social, Economic, and Cultural 

Considerations in the Decision-Making 

Process: This regulatory change is expected 

to result in greater consistency in the analysis 

of impacts to the social, economic and 

cultural elements considered in a NEPA 

document. Documenting consideration 

of impacts of proposed changes to 

grazing preference on relevant social, 

economic and cultural factors would make 

decisions or agreements resulting from 

NEPA analysis more sustainable. Clearly 

documenting consideration of these factors 

in addition to those required critical elements 

in NEPA would improve communication 

and cooperation with permittees or lessees. 

This would result in a higher likelihood of 

permittees or lessees participating in grazing 

management planning and implementation. 

Additionally, it can be anticipated that 

decisions or agreements that implement 

changes in grazing preference would be 

more comprehensive; thus more likely to be 

realistic, practical, and achievable.

Implementation of Changes in 

Grazing Use: A change in active use, 

either an increase or a decrease, would be 

accomplished through the grazing decision 

process or a documented agreement with 

the permittee or lessee. If the change is 

greater than 10 percent of the total active 

use, implementing the change would occur 

over a five year period unless a shorter time 

period is negotiated by agreement with the 

permittee or lessee. Typically, adjustments 

would be implemented during the first, third 

4-24 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

and fifth years. During this time, additional 

monitoring and assessments could be 

conducted to determine if changes in active 

use are resulting in a movement towards 

achieving rangeland standards or land use 

plan objectives. This phase-in period allows 

the permittee or lessee greater opportunity to 

make economic and management adjustments 

to his operation in order to lessen any adverse 

impacts. This often results in improved 

cooperative relations and management 

between BLM and the permittee or lessee. 

The total number of allotments affected by 

this provision would be small because only 

16 percent of the allotments evaluated during 

the last 5 years needed adjustments in current 

livestock grazing management. Since most of 

the changes are not reductions of 10 percent 

or more, the proportion of allotments affected 

by this provision would be much lower than 

16 percent.

The 5-year timeframe would not 

be followed in cases where the permittee 

or lessee agrees to a shorter timeframe, or 

a shorter timeframe is required in order to 

comply with applicable law (i.e., Endangered 

Species Act). If a change in active use 

of greater than 10 percent is determined 

to be required, but it is also determined 

that soil, vegetation, or other resources 

require immediate protection, or continued 

grazing use poses an imminent likelihood 

of significant resource damage, then the 

change, including total or partial closure 

from grazing, could occur with the issuance 

of a final decision that could be implemented 

immediately (43 CFR §4110.3-3(b)). 

A 5-year phase-in of changes to active 

use and the requirement to collect monitoring 

data to assess changes in resource conditions 

may result in an additional workload to the 

BLM. To accommodate the shift in workload 

associated with required monitoring, the 

BLM would need to find alternative means 

of collecting monitoring data and would 

reprioritize other tasks.

Range Improvement Ownership: 

Cooperative Agreements for new, permanent 

structural range improvements would reflect 

a shared title between the United States 

and the cooperators in proportion to their 

financial or labor contribution toward the 

projectʼs development and construction. Title 

to existing range improvements that are held 

solely in the name of the United States would 

continue to be held solely in the name of the 

United States. Allowing the cooperators to 

hold title to structural range improvements in 

which they have an investment may stimulate 

an increase in private investments for the 

construction of range improvements.

Cooperation with State, Tribal, County, 

and Local Government-Established 

Grazing Boards: Adding the requirement 

to cooperate with State, Tribal, county, 

or local government-established grazing 

boards in reviewing range improvements and 

allotment management plans would ensure a 

consistent community-based decision-making 

process throughout the BLM. Field level 

range improvement and allotment planning 

programs would also benefit from the 

additional perspective that locally established 

grazing advisory boards could provide. 

Temporary Nonuse: The present 

regulations limit the BLMʼs ability to 

extend temporary nonuse for more than 3 

consecutive years; the proposed changes 

eliminate the 3-year limitation. The BLM 

would be able to annually approve temporary 

nonuse for conservation and protection of 

rangeland resources beyond the present 3-

consecutive-year limit. There would be no 

limit on the number of consecutive years 

that nonuse could be approved. This is the 

simplest way to achieve temporary reduced 

use to respond to rangeland condition needs. 

In some instances, approval of an application 

4-25
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

for temporary nonuse precludes the need 

for BLM to issue a decision to temporarily 

suspend use. Temporary nonuse can also be 

approved for the personal and business needs 

of permittees or lessees, which would allow 

them to better manage their businesses, such 

as livestock sales that result in temporary 

herd size reductions. There is no additional 

administrative workload associated with this 

proposed rule. The rule allows cooperation 

between the BLM and the permittee without 

requiring a separate administrative process 

to provide more than 3 consecutive years of 

temporary nonuse. 

Basis for Rangeland Health 

Determinations: Under the regulation, 

determinations that existing grazing 

management practices or levels of grazing 

use are significant factors in failing to 

achieve standards and conform to guidelines 

would be based on the results of standards 

assessment and monitoring data. Although 

this is often done where existing monitoring 

data is available, this requirement would 

provide for a consistent approach to 

making such determinations. Acquiring and 

communicating the monitoring data and 

supporting rationale used to make a change 

in grazing management would result in 

improved cooperation and sustainable 

agreements or grazing decisions. The total 

number of allotments affected by this 

provision would be small because only 16 

percent of the allotments evaluated during 

the last 5 years failed to achieve standards 

and conform to guidelines because of 

existing grazing management practices or 

levels of grazing use. This new requirement 

for using monitoring data and assessment 

information to make such determinations 

may increase the data collection workload 

within the grazing program. This workload 

increase would be addressed by reprioritizing 

work, finding alternative means to collect 

monitoring data or focusing on high priority 

areas at risk of not achieving land health 

standards because of existing livestock 

grazing.

 Refocusing data collection priorities may 

impede the schedule states have established 

for completing watershed assessments. In 

addition, the monitoring requirement may 

delay the permit renewal process in areas 

where current monitoring data is not readily 

available. Under projected budgets, we 

expect to have appropriate monitoring data 

to support our determinations, regardless 

of whether they lead to a finding of failure 

to meet standards due to existing livestock 

grazing management. 

Timeframe for Taking Action to Meet 

Rangeland Health Standards: The regulation 

recognizes the need for adequate time to 

formulate, propose, and analyze actions in an 

environment of consultation, cooperation and 

coordination. Providing up to 24 months 

(except in those cases where completing 

legal obligation that are beyond BLMʼs 

responsibility require additional time) 

to develop a proposal, complete any required 

ESA Section 7 consultation, complete the 

NEPA process, including preparation of a 

rational analysis of alternatives, would result 

in reasoned comprehensive and sustainable 

grazing decisions. We expect that extra 

time taken to develop a meaningful action 

would provide greater long term benefits to 

other resources and an overall improvement 

in rangeland condition. For example, just 

reducing the level of use in a riparian area, 

rather than developing a management system 

that considers timing of use, is not likely to 

improve the riparian area condition. Taking 

the additional time to develop an appropriate 

action may actually decrease the amount 

of time taken to implement a decision, 

particularly if the decision is not appealed. 

Under the rule, the BLM field manager has 

discretion as to whether to allow 24 months 

for BLM to address failure to meet rangeland 

4-26 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

health standards. There is no language in the 

rule that precludes a shorter deadline, once 

BLM meets its consultation, cooperation, and 

coordination requirements.

Conservation Use: In accordance 

with Public Lands Council v. Babbitt, 

conservation use would be deleted from the 

regulations. Because BLM would not be 

issuing conservation use permits under any 

alternative, the deletion of these provisions 

would have no impact on BLMʼs grazing 

administration program. 

Definitions of Preference, Permitted 

Use and Active Use: The new definition of 

grazing preference includes active use and 

use held in suspension. Grazing preference 

holders have a superior or priority position 

for the purpose of receiving a grazing permit 

and lease. Grazing preference includes 

livestock forage allocation on public lands 

and priority for receipt of that allocation, as 

determined through ownership or control 

of base property. Attaching or associating a 

public land forage allocation to or with base 

property provides a reliable and predictable 

way to connect ranch property transactions 

with the priority for use of the public land 

grazing privileges. This has been the basis for 

BLMʼs system of tracking who has priority 

for receipt of public land grazing privileges 

since the enactment of the Taylor Grazing 

Act. This change would ensure that the term 

“preference” is used consistently.

Definition and Role of the Interested 

Public: The interested public would continue 

to be required to inform the authorized 

officer that they wish to be involved with an 

allotment or make comments on an allotment 

in order to participate in the decision making 

process. However, if a member of the 

interested public is not responsive or declines 

to participate in consultation, cooperation 

and coordination opportunities, then they 

would be dropped from the list of interested 

publics and would no longer be notified 

of such opportunities. Former members of 

the interested public may regain status by 

written request or by submitting comments 

during formal public comment periods. This 

modification of the definition would result 

in some minor administrative cost savings 

associated with maintaining the interested 

public mail list and in mailing costs. 

The specific actions requiring 

consultation, cooperation, and coordination 

or review and input from the interested public 

would be: (1) Apportioning additional forage; 

(2) Developing or modifying grazing activity 

plans (i.e., allotment management plans); (3) 

Planning range development or improvement 

programs; and (4) Reviewing/providing 

input on reports used as a basis for BLM 

decisions. 

Day to day management activities that 

would no longer require the consultation, 

cooperation, and coordination with interested 

publics would be: (1) Designating and 

adjusting allotment boundaries; (2) Reducing 

permitted use; (3) Issuing emergency closures 

or modifications; (4) Renewing/issuing 

grazing permit or lease; (5) Modifying a 

permit/lease; and (6) Issuing temporary 

non-renewable grazing permits. The change 

does not prohibit BLM from including the 

interested public in these activities. 

The clarity of the definition of 

the interested public and the reduction 

of actions that would require interested 

public involvement would enable the 

BLM to focus communication efforts on 

those interested publics who are involved 

in the significant issues occurring on 

grazing allotments. This narrowed focus 

would increase the efficiency of grazing 

management through the reduction of 

communication to individuals, groups, or 

organizations that are not providing input 

supporting the decision making process on an 

allotment. The regulation still requires that 

4-27
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

proposed and final decisions are sent to the 

interested public. 

The proposed regulations would require 

consultation with the interested public where 

such input would be of the greatest value, 

such as determining vegetation management 

objectives in an allotment management 

plan, or preparing reports evaluating range 

condition. This should allow the BLM 

to take responsive, timely, and efficient 

management action without being required to 

first undertake mandatory consultation. The 

proposed regulation would foster increased 

administrative efficiency by focusing the role 

of the interested public on planning decisions 

and reports that influence daily management, 

rather than on daily management decisions 

themselves. All proposed and final grazing 

decisions and associated NEPA documents, 

such as environmental assessments and 

reports that provide the basis for decisions, 

would still be available to the public under 

the rulemaking. 

Water Rights: The proposed regulation 

would remove the requirement that new 

stock water rights be acquired, perfected, 

maintained and administered in the name 

of the United States in states where federal 

ownership of the water right is allowed. 

This does not mean that BLM will never 

apply for a state appropriative water right. 

BLM will apply for these rights of use on 

public land, in accordance with state laws, 

when such water rights ownership benefit 

public land management, and contribute to 

meeting the goals and objectives of BLM 

land use planning. However, the proposed 

amendment would give the BLM greater 

discretion to apply or not to apply for water 

rights in the name of the United States, or 

to apply jointly with the permittee on new 

water sources for livestock use. Since states 

assign water rights under different state 

laws, mandates, regulations, and policies, 

this rule would provide greater flexibility in 

negotiating arrangements, within the scope of 

state processes, for construction of watering 

facilities in states where the United States is 

allowed to hold a livestock water right.

Satisfactory Performance of Permittee 

or Lessee: Under the proposed regulations, 

BLM would limit the number of possible 

infractions that it would take into account 

for determining whether an applicant for 

a new permit has a satisfactory record 

of performance. Primarily, the proposed 

regulation changes the definition of 

“satisfactory performance” from a negative 

(what is not satisfactory performance) to a 

positive (what is satisfactory performance). 

Also, the provision is moved from the 

Mandatory Qualifications section to the 

Applications section. Implementing this 

change would have minimal impact on 

grazing administration.

Changes in Grazing Use Within the Terms 

and Conditions of the Permit: The action 

would provide additional detail on what is 

meant by the phrase “temporary changes in 

grazing use within the terms and conditions 

of the permit or lease.” The proposed change 

to “temporary changes in grazing use within 

the terms and conditions of the permit or 

lease” defines the allowable variation in 

the number of livestock, period of use, or 

both that BLM may authorize in any one 

grazing year. This would provide sufficient 

flexibility to BLM managers and permittees 

or lessees to address seasonal and annual 

changes, thereby supporting efficient and 

responsive management of public lands. The 

new definition would clarify the amount of 

flexibility BLM authorized officers would 

have when considering temporary changes 

and help ensure consistent application across 

the BLM.

Service Charges: The changes in service 

charges will allow BLM to improve its 

recovery of costs associated with transferring 

grazing permits, processing applications for 

4-28 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

crossing permits, and issuing supplemental 

grazing billings. Available data show that the 

costs of these actions exceed the relatively 

modest increases in service charges. (Table 

4.2.13.1 and 4.3.13.1). The large negative 

cost recovery for transferring grazing 

preferences reflects the inclusion of costs 

for which recovery is not sought via service 

charges. 

Prohibited Acts: In the first set of 

prohibited acts it is proposed to clarify the 

provision which prohibits the placement of 

supplemental feed on public lands without 

authorization by adding “or contrary to the 

terms and conditions of the permit or lease.” 

This will clarify the intent of this section to 

ensure strict compliance with the terms and 

conditions of the permit or lease.

In the second set of prohibited acts it is 

proposed to clarify that a violation of any of 

the prohibited acts in that section must occur 

on BLM administered lands to be considered 

a violation. In addition, it is proposed in 

order to clarify the relationship between 

the document that authorizes grazing, the 

permit or lease, and the requirement to pay 

grazing fees. The intent is to clarify that the 

grazing permit or lease is the document that 

authorizes grazing use on public lands not the 

annual grazing fee bill. Also, the rule clarifies 

that grazing fees must be paid in a timely 

manner to avoid violating these regulations. 

Thus, this section provides, among other 

things, useful authority to encourage timely 

payment of grazing fees.

In the third set of prohibited acts it 

is proposed to clarify and limit BLMʼs 

enforcement authority by limiting its 

application to prohibited acts performed by 

a permittee or lessee on his allotment where 

he is authorized to graze under a BLM permit 

or lease. This change is intended to further 

ensure that the performance of the prohibited 

act is related to the permit or lease under 

which the violator is operating. 

Grazing Use Pending Resolution of 

Appeals When Decision Has Been Stayed: 

Decisions on ephemeral or annual 

rangeland grazing use and nonrenewable 

permits.

A new provision would be added at 43 

CFR §4130.6-2(b) that provides authority to 

issue immediately effective decisions that 

issue a temporary nonrenewable grazing 

permit or lease (TNR), or that affect an 

application for grazing use on annual or 

designated ephemeral range. Decisions 

issued under this authority may be appealed 

and a stay of the decision may be sought, 

however the act of filing a notice of appeal 

and petition for a stay will not immediately 

stop the action. This provision allows 

agency decisions to authorize TNR, annual, 

or ephemeral range use to go into effect 

reasonably quickly, but allows the appellant 

to obtain a stay of such decisions upon 

demonstrating the likelihood of success 

on the merits of the petition and other 

requirements under 43 CFR §4.21(b)(1). 

Decisions associated with changes to a 

term permit or lease or grazing preference 

transfers.

The provision at 43 CFR§4160.4 

would be amended to clarify the effect of 

an administrative stay on a BLM grazing 

decision associated with (1) changes made 

to a term permit or lease, or (2) grazing 

preference transfers. The rule would clarify 

that BLM would continue to authorize 

grazing under prior terms when a stay is 

issued for a decision that (1) cancels or 

suspends a permit or lease, (2) changes the 

terms or conditions of a permit or lease 

during its current term, or (3) renews a permit 

or lease with changed terms or conditions. 

When a decision on a preference transfereeʼs 

application is stayed, the BLM would 

issue a temporary permit that contains the 

same terms and conditions as the permit 

previously applicable to the area in question, 

4-29
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

subject to any relevant provisions in the stay 

order itself. The permit would be in effect 

until the Office of Hearings and Appeals 

(OHA) resolves the administrative appeal. 

This change would increase administrative 

efficiency and ensure that decisions for 

which a stay has been granted are rendered 

inoperative pending resolution of an 

administrative appeal thus complying with 

the Administrative Procedure Act. This 

provision would ensure, in the event a BLM 

decision is stayed, the maintenance of status 

quo while the appeal is considered.

These provisions would improve BLMʼs 

ability to regulate the occupancy and use of 

rangelands, safeguard grazing privileges and 

provide for the orderly use, improvement, 

and development of the range.

Treatment of Biological Assessments 

and Evaluations in the Grazing DecisionMaking Process: Biological evaluations 

prepared for purposes of ESA Section 7 

consultation identify what actions an agency 

is considering, so that the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS) or the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) 

Fisheries can determine how the agency 

actions may affect a listed species or habitat. 

The biological assessment is a tool that the 

FWS and NOAA Fisheries use to determine 

whether a proposed action is likely to 

adversely affect or jeopardize the existence of 

a species or adversely affect critical habitat. 

Neither document is a proposed grazing 

decision and, therefore, neither document 

may be protested to BLM or is a final grazing 

decision appealable to the Office of Hearings 

and Appeals under the proposed rule. If the 

formal consultation occurs and a biological 

opinion is issued which requires a change in 

the terms and conditions of a grazing permit 

or lease, then BLM will issue a grazing 

decision subject to protest and appeal. By 

providing that a biological assessment is not 

subject to protest and appeal, and through 

consultation with affected grazing permittees 

and lessees, FWS and NOAA Fisheries, BLM 

would be able to more efficiently and timely 

make changes in grazing management.

4.3.2 Vegetation

The proposed regulations are expected 

to help the BLM achieve vegetation 

resource management objectives. Improved 

cooperation with all interested parties is 

expected to lead to additional resources for 

public land improvements. Additionally, as 

BLMʼs administrative efficiency improves, 

the rate of achieving vegetation management 

objectives would accelerate. 

The speed of achieving vegetation 

management objectives for specific sites 

would be governed by site-specific climatic 

conditions, management practices applied, 

and present state of the site.

Sites that are presently in stable-state 

vegetative communities are not expected 

to transition into another state as a result of 

changing grazing practices alone. Additional 

practices such as vegetation treatment would 

be required to achieve noteworthy changes 

in vegetation composition. These practices 

are much more likely to occur with the 

additional resources made available through 

partnerships.

While the overall long-term effect of 

the proposed regulations would accelerate 

achievement of public land vegetation 

objectives, there may be short-term adverse 

effects in allotments where vegetation is 

presently in a downward trend and vegetation 

recovery is delayed because of an extended 

implementation timeframe. However, as 

discussed in section 4.3.1 the amount of 

public lands potentially adversely affected is 

small. The following key elements of Chapter 

2 have been specifically assessed:

Social, Economic, and Cultural 

Considerations in the Decision-Making 

Process: The regulations are expected to lead 

4-30 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

to improved cooperation and coordination 

in making necessary adjustments in 

grazing management. Cooperative grazing 

management will result in more rapid 

achievement of management objectives.

Implementation of Changes in Grazing 

Use: The changes to the time provided for 

making changes in grazing use in excess of 

10 percent are expected to lead to greater 

mutual understanding of vegetation goals and 

the mechanisms for achieving these goals. 

Changes in active use of 10 percent or 

more, both increases and decreases, have 

been limited in recent years. 

Where a reduction in grazing use is not 

urgent, a phased-in reduction over 5 years 

will not have substantially different effects 

than a shorter implementation period. The 

5-year timeframe would not be followed in 

cases where the permittee or lessee agrees to 

a shorter timeframe, or a shorter timeframe is 

required in order to comply with applicable 

law ( e.g., Endangered Species Act).Where 

resource damage is imminent and vegetation 

resources require immediate protection, the 

authorized officer may use authority under 

43 CFR §4110.3-3(b) to make immediate 

adjustments in grazing use. 

The total number of allotments affected 

by this change is expected to be small 

because only 16 percent of the allotments 

evaluated during the last 5 years needed 

adjustments in current livestock grazing 

management. The proportion of allotments 

affected by this provision will be much lower 

than 16 percent considering most of the 

changes to grazing management practices are 

not reductions of 10 percent or more.

Where BLM is proposing to increase 

the grazing levels, the 5-year period would 

allow for on-the-ground testing of the higher 

levels before full implementation. The BLM 

could monitor the adjustments each year and 

avoid increasing livestock grazing above the 

capacity of the public lands. 

Range Improvement Ownership: This 

change would provide increased incentive 

for cooperator investment in range 

improvements, improving livestock grazing 

management designed to achieve land use 

plan and activity plan objectives. 

Cooperation with State, Tribal, County, 

and Local Government-Established Grazing 

Boards: Improved communication and 

coordination with these boards would 

stimulate greater support for BLM resource 

management plans and activity plans. 

Vegetation management success may 

improve with the inclusion of local expert 

knowledge and experience in the planning 

process. Weed management and control can 

often be coordinated between BLM and 

private landowners through these boards, 

leading to more effective use of resources.

Temporary Nonuse: The regulations 

should increase the flexibility of both the 

permittee and the BLM manager to react to 

fluctuations in forage availability, climate, 

and economics, and may stimulate greater 

support for short-term adjustments in 

livestock grazing levels, resulting in greater 

alignment between forage production and 

utilization levels. 

Basis for Rangeland Heath 

Determinations: The requirement to use 

standards assessment and monitoring data to 

support a determination that existing grazing 

management or levels of use are significant 

factors in the failure to meet standards 

or conform to guidelines would improve 

working relations with permittees and lessees 

because determinations on the causes of 

failure to meet a standard will be based on 

monitoring and assessment data, thus helping 

to ensure comprehensive and sustainable 

decisions. Over the last 5 years about 16 

percent of the allotments evaluated failed to 

meet a standard because of existing grazing 

management. Based on this experience, as 

explained in section 4.3.1, it is reasonable 

4-31
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

to project that this provision would require 

monitoring data to support determinations 

on a maximum of 16 percent of the future 

allotment evaluations. Since our assessments 

have been focused on high priority allotments 

with at-risk resources, the proportion of 

determinations requiring monitoring in the 

future is likely to be lower. This provision 

may create an additional workload and would 

require focusing monitoring on high priority 

allotments where BLM suspects existing 

grazing management inhibits achievement 

of standards, a management strategy which 

parallels existing policy. 

Timeframe for Taking Action to Meet 

Rangeland Heath Standards: Extending 

the timeline for taking appropriate action, 

where present livestock grazing practices 

are the cause of a failure to meet standards 

for rangeland health, provides additional 

time for designing and implementing a 

more comprehensive plan. Developing 

a comprehensive grazing management 

plan has a greater probability of correctly 

addressing the vegetative concerns with a 

higher probability of success. This provision 

may result in short term adverse impacts 

to vegetation if it delays implementation 

of appropriate actions in allotments with a 

downward trend.

Definition of Grazing, Preference, 

Permitted Use, and Active Use: Changes 

in these definitions would provide greater 

consistency and understanding for grazing 

administration, but would have little effect on 

vegetation resources.

Definition and Role of the Interested 

Public: This adjustment should allow 

the BLM to make more timely decisions. 

Thus, it would have a beneficial effect on 

vegetation resources.

Water Rights: This provision would 

increase flexibility to negotiate better 

cooperative agreements, resulting in 

improved cooperation between BLM, States 

and permittees and lessees. This capability 

may stimulate greater permittee and lessee 

support for the development of additional 

water resources on public land. New water 

developments may assist in meeting BLM 

vegetation resource management plans and 

activity plans, contributing to an overall 

beneficial effect on vegetation resources.

Changes in Grazing Use Within 

Terms and Conditions of Permit or Lease: 

This provision provides for more consistent 

application of flexibility across BLM to 

make short-term adjustments in livestock 

grazing. Grazing use would be more closely 

aligned with fluctuations in forage production 

and range readiness and may result in a 

beneficial effect on vegetation resource 

conditions.

Treatment of Biological Assessments and 

Evaluations in the Grazing Decision-Making 

Process: This adjustment may accelerate the 

process of consultation, allowing more timely 

implementation of decisions. Threatened and 

endangered species would benefit directly 

from timely decisions and cooperative 

management. 

4.3.2.1 Riparian and Wetland Vegetation

Under the proposed regulations, trends 

for riparian and wetland resources would 

improve with the implementation of some 

actions under consideration. Present trends 

in riparian condition and restoration are 

discussed in Section 3.5.2. While the 

apparent trend in riparian condition at the 

national level is positive, long-term trends 

are not yet clear on the basis of data from 

1998 to 2001. Success in applying grazing 

management to achieve riparian improvement 

objectives has been documented and almost 

always involves cooperation with the 

livestock operator. The effects on riparian 

conditions that may occur as a result of 

4-32 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

the regulations are improved cooperation 

resulting in sustainable management changes. 

Under the proposed regulations, overall 

riparian conditions would remain static 

or improve slightly. Some areas would 

show noticeable improvements in riparian 

conditions, while other areas would change 

little. Assuming the trend in riparian 

conditions observed from 1998 to 2001 is 

representative, improvement of riparian areas 

classified as “properly functioning” would 

occur at a rate of 1.5 percent annually. If 

improvements in “functioning-at-risk with 

an upward trend” were included, the rate 

of improvement would be 3.5 percent 

per year. The regulations is expected to 

promote improvement at higher rates, with 

the range of 1.5 to 3.5 percent per year, 

based primarily on the additional emphasis 

on communication, consultation, and 

coordination.

Improvements in riparian and aquatic 

habitat would result from the continuing 

implementation of rangeland health standards 

and livestock grazing guidelines. Most 

changes in management are expected to 

include combinations of segregation of 

riparian pastures from uplands, changes to the 

season of livestock use, changes in duration 

of use (or amount of utilization), changes 

in the overall amounts of use in riparian 

pastures, and livestock exclusion at some 

sites. 

Since individual management plans for 

riparian areas are developed through close 

coordination with permittees and interested 

publics, improvement in communication, 

consultation, and cooperation would 

promote more sustainable decisions. The 

regulations would change the focus of com

munication, consultation, and cooperation 

efforts to emphasize those processes 

where long-term management direction 

is developed. While opportunities for 

consultation in these important processes are 

presently available, public dialogue, time, 

and energy are now frequently diverted into 

routine administration issues rather than 

addressing long-term management direction. 

Implementation of Changes in Grazing 

Use: Since management changes prescribed 

for riparian restoration most often rely on 

changes in the timing, duration, and season 

of use, the rule change requiring a 5-year 

phase-in would not apply to most riparian 

management plans. Increasing grazing use 

in a phased-in approach is likely to avoid 

unanticipated adverse effects by making 

adjustments on the basis of the observation of 

effects on riparian resources. Regardless of 

the timing of the use and the characteristics 

of the site, riparian resources would benefit 

from a progressive, monitored approach to 

changes in the level of grazing use. 

Use of a phased-in approach for 

large grazing decreases avoids some 

risk to riparian resources to the extent it 

maintains cooperation and public support 

for changes in management. Because sites 

do not always respond in the short term 

to changes in grazing, including livestock 

exclusion or changes in the amount of 

grazing (Elmore and Betchta 1987; Clary et 

al. 1996), large changes without phase-in risk 

loss of user support if expected results are 

not achieved. In most instances, a cautious 

and progressively implemented management 

strategy that produces the intended results 

creates public support and understanding. 

Temporary Nonuse: Eliminating the 

3-consecutive-year limit for temporary 

nonuse would positively benefit riparian and 

aquatic resources. Removing the limit would 

increase flexibility and extend the timeframe 

available for riparian recovery. 

Basis for Rangeland Health 

Determinations: The regulations would 

require the use of monitoring data in 

making determinations that existing 

grazing management practices or levels of 

4-33
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

grazing use are significant factors in failing 

to achieve standards and conform with 

guidelines. Over the last 5 years about 16 

percent of the allotments evaluated failed to 

meet a standard because of existing grazing 

management. Based on this experience, as 

explained in section 4.3.1, it is reasonable 

to project that this provision would require 

monitoring data to support determinations 

on a maximum of 16 percent of the future 

allotment evaluations. Since our assessments 

have been focused on high priority allotments 

with at-risk resources, the proportion of 

determinations requiring monitoring in the 

future is likely to be lower. This provision 

may create an additional workload and 

would require focusing monitoring on high 

priority allotments where BLM suspects 

existing grazing management inhibits 

achievement of standards. Although this 

feature limits flexibility in prioritizing 

monitoring, it establishes a minimum 

standard for decision making. The result may 

be improved quality and sustainability of 

grazing decisions. 

Timeframe for Taking Action to Meet 

Rangeland Health Standards: Riparian 

vegetation would benefit from carefully 

considered and designed management 

responses. The regulations would 

provide adequate time for coordination, 

consultation, and cooperation to evaluate 

and develop reasonable management 

options, as well as complete required 

processes. This approach would require 

careful management in riparian areas that 

are functioning-at-risk with a downward 

trend, where improper grazing use combined 

with a high stream-flow event could cause 

the system to become nonfunctional. 

Depending on the stream system and 

nature of degradation resulting from such 

circumstances, recovery could be either short 

or long term. 

4.3.3 Fire and Fuels

Fire is a variable, dynamic force with 

diverse responses and effects. Understanding 

these processes and interactions is important 

in determining the role of wildland fire and its 

effects on the environment. Understanding 

fire as an ecological process and how it 

interacts with the environment is critical for 

developing land management objectives and 

sustaining rangeland health. The National 

Fire Plan has resulted in a higher priority 

being placed on treatment actions and more 

resources being provided to the fire program 

to increase treatment acres. 

Overall, the proposed regulation 

slightly improves the ability to move 

toward vegetation management objectives 

because these regulation changes will aid 

in the reestablishment of fire regimes that 

more closely resemble that which occurred 

historically. This is due to the increased 

time available to coordinate with permittees 

or lessees during the decision-making 

process of implementing actions to meet 

rangeland health standards. Additional time 

for coordination may result in consensus 

on vegetation treatment objectives and the 

actions needed to achieve them.

4.3.4 Soils

4.3.4.1 Upland Soils

The net long-term effect of the 

regulations would be to maintain or slowly 

improve the present condition of the 

upland soil resource through maintenance 

of adequate watershed cover. Short-term 

adverse effects are possible where watershed 

cover is not adequate due to current livestock 

management. Where the effect on the upland 

soil resources on an individual allotment has 

the potential to be adverse, the BLM retains 

authority under 43 CFR §4110.3-3(b) to 

curtail grazing.

4-34 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

Implementation of Changes in Grazing 

Use: Phase-in of changes in active use over 

a 5-year period would have minimal effects 

overall but could have an adverse effect on 

an individual allotment where vegetation 

conditions fail to provide adequate protection 

from erosion. As described in section 4.3.1, 

management changes where active use is 

reduced by 10 percent or more is only applied 

to a small proportion of the 16 percent 

of allotments that failed standards due to 

existing grazing management. Therefore, 

the number of allotments where short-term 

adverse impacts may occur due to delayed 

implementation, is small.

Temporary Nonuse: Removal of the limit 

on consecutive years of nonuse could have 

a beneficial effect on upland soil resources 

in allotments where greater natural recovery 

of watershed cover is desirable. This 

regulation could also potentially increase 

BLMʼs flexibility to rest allotments affected 

by drought or restoration treatments and 

thus improve watershed vegetation cover 

and soil physical characteristics such as 

compaction. The improvements would be 

most pronounced in higher elevation, moister 

portions of the analysis area. Improvements 

would be slower and most difficult to 

achieve in the drier portions of the Tropical–

Subtropical and Temperate Desert divisions. 

Basis for Rangeland Health 

Determinations: Requiring the use of both 

standards assessment and monitoring data to 

determine if existing grazing management 

practices or levels of grazing use are 

significant factors in failing to achieve 

standards and conform to guidelines would 

have no long-term adverse effect on upland 

soil resources. A short-term adverse effect 

would be possible if determination and 

implementation of management changes are 

delayed. However, as described in section 

4.3.1, only 16 percent of the allotments 

evaluated failed standards due to existing 

grazing management. Therefore, the number 

of allotments that could be subject to 

degradation as a result of delays to collect 

data is small. 

Timeframe for Taking Action to Meet 

Rangeland Health Standards: Allowing the 

BLM as long as 24 months to formulate, 

propose, and analyze the appropriate 

action for addressing failure to meet 

rangeland health standards would have 

little or no adverse short-term effect on the 

upland soil resources. The long-term effect 

on upland soil resources of this rule change 

could be positive if it allows more time for 

developing a comprehensive plan that would 

help improve watershed cover. 

4.3.4.2 Riparian Soils

The regulations would have no long-term 

adverse effect on riparian soil resources. 

Short- and long-term environmental 

consequences of the proposed management 

alternative would be similar to those of 

upland soils except that the high moisture 

content of riparian soils could accelerate 

responses to improved management practices. 

Implementation of Changes in Grazing 

Use: Phase-in of changes in active use 

over a 5-year period would not have any 

effects on riparian soils because reducing 

livestock numbers is seldom used as a 

restorative management tool in riparian area 

management. 

Temporary Nonuse: Removal of the limit 

on consecutive years of nonuse could have a 

beneficial effect on riparian soil resources in 

riparian areas where greater natural recovery 

of desirable riparian vegetation has occurred. 

This and other rule changes that enhance 

desirable riparian vegetation density and 

vigor would improve riparian stability and 

increase growth of deep-rooted, riparian 

vegetation that helps dissipate stream energy, 

protects streambanks, and filters sediment 

4-35
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

and pollutants from the stream. This rule 

change could also potentially increase the 

Bureauʼs flexibility to rest allotments affected 

by drought or restoration treatments, and 

thus could improve riparian vegetation cover 

and soil physical characteristics such as 

compaction.

Basis for Rangeland Health 

Determinations: Requiring the use of 

both assessment and monitoring data to 

determine if existing grazing management 

practices or levels of grazing use are 

significant factors in failing to achieve 

rangeland health standards may have a shortterm adverse effect on riparian soil resources 

but no long-term adverse effects. Short-term 

adverse effects could occur if conducting 

assessment and monitoring postponed 

determination and management changes on 

riparian soils with poor vegetative cover, due 

to current management, which are at risk of 

erosion during infrequent flooding. However, 

as described in section 4.3.1, only 16 percent 

of the allotments evaluated failed standards 

due to existing grazing management. 

Therefore, the number of allotments that 

could be subject to degradation as a result 

of delays to collect data is small. Finally, 

the BLM retains authority under 43 CFR 

§4110.3-3(b) to curtail grazing to prevent 

significant resource damage.

Timeframe for Taking Action to Meet 

Rangeland Health Standards: Allowing the 

BLM as long as 24 months to formulate, 

propose, and analyze appropriate action for 

addressing failure to meet rangeland health 

standards would have no adverse long-term 

effects on riparian soil resources. The longterm effect on riparian soil resources of 

that regulation could be positive if it allows 

more time for developing a comprehensive 

plans that help improve protective riparian 

vegetation density and vigor. 

4.3.5 Water Resources

The proposed regulations would have 

little or no effect on present water resource 

conditions. Streams that now meet State 

water quality standards and are part 

of properly functioning riparian ecosystems 

would remain in their present condition. 

Water bodies that fail to meet State water 

quality standards and streams that are 

functioning at risk or in nonfunctional 

condition will remain static until management 

changes are implemented, after which slow 

improvement would occur.

Implementation of Changes in Grazing 

Use: Many rangeland watersheds throughout 

the western United States are presently 

stressed as a result of ongoing drought. 

Drought conditions pose a barrier to 

prompt and effective implementation of 

restorative actions. Extended timeframes for 

implementation of changes in management 

may delay short-term watershed recovery 

but would not affect long-term watershed 

recovery. As described in section 4.3.1, 

management changes where active use is 

reduced by 10 percent or more is only applied 

to a small proportion of the 16 percent 

of allotments that failed standards due to 

existing grazing management. Therefore, 

the number of allotments where the 

implementation timeframe could be delayed 

due to phasing in changes is small.

Temporary Nonuse: Granting approval 

of nonuse for extended periods would have 

a beneficial effect on watersheds that are 

stressed by short-term climatic variation or 

cumulative effects from long-term grazing. 

Basis for Rangeland Health 

Determinations: The proposed regulation 

requires assessment and monitoring data 

when making determinations that existing 

grazing management or levels of grazing 

use are significant factors in failing 

to achieve rangeland health standards 

and conform with grazing management 

4-36 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

guidelines. In allotments with degraded 

channel morphology (function) and water 

quality that fails to meet State standards, 

those resource conditions would remain 

static until management designed to achieve 

desired vegetative cover is implemented. 

Implementation would initiate a gradual 

recovery process. Extended timeframes for 

monitoring would delay implementation of 

management changes; however, this would 

create opportunity for development of more 

effective management and accelerated 

recovery. Since 16 percent of the allotments 

evaluated failed standards due to existing 

grazing management, the number of 

allotments that may degrade as a result of 

delays to collect data is small.

Water Rights: The proposed water right 

policy changes would have no effect on water 

resources as long as the water resources 

remain available for use on public land.

4.3.6 Air Quality

Overall, the proposed regulation is 

expected to potentially improve air quality 

slightly when compared with the existing 

situation because of the improvement in 

vegetative cover as a result of implementation 

of better and more sustainable decisions. 

These actions would facilitate a move toward 

meeting rangeland health standards. The 

key elements of the proposed regulation that 

would have the most beneficial effect are as 

follows:

Basis for Rangeland Health 

Determinations—The use of assessments 

and monitoring would provide better 

and more accurate information for use in 

making determinations that existing grazing 

management or levels of grazing use are 

significant factors in failing to achieve 

rangeland health standards and conform with 

grazing management guidelines.

Timeframe for Taking Action to Meet 

Rangeland Health Standards—which 

extends the timeframe for implementation 

of the actions and therefore allows for better 

coordinated efforts. 

4.3.7 Wildlife

This environmental 

impact analysis focuses on policy and 

regulation changes for livestock grazing 

as they affect wildlife populations and 

their habitats on the more than 160 million 

acres grazed by domestic livestock in the 

western United States. Most of the changes 

under the rulemaking are expected to 

have little or no effect on wildlife, as the 

changes largely provide clarification of the 

existing regulations or bring the regulations 

into compliance with court orders. Other 

concerns will be addressed when this EIS 

is tiered to the local level, for example, 

BLM Offices are required to review the 

adequacy of existing environmental analyses 

when grazing permits are issued, 

The potential concerns for wildlife 

species from changes in the grazing 

regulation are outlined here. Ramifications 

of changes to special status species are 

discussed in the next section.

Implementation of Changes in Grazing 

Use: Allowing the adjustment in active use in 

excess of 10 percent to be implemented over 

a 5-year period has the potential to negatively 

affect wildlife in the short-term. However, 

the number of allotments affected is likely to 

be smaller than 16 percent because changes 

in active grazing use in excess of 10 percent 

are infrequent (see Section 4.3.1). Much 

more common is a change in season of use 

or location of use. With the cooperation 

of the permittee or lessee, changes can be 

made immediately. Further, under 43 CFR 

§4110.3-3 (b), if the BLM determines that 

there is an imminent likelihood of significant 

resource damage, immediate changes can be 

made. 

4-37
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

Temporary Nonuse: This alternative 

allows BLM to approve nonuse for longer 

than 3 consecutive years. This requirement 

may benefit wildlife by allowing a longer 

time period for habitat to recover from 

rehabilitation or other effects through 

application for annual temporary nonuse by 

the permittee or lessee in cooperation with 

BLM. However, BLM still reserves the 

ability to close areas to grazing if conditions 

warrant. 

Timeframe for Taking Action to Meet 

Rangeland Health Standards: Providing the 

BLM time, up to 24 months, to develop, 

formulate and analyze the appropriate 

action as well as complete consultation 

requirements and compliance with other laws 

such as NEPA and ESA has the potential for 

adversely affecting wildlife in the short 

term by delaying actions that may benefit 

wildlife species. As in the earlier discussion 

of “Implementation of Changes in Grazing 

Use,” such impacts could be reduced if the 

BLM works cooperatively with the permittee 

or lessee to efficiently complete all planning 

and analysis in a timely fashion. It is 

anticipated that the extended timeframe 

would allow for the formulation of better and 

more sustainable decisions that would result 

in better resource conditions in the long term. 

Thus in the long run, wildlife may benefit 

from this provision.

4.3.8 Special Status Species

This analysis focuses on policy and 

regulation changes for livestock grazing as 

they affect special status species and their 

habitats. The changes under the proposed 

regulations are expected to have no effect 

on special status species, as the changes 

largely provide clarification of the existing 

regulations or bring the regulations into 

compliance with court rulings. Concerns 

about specific species will be addressed when 

this EIS is offered at the local level. When 

grazing permits are issued, BLM Offices are 

required to review the adequacy of existing 

environmental analyses. At that time, if it 

is determined that federally listed/proposed 

threatened or endangered species may be 

affected or federally designated/proposed 

Critical Habitat may be adversely modified; 

a Section 7 consultation will be conducted. 

When species become federally listed after 

the issuance of a grazing permit, consultation 

will be initiated. The potential concerns for 

special status species from changes under the 

proposed regulations are outlined below. 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

requires the agency to manage threatened 

and endangered species and the habitats they 

depend upon. The BLM special status species 

as those that are officially listed under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.) as threatened or endangered; are 

proposed for listing, or are candidates under 

the provisions of the ESA; listed by a State in 

a category such as threatened or endangered; 

and those designated by each BLM State 

Director as BLM-sensitive. Appendix B 

provides the most up-to-date list of BLM 

special status species in each State. While 

this list is BLMʼs most up-to-date list of 

special status species, the list may change at 

any time according to changes in the listings 

by the FWS; more current data from recent 

investigations; and further verification of a 

species presence on public land. 

Implementation of Changes in Grazing 

Use: The 5-year phase-in provision does not 

apply to those species that are officially listed 

under the ESA as threatened or endangered; 

are proposed for listing, or are candidates for 

listing as threatened or endangered under the 

provisions of the ESA; or listed by a State in 

a category such as threatened or endangered. 

Furthermore, the provision does not apply 

to designated or proposed Critical Habitat 

covered by ESA. Section 4110.3-3(a)(ii) 

provides an exception to the 5-year phase4-38 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

in “where changes must be made before 

5 years have passed in order to comply 

with applicable law.” Under this provision, 

reductions in active use of more than 10 

percent would be implemented immediately 

in order to comply with “applicable law”. 

However, at risk species such as the sagegrouse, pygmy rabbit, mountain plover, and 

mountain quail; and those designated by 

each BLM State Director as BLM-sensitive 

may be affected in the short-term if the 

livestock grazing stocking rate is affecting 

their decline. The need for changing livestock 

stocking rates is relatively uncommon and 

changes in active grazing in excess of 10 

percent are very infrequent. Much more 

common are changes in the time or duration 

of grazing use, the season of use or location 

of use - all of which may be implemented 

without a phase-in period. 

There are several ways to avoid 

impacting special status species. If the 

BLM manager determines that natural 

resources require immediate protection 

because of conditions such as drought, fire, 

flood or insect infestation or that continued 

grazing use poses an imminent likelihood 

of significant damage to natural resources, 

then the BLM manager is required to close 

all or a portion of the allotment to livestock 

grazing or otherwise modify grazing use 

under 43 CFR §4110.3-3(b). Such decisions 

may be issued as final decisions effective 

upon issuance or on the date specified 

in the decision and are not subject to the 

phase-in requirement. Another method for 

avoiding impacts to special status species 

is for the BLM to work cooperatively with 

the permittee or lessee to implement the 

action immediately without any phase-in 

period. 

Table 3.10.2.1 shows the FWS (Western 

Regions—Regions 1, 2, and 6) Birds of 

Conservation Concern (BCC) 2002. The 

BCC 2002 shows the nongame avian species 

that are likely to become candidates for 

listing under the ESA. There are 39, 87, 

and 45 avian species on the BCC 2002 in 

the Pacific Region, Southwest Region, and 

Mountain-Prairie Region, respectively. 

Temporary Nonuse: This provision, 

which enables the BLM to approve nonuse 

for longer than 3 consecutive years, allows 

BLM more flexibility in allowing habitat to 

recover. This requirement should benefit 

special status species by allowing a longer 

timeframe for habitat to recover from 

rehabilitation or other impacts. However, the 

BLM still retains the ability to close areas to 

grazing if conditions warrant closure.

4.3.9 Wild Horses and Burros

The environmental impact analysis 

focuses on the proposed regulations for 

livestock grazing as they would affect wild 

horse and burro populations and their herd 

management areas on the 34 million acres 

grazed by both domestic livestock and wild 

horses and burros in the western United 

States. 

Overall, the proposed regulations would 

slightly improve vegetative conditions 

over the long-term through better and 

more sustainable decisions, as a result 

of having more time to provide effective 

coordination. Wild horses and burros should 

benefit from any improvement in rangeland 

health. However, in the short term, the effect 

of the rulemaking which allows changes 

in active use in excess of 10 percent to be 

phased in over 5 years, could have minor 

adverse effects on some herd management 

areas (HMA). Those HMAs occupied by 

wild horses and burros where livestock 

grazing stocking rates need adjustments 

greater than 10 percent could experience 

short-term minor adverse effects. However, 

the number of allotments would be small 

given the fraction of allotments where 

reductions in active use would be greater than 

4-39
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

10 percent (see Section 4.3.1). There are no 

other noteworthy effects from the rulemaking 

to wild horses and burros.

4.3.10 Recreation

Overall, the proposed regulation would 

have minimal effects on the recreation 

program. The highest potential for an effect 

occurs on recreational activities which 

are enhanced or diminished by the natural 

condition of the lands on which they are 

located, such as hiking, hunting, fishing, 

sightseeing, and enjoying naturalness. The 

effects could be adverse in the short-term 

for such activities on a small number of 

allotments (16 percent of the allotments 

not yet evaluated for rangeland health, see 

Section 4.3.1) if the implementation of 

corrective actions to improve rangeland 

health is delayed, and the allotment is in a 

downward trend. 

The least effect on recreation 

opportunities would occur at highly 

developed recreation areas where grazing 

may be restricted and where recreationists 

tend to be less sensitive to evidence of 

grazing. Highly developed recreational 

activities, such as use of off-highway vehicles 

(OHV) or developed campsites, would not 

be affected by any changes in rangeland 

conditions expected under the proposed 

regulations. 

 Effects both positive and negative would 

be greatest in higher and moister areas 

where more grazing use occurs, and least 

in the driest areas that improve at slower 

rates. Both commercial and noncommercial 

activities would be similarly affected. 

Revenues from commercial recreation that 

rely on healthy ecosystems could remain 

static or decline somewhat in the short term, 

but would generally be unaffected by this 

proposal in the long term.

Under some circumstances, where 

rangeland health standards are not attained, 

improvement of conditions could either be 

delayed or accelerated under the proposed 

action. Delays may occur as a result of 

acquisition of additional monitoring data, 

additional time for the development of 

management actions, or a 5-year phase-in 

implementation period. The effect of these 

delays would vary according to site-specific 

circumstances and conditions. Accelerated 

improvement of resource conditions may 

occur as a result of better decisions from 

the use of monitoring data and an adequate 

timeframe for developing management 

actions that are sustainable. There are no 

substantial effects to recreation from the other 

key elements in the proposed regulations.

4.3.11 Special Areas

Overall assumptions for all 

Alternatives: Special Areas would base 

determinations and decisions resulting from 

the proposed regulations with full application 

of the originating proclamations and laws 

and policies—whichever is appropriate—to 

determine implementation suitability. Special 

Area mandates—including the preservation, 

protection, conservation, and enhancement of 

resources, as well as other values and uses—

must take priority over subordinate purposes.

Implementation of the proposed 

regulations would have minimal effects 

on special areas in comparison with the 

existing situation. Special areas are normally 

in healthy rangeland condition, and would 

not normally be in need of livestock 

reductions. Therefore, the differences 

between the proposed regulations and 

the existing situation would not have 

measurable effects on these areas in the short 

term or long term.

4-40 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

4.3.12 Heritage Resources: 

Paleontological and Cultural 

Resources (Properties)

The majority of the proposed regulation 

changes, clarifications, and additions will 

have no effect on heritage resources, whether 

for on-the-ground actions or for the process 

and requirements of cultural resource 

management.

Implementation of Changes in Grazing 

Use: The 5-year phase-in provision could 

have both beneficial and adverse effects on 

heritage resources. In the case of decreasing 

use, heritage resources could be subject to 

continued effects before the decision is fully 

implemented; alternatively, in the case of 

increasing use, the delay could allow extra 

time to provide protection or data recovery of 

sites that may be affected by the change.

Basis for Rangeland Health 

Determinations: Changes to the provision 

of rangeland health determinations could 

indirectly affect heritage resources by 

increasing workload due to site or locality 

monitoring data requirements, which could 

delay implementation of grazing related 

actions.

New project developments will continue 

to be analyzed for effects on heritage 

resources on a case-by-case basis; for field 

office or district area wide planning efforts, 

the BLM addresses livestock grazing 

impacts at the land use planning or allotment 

management planning level. Cultural 

resource surveys precede management 

actions that could damage heritage resources 

(BLM Manual 8100, The Foundations for 

Managing Cultural Resources). Historic and 

prehistoric archaeological sites found during 

surveys would be protected in accordance 

with the National Historic Preservation Act 

of 1966 (revised) and other laws or executive 

orders as stated in the Code of Federal 

Regulations (36 CFR §800). Additionally, 

Tribal consultation begins as soon as possible 

in any case where it appears likely that the 

nature and/or location of the activity could 

affect Native American interests or concerns. 

4.3.13 Economic Conditions

Overall, the local and regional economic 

effects of the proposed regulations would be 

minor. The primary effects would be:

1. increased management flexibility for both 

permittees and the BLM, 

2. increased administrative costs to the 

BLM, 

3. reduced potential adverse economic 

effects to permittees by increasing the 

amount of time to make rangeland health 

determinations and implement grazing 

decisions, 

4. increased service charges to permittees 

undertaking specific actions, and 

5. increased cost recovery to BLM for 

certain permittee-initiated grazing 

actions. 

The following provisions have the 

greatest likelihood of creating economic 

or administrative effects, though none 

of the provisions, either individually or 

cumulatively, is considered significant.

Social, Economic, and Cultural 

Considerations in the Decision-Making 

Process: The primary effect of this provision 

would be to increase BLM administrative 

costs, and perhaps time, to complete NEPA 

analysis of changes in permitted use. NEPA 

already requires federal agencies to consider 

the effects on the human environment in all 

of its analyses, including social, economic, 

and cultural factors. The BLM does consider 

social, economic, and cultural factors in 

4-41
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

its decision making but, in some instances, 

those considerations may not be documented. 

Where offices are already documenting 

these considerations, there will likely be 

no additional workload. However, in some 

offices, more documentation will increase the 

workload.

An additional economic effect of this 

provision may be that, to the extent that 

social, economic, and cultural factors were 

not previously documented, decisions on 

changes in permitted use may change. This 

could either benefit or harm the permittee, 

depending on how the decision might change. 

Likewise, it could benefit or harm other 

general economic conditions.

Implementation of Changes in Grazing 

Use: Decreases or increases in active use 

exceeding 10 percent of the existing permit 

would be phased in over a five-year period 

unless the permittee agrees to a shorter period 

or there is need to comply with applicable 

law (e.g., the Endangered Species Act). A 

5-year phase-in of decreases in active use 

would mitigate the potential economic effect 

on permittees by allowing ranchers additional 

time to make alternative arrangements. 

However, it may also delay needed 

improvements in rangeland conditions for 

the short-term; which may in turn delay 

the achievement of sustainability of range 

conditions and the permitteeʼs economic 

viability for the short-term. Phasing in 

increases in use would also allow permittees 

to better plan future use to the extent that 

additional time may be needed to increase 

herd size or adjust seasons of use.

Range Improvement Ownership: Shared 

title of range improvements could potentially 

improve permitteesʼ financial condition to 

the extent that title may increase the value 

of their operations or increase their ability 

to obtain financing. However, permittees 

presently do have shared financial interest in 

range improvements and are compensated 

for the contribution they made under a 

cooperative agreement in the event the 

permit changes ownership, so it is not clear 

what the net effect of this provision might 

be. From 1982 to 1995, ownership of range 

improvements was held jointly by the U.S. 

government and permittees. Since 1995, the 

Federal government has held sole title. In 

some States, there was a noticeable decrease 

in range improvements from 1995 to 1996, 

but following 1996 the trends are more 

erratic. Also, there was an overall declining 

trend in the numbers of range improvements 

since 1982 for all States combined. Thus, 

the data on numbers of range improvements 

before 1995 and after 1995 do not reveal 

whether permittees became permanently 

more reluctant to participate in range 

improvements, or what the effect may have 

been on the value of their operations.

Temporary Nonuse: This provision 

would increase the number of years 

permittees could take nonuse. Presently, 

permittees may only take up to 3 consecutive 

years of nonuse and this provision would 

eliminate that three consecutive year 

limitation. This would be a beneficial 

economic effect to permittees. Also, it would 

increase flexibility for both permittees and 

BLM, since there are a variety of financial 

and resource condition reasons for taking 

nonuse beyond 3 years.

Basis for Rangeland Health Determinati

ons: Rangeland health determinations would 

need to be based on standards assessments 

and monitoring before proposing possible 

changes in permitted use. This may delay 

some determinations and increase costs to 

the BLM to address additional monitoring 

requirements. The effect on permittees would 

be that initiation of proposals for changes in 

permitted use would be delayed and thus any 

potential changes in their operations would 

be delayed. This may be a beneficial effect 

to permittees, depending on whether resource 

4-42 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

conditions on their allotments can sustain 

delays in improvement. 

Definition of Grazing Preference, 

Permitted Use, and Active Use: Deleting 

the term “permitted use” and changing 

the definition of “grazing preference” 

to include the total number of Animal 

Unit Months (AUMs) apportioned and 

attached to base property would have 

no economic effect. This change reflects 

essentially a return to the pre-1995 grazing 

regulations. The 1995 regulations changed 

the definition of grazing preference to the 

superior or priority position against others 

for the purpose of receiving a grazing 

permit or lease. The priority is attached to 

base property owned or controlled by the 

permittee. In addition, the 1995 regulations 

added the term “permitted use” to mean the 

forage allocated by, or under the guidance of, 

an applicable land use plan; it is expressed 

in AUMs. There was no economic effect 

from changing the regulations in 1995 and, 

likewise, there would be no economic effect 

from returning to the earlier definitions. 

Timeframe for Taking Action to Meet 

Rangeland Health Standards: The effects 

would be similar to those from the rangeland 

health determinations in that BLM would 

have a longer time, as long as 24 months 

after determination, to analyze any proposed 

changes to address resource conditions. This 

delay could potentially benefit permittees 

in the same way as the rangeland health 

determination provision above, assuming that 

delays in proposed changes to permitted use 

do not cause continued deterioration in range 

conditions and thus the economic viability of 

the permitteeʼs operation. 

Definition and Role of the Interested 

Public: This provision could result in 

reductions in costs for the BLM, but these 

cost savings would be minor. There are still 

requirements for consultation, cooperation, 

and coordination with permittees or lessees 

and the State. And the interested public 

would still be afforded the opportunity 

for public involvement for various actions 

including those that affect long term grazing 

management direction at the allotment level. 

However, there would be agency actions 

taken that BLM would not be required to 

consult with the interested public. This 

provision could have an adverse effect on 

BLM management because it may be viewed 

as excluding the public from decisions where 

public input was previously required.

Changes in Grazing Use Within the 

Terms and Conditions of the Permit or 

Lease: This provision could increase 

management flexibility for both the BLM 

and permittees but would probably have 

little economic effect because overall forage 

utilization could not exceed the amount 

of active use specified in the permit. For 

example, if resource conditions indicated 

forage availability earlier than the authorized 

turn-out date on the permit, the BLM could 

authorize temporary changes in grazing use 

to allow an earlier turn-out date, as long 

as total use does not exceed the amount of 

active use authorized by the permit. Without 

this provision, the BLM would have to 

issue a temporary, nonrenewable (TNR) 

authorization to allow use that begins before 

or ends after the dates specified in the permit. 

A process that is more time-consuming and 

costly than simply basing authorization on 

the existing permit or lease. This provision 

could not only increase management 

flexibility, but could lower BLMʼs costs. It 

could also result in more efficient utilization 

of forage because it allows permittees and 

the BLM to respond to annual fluctuations 

in timing and amount of forage production. 

However, in some BLM States, the range 

staff already authorizes temporary changes in 

use with no problems because the terms and 

conditions of the permit are flexibly written. 

4-43
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

Service Charges: Increasing service 

charges for certain actions is essentially 

a cost-recovery measure for the U.S. 

Treasury. The primary effect of increasing 

service charges for certain actions would be 

to transfer some costs from the public (i.e., 

the BLM) to permittees. The present fee is 

$10; under the proposed action, fees would 

increase to the following:

1. Issuance of crossing permit ($75) 

2. Transfer of grazing preference ($145) 

3. Cancellation and replacement of grazing 

fee billing ($50) 

Table 4.3.13.1 shows the net cost 

recovery for each of these three permitteeinitiated actions.

4.3.14 Social Conditions

Basis for Rangeland Health 

Determinations: The proposed regulations 

would have minor beneficial direct social 

effects on permittees stemming from the 

required combination of assessment and 

monitoring for determinations that existing 

livestock grazing practices or levels of 

grazing use are significant factors in failing 

to achieve standards of rangeland health or 

comply with guidelines. Permittees believe 

that their relation to the decision process 

is strengthened when valid monitoring 

data are available for use. Environmental, 

conservation, and recreation groups will 

experience minor beneficial social effects 

for similar reasons. Monitoring data are 

seen by all groups as strengthening the basis 

for decisions and, therefore, enhancing the 

resource. Over the long term, the proposed 

regulations would have a cumulative positive 

effect because long-term data would be 

available to all groups to more accurately 

assess the condition of the resource and to 

provide a foundation for range improvements 

and projects (Table 4.3.14.1). 

Changes in Grazing Use Within the 

Terms and Conditions of the Permit or Lease: 

Permittees will experience minimal social 

effects due to the specification of reasons 

for changes to grazing use. Effects on other 

groups are also minimal.

Table 4.3.13.1. Cost recovery under proposed service charges.

Action

Proposed 

Service 

Charge

Current 

Service 

Charge

Difference 

(i.e. increase 

in cost 

recovery)

Average 

Unit 

Cost to 

Complete 

Action

Net Cost 

Recovery

Transfer 

Grazing 

Preference

$145 $10 $135 $2,255 –$2,110

Crossing 

Permit $75 $10 $65 $339 –$264

Supplemental 

Grazing 

Billing

$50 $10 $40 $339 –$289

Source: BLM Management Information System 2003 (BLM 2003).

4-44 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

Table 4.3.14.1. Social effects of the proposed action.

 

Element Group Direct 

Effect 

Indirect 

Effect 

Cumulative 

Effect 

Regional 

Differences 

Likelihood of 

Occurrence 

Social, Economic, 

and Cultural 

Considerations in 

the Decision-Making 

Process 

Permittees Minor 

Beneficial 

Conservation & 

Environmental Minimal 

Recreation Minimal 

Implementation of 

Changes in Grazing 

Use 

Permittees Beneficial None None None Good 

Conservation & 

Environmental Minimal 

Recreation Minimal 

Range Improvement 

Ownership 

Permittees Minimal 

Conservation & 

Environmental Minimal 

Recreation Minimal 

Cooperation with 

State, County, and 

Local Established 

Grazing Boards 

Permittees Minor 

Beneficial Minor Beneficial 

Conservation & 

Environmental Minimal 

Recreation Minimal 

Review of Biological 

Assessments and 

Evaluations 

Permittees Minimal 

Conservation & 

Environmental Minimal 

Recreation Minimal 

Temporary Nonuse 

Permittees Adverse None Adverse None Potential 

Conservation & 

Environmental Minimal 

Recreation Minimal 

Basis for 

Rangeland Health 

Determinations 

Permittees Minor 

Beneficial None Minor Beneficial None Potential 

Conservation & 

Environmental 

Minor 

Beneficial None Minor Beneficial None Potential 

Recreation Minor 

Beneficial None Minor Beneficial None Potential 

Biological 

Assessments 

—Application of 

Protest and Appeal 

Provisions 

Permittees Minimal 

Conservation & 

Environmental Minimal 

Recreation Minimal 

4-45
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

Element Group Direct 

Effect 

Indirect 

Effect 

Cumulative 

Effect 

Regional 

Differences 

Likelihood of 

Occurrence 

Timeframe for Taking 

Action to Meet 

Rangeland Health 

Standards 

Permittees Minor 

Beneficial None None None Potential 

Conservation & 

Environmental 

Minor 

Adverse None None None Potential 

Recreation Minimal 

Conservation Use 

Permittees Minimal 

Conservation & 

Environmental Minimal 

Recreation Minimal 

Definition of Grazing 

Preference, Permitted 

Use, and Active Use 

Permittees Minor 

Beneficial 

Conservation & 

Environmental Minimal 

Recreation Minimal 

Definition and Role 

of Interested Public 

Permittees Minimal 

Conservation & 

Environmental Minimal 

Recreation Minimal 

Water Rights 

Permittees Beneficial None Beneficial Yes Good 

Conservation & 

Environmental Adverse None Adverse Yes Potential 

Recreation Minimal 

Satisfactory 

Performance of 

Permittee or Lessee 

Permittees Minimal 

Conservation & 

Environmental Minimal 

Recreation Minimal 

Changes in Grazing 

Use Within the Terms 

and Conditions of the 

Permit or Lease 

 Permittees Minimal 

Conservation & 

Environmental Minimal 

Recreation Minimal 

Definition and Role 

of Interested Public 

Permittees Minimal 

Conservation & 

Environmental Minimal 

Service Charges 

Permittees Minimal 

Conservation & 

Environmental Minimal 

Recreation Minimal 

Table 4.3.14.1 (continued). Social effects of the proposed action.

4-46 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

Cooperation with State, Tribal, County 

and Local Government-Established Grazing 

Boards: Permittees will experience minor 

beneficial social effects from this proposed 

action. The specific requirement to 

coordinate with grazing boards should 

stimulate the development of additional 

grazing boards throughout the West. Thus, 

the BLM will increase coordination with 

ranchers as individual permittees and lessees 

at the allotment level and additionally as a 

group. Because they have other avenues for 

monitoring and challenging decisions, social 

effects on environmental, conservation, and 

recreation groups will be minimal.

Definition and Role of Interested 

Publics: Any social effects from the 

proposed regulations are related to the list of 

actions for which consultation, cooperation, 

and coordination are required. Public 

involvement does not change for those 

actions related to planning, but is reduced 

regarding operational decisions. The 

manner in which a public gains standing is 

clarified. In sum, these changes should have 

minimal social effects on all groups.

Grazing Preference: The proposed 

regulations will have minimal positive 

social effects on permittees because it 

reinforces their belief that permits should be 

used for livestock grazing. The definition 

of preference and active use are consistent 

with their belief that maintaining ranching 

as the primary use of allotments enhances 

the stability of their communities and social 

networks. This change will have minimal 

effect on the other groups in question. 

Implementation of Changes in Use: The 

proposed regulations would have minor 

beneficial direct social effects on permittees. 

Element Group Direct 

Effect 

Indirect 

Effect 

Cumulative 

Effect 

Regional 

Differences 

Likelihood of 

Occurrence 

Prohibited Acts 

Permittees Minimal 

Conservation & 

Environmental Adverse Adverse Potential 

Recreation Adverse Adverse 

Grazing Use Pending 

Resolution of Appeals 

When Decision Has 

Been Stayed 

Permittees Minimal 

Conservation & 

Environmental Minimal 

Recreation Minimal 

Definition of Grazing 

Preference, Permitted 

Use, and Active Use 

Permittees Minimal 

Conservation & 

Environmental Minimal 

Recreation Minimal 

Treatment of 

Biological 

Assessments and 

Evaluations in the 

Grazing DecisionMaking Process 

Permittees Minimal 

Conservation & 

Environmental Minimal 

Recreation Minimal 

Source: Section 4.3.14, Final Environmental Impact Statement 

Table 4.3.14.1 (concluded). Social effects of the proposed action.

4-47
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

The 5-year timeframe provides flexibility 

and reduces the immediacy of social and 

economic stress on ranchers and their 

families in the event of a cut in active use. 

Environmental and conservation groups 

generally oppose this idea, instead preferring 

immediate implementation to prevent further 

resource degradation. However, these groups 

could see no direct social effects stemming 

from this change. It will also have minimal 

effect on recreation groups. 

Range Improvement Ownership: The 

proposed regulations would have minimal 

social effects on permittees. Most expect only 

a marginal increase in improvements because 

of being offered title. Social effects on 

recreational users will be minimal. Effects 

on conservation and environmental groups 

are also minimal, being confined mostly 

to the feeling that permittees holding title 

to anything on public land is unwarranted. 

Minimal effects on any group are expected 

from this proposed action concerning 

nonstructural improvements. 

Satisfactory Performance of Permittee 

or Lessee: This proposed regulation could 

have minimal social effects on permittees 

and conservation and environmental groups 

by setting out what satisfactory performance 

actually is, as opposed to what it is not. For 

the purposes of their involvement in the 

management of allotments, this provides 

benchmarks and implies data needs, but is 

unlikely to require a demonstrable change in 

how either group interacts with the BLM. 

Social, Economic, and Cultural 

Considerations: This provision does not 

change the basis for assessing the effects 

of grazing administration decisions. Any 

social effects would be related directly to 

how the information is used or how such 

considerations are weighed in making 

decisions. Social effects of the proposed 

action will be minimal for conservation 

and environmental advocates, and for 

recreational users. By requiring that projected 

social, economic, and cultural effects be 

documented, the requirement may result in 

greater attention being given to such factors. 

This would likely have a minor beneficial 

effect on permittees.

Temporary Nonuse: This action will 

have direct adverse social effects on most 

permittees. Permittees and lessees feel 

that a limit on the number of years for 

which nonuse can be taken is important 

for maintaining the economic and social 

viability of their communities. This provision 

allows permittees and lessees not interested 

in grazing to apply each year to keep 

livestock off of the allotments. Permittees 

see this as being the practical equivalent 

of a conservation use of these allotments 

that may produce a cumulative effect 

over time that reduces their relative social 

networks within the community and, to 

them, threatens community stability. These 

adverse effects could be substantially 

reduced if forage available during nonuse 

is apportioned for livestock grazing 

to other applicants. This would meet 

objections concerning maintenance of the 

local livestock herd to maintain economic 

stability. Minimal effects are expected on 

recreation groups. Minimal positive social 

effects are expected on conservation and 

environmental groups. These stem mostly 

from their belief that the open-ended nature 

of the proposed action allows for nonuse 

to continue as long as necessary to recover 

good resource conditions. This allows them 

greater opportunity to work with ranch 

owners to change management practices 

on allotments within timeframes they think 

are more ecologically effective. This would 

allow them to reallocate organizational 

resources accordingly. The proposed reasons 

for approving temporary nonuse will have 

no social effects on permittees, recreation 

4-48 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

groups, or conservation and environmental 

groups. 

Timeframe for Taking Action to Meet 

Rangeland Health Standards: Minor 

beneficial direct effects will accrue to 

permittees from this proposed regulation. 

They view this proposal as decompressing 

the decision process surrounding rangeland 

health standards thereby allowing for better 

decisions and allowing permittees to plan 

for potential changes in ranch management. 

Minimal effects are expected for recreation 

groups. Social effects for conservation and 

environmental groups will be minor and 

adverse. Under this proposed regulation, 

these groups could encourage and achieve an 

agency determination about rangeland health 

but action could be precluded for a 24-month 

period pending consultations or other action. 

Direct effects are primarily a perceived 

degradation in their public access to the 

BLM decision process, and psychological 

effects within the organization in that this 

proposed action engenders a feeling that the 

decision process is designed to preclude their 

involvement to a great degree while their 

concerns about degradation of the resource 

are minimized. 

Water Rights: Permittees will experience 

beneficial direct and cumulative social effects 

stemming from the proposed regulations 

reinforcing their belief that water belongs in 

private hands. They see the management of 

water resources for livestock as stabilizing 

their communities. The proposed regulations 

could also increase their certainty of stock 

water resources in the future. This amounts 

to a potential increase in their rights to 

stock water over time. Conservation and 

environmental groups see this proposed 

action as returning water rights to those who 

do not use them to support the ecosystem and 

therefore local communities. These groups 

believe that the public holds certain rights to 

water on public land. The proposed action 

is seen as precluding uses of water on behalf 

of the public that are not essentially stock 

water. They view this as a reduction in their 

rights to this resource and expect direct and 

cumulative negative social effects over time. 

Recreation groups will see few social effects 

from this proposed regulations.

4.3.15 Environmental Justice

The regulatory changes here must be 

considered for their potential effect on lowincome, minority, and Tribal populations. 

Executive Order 12898 requires that “each 

Federal agency shall make achieving 

environmental justice part of its mission by 

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human 

health or environmental effects of its 

programs, policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income populations.” 

Exec. Order No. 12,898, 59 Fed. Reg. 32 

(Feb. 16, 1994). Environmental justice is 

defined as the “fair treatment and meaningful 

involvement of all people regardless of 

race, color, national origin, or income with 

respect to the development, implementation, 

and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies. Fair treatment 

means that no group of people, including 

racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group, 

should bear a disproportionate share of 

the negative environmental consequences 

resulting from industrial, municipal, and 

commercial operations or the execution of 

Federal, State, local, and Tribal programs and 

policies” (BLM 2002a). 

Although there is no standard method for 

assessing such effects, any environmental 

justice review should, to the extent feasible, 

involve the following steps: 

1. Determine the boundaries of the 

potentially affected area. 

4-49
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

2. Identify low-income, minority, and 

Tribal populations within the area to be 

subjected to the proposed action. 

3. Identify potentially significant, adverse 

health and environmental effects that may 

affect one or more of these populations. 

4. Consider “the interrelated cultural, social, 

occupational, historical, or economic 

factors that may amplify the natural and 

physical environmental effects of the 

proposed agency action” (CEQ 1997). 

5. Determine whether such an adverse 

effect “appreciably exceeds or is likely 

to appreciably exceed those on the 

general population or other appropriate 

comparison group.” (CEQ 1997). 

6. Determine whether adversely affected 

low-income, minority, or Tribal 

populations have been subjected 

to “cumulative or multiple adverse 

exposures from environmental hazards” 

(CEQ 1997), which should include the 

results of actions by other parties (BLM 

2002a). 

An environmental justice analysis is most 

feasible in project-level undertakings, where 

there is a limited affected area and specific 

environmental effects to be evaluated. It 

is more difficult in the large-scale review 

involved in resource management plans, 

and particularly problematic in regulatory 

changes having nationwide application, as in 

the proposed changes to the BLMʼs grazing 

regulations. 

Approximately 160 million acres of 

BLM-administered land in the West are 

suitable for grazing. At this geographic 

scale, it is not feasible to identify specific, 

potentially affected low-income, minority, 

or Tribal populations and examine their 

reliance on public lands grazing. Rather, 

an analysis should determine if there is a 

systematic differential effect inherent in the 

proposed actions, and if so, whether this 

effect falls disproportionately on one of these 

populations. 

For example, a change in range health 

standards that resulted in a broadly applied 

reduction in permitted AUMs would 

disproportionately reduce the financial 

viability of ranching operations having a high 

dependence on public grazing allotments. If 

there were a reasonably consistent 

association between high dependence on 

public grazing and herds owned by minority, 

or Tribal ranchers, there might be a conflict 

with environmental justice principles. (The 

association between smaller ranches and 

lower incomes is obvious, and by its nature 

unlikely to be judged discriminatory.) 

The regulations considered here do 

not involve this type of on-the-ground 

change in grazing operations. Instead, they 

concern such matters as the phase-in period 

for changes in conditions of active use; 

ownership of rangeland improvements; and 

the opportunities for public comment in 

grazing administration decisions. 

The economic impact analysis found 

most of the changes to be either neutral or 

beneficial for ranchers with BLM grazing 

allotments, although for a few measures it 

was not possible to predict whether the effect 

would result in a net cost or net benefit. 

The social impact analysis found 

the measures neutral or beneficial, with 

the possible exceptions of regulations 

concerning prohibited acts, temporary 

nonuse, and water rights. Conservation and 

environmental groups may experience some 

adverse effects from proposals regarding 

prohibited acts and water rights, in that 

these measures are inconsistent with their 

understanding of conditions fostering the 

health of streams and rangelands. Permittees 

4-50 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

may experience some adverse effects from 

the proposed modification of the length of 

temporary nonuse. None of these predicted 

effects, however, would seem to fall 

disproportionately on low-income, minority, 

or Tribal populations. 

In summary, the changes to BLMʼs 

grazing regulations do not violate 

environmental justice principles. 

4.4 Alternative Three: 

Modified Action

The direct and indirect effects of 

implementing the regulatory changes known 

as Alternative Three—Modified Action, as 

described in Section 2.3, are presented in this 

section.

4.4.1 Grazing Administration

The effects of the Modified Action 

Alternative are similar to those of the 

proposed action in that the Modified Action 

Alternative emphasizes a stewardshipthrough-partnership approach to grazing 

management. It also includes enhancement 

of administrative efficiency and effectiveness, 

including addressing legal issues that 

need clarification. However, it allows the 

authorized officer to make changes in active 

use—if greater than 10 percent over a 5-year 

period—discretionary; does not prescribe that 

both assessments and monitoring be used as a 

basis for determinations that identify grazing 

as a significant factor in failing to achieve 

rangeland health standards; and makes it a 

prohibited act to not comply with certified 

weed seed-free forage, grain, straw, or mulch 

requirements specified by the Authorized 

Officer. 

Social, Economic, and Cultural 

Considerations in the Decision-Making 

Process: The consequences would be the 

same as the Proposed Action Alternative.

Implementation of Changes in Grazing 

Use: The effects of this provision would 

be similar to those of the proposed action 

except that the phase-in of changes to active 

use greater than 10 percent may not have to 

be implemented over a 5-year period. The 

Authorized Officer may, at his discretion, 

determine that a shorter or no phase-in 

period would be warranted. This could 

provide additional protection to Bureau-listed 

sensitive species, or other sensitive resource 

values that may benefit from a shorter phasein period.

Range Improvement Ownership: The 

consequences would be the same as the 

Proposed Action Alternative.

Cooperation with State, Tribal, County, 

and Local Government-Established Grazing 

Boards: The consequences would be the 

same as those of the Proposed Action 

Alternative.

Temporary Nonuse: Grazing permittees 

and lessees would only be able to be 

approved for as long as 5 consecutive years 

of nonuse for conservation and protection 

of rangeland resources, or for the personal 

and business needs that would allow them 

to better manage their business, such as 

livestock sales that result in temporary herd 

size reductions. After the 5-year period 

has elapsed, the permittee must make full 

use of the grazing permit or lease. If the 

BLM determines that additional nonuse 

would help achieve resource objectives, 

then the Authorized Officer could issue a 

grazing decision or enter into an agreement 

with the permittee or lessee to suspend the 

permitted use in whole or in part. However, 

this presents a possible deterrence from 

a permitteeʼs or lesseeʼs standpoint for 

declaring nonuse situations, and detracts from 

cooperative management. In addition, the 

grazing decision or agreement process would 

create additional workload on the grazing 

administration and a delayed timeframe 

4-51
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

for addressing needed changes in grazing 

management.

Timeframe for Taking Action to 

Meet Rangeland Health Standards: The 

consequences would be the same as those of 

the Proposed Action Alternative.

Basis for Rangeland Health Determin

ations: Allowing the Authorized Officer 

discretionary use of monitoring data as a 

basis for determinations of failure to achieve 

rangeland health standards due to livestock 

would allow the BLM flexibility at the local 

level to prioritize data and information 

collection. With limited resources the 

BLM would be able to more efficiently and 

effectively conduct an overall monitoring and 

assessment program that places an emphasis 

on allotments that have high resource 

values, contain resource conflicts, or are 

not achieving rangeland health standards. 

The BLM could focus its energy on using 

monitoring and assessments to make grazing 

management changes where they are needed 

to protect high resource values or show that 

those values are protected under present 

management.

Conservation Use: The consequences 

would be the same as those of the Proposed 

Action Alternative.

Definitions of Preference, Permitted Use 

and Active Use: The consequences would 

be the same as those of the Proposed Action 

Alternative.

Definition and Role of the Interested 

Public: The consequences would be the 

same as those of the Proposed Action 

Alternative.

Water Rights: The consequences would 

be the same as those of the Proposed Action 

Alternative.

Satisfactory Performance of Permittee 

or Lessee: The consequences would be the 

same as those of Proposed Action Alternative. 

Changes in Grazing Use Within the 

Terms and Conditions of the Permit: The 

consequences would be the same as those of 

the Proposed Action Alternative.

Service Charges: The consequences 

would be the same as those of the Proposed 

Action Alternative. 

Prohibited Acts: This provision is the 

same as the Proposed Action Alternative 

except for adding a provision that requires 

the use of weed seed-free forage, grain, 

straw, or mulch when required by the 

Authorized Officer. This would enable the 

BLM to enforce weed- free requirements. 

This preventive measure would reduce the 

establishment and spread of noxious weeds 

on BLM-administered lands.

Grazing Use Pending Resolution of 

Appeals When Decision Has Been Stayed: 

The consequences would be the same as 

those of the Proposed Action Alternative. 

Treatment of Biological Assessments 

and Evaluations in the Grazing DecisionMaking Process: The consequences would 

be the same as those of the Proposed Action 

Alternative.

4.4.2 Vegetation

The effects of implementing Alternative 

Three on vegetative communities on public 

lands are expected to be very similar to those 

of the Proposed Action, Alternative Two, 

over the long term. Differences between 

Alternative Three and Alternative Two are 

analyzed below.

Implementation of Changes in Grazing 

Use: The alternative of discretionary use of 

the 5-year phase-in process for reductions of 

more than 10 percent would give the BLM 

another option in the few instances where a 

rapid adjustment is needed, but an agreement 

cannot be reached with the permittee or 

lessee. However, the BLM already has 

an option for immediate action under the 

proposed regulations, thus, this alternative 

would have similar effects.

4-52 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

Temporary Nonuse: The limitation of 5 

consecutive years of nonuse would adversely 

affect the public land vegetation when an 

extended drought limits normal forage 

production longer than 5 years. 

Basis for Rangeland Health 

Determinations: The use of standards 

assessments rather than both assessments and 

monitoring as a basis for failure to achieve 

rangeland health standards due to livestock 

determinations will provide for quicker 

determinations, especially on low-priority 

lands. This will allow for more staff time to 

be directed to high-priority areas where there 

are vegetation condition concerns. 

Prohibited Acts: Under this alternative, 

the additional authority provided by the 

prohibited act of “Failing to comply with 

the use of certified weed seed-free forage, 

grain, straw, or mulch when required by the 

Authorized Officer” would result in a slower 

expansion of exotic invasive species on 

public lands. 

4.4.2.1 Riparian and Wetland Vegetation

Under Alternative Three, the effects on 

riparian and wetland areas would be the same 

as those under Alternative Two, except for 

the actions discussed below. 

Implementation of changes in Grazing 

Use: Allowing the flexibility to use a 

phased approach or not, when changes in 

grazing use are greater than 10%, would 

benefit riparian vegetation to the extent it 

promotes decisions that match needs at local 

riparian sites. For large increases in the 

amount of grazing use (greater than 10%), 

the potential exists for short-term adverse 

effects on riparian vegetation during full 

increase implementation. The areas where 

large increases have been considered involve 

pastures with upland treatments such as 

seedings conducted years ago. The BLM 

emphasis on riparian resource recovery 

and function is also likely to affect the 

implementation decision. Regardless of the 

timing of the use and the characteristics of 

the site, riparian resources would benefit 

when allocations are made in stages because 

the risk of unanticipated, short-term 

effects on riparian vegetation is reduced 

by the opportunity to evaluate change in 

increments. 

For large decreases in authorized grazing 

use, the rate of change in grazing pressure 

would be decreased because only part of the 

decrease would be in effect starting with the 

first year. To the extent use levels, rather 

than timing or duration, rates of riparian 

recovery may be affected until the full 

reduction is accomplished. However, the rate 

and potential for riparian recovery on many 

streams is much more strongly correlated to 

timing of use. 

In most instances, a carefully 

implemented and progressive management 

strategy that produces the intended 

results creates public support and 

understanding. Under the modified approach, 

changes that produce positive riparian 

condition responses might be implemented 

more slowly, in some instances, with phasein, and more quickly in others, without 

phase-in. However, the increased likelihood 

of grazing operator agreement and the 

mitigation benefits provided by phase-in 

would generally improve implementation 

effectiveness and delivery of the riparian 

improvement results.

Temporary Nonuse: Extending the co

nsecutive year limit for temporary nonuse 

to 5 years would positively benefit riparian 

and aquatic resources by maintaining the 

flexibility of managers and operators to 

implement nonuse. The extension provides 2 

years of additional access to a cooperative 

option to promote additional rest.

Basis for Rangeland Health 

Determinations: Using either standards 

4-53
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

assessment or monitoring as a basis 

for determining that existing grazing 

management practices or levels of grazing 

use are significant factors in failing to 

achieve standards and conform with 

guidelines would have a minimal effect 

on riparian and wetland vegetation. If 

either assessments or monitoring show that 

grazing management practices or levels 

of grazing use are significant factors in 

failing to achieve standards or conform 

with guidelines, then the Authorized 

Officer can pursue a change in livestock 

management. However, the flexibility to 

direct funding for monitoring would focus 

monitoring efforts on the highest priority 

needs or issues.

Prohibited Acts: Elimination of several 

acts prohibited by present and proposed 

regulations would have both short- and longterm negative effects on riparian and wetland 

vegetation in a limited number of locations, 

to the extent other primary enforcement 

authorities are an ineffective deterrent. 

Adding a provision on weeds: Adding 

a provision making the use of noncertified 

weed seed-free forage, grain, straw, or mulch 

where certified is required a prohibited act 

will have a positive effect on riparian and 

wetland vegetation. Reducing the likelihood 

that weeds will be introduced into riparian 

areas will benefit native riparian species by 

minimizing competition from introduced 

weeds. Invasive exotics reduce riparian area 

stability, consume scarce water, alter wildlife 

habitat, and compete with beneficial native 

plant species.

4.4.3 Fire and Fuels

Alternative Three is the same as the 

analysis for the proposed action in Section 

4.3.3 

4.4.4 Soils

4.4.4.1 Upland Soils

The effects of Alternative Three would 

be neutral to slightly beneficial for upland 

soils because of maintenance or slight 

improvement of watershed cover.

Implementation of Changes in Grazing 

Use: The discretionary 5-year phase-in 

of changes in grazing use could result in 

more rapid improvement of vegetation, soil 

cover, and watershed condition than the 

Proposed Action Alternative.

Temporary Nonuse: The five-year 

limit on nonuse for grazing would reduce 

the positive effects of that rule change in 

comparison with those of the Proposed 

Action Alternative. Allotments needing 

more than 5 years for natural recovery of 

watershed cover may not achieve objectives 

for protection of the upland soil resource.

Basis for Rangeland Health 

Determination: The option of using either 

rangeland health assessments or monitoring 

as a basis for determining failure to achieve 

rangeland health standards would be 

beneficial to upland soil resources since 

there would be less potential delay in 

making that determination. An accelerated 

implementation of management changes 

would result in more rapid improvement in 

resource conditions.

Timeframe for Taking Action to Meet 

Rangeland Health Standards: The effects 

would be the same as those of the Proposed 

Action Alternative.

Prohibited Acts: The addition of the 

provision on weed seed-free forage, grain, 

straw, or mulch could have a beneficial effect 

if it results in a reduction in the spread of 

noxious weeds on public lands. Noxious 

weeds can provide less effective watershed 

cover than native vegetation. Noxious weeds 

can also alter soil biological communities, 

4-54 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

thus decreasing restoration success for native 

species requiring mycorrhizal fungi and other 

biological components of the natural soils. 

Elimination of several acts prohibited by 

present and proposed regulations would have 

both short- and long-term negative effects in 

a limited number of locations, to the extent 

other primary enforcement authorities are an 

ineffective deterrent. 

4.4.4.2 Riparian Soils

The effects of Alternative Three would 

be neutral to slightly beneficial for riparian 

soils because of maintenance or a slight 

improvement of watershed cover.

Implementation of Changes in Grazing

Use: The effects would be the same as those 

of the Proposed Action Alternative.

Temporary Nonuse: The 5-year limit on 

nonuse for grazing would reduce the positive 

effects of that rule change in comparison with 

the Proposed Action Alternative. Riparian 

areas needing more than 5 years for natural 

recovery of desirable riparian vegetation may 

not attain adequate protection of riparian soil 

resources.

Basis for Rangeland Health 

Determinations: The option of using either 

rangeland health assessments or monitoring 

as a basis for determinations of failure to 

achieve rangeland health standards would 

be beneficial to riparian soil resources 

since there would be less potential delay in 

making that determination. An accelerated 

implementation of management changes 

would result in more rapid improvement in 

resource condition.

Timeframe for Taking Action to Meet 

Rangeland Health Standards: The effects 

would be the same as those of the Proposed 

Action Alternative.

Prohibited Acts: The addition of the 

provision on weed seed-free forage, grain, 

straw, or mulch could have a beneficial effect 

if doing so reduces the spread of noxious 

weeds in riparian areas. Noxious weeds can 

provide less effective riparian soil protection 

than native vegetation. Noxious weeds can 

also alter soil biological communities, thus 

decreasing restoration success for native 

species requiring mycorrhizal fungi and other 

biological components of the natural soil. 

Elimination of several acts prohibited by 

present and proposed regulations would have 

both short- and long-term negative effects in 

a limited number of locations to the extent 

other primary enforcement authorities are an 

ineffective deterrent.

4.4.5 Water Resources

The effects of Alternative Three would 

be similar to the effects of the proposed 

alternative except as noted here.

Implementation of Changes in Grazing 

Use: Rapid implementation of changes in 

management may accelerate short-term water 

resource improvement over the proposed 

alternative but would not affect long-term 

watershed recovery rates.

Prohibited Acts: The addition of the 

provision on weed seed-free forage, grain, 

straw, or mulch could have a beneficial effect 

if it resulted in a reduction in the spread of 

noxious weeds. Noxious weeds can provide 

less-effective watershed protection than 

native vegetation. Elimination of several 

acts prohibited by present and proposed 

regulations would have both short- and longterm negative effects in a limited number 

of locations, to the extent other primary 

enforcement authorities are an ineffective 

deterrent.

4.4.6 Air Quality

The effects of the implementation of 

Alternative Three would be similar to those 

described for the proposed action. The 

minor regulation differences do not create 

4-55
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

a measurable or describable difference in 

effects. 

4.4.7 Wildlife

The effects on wildlife species in 

Alternative Three are similar to those 

identified for the proposed regulations 

except as described here. 

Implementation of Changes in Grazing 

Use: Making the 5-year phase-in period 

discretionary rather than mandatory 

for any change in active use in excess of 

10% may result in the BLM being able to 

make changes on the ground more rapidly 

to benefit wildlife.

Basis for Rangeland Health 

Determinations: The ability of the BLM to 

base failed rangeland health determinations 

on a rangeland health assessment or 

monitoring data would be beneficial to 

wildlife. This change from Alternative Two 

would enhance the BLMʼs ability to take 

corrective action at the earliest date within 

existing funding and staffing capability. 

Temporary Nonuse: The proposal to limit 

BLMʼs ability to approve applications for 

nonuse to no more than 5 consecutive 

years may adversely affect wildlife. It 

may take more than 5 consecutive years to 

improve wildlife habitat to the desired state. 

However, mechanisms are in place to close 

areas to livestock grazing for longer than 5 

years if conditions warrant.

Prohibited Acts: The addition of the 

provision on weed seed-free forage, grain, 

straw, or mulch would have a beneficial effect 

on wildlife if it reduces the spread of noxious 

weeds. Removing the capability of the BLM 

to address violations of Federal or State laws 

(regulations pertaining to the placement of 

poisonous bait or hazardous devices designed 

for the destruction of wildlife; application 

or storage of pesticides, herbicides, or 

other hazardous materials; alteration or 

destruction of natural stream courses without 

authorization, or aiding and abetting in the 

illegal take, destruction, or harassment of fish 

and wildlife resources; and illegal removal 

or destruction of archaeological or cultural 

resources) that have been prosecuted removes 

a mechanism for protecting wildlife and 

special status species. Such acts would still 

be prosecuted by the appropriate Federal or 

State agency; however, after conviction, the 

permittee or lessee could not be additionally 

penalized by having the grazing permit or 

lease denied, suspended, or canceled. 

4.4.8 Special Status Species

The effects on special status species 

in Alternative Three are similar to those 

identified for the proposed regulations except 

for the elements described here. The effects 

on special status species are also similar to 

the effects of Alternative Three on wildlife 

species described in Section 4.4.7. 

Implementation of Changes in Grazing 

Use: Making the 5-year phase-in period 

discretionary rather than mandatory for 

any change in active use in excess of 10 

percent would provide more flexibility in 

protecting non-listed species and result in 

the BLM being able to make changes on the 

ground more rapidly to benefit special status 

species. Special status species would not be 

at risk from the potentially harmful delays 

in implementation of necessary conservation 

measures discussed under Alternative Two. 

Temporary Nonuse: The proposal to limit 

the BLMʼs ability to approve applications for 

nonuse to no more than 5 consecutive years 

may adversely affect special status species. It 

may take more than 5 consecutive years to 

improve special status species habitat to the 

desired state. However, if needed, the area 

could still be closed to livestock grazing for 

longer than 5 years if conditions warrant. 

Basis for Rangeland Health 

Determinations: The ability of the BLM to 

base failed rangeland health determinations 

4-56 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

on a rangeland health assessment with or 

without monitoring data would positively 

affect special status species. This flexibility 

would enhance the BLMʼs ability to take 

corrective action at the earliest date within 

existing funding and staffing capability. 

Prohibited Acts: The addition of the 

provision on weed seed-free forage, grain, 

straw, or mulch should have beneficial effects 

on special status species if doing so reduces 

the spread of noxious weeds. The concern 

for special status species on the proposal to 

eliminate some prohibited acts is the same 

as the concern for wildlife. There is no 

way to ascertain how having the capability 

to remove a rancher from the land has 

deterred illegal activities that can adversely 

affect special status species activities 

such as poisoning prairie dogs and ground 

squirrels; killing gray and Mexican wolves, 

grizzly bear, jaguars, and mountain lions; and 

others. 

4.4.9 Wild Horses and Burros

The effects on wild horses and burros 

in Alternative Three are identical to those 

discussed in Alternative Two, with the 

following exceptions:

Implementation of Changes in Grazing 

Use: Changes in active use in excess of 

10 percent in less than the 5-year phase-in 

period would be a benefit to the rangeland 

and the wild horses and burros that use it.

Prohibited Acts: The present regulations 

allow livestock operators to be cited for 

certain prohibited acts. The elimination 

of these prohibited acts would eliminate 

another deterrent if actions would be taken 

against a permittee or lessee. However, 

there are other regulatory mechanisms in 

place for enforcement of these acts, and 

the occurrences of permittees or lessees 

conducting these prohibited acts are rare.

4.4.10 Recreation

Overall, the effects on recreation from 

implementation of Alternative Three 

would be similar to those for Alternative 

Two. Slight differences are explained here, 

but are not considered noteworthy.

Prohibited Acts: Certain prohibited acts 

would be removed from the existing range 

regulations. Although the prohibited acts 

proposed for removal are activities that could 

diminish recreational opportunities, their 

removal would not be expected to affect 

recreation since those acts would continue to 

be prohibited in other regulations and laws.

This alternative would make the use 

of certified weed-free feed a requirement 

where established by the Authorized Officer. 

The recreational setting and opportunities 

for enjoyment of naturalness, wildlife 

observation, hunting, fishing, and access to 

recreational opportunities could be adversely 

affected by the introduction or spread of 

invasive species. This alternative would help 

protect the recreational setting by providing 

additional regulatory assistance in reducing 

the potential for noxious weed introduction. 

This alternative would be most evident 

on recreation permits and uses in special 

recreation areas, which are the most highly 

regulated and monitored.

4.4.11 Special Areas

Overall assumptions for all 

Alternatives: The BLM would base 

determinations and decisions resulting from 

the proposed action with full application 

of the originating proclamations, laws, and 

policies—whichever is appropriate—to 

determine implementation suitability. Special 

area mandates, including the preservation, 

protection, conservation, and enhancement 

of resources and other values and uses, must 

take priority over subordinate purposes.

4-57
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

Effects from the implementation of 

Alternative Three would be the same as those 

described for the proposed action. However, 

there are some slight differences in effects, as 

stated here.

Prohibited Acts: The provision includes 

failing to comply with the use of certified 

weed seed-free forage, grain, straw, or 

mulch, when required by the Authorized 

Officer. The regulation would provide a 

deterrent to the general public, including 

permittees or lessees, for introducing or 

spreading noxious weeds on public lands. 

BLM law enforcement rangers would 

have the authority to cite for the violation. 

Also, Alternative Three would remove 

provisions regarding prohibited acts related 

to violations of Federal or State laws 

pertaining to poisonous bait or hazardous 

devices, storage of hazardous materials, 

altering stream courses, water pollution, 

illegal take, destruction or harassment of 

fish or wildlife, and destruction or removal 

of cultural resources. Removing the above 

provisions would represent a potential loss 

of a deterrent for potential violators by 

eliminating punitive actions against grazing 

permits or leases. 

4.4.12 Heritage Resources: 

Paleontological and Cultural 

Resources (Properties)

Issues to be considered under Alternative 

Three, Modied Action, are the same as 

those for the proposed action except for 

slight modifications to four of the elements 

(temporary nonuse provision, 5-year phasein provision, rangeland health determination 

requirements, and prohibited acts). All of 

the previous changes or provisions that could 

have no affect on heritage resources would 

also have no affect under Alternative Three, 

including the slight modification in the 

temporary nonuse provision. Additionally, 

the provisions in Alternative Two that could 

affect heritage resources would also have an 

effect under Alternative Three.

New project developments will continue 

to be analyzed for effects on heritage 

resources on a case-by-case basis; for field 

office or district area wide planning efforts, 

the BLM addresses livestock grazing 

impacts at the land use planning or allotment 

management planning level. Cultural 

resource surveys precede management 

actions that could damage heritage resources 

(BLM Manual 8100, The Foundation for 

Managing Cultural Resources). Historic and 

prehistoric archaeological sites found during 

surveys would be protected in accordance 

with the National Historic Preservation Act 

of 1966 (revised) and other laws or executive 

orders as stated in the Code of Federal 

Regulations (36 CFR §800). Additionally, 

Tribal consultation begins as soon as possible 

in any case where it appears likely that the 

nature and/or location of the activity could 

affect Native American interests or concerns. 

Implementation of Changes in Grazing 

Use: Having the 5-year phase-in provision 

be discretionary rather than mandatory may 

allow added flexibility to the relationship 

between permittee or lessee and the BLM 

at the local level. Also, this provision could 

have both beneficial and adverse effects 

on heritage resources. With decreasing 

use, heritage resources could be subject to 

continued effects before the decision is fully 

implemented; alternatively, with increasing 

use, the delay could allow extra time to 

provide protection or data recovery of sites 

that may be affected by the change.

Basis for Rangeland Health 

Determinations: Changes to the provision 

of Rangeland Health Determinations may 

indirectly affect heritage resources by 

increasing workload because of site or 

locality monitoring data requirements.

4-58 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

Prohibited Acts: Changes may have a 

slight adverse effect on heritage resources. 

The elimination of the “illegal removal or 

destruction of archaeological or cultural 

resources” clause could hinder the BLMʼs 

ability to take action against the permittee 

or lessee in the form of withholding 

issuance, cancellation, or suspension of his 

or her permit or lease. However, it does 

not preclude the BLM from taking action 

against the permittee or lessee for violation 

of Federal law. Overall, this would have a 

minor affect on the BLMʼs ability to protect 

and manage cultural resources as required by 

the National Historic Preservation Act and 

the Archaeological Resources Protection Act.

4.4.13 Economic Conditions

The economic effects of 

Alternative Three would more closely 

resemble those under the Proposed Action, 

with the exception of three following 

provisions: 

Implementation of Changes in Grazing 

Use: Under Alternative Three, a 5-year 

phase-in of changes in use exceeding 10 

percent would be discretionary rather than 

mandatory. When the 5-year phase-in is 

used, the effects would be the same as under 

the Proposed Action. A phase-in period of 

less than 5 years may require permittees to 

make management adjustments more quickly 

than might be preferred by them. However, 

a shorter phase-in would accelerate 

improvements in range conditions which, in 

turn, may have a long-term beneficial effect 

on permitteesʼ operations.

Temporary Nonuse: Under Alternative 

Three, temporary nonuse could be 

annually approved for as long as 5 years. 

The economic effect of this would be 

somewhere between Present Management 

(where 3 consecutive years on nonuse may 

be approved) and the Proposed Action 

(where there are no limits on the number of 

consecutive years of approved nonuse). This 

provision offers an additional 2 consecutive 

years of nonuse, which would be a beneficial 

economic effect on permittees and would 

increase flexibility for both permittees and 

the BLM.

Basis for Rangeland Health 

Determinations: Under Alternative Three, 

the BLM would have discretion to use 

assessments or monitoring as a basis for 

failed rangeland health determinations. 

This differs from the Proposed Action, 

which requires that both assessments and 

monitoring be used. The provision would 

give the BLM greater flexibility than 

under the Proposed Action. All States 

now have some procedures for standards 

assessments and these may or may not also 

be accompanied by monitoring data when 

making determinations. Overall, greater 

flexibility to concentrate limited resources 

on priority allotments would affect the 

administrative costs or workloads of the 

BLM. The economic effect on permittees 

would primarily be that determinations might 

not be delayed and thus, proposed changes 

in use might occur earlier than under the 

Proposed Action.

4.4.14 Social Conditions

Basis for Rangeland Health 

Determinations: The proposed action could 

have minimal social effects on permittees 

and conservation and environmental groups 

by allowing the agency to choose to use 

either assessment or monitoring as a basis for 

determining range health. Both groups stated 

that they prefer monitoring to be the basis for 

important and controversial determinations 

of rangeland health. Choosing to use an 

assessment instead could force both groups 

to use their resources to conduct their own 

monitoring and to challenge the assessmentbased decisions on those grounds. No effects 

4-59
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

are expected on recreation groups (Table 

4.4.14.1). 

Temporary Nonuse: Minimal social 

effects are expected from this proposed 

action. 

Prohibited Acts: These deletions could 

have adverse social effects on conservation 

and environmental groups who see this as a 

reduction in prohibited acts that will allow 

further degradation of grazing allotments. 

They see direct effects in the threat that 

some of these actions present to the quality 

of their local environment. Recreation 

groups could experience similar effects if 

previously prohibited acts reduce the quality 

of their recreation experience. Both groups 

see these changes as potentially requiring 

that they acquire and expend additional 

resources over time to monitor and challenge 

the deleted activities on grazing allotments 

and as reducing their formal avenues for 

applying pressure on range managers to stop 

such activities. Permittees will experience 

minimal social effects. 

4.4.15 Environmental Justice

The environmental justice implications 

of the modified action alternative are 

substantially identical to that identified for 

the proposed regulations alternative.

4.5 Cumulative and Other 

Effects

The Regulations for Implementing 

the Procedural Provisions of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for 40 

CFR Parts 1500–1508 identify requirements 

for the Federal agencies to address the 

cumulative effects of proposed actions. 

Cumulative effects are defined as the effects 

on the environment resulting from the 

incremental effects of the action when 

added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions, regardless of what 

agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person 

undertakes such other actions. 

Table 4.4.14.1. Social effects of the modified action, alternative three.

Element Group Direct 

Effect

Indirect 

Effect

Cumulative 

Effect

Regional 

Differences

Likelihood of 

Occurrence

Implementation of 

Changes in Grazing 

Use

Permittees Minimal

Conservation & 

Environmental Minimal

Recreation Minimal

Basis for 

Rangeland Health 

Determinations

Permittees Minimal

Conservation & 

Environmental Minimal

Recreation Minimal

Temporary Nonuse

Permittees Minimal

Conservation & 

Environmental Minimal

Recreation Minimal

Source: Section 4.4.14, Final Environmental Impact Statement.

4-60 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

The scope of this proposed action and 

alternatives is very broad. The analysis 

of effects is therefore programmatic. Other 

broad-based initiatives and actions that are 

likely to contribute to cumulative effects are 

discussed below. In addition to the various 

programmatic actions, there will likely be 

regionally and locally based actions that will 

contribute to the cumulative effects. 

As indicated in Chapter 1, the BLM 

has initiated an effort to develop grazing 

policies that would promote sustainable 

rangeland and sustainable ranching. 

The purpose of this effort, known as the 

Sustaining Working Landscapes policy 

initiative, would be to improve the longterm health and productivity of the public 

lands through innovative partnerships with 

permittees and lessees within the present 

regulatory framework. Twenty-four public 

workshops were held on the policy initiative 

in spring 2003. In summer and fall 2003, 

policy options were considered by 21 BLM 

Resource Advisory Councils throughout the 

West and recommendations were submitte

d to the Director. All of this information is 

presently being reviewed. It was decided, 

however, that further action on the Sustaining 

Working Landscapes policy initiative would 

be deferred until comments had been received 

on the Proposed Rulemaking to amend 

the grazing regulations. It is reasonably 

foreseeable that policies would be developed 

and implemented over the next year to 

promote sustainable ranching and rangelands. 

However, it is not known at this time what 

the specifics of those policy proposals would 

be. It is likely that any policies that may 

be developed would focus on encouraging 

partnerships with permittees and lessees and 

others who may be interested in improving 

the health and productivity of the rangelands, 

as well as promoting mechanisms to facilitate 

more efficient ranching operations. The 

policy emphasis, therefore, will generally 

complement the objectives of the proposed 

regulatory amendments. 

The Healthy Forests and Initiative 

and the National Fire Plan have also been 

identified as programmatic level policies that 

will affect rangelands. Both of these 

initiatives are collaborative efforts with 

all stakeholders to reduce the potential for 

devastating wildland fires. These efforts 

focus on improving the health of both forests 

and rangelands; it is reasonable to assume 

that over time rangelands would experience 

increasing positive benefit from these efforts. 

In addition, there are projects which train 

and equip ranchers to be qualified to assist 

in fire suppression and fuels treatment 

projects. These efforts promote partnership 

and cooperation with permittees and lessees 

in achieving mutually beneficial objectives.

Another initiative under way is the 

development of a programmatic Vegetation 

Treatment EIS. The goals of the Vegetation 

Treatment program are to manage vegetation 

to sustain the condition of healthy lands and, 

where land conditions have degraded, to 

restore vegetation to more healthy conditions. 

The vegetation treatment program, which 

covers a variety of vegetation treatment 

options and best management practices, 

will also complement the objectives of this 

Proposed Rulemaking.

A third critical initiative is the BLM 

Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation 

Strategy. The primary goal of this strategy 

is to help address the precipitous population 

decline of the sage-grouse, a species under 

consideration for Federal listing under the 

ESA, through a comprehensive habitat 

conservation strategy. Today, the BLM 

manages more than 50% of the remaining 

sage-grouse habitat. The strategy is a sagegrouse rangewide effort that involves a 

diverse group of cooperators, including 

multiple Federal, State, and Tribal agencies, 

as well as special interest groups and 

4-61
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 4

Environmental Consequences

private landowners. Appropriate and timely 

conservation measures for sage-grouse are 

critical for preventing further population 

declines and ESA listing of the species. 

Conserving and improving habitat for 

native species such as sage-grouse are part 

of the objectives of improving rangeland 

health through better use of the Four 

Cʼs. Therefore, the Sage Grouse Habitat 

Conservation Strategy is expected to 

complement the objectives of this Proposed 

Rulemaking.

Policies and procedures for promoting 

the Secretaryʼs Four Cʼs—consultation, 

cooperation, and communication all in the 

service of conservation—are also being 

developed. One of the purposes of this 

rulemaking is to improve working relations 

with our permittees and lessees, an important 

component in support of the Four Cʼs 

philosophy. 

In summary, the other related programs 

now being initiated or contemplated will 

cumulatively enhance and increase the 

positive outcomes and effects anticipated 

from this proposed rulemaking. 

There are no irreversible or irretrievable 

commitments of resources directly resulting 

from the proposed regulation changes nor are 

there any projected discernable effects from 

short-term uses on long-term productivity 

of resources arising from this proposed 

rulemaking. 

Most of the proposed regulatory changes 

have little or no adverse impacts on the 

human environment. Some short-term 

adverse effects may not be avoided because 

of increases in timeframes associated 

with several components of this proposed 

rulemaking, including the requirement for 

a 5-year phase-in of changes in use of over 

10 percent, the requirement for monitoring 

before making a determination that livestock 

grazing is the causal factor for failure to 

meet standards and conform to guidelines, 

and the extension of time allowed before a 

decision must be made after a determination 

that livestock grazing is the causal factor 

for failure to meet standards and conform 

to guidelines for grazing administration. 

However, better and more sustainable 

decisions would be developed by using 

monitoring data in analyzing achievement 

of standards and by taking the time to 

carefully develop, formulate, and analyze the 

appropriate action and ensuring that all legal 

and consultation requirements are satisfied. In 

the long-term, it is expected that the effects 

of these provisions would be beneficial to 

rangeland health. 

Mitigation measures are addressed 

in the development of Alternative Three. 

Additional mitigation measures would be 

appropriately developed when site-specific 

NEPA documents are prepared to implement 

the regulatory provisions.

4-62 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

Chapter 5

Public Participation, 

Consultation, Coordination, 

and Response to Comments

5-1

Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

Chapter 5 Table of Contents

5.0 Consultation and Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5

5.1 Public Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5

 5.1.1 Scoping Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5

 5.1.2 Summary of Scoping Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6

5.2 Consultation and Coordination Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6

 5.2.1 Tribal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6

 5.2.2 Threatened and Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7

 5.2.3 Cultural and Historic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7

5.3 List of Preparers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7

 5.3.1 Draft EIS Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7

 5.3.2 Comment Coding Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-11

 5.3.3 Comment Review and Response Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-12

 5.3.4 EIS - Core Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15

5.4 Response to General Public Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-16

 5.4.1 The Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-16

 5.4.2 General Opposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-20

 5.4.3 Purpose and Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-23

 5.4.4 Range of Alternatives Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-29

 5.4.5 Affected Environment and Impact Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-32

 5.4.6 Definitions Changes and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-43

 5.4.7 Documentation of Social, Economic and Cultural Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-48

 5.4.8 Active Use Definition, Increases, and Decreases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-51

 5.4.9 Phasing in Changes in Active Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-60

 5.4.10 Range Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-62

 5.4.11 Cooperation with Governments, Advisory Boards, and Other Agencies . . . . 5-66

 5.4.12 Temporary Nonuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-71

 5.4.13 Fundamentals of Rangeland Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-75

 5.4.14 Basis for Rangeland Health Determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-77

 5.4.15 Timeframe for Taking Action to Meet Rangeland Health Standards . . . . . . . 5-82

 5.4.16 Rangeland Health Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-85

 5.4.17 Conservation Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-87

 5.4.18 Grazing Preference and Suspension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-88

 5.4.19 Definition and Role of the Interested Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-94

 5.4.20 Land Use Planning and Grazing Retirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-98

 5.4.21 Water Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-102

 5.4.22 Qualifications, Applications, Service Charges, and 

 Satisfactory Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-104

 5.4.23 Grazing Permits and Leases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-112

 5.4.24 Terms and Conditions of Permits or Leases, and Administrative Access . . 5-114

 5.4.25 Modification of Permits or Leases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-119

 5.4.26 Temporary Changes in Grazing Use Within Terms and 

 Conditions of Permit or Lease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-121

5-3
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

 5.4.27 Nonrenewable Grazing Permits and Leases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-123

 5.4.28 Prohibited Acts, Settlement, and Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-124

 5.4.29 Proposed and Final Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-129

 5.4.30 Administrative Appeals, Stays of Appeals, and Judicial Matters . . . . . . . . . 5-131

 5.4.31 Grazing Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-135

 5.4.32 Reserve Common Allotments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-141

 5.4.33 Stewardship Incentives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-141

 5.4.34 Exchange-of-Use Grazing Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-142

 5.4.35 Miscellaneous Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-142

5-4 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

Chapter 5 contains a summary of the 

public participation process, consultation and 

coordination with other Federal agencies on 

this rulemaking and responses to comments 

on the draft EIS. Also incorporated in this 

section is a list of preparers for the draft and 

final EIS.

Changes in Chapter 5 include the 

following:

• Update of information:

o 5.1 Public Participation – Updated 

information on process and 

incorporated by reference the brief 

summary of scoping comments that 

were set forth in the draft EIS in 

Section 5.1.2

o 5.2.1 Tribal - Provided updated 

information on Tribal consultation 

process

o 5.2.2 Threatened and Endangered 

Species – Provided update on 

determination of no effect

o 5.3 List of Preparers – Updated list 

to include individuals who assisted 

in coding comments, reviewing 

and analyzing comments, preparing 

responses to comments and revising/

preparing the final EIS.

• Additional information:

o 5.4 Response to Comments – Based 

on comments received the draft EIS, 

incorporated summary comment 

statements and responses by category.

5.0 Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

5.1 Public Participation

As described in Chapter 1, the EIS public 

participation process consists of several 

phases. Public participation begins with 

scoping, which is conducted to help identify 

issues and alternatives before the proposed 

action and alternatives have been developed. 

Information gathered during scoping is 

analyzed and used in determining the issues 

to be addressed and the alternatives to be 

presented in detail in the draft EIS.

The draft EIS is subject to further public 

review and comment during the 60-day 

public comment period. Public meetings 

are held during the comment period on the 

draft, allowing individuals to present oral 

comments on the draft. After the comment 

period, a final EIS is developed that 

responds to comments received on the draft 

and incorporates, as appropriate, changes in 

the proposed action, as well as the analysis of 

effects.

Including public involvement throughout 

the process ensures that the process is open 

and considers information from all interested 

parties, including other Federal agencies, 

state and local governments, the scientific 

community, professional organizations, 

public land users, conservation organizations, 

and citizens at large.

5.1.1 Scoping Process

The BLM published an Advance Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) and Notice 

of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS in the 

Federal Register on March 3, 2003. These 

notices requested public comment to assist 

the BLM in the scoping process for both the 

proposed rule and associated draft EIS. The 

5-5
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

comment period for both ended on May 2, 

2003.

In the Notice of Intent to prepare the 

EIS, the BLM stated that it was considering 

changes to the present rule and establishing 

new options for BLM and rangeland users in 

the administration and management of public 

land. Comments were requested on topics 

under consideration that were related to both 

the EIS and the proposed rule. Copies of 

the ANPR and NOI were published in the 

draft EIS in Appendix D and Appendix E, 

respectively, and are incorporated herein by 

reference..

The BLM held four public scoping 

meetings during March 2003. Approximately 

60 people attended the Billings, Montana, 

meeting (March 18) and 23 people offered 

testimony. Around 200 people attended the 

Reno, Nevada, meeting (March 20) and 25 

offered testimony. Approximately 50 people 

attended the Albuquerque, New Mexico, 

meeting (March 25) with 27 individuals 

providing testimony, and approximately 

25 people attended the Washington, D.C., 

meeting (March 27), with testimony provided 

by 5 individuals.

5.1.2 Summary of Scoping 

Comments

The BLM received more than 8,300 

comments during scoping in response to the 

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 

the Notice of Intent. Most of the comments 

were form letters; however, at least three 

dozen letters containing substantive 

comments from special interest organizations 

and state and Federal agencies were received. 

In addition, many substantive comments were 

provided orally at the public meetings. 

The comments have been 

categorized into five topics: A) Definition 

changes. B) Changes in the regulations to 

clarify present requirements and to allow 

better rangeland management and permit 

administration. C) Amendments related to 

changes in permitted use. D) New provisions 

to the regulations. E) General comments not 

addressed in the ANPR and NOI. A brief 

summary of the public comments by these 

topics was presented in the draft EIS and is 

incorporated herein by reference.

A more complete summary of the scoping 

comments is found in Appendix C. 

5.2 Consultation and 

Coordination Actions

5.2.1 Tribal

The Bureau of Land Management 

works on a government-to-government 

basis with Native American Tribes. As 

a part of the governmentʼs Treaty and 

Trust responsibilities, the governmentto-government relationship was formally 

recognized by the Federal government on 

November 6, 2000, with Executive Order 

13175.

The BLM coordinates and consults with 

Tribal governments, Native communities, 

and Tribal individuals whose interests might 

be directly and substantially affected by 

activities on BLM-administered lands. The 

BLM strives to provide the Tribes sufficient 

opportunities for productive participation in 

BLM planning and resource management 

decision making.

The BLM contacted Tribal government 

representatives for input into the grazing 

rulemaking and draft EIS. It began with 

the initiation of the public scoping process. 

Issues raised by Tribal governments, Tribal 

entities and Native American individuals 

during meetings and received in letters were 

considered in the development of the draft 

EIS and proposed rule.

5-6 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

Once the draft EIS and proposed rule 

was ready for release and public review, 

including review by Tribal governments, 

more than 300 Tribes west of the Mississippi 

River, excluding Alaska, were sent a letter 

soliciting their comments to the draft EIS 

and proposed rule. Enclosed was a copy of 

the draft EIS and proposed rule on a compact 

disk and Web site information for finding 

the documents on the Internet. We received 

comments from the Agua Caliente Band of 

Cahuilla Indians, the Pueblo of Laguna, the 

Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, 

the Confederated Salish and Kootenai 

Tribes, the Mescalero Apache Tribe, and the 

Shoshone-Paiute Tribes. 

5.2.2 Threatened and Endangered 

Species

BLM evaluated the regulatory changes 

to determine if candidate, proposed or 

listed species and Critical Habitat would 

be affected. A determination was made 

that the regulatory changes would have no 

effect on candidate, proposed, threatened 

or endangered species, or designated or 

proposed Critical Habitat. 

Before grazing permits are issued, 

the appropriate BLM Office will review 

the adequacy of existing environmental 

analyses and determine if candidate, 

proposed, threatened or endangered species 

or designated or proposed Critical Habitat 

within the proposed permit or lease area 

may be affected. If adverse effects are likely, 

a formal Section 7 consultation will be 

conducted with FWS or NOAA, Fisheries. 

5.2.3 Cultural and Historic

Before authorizing surface disturbance 

undertakings at the regional or local level, 

the BLM will identify cultural properties 

eligible for inclusion in the National Register 

of Historic Places and consider the effects 

of the proposed undertakings through the 

consultation process in Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.

In accordance with BLMʼs national 

Programmatic Agreement with the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation and the 

National Conference of State Historic 

Preservation officers in 1997, the BLM 

provides the Council information concerning 

prospects for regulations. In December of 

2003, the BLM sent a letter to the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation notifying 

them of the proposed grazing regulation 

changes including a brief synopsis of 

the goals and objectives of the regulatory 

changes and information on where to find the 

current regulations for their review. Upon its 

release, the draft EIS was sent to the Council 

for their review.

Any new projects developed under the 

changed regulations would be analyzed for 

effects on cultural resources on a case-bycase basis; all applicable laws, executive 

orders, regulations, and manual requirements 

and procedures for identification, protection 

and utilization of, and consultation on 

cultural resources will be followed.

5.3 List of Preparers

5.3.1 Draft EIS Team

Bob Alexander

Rangeland Management Specialist

New Mexico State Office (BLM)

B.S., Range Science

New Mexico State University

Steven J. Borchard

Acting Group Manager, Rangeland, Soils, 

Water and Air Group

Washington Office (BLM)

B.S., Soil and Water Science

University of California, Davis

5-7
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

Molly S. Brady

Project Manager, Sustaining Working 

Landscapes Initiative

Washington Office (BLM)

B.A., Natural Resource Economics

George Washington University

Bill Brookes

Hydrologist, Soil, Water, and Air Program 

Leader

Nevada State Office (BLM)

B.S., Forest Management

Humboldt State University

M.S., Watershed Management

Humboldt State University

Miles Brown

Invasive Species Coordinator

Oregon State Office (BLM)

B.S., Range Management

University of Arizona

Frank Bruno

Regulatory Analyst

Washington Office (BLM)

B.A., Journalism

San Jose State University

Erick G. Campbell

Wildlife Program Leader

Nevada State Office (BLM)

B.S., Wildlife Management

Humboldt State University

M.S., Wildlife Management

Humboldt State University

John R. Christensen

Field Manager 

Kingman Field Office, Arizona (BLM)

B.S., Forestry

Utah State University

Wendy Favinger

Economist/Program Analyst

Montana State Office (BLM)

B.A., Economics

University of Nevada

M.A., Economics

University of Nevada

Leonard Gore, Jr.

Geographer

Washington Office (BLM) 

B.S., Geography 

North Carolina Central University 

M.S., Geography

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Deborah K. Harris, ELS

Editor

National Science and Technology Center, 

Denver, Colorado (BLM)

B.M.E., Education

University of Kansas

Michael R. Holbert

Senior Rangeland Management Specialist

Washington Office (BLM)

B.S., Range and Forest Management

Colorado State University

Jennifer Kapus

Cover Graphics

Visual Information Specialist

National Science and Technology Center, 

Denver, Colorado (BLM)

B.F.A., Graphic Art

University of Colorado

Richard Mayberry

Rangeland Management Specialist

Washington Office (BLM)

B.S., Range Management

Washington State University

5-8 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

Heather Mansfield

Wildlife Biologist, Threatened and 

Endangered Species

Washington Office (BLM)

B.S., Zoology

University of Maryland

M.S., Biology

James Madison University

Thomas G. Miles

Rangeland Management Specialist

Idaho State Office (BLM)

B.S., Wildlife Management

Humboldt State University

Carol-Anne Murray

Cultural Resource Specialist

Lander, Wyoming (BLM)

B.A., Anthropology

University of California–Los Angeles

M.A., Anthropology

University of Wyoming

Benjamin M. Simon

Economist

Office of Policy Analysis, U.S. Department 

of the Interior

B.S., Economics

Grinnell College

M.S., Natural Resource Policy

University of Michigan

M.P.P. Public Policy

University of Michigan

Ph.D. Public Policy

George Washington University

James Sippel

Wilderness Planner

Las Vegas (Nevada) Field Office (BLM)

B.A., Liberal Arts

Prescott College, Arizona

M.A., Interdisciplinary Studies: Forestry, 

Range, Environmental Policy

Oregon State University

Mary Beth Stulz

Land Use & Environmental Planning 

Specialist/ePlanning Specialist

National Science & Technology Center 

(BLM)

B.S., Wildlife Science

New Mexico State University

Jay Thompson

Fisheries Biologist/Riparian Coordinator

Colorado State Office (BLM)

B.S., Water Resources Management

University of Maryland

M.S., Fishery and Wildlife Biology

Colorado State University

Todd D. Thompson

District Wildlife Biologist

Spokane District, Washington (BLM)

B.S., Wildlife Resources

University of Idaho

Ken Visser

Rangeland Management Specialist

Washington Office (BLM)

B.S., Conservation of Natural Resources

University of California–Berkeley

Beatrice A. Wade

Wild Horse and Burro Specialist

Reno, Nevada (BLM)

B.S., Wildlife Management-Forestry-Range 

Management

University of Florida

Ryan Whiteaker

Fuels Program Manager

Las Cruces (New Mexico) Field Office 

(BLM)

B.S., Wildlife Science

New Mexico State University

5-9
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

Jeff Wilbanks

Outdoor Recreation Planner

Gila Box Riparian National Conservation 

Area, Safford, Arizona (BLM)

B.S., Wildland Recreation Management

University of Idaho

B.S., Physical Education

University of Mississippi

Rob Winthrop

Senior Social Scientist

Washington Office (BLM)

B.A., Anthropology

University of California-Berkeley

Ph.D., Anthropology

University of Minnesota

MIPP, International Policy

George Washington University

Todd D. Yeager

Rangeland Management Specialist

Miles City Field Office, Montana (BLM)

B.S., Agriculture Education

Texas Tech University

M.S., Rangeland Ecology and Watershed 

Management, Water Resources Option 

University of Wyoming

William G. Ypsilantis

Soil Condition and Health Specialist

National Science and Technology Center, 

Denver, Colorado (BLM)

M.S., Forest Soils

University of Idaho

Consultants

Social Impact Assessment

Assistance Agreement

University of Idaho, Neil Rimbey,

Project Manager

Department of Agricultural Economics

and Rural Sociology

Aaron Harp

Principal Investigator

Ypsilanti, Michigan

B.A., Economics

California State University, Sacramento

M.S., Agricultural Economics

Pennsylvania State University

Ph.D., Rural Sociology

Pennsylvania State University

Economic Analysis Assistance Agreement

Museum of Northern Arizona

Sonny Kuhr

Project Lead

Contract Science Manager

M.N.A., Environmental Solutions

B.A., Biology-Environmental Science

University of Montana

Yeon-Su Kim

Economist

M.N.A., Environmental Solutions

B.S. and M.S., Forestry

Seoul National University

Ph.D., Forest Resources

Oregon State University 

Norm Lowe

Rangeland Consultant

EcoResults! Inc.

B.S., Range Management

University of Arizona

John D. Groesbeck

Economist

B.A., Political Science

Boise State University

M.S.S., Economic/Management

Utah State University

Ph.D., Economics

Utah State University

5-10 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

5.3.2 Comment Coding Team

Molly S. Brady

Project Manager, Sustaining Working 

Landscapes Initiative

Washington D.C. (BLM)

B.A., Natural Resource Economics

George Washington University

Frank Bruno

Regulatory Analyst

Washington D.C. (BLM)

B.A., Journalism

San Jose State University

Robert Dow

Program Analyst

Salt Lake City, Utah (US Forest Service)

M.S., Geology

University of Iowa

PhD., Philosophy

University of Utah

Deborah K. Harris, ELS

Editor

National Science and Technology Center, 

Denver, Colorado (BLM)

B.M.E., Education

University of Kansas

Ted R. Hudson

Regulatory Analyst

Washington, D.C. (BLM)

B.A. in Government

Cornell University

J.D., University of Maryland School of Law

Max Lockwood

Project Manager—Management Research in 

Customer Satisfaction

Washington D.C. (BLM)

Gabrielle K. Renshaw

Content Analysis Specialist

Content Analysis Team

Salt Lake City, Utah (U.S. Forest Service)

B.A., Environmental Studies

University of Nevada, Las Vegas

M.A., Communication Studies

University of Nevada, Las Vegas

Adam Shaw

Content Analysis Specialist

Content Analysis Team

Salt Lake City, Utah (U.S. Forest Service)

B.S., Geography

University of Utah

Jim Stovall

Supervisory Natural Resource Specialist

Las Cruces Field Office, New Mexico (BLM)

B.S., Range Science 

New Mexico State University

Mary Beth Stulz

Land Use & Environmental Planning 

Specialist/ePlanning Specialist

National Science & Technology Center, 

Denver, Colorado (BLM)

B.S., Wildlife Science

New Mexico State University

Cindy Underwood

Program Analyst

Content Analysis Team

Salt Lake City, Utah (U.S. Forest Service)

Beatrice A. Wade

Wild Horse and Burro Specialist

Reno, Nevada (BLM)

B.S., Wildlife Management–Forestry–Range 

Management

University of Florida

5-11
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

BLM Comment Processing Support

Holly Boyd, Denver, CO 

Amy Grosch, Denver, CO

Cheryl Hodges, Denver, CO

Colleen Noble, Denver, CO

Kathy Pino, Denver, CO

Luron Porter, Denver, CO

Contract Services

Northrop Grumman Mission Systems

Gonzales Consulting Services

5.3.3 Comment Review and 

Response Team

Bob Alexander

Rangeland Management Specialist

New Mexico State Office (BLM)

B.S., Range Science

New Mexico State University

Francis Berg

Assistant Field Manager

Redding Field Office, California (BLM)

A.A. (Greatest Distinction, Alpha Gamma 

Sigma) 

Riverside Community College

A.B., Anthropology

University of California at Riverside (Highest 

Honors, Phi Beta Kappa)

Graduate studies in Environmental 

Administration and Archaeology

University of California at Riverside

Steven J. Borchard

Acting Group Manager, Rangeland, Soils, 

Water and Air Group

Washington D.C. (BLM)

B.S., Soil and Water Science

University of California, Davis

Molly S. Brady

Project Manager, Sustaining Working 

Landscapes Initiative

Washington D.C. (BLM)

B.A., Natural Resource Economics

George Washington University

Bill Brookes

Hydrologist, Soil, Water, and Air Program 

Leader

Nevada State Office (BLM)

B.S., Forest Management

Humboldt State University

M.S., Watershed Management

Humboldt State University

Frank Bruno

Regulatory Analyst

Washington D.C. (BLM)

B.A., Journalism

San Jose State University

Steve Christensen

Rangeland Management Specialist

Malheur Resource Area (BLM)

B.S., Rangeland Management

Oregon State University

Bruce S. Cotterill

Rangeland Management Specialist

Hollister Field Office, California (BLM)

B.S., Forestry and Rangeland Management

U.C. Berkeley

Robert Dow

Program Analyst

Content Analysis Team

Salt Lake City, Utah (US Forest Service)

M.S., Geology

University of Iowa

PhD., Philosophy

University of Utah

5-12 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

Wendy Favinger

Economist/Program Analyst

Idaho State Office (BLM)

B.A., Economics

University of Nevada

M.A., Economics

University of Nevada

Lin D. Fehlmann

Arizona Water Rights Specialist

Phoenix, Arizona (BLM)

B.S. Secondary Education Biology

University of Maryland

Jack Hamby

Natural Resource Specialist

Washington D.C. (BLM)

B.S. - With Distinction, Natural Resource 

Management emphasis in Range 

Management

University of Nevada, Reno

Deborah K. Harris

Editor

National Science and Technology Center, 

Denver, Colorado (BLM)

B.M.E., Education

University of Kansas

Ted R. Hudson

Regulatory Analyst

Washington, D.C. (BLM)

B.A. in Government

Cornell UniversityJ.D., 

University of Maryland School of Law

Dean Huibregtsel

Rangeland Management Specialist

Coeur dʼAlene District, Cottonwood Field 

Office (BLM)

B.S., Range Management

Washington State University

Signa Larralde

Planning and Environmental Coordinator

Santa Fe, New Mexico (BLM)

Ph.D., Anthropology

University of New Mexico

W. Craig Mackinnon

Range Management Specialist

Portland, Oregon (BLM)

B.S., Range Management and 

B.S., Botany

Humboldt State University

Richard Mayberry

Rangeland Management Specialist

Washington D.C. (BLM)

B.S., Range Management

Washington State University

Bill Merhege

Lead Wildlife Management Biologist

Las Cruces Field Office, New Mexico (BLM)

Thomas G. Miles

Rangeland Management Specialist

Idaho State Office (BLM)

B.S., Wildlife Management

Humboldt State University

Diana Miller

Rangeland Management Specialist

Shoshone Field Office, Idaho (BLM)

B.S., Range Management

University of Idaho

Andrea Minor

Range Management Specialist

Craig Field Office, Colorado (BLM)

B.S., Renewable Natural Resources

University of Nevada-Reno

5-13
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

Carol-Anne Murray

Cultural Resource Specialist

Lander Field Office, Wyoming (BLM)

B.A., Anthropology

University of California–Los Angeles

M.A., Anthropology

University of Wyoming

Doug Powell

Rangeland Management Specialist (Society 

for Range Management Liaison)

SRM Office, Denver, Colorado

Gina Ramos

Senior Weeds Specialist

Washington, D.C. (BLM)

B.S. Range Science

New Mexico State University

M.B.A., Business Administration

University of Phoenix

James Renthal

Natural Resources Specialist 

Washington D.C. (BLM)

B.A., Psychology

University of Chicago

M.S., Watershed Management

University of Arizona

Pamela Schuller

Environmental Specialist

Salt Lake Field Office, Utah (BLM)

B.S., Range Science

Wildlife Management Option

Utah State University

James Sipple

Wilderness Planner

Las Vegas Field Office, Nevada (BLM)

B.A., Liberal Arts

Prescott College, Arizona

M.A., Interdisciplinary Studies: Forestry, 

Range, Environmental Policy

Oregon State University

Roy E. Smith

Water Rights Specialist

Colorado State Office (BLM)

B.S., Biology and Communication

Lewis & Clark College, Portland, Oregon

M.S., Natural Resource Management

University of Michigan

Alan Stein

Deputy District Manager, Resources

California Desert District Office (BLM)

B.S., Biology

Delaware Valley College, Doylestown, PA

M.S., Biology 

West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV

Jim Stovall

Supervisory Natural Resource Specialist

Las Cruces Field Office, New Mexico (BLM)

B.S., Range Science 

New Mexico State University

Mary Beth Stulz

Land Use & Environmental Planning 

Specialist/ePlanning Specialist

National Science & Technology Center, 

Denver, Colorado (BLM)

B.S., Wildlife Science

New Mexico State University

Jay Thompson

Fisheries Biologist/Riparian Coordinator

Colorado State Office (BLM)

B.S., Water Resources Management

University of MarylandM.S., Fishery and 

Wildlife Biology

Colorado State University

Ken Visser

Rangeland Management Specialist

Washington D.C. (BLM)

B.S., Conservation of Natural Resources

University of California–Berkeley

5-14 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

David Whitaker

Rangeland Management Specialist

Fillmore, Utah (BLM)

B.S., Biology Composite

Southern Utah University

M.S. Range Science

Utah State University

Ryan Whiteaker

Fuels Program Manager

Las Cruces Field Office, New Mexico (BLM)

B.S., Wildlife Science

New Mexico State University

Jeff Wilbanks

Outdoor Recreation Planner

Safford Field Office, Arizona (BLM)

B.S., Physical Education

University of Mississippi

B.S., Wildland Recreation Management, 

University of Idaho

Robert Winthrop

Senior Social Scientist

Washington D.C. (BLM)

B.A., Anthropology

University of California–Berkeley

Ph.D., Anthropology

University of Minnesota

MIPP, International Policy

George Washington University

Todd D. Yeager

Rangeland Management Specialist

Miles City Field Office, Montana (BLM)

B.S., Agriculture Education

Texas Tech University

M.S., Rangeland Ecology and Watershed 

Management, Water Resources Option 

University of Wyoming

William G. Ypsilantis

Soil Condition and Health Specialist

National Science and Technology Center, 

Denver, Colorado (BLM)

M.S., Forest Soils

University of Idaho

5.3.4 EIS - Core Team

Steven J. Borchard

Acting Group Manager, Rangeland, Soils, 

Water and Air Group

Washington D.C. (BLM)

B.S., Soil and Water Science

University of California, Davis

Molly S. Brady

Project Manager, Sustaining Working 

Landscapes Initiative

Washington D.C. (BLM)

B.A., Natural Resource Economics

George Washington University

E.Lynn Burkett

Management Analyst

Washington D.C. (BLM)

B.S., Recreation Management and 

Administration

Texas A&M, 

M.P.A., Masters in Public Administration 

Golden Gate University

Travis Haby

Rangeland Ecologist

Washington D.C. detailed to Denver (BLM)

B.S., Rangeland Ecology & Management

Texas A&M University

M.S., Rangeland Ecology & Management

Texas A&M University

J.D., University of Colorado Law School

5-15
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

Deborah K. Harris, ELS

Editor

National Science and Technology Center, 

Denver, Colorado (BLM)

B.M.E., Education

University of Kansas

Ted R. Hudson

Regulatory Analyst

Washington, D.C. (BLM)

B.A. in Government

Cornell University

J.D., University of Maryland School of Law

Jennifer Kapus

Final Page Design and Layout

Visual Information Specialist

National Science and Technology Center, 

Denver, Colorado (BLM)

B.F.A., Graphic Art

University of Colorado

Alan Stein

Deputy District Manager, Resources

California Desert District Office (BLM)

B.S., Biology

Delaware Valley College, Doylestown, PA

M.S., Biology 

West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV

Mary Beth Stulz

Land Use & Environmental Planning 

Specialist/ePlanning Specialist

National Science & Technology Center, 

Denver, Colorado (BLM)

B.S., Wildlife Science

New Mexico State University

Ken Visser

Rangeland Management Specialist

Washington D.C. (BLM)

B.S., Conservation of Natural Resources

University of California–Berkeley

5.4 Response to Comments

The extended comment period on 

the proposed rule and DEIS ended on 

March 2, 2004. We received more than 

18,000 comment letters and electronic 

communications. An exact count of the 

comments is not available because of the 

large amount of duplication among the 

comments; very often a single individual or 

entity submitted identical comments multiple 

times or via different media. We did not 

attempt to keep track of all the duplications, 

although we observed many. . 

In this section, we provide summary 

comment statements of the substantive 

comments on the proposed rule and the 

draft EIS and responses to those comments. 

We received a large number of comments 

that supported or opposed the proposed 

regulations in general terms. We have 

not attempted to respond to these general 

expressions of support or opposition. The 

comments are organized by subject and 

presented in groups that address a theme 

on the subject. Similar comments have 

been grouped together into themes and are 

addressed with a single response.

5.4.1 The Process

Comment: Some comments addressed 

the regulatory process itself. One comment 

urged the BLM to clarify when comments 

are due by specifying a date and time, 

including time zone, stating that they find it 

uncertain when the exact comment deadline 

is in the electronic age. Another comment 

stated that the BLM should not ignore 

comments received from the public during 

the rulemaking process.

Response: We always accept comments 

postmarked or electronically dated within the 

stated comment period, regardless of the time 

zone of origin. In future proposed rules, we 

5-16 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

will make this clearer. We received almost 

18,000 letters, postcards, e-mails, faxes, and 

web-based comments on the proposed rule 

and the DEIS, and statements made at the 

public meetings, and the BLM staff reviewed 

every comment numerous times. 

We have responded to comments on the 

content of the proposed rule and the DEIS 

in either the final rule or the EIS, or both. In 

some cases, we responded with a change in 

the regulatory text, and in others with revised 

or additional language in the EIS. In other 

cases, we have tried to explain why we did 

not adopt the comment. Since we received 

so many communications to analyze, we 

have not attempted to respond separately 

to every duplicate or substantially similar 

communication individually, and not all 

suggestions in the comments are adopted. 

We often receive conflicting comments 

from the public. Opinions regarding the 

rule, especially suggestions to amend the 

language, were considered by the BLM in 

preparing the regulatory changes. We discuss 

in this EIS or we will discuss in the preamble 

of the final rule every discrete suggestion and 

argument raised in the comments. 

Those comments that appeared in form 

letters or that were expressed multiple times 

in multiple ways have been addressed in 

a response to a prototypical example of 

each such communication, or have been 

summarized and responded to as a general 

comment.

Comment: One comment stated that the 

BLM should have answered questions at the 

public meetings to help clarify the proposed 

rule.

Response: During the public meetings, 

the BLM sought direction from the audience 

on other possible policy issues or regulation 

changes that we should consider for 

implementation. The BLM did not want to 

influence the audience or limit the possible 

discussion during the meetings. 

Comment: One comment stated that the 

BLM should give more weight to comments 

and concerns from the agricultural industry 

than those from other interests. Another 

stated that the Public Lands Council 

comments should be the first guide in 

amending the grazing regulations.

Response: The BLM considered all 

substantive and relevant comments from 

the public equally on their merits, whether 

they were from industry, other government 

agencies, staff comments, academia, other 

interest groups, or individuals. 

Comment: Some comments stated that 

the BLM should not have released the DEIS 

nearly one month after publication of the 

proposed rule and gave three reasons. The 

comments reasoned that the one month delay 

indicated that it was a rationalization of the 

rule, indicated that BLM did not take a hard 

look at the environmental consequences as 

required by NEPA and that BLM should have 

issued the rule and DEIS simultaneously as 

required by NEPA and CEQ. 

Response: Although the Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations at 40 CFR 

1502.5(d) require that the DEIS normally accompany 

the proposed rule, the proposed rule publication 

schedule was accelerated to coincide with an 

opportunity to announce the event publicly, 

resulting in a time gap prior to the publication 

of the EIS. Staff schedules and office closure 

during the holiday season in November and 

December also contributed to the delay. 

The analysis of environmental effects was 

completed prior to the publication of the 

proposed rule. This EIS documents in a broad 

way the environmental effects that would 

result from the proposed regulatory changes 

in several individual administrative steps 

in the overall process of managing grazing 

on public lands. Therefore the analysis is 

necessarily broad, and the environmental 

elements and the potential effects of the 

proposed regulatory changes are described 

5-17
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

in a general context in Chapter 4 of this 

EIS. The BLM is not aware of any absolute 

requirement to publish the DEIS and 

proposed rule simultaneously. 

Comment: The BLM should not 

implement the proposed rule because it 

will result in failure of the BLM to act as 

trustee of the environment for succeeding 

generations. BLMʼs implementation of the 

proposed regulations will not meet at least 

3 of the 6 substantive obligations listed in 

Section 101(b) of NEPA. The first element is: 

Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation 

as trustee of the environment for succeeding 

generations. The second element is: Assure 

for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, 

and aesthetically and culturally pleasing 

surroundings. The third element is: Attain 

the widest range of beneficial uses of the 

environment without degradation, risk to 

health or safety, or other undesirable and 

unintended consequences. Portions of the 

rule will result in failure of the BLM to act as 

trustee of the environment by implementing 

regulations that limit the ability of the 

agency to respond in a timely manner to 

environmental concerns and ecological 

conditions (e.g., implementation of changes 

in grazing use, basis for rangeland health 

determinations, timeframe for taking action 

to meet rangeland health standards, and 

grazing use pending resolution of appeals 

when decision has been stayed.)

Response: The rule is designed to enable 

succeeding generations of ranching families 

to stay on their land, a crucial element of 

rural landscapes, and thus to preserve those 

landscapes for future generations of all 

Americans. The implementation schedule 

changes discussed in the comment are 

necessary to make the needed changes in 

grazing administration reasonably attainable 

from a management perspective, and, by 

allowing ranchers extra time in certain 

circumstances to prepare for the changes or 

by allowing some uses to continue pending 

appeal, to make them less economically 

damaging without changing the substance 

of the necessary adjustments in use levels or 

other practices. The rulemaking is based on 

the axiom that preservation of open space, 

in the face of a trend toward urbanization 

and sprawl, is a good thing. The presence 

of ranch and livestock operations on private 

and public land is an important bulwark 

against urban and suburban sprawl. The 

proposed rule discussed this thoroughly in 

the preamble. Livestock permittees live and 

work in the heart of Western rural landscapes. 

Their relationship with BLM needs to be 

more than regulatory if we are to engage in 

conservation of entire landscapes. Our goals 

are to establish simple and practical ways for 

permittees, lessees, affected state and local 

officials, and the interested public to engage 

in partnerships with BLM that improve open 

space, watershed, and habitat conditions. In 

addition, the incentives built into the changes 

in the regulations, such as shared ownership 

of range improvements and more flexible 

provisions for temporary nonuse, will lead 

to habitat restoration and other benefits. The 

changes in the rule will not interfere with 

attaining wide ranges of beneficial uses of 

the public rangelands, and will allow land 

managers and users to take steps to reverse 

degradation. 

We explain in detail in Section 4.3 of this 

EIS why the largely administrative changes 

BLM is making in the rule will have little or 

no environmental effect. 

Comment: The BLM should not ignore 

comments received from the public during 

the rulemaking process.

Response: BLM has not ignored any 

comments received at any point during the 

rulemaking process. We received more than 

18,000 letters, postcards, e-mails, faxes, and 

web-based comments on the proposed rule 

5-18 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

and the DEIS and the BLM staff reviewed 

every comment numerous times. 

We have responded to comments on the 

content of the proposed rule and the DEIS 

in this EIS. In some cases, we responded 

with a changed in the regulatory text, and in 

others with revised or additional language 

in the EIS. In other cases, we have tried to 

explain why we cannot adopt the comment. 

We discuss in the EIS every substantive 

suggestion and argument raised in the 

comments. 

Since we received so many comments 

to analyze we cannot respond to every 

duplicative or similar comment individually, 

and we did not adopt every suggestion 

contained in the comments. We often receive 

conflicting comments from the public. 

BLM considered all views and suggestions 

regarding the rule, especially suggestions to 

improve the language in the regulations. 

Those comments that appeared in form 

letters or that were expressed multiple times 

in multiple ways have been addressed in 

a response to a prototypical example of 

each such communication, or have been 

summarized and responded to as a general 

comment.

Comment: It seems from our review 

of the draft EIS that comments the BLM 

received in response to the ANPR and the 

NOI were ignored—especially those from 

nongrazing publics. Your proposal has 

changed little even in the face of some 8300 

comments “expressing opposition.” You seem 

to have severely discounted the nongrazing 

publicʼs comments and characterized them 

as “form letters.” You characterize other 

comments, mostly from the grazing industry, 

as “three dozen letters containing substantive 

comments.”

Response: The BLM reviewed the 

comments received from the ANPR 

numerous times. The comments characterized 

in the DEIS as substantive came from 

organizations representing environmental as 

well as grazing interests. All of the comments 

were analyzed and considered by BLM. The 

results of Scoping can be found in section 

1.3.2 of the EIS. More detailed analyses of 

the scoping comments are in Appendix C of 

the EIS. 

Comment: The BLM should send 

confirmation of receipt of comments for those 

who submit comments through BLMʼs OnLine Regulations Comment System.

Response: The BLM does provide 

conformation when a comment is received 

through the BLMʼs On-Line Regulations 

Comment System. If a comment is entered 

via the BLMʼs On-Line Regulations 

Comment System web version a confirmation 

is sent after the email is received. Due 

to Internet traffic and numerous Internet 

providers a response email may not be 

received by the comment immediately. It may 

take several hours for the receipt of email 

to be received. Many, if not most, of these 

factors are out of the control of the BLM.

Comment: The BLM should coordinate 

with other government agencies to develop 

a single public comment system because it 

is difficult for the public to learn so many 

different systems.

Response: The BLM is currently working 

with a number of other Federal Government 

agencies to consolidate on-line commenting 

on regulations for the public. The BLMʼs 

On-Line Regulations Comment System is 

currently used by the BLM as well as the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs for regulation 

changes. 

Comment: The BLM should continue the 

use of ePlanning for accepting comments 

from the public on EISs. This allows more 

people to participate in the BLMʼs planning 

process and it is easier to use than other online systems. BLM should provide a feedback 

mechanism to the user who submits a 

5-19
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

comment using ePlanning to verify that BLM 

actually received the comment.

Response: Based on this comment, BLM 

has added this feature to be applied to the 

next version of ePlanning. 

Comment: The BLM should not 

implement ePlanning because it is too 

difficult to use. 

Response: We are working on a revised 

version of ePlanning that incorporates some 

changes intended to make the system more 

user friendly. Specific recommendation 

from the public for improving its usability 

would be appreciated. You may submit such 

suggestions to Director (210), Bureau of 

Land Management, Washington, DC 20240. 

5.4.2 General Opposition

Comment: Many of those who opposed 

the proposed rule stated that BLM should not 

adopt the rule because it would give ranchers 

preferential treatment at the expense of the 

nationʼs natural resources; favor ranchers 

and elevate grazing as the primary use of 

public land instead of managing for multiple 

resources and restoring degraded resources; 

weaken the conservation and restoration of 

public lands; limit public participation; limit 

BLMʼs regulatory authority with respect to 

public lands; and return to the archaic notion 

that the grazing lessee in essence owns 

the publicʼs land. Others opposed the rule, 

stating that it hampers the work of BLM 

field offices, or that it fails to identify good 

and bad grazing practices. Many comments 

opposing the rule expressed their opposition 

in terms of opposing public land grazing 

itself. 

Response: We agree that we are a 

multiple use agency and that single uses 

should not generally be favored at the 

expense of other users or resources. These 

regulations do not favor ranchers at the 

expense of other resources. Rather, the 

changes are intended, among other things, to 

improve the cooperative environment within 

which ranching takes place on public land. 

At the same time we have made certain that 

these adjustments to the regulations do not 

harm the rangeland resources or prevent 

significant involvement of the public in 

rangeland management. We need to amend 

the current regulations to improve working 

relationships with permittees and lessees, 

to protect and enhance the health of public 

rangelands, to resolve some legal issues, and 

to improve administrative efficiency. The rule 

continues to provide for BLM cooperation 

with other government agencies that have 

responsibility for grazing on public lands. 

The rule provides for the interested public 

to review, provide input, and comment on 

reports that evaluate monitoring and other 

data used as a basis for developing terms and 

conditions of a grazing permit or lease. Also, 

the rule retains interested public participation 

when preparing allotment management plans, 

developing range improvement projects, and 

apportioning additional forage. In the rule, 

the interested public retains the opportunity 

to review proposed and final decisions, as 

well as the right to protest proposed decisions 

and appeal final decisions as long as they 

meet the requirements of 43 CFR 4.470. 

The BLM manages for multiple uses. 

We also restore degraded resources, and 

believe that we can pursue restoration while 

managing under the regulations to achieve 

responsible grazing.

We do not seek to elevate grazing to 

be the primary use of public land. BLM 

manages the public land on the basis of 

multiple use and sustained yield. We intend 

the regulatory changes to improve working 

relationships with permittees and lessees. We 

anticipate that these changes will enhance 

consultation, cooperation, and day-to-day 

coordination with them. Additionally, the 

rule focuses communication efforts on those 

groups most interested in the management 

5-20 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

of public lands for grazing. The cooperation 

fostered by the rule should help make BLMʼs 

field work more efficient and cost effective. 

The BLM does not believe that the 

rule weakens environmental standards. 

For example, it strengthens standards by 

requiring monitoring and land assessment 

in areas that do not meet rangeland health 

standards due to grazing practices before 

BLM makes a determination to that effect. 

As a result, BLMʼs decisions are expected to 

reflect a more comprehensive analysis that in 

turn can be anticipated to ensure defensible 

decisions if appealed and ultimately 

more effective decisions from both an 

implementation and land health perspective. 

Nothing in the rule diminishes BLMʼs 

regulatory authority. 

As for distinguishing between good 

and bad grazing practices, the rule does 

change the way BLM determines whether 

an operator has a satisfactory record of 

performance. See the discussion under 

Qualifications, Applications, Service 

Charges, and Satisfactory Performance, 

below. 

Comment: Some comments stated that 

BLM should not change the regulations 

because the new regulations do not follow the 

Secretaryʼs “4 Cs” philosophy.

Response: The changes in the regulations 

are designed to improve communication, 

consultation, and cooperation in the service 

of conservation. We explain elsewhere 

in this EIS how the various changes help 

to conserve the health of the land by 

encouraging cooperation between BLM and 

grazing permittees and lessees, and how the 

interested public can participate at various 

stages of the range management process. 

Comment: One comment stated that

BLM should revise the proposed regulations 

in order to better reflect its multiple use 

mandates, and that BLM fails to justify 

reversing current regulations. Another stated 

that the proposed rule represents fundamental 

policy shifts. Others stated that the current 

regulations were litigated and upheld in 

Federal court. 

Response: The reasons for the changes 

in the grazing regulations are stated in the 

proposed rule and in the DEIS. We do not 

believe that the proposed changes reflect 

“fundamental” policy shifts, although it 

reverses some changes made in the 1995 rule. 

We intend the revisions to improve working 

relations with permittees and lessees, to 

protect the health of the rangelands, to 

increase administrative efficiency and 

effectiveness, and resolve legal issues. The 

fact that a regulation has been approved in a 

court decision does not mean that the agency 

can never amend it further if it finds a need 

to do so. The changes in the rule are driven 

by specific issues and concerns that have 

come to BLMʼs attention through experience 

with the 1995 regulations and from public 

comments. 

The regulatory changes are narrow in 

scope, make no changes in the substance 

of the fundamentals of rangeland health or 

the standards and guidelines for grazing 

administration, and otherwise leave the 

majority of the 1995 regulatory changes 

in place. FLPMA provides authority and 

direction for managing the public lands 

on the basis of multiple use and sustained 

yield principles. FLPMA land use planning 

has determined that grazing continues to 

be an appropriate use of a large portion of 

the public lands administered by the BLM. 

The rule will not affect BLMʼs multiple 

use mandate. In fact, one of the major 

areas of focus of the grazing regulations 

revisions is protecting the health of the 

rangelands by making temporary nonuse a 

more flexible option, by requiring a BLM 

finding that additional forage is available 

for livestock use as opposed to other uses 

before authorizing livestock grazing use of 

5-21
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

it on a temporary or sustained-yield basis, 

and by emphasizing monitoring as a basis 

for BLM decisions on grazing management, 

including any increases in active use as well 

as decreases. 

Comment: Comments opposing the 

rule asserted that grazing has degraded 

wildlife habitat, soils, cultural sites, native 

plant communities, and riparian resources, 

leading to increased erosion, loss of range 

productivity, and invasion by exotic plants, 

and will result in desertification and increased 

listing of species as threatened or endangered. 

Other comments stated that the proposed 

rule would do little to promote recovery 

of streamside vegetation and would cause 

short-term damage to rangeland and wildlife 

habitat. Comments urged BLM to take 

actions to restore these lands, not weaken the 

grazing regulations, stating that the effects of 

overgrazing on western rangeland streams, 

rivers, and fisheries have been documented.

A comment said that BLM should allow the 

land to rest to heal from overgrazing.

Response: Inappropriately managed 

grazing can cause the effects described in 

the comment. Other uses can also contribute 

to these problems. Within its resource 

capabilities, BLM, in cooperation with 

users and the public, manages grazing and 

other uses in a manner that recognizes and 

addresses the potential for these effects 

so that, ideally, they are avoided. Under 

Subpart 4180 of the grazing regulations, 

BLM must manage grazing, which includes 

rest from grazing where appropriate, 

in a manner that achieves or makes 

progress towards achieving, standards for 

rangeland health. These standards have 

been developed on a regional basis and 

address watershed function, nutrient cycling 

and energy flow, water quality, habitat 

for endangered, threatened, proposed, 

candidate or other special status species. 

The rule will strengthen BLMʼs ability to 

implement grazing strategies that provide 

for maintenance or achievement of healthy 

rangelands. 

Comment: A comment asserted that 

stocking levels are too high, and forage 

production is only one-fifth of its potential, 

resulting in conflict with rangeland health 

standards. Another comment stated that light 

stocking levels would provide the highest 

long-term financial return. A third comment 

stated that BLM should not allow utilization 

levels based on the take half–leave half 

principle. 

Response: These comments appear 

to suggest that stocking and utilization levels 

should be determined through a rulemaking 

process. Stocking levels are better addressed 

during the land use planning process where 

the wide variety of relevant factors, such as 

climate, competing forage use, and other 

multiple use needs, can be addressed. What 

the rule is doing, on the other hand, is to 

make mainly procedural changes to improve 

administration of the grazing program as a 

result of experience implementing the 1995 

rule. 

Comment: A comment stated that BLM 

should not renew grazing permits when they 

expire. Ranchers should not be allowed to 

graze cattle for personal gain on public land.

Response: The Taylor Grazing Act, the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act, 

and other laws authorize grazing on public 

land for private business purposes.

Comment: A comment stated that BLM 

should not place western grazing rights 

above those in other areas of the country, and 

that the government provides competitive 

advantages to public land grazing permittees 

and lessees. 

Response: The comment raises fee 

and subsidy issues, which were not part of 

this rulemaking. The grazing fee formula 

was established in the Public Rangelands 

Improvement Act (PRIA) of 1978 (43 

5-22 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

U.S.C. 1901, 1905) through 1985. The 

applicability of the formula was extended 

by Executive Order 12548 on February 19, 

1986 (51 FR 5985). The regulatory provision 

implementing PRIA and the Executive Order 

appears at 43 CFR 4130.8-1. The formula 

is not affected by the costs of grazing in 

other parts of the country outside of the 11 

western states of Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, 

Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, 

Nevada, Washington, Oregon, and California. 

Fee and subsidy issues were examined in 

BLMʼs EIS for Rangeland Reform ʼ94. This 

proposed action addresses refinements of 

Rangeland Reform ʼ94, including, among 

other things, inefficiencies in the current 

regulations. 

Comment: One comment objected to the 

“unfair treatment BLM has given to wild 

horses, using them as scapegoats for the 

abuses of livestock and plotting to eliminate 

them along with the vested interest livestock 

community.”

Response: BLM manages rangelands for 

multiple use and sustained yield, and follows 

all laws and regulations governing the 

management of public lands, including the 

Wild and Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act 

of 1971. Management considerations for and 

analysis of effects on wild horse and burro 

populations are described in EIS chapters 

3.12, 4.2.9, 4.3.9, and 4.4.9. BLM consults 

with the Wild Horse Advisory Board to 

coordinate an efficient management program 

in accordance with statutory direction 

and at a level commensurate with funding 

appropriated by Congress.

5.4.3 Purpose and Need 

We received numerous comments 

regarding our reasons for amending the 

grazing regulations, including many form 

letters and form emails. 

Comment: Several comments, although 

they supported the purpose of the proposed 

rule, stated that, with regard to the proposed 

provisions on grazing preference and removal 

of the term “permitted use,” active use 

phase-in, and title to range improvements, the 

rulemaking record lacks concrete examples 

of problems with the current regulations that 

warrant the proposed changes. The comments 

stated that this may cause problems because 

BLM is effectively rescinding the 1995 

grazing regulations as to these particular 

matters and restoring the pre-existing status 

quo. The comments went on to say that an 

agency rescinding a rule must “explain why 

the old regulation is no longer desirable,” 

citing Action on Smoking and Health v. C.A.B., 

699 F.2d 1209, 1216 (D.C.Cir.1983). The 

comments concluded that, in the 1995 final 

rule, BLM rejected the concerns expressed in 

many of the comments on the 1994 proposed 

rule, and now needs to explain what has 

changed, including recognition that the 

concerns stated in those comments on the 

1994 proposed rule have proven to be valid. 

Response: We believe the changes made 

in the rule are consistent with the standard 

announced in Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass’n 

of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual 

Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983): 

“An agencyʼs view of what is in the public 

interest may change, either with or without 

a change in circumstances. But an agency 

changing its course must supply a reasoned 

analysis.” Id. at 57. We will supply the 

requisite reasoned analysis for the changes in 

the Record of Decision and in the respective 

section-by-section discussion in the preamble 

of the final rule.

Comment: Some comments stated that 

the current rules are consistent with the TGA 

because they have been tested in court, and 

that BLM should comply with Supreme 

Court rulings. 

Response: The changes being made in 

this rule are based on 9 years of experience 

implementing the 1995 regulations. In some 

5-23
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

instances, we found that provisions of those 

regulations were impairing our ability to 

protect and enhance rangeland health. For 

example, providing for sole United States 

ownership in range improvements led to a 

reduction in range improvement applications 

throughout the time that the regulations 

have been in effect. Also, requiring BLM to 

take action by the start of the next grazing 

year after determining that existing grazing 

management practices or levels of grazing 

use were significant factors in failing to 

achieve standards of rangeland health has 

been seen to be an impracticable decision 

because it sets a deadline that is impossible 

to meet in most instances. Further, it is 

counterproductive because BLM has had to 

divert resources from rangeland management 

and monitoring to deal with legal challenges 

that arise when we fail to meet the 

unreasonable deadlines. We will discuss these 

and other problems with the 1995 regulations 

in more detail when we address comments on 

the relevant provisions of the proposed rule. 

The Supreme Court did not require BLM 

to retain its existing regulations. It found that 

the 1995 grazing regulations that it reviewed 

did not exceed the authority granted to the 

Secretary under the TGA. BLM does not 

dispute that the regulations being changed 

today were in compliance with the TGA and 

within the Secretaryʼs statutory authority. 

Changes being made today also are in 

compliance with the TGA and are within the 

Secretaryʼs statutory authority. 

Comment: Some comments on the 

proposed rule suggested that BLM consider 

making changes through policy instead of 

through regulation changes. 

Response: BLM very often does 

make changes through policy rather than 

rulemaking. However, if regulations in place 

need to be modified to achieve improved 

management, we can only change those 

regulations through rulemaking. 

Comment: A comment stated that BLM 

should not enact excessive regulations 

because they make it uneconomic for 

traditional ranching families to pursue their 

business.

Response: Excessive regulation can 

increase costs to user groups. We believe 

the changes made in the rule will make 

grazing on public land more efficient without 

negatively affecting the health of the public 

rangelands.

Comment: Many of the comments on 

the proposed rule stated that the regulation 

changes seem to be driven by only one small 

faction: grazing permittees and lessees. They 

went on to say that that the regulations should 

balance the requirements of consultation, 

cooperation, and coordination (CCC), and no 

emphasis should be placed on a single user 

group. The comments concluded that this 

will not result in increases in cooperation 

with interested publics as stated because the 

proposed regulations diminish the levels 

of CCC with other interested publics and 

emphasize CCC with a single commercial 

user of public resources. Other comments 

stated that improving efficiency would be 

detrimental to public participation. 

Response: The rule provides a 

mechanism for persons and organizations to 

attain and maintain “interested public” status 

for purposes of participating in management 

decisions as to specific allotments. At the 

same time, the rule provides a way to remove 

from the list of interested publics those 

individuals, groups, or organizations that 

have been on the list indefinitely without ever 

commenting on or otherwise providing input 

in the decision process. These regulations 

will provide numerous opportunities for 

the interested public input into resource 

management allocation decisions. 

BLM believes that in-depth involvement 

of the public in day-to-day management 

decisions is neither warranted nor 

5-24 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

administratively efficient and can in fact 

delay BLM remedial response actions 

necessitated by resource conditions. Dayto-day management decisions implement 

land use planning decisions in which the 

public has already had full opportunity 

to participate. Also, such in-depth public 

involvement can delay routine management 

responses, such as minor adjustments in 

livestock numbers or use periods to respond 

to dynamic on-the-ground conditions. 

Cooperation with permittees and lessees, 

on the other hand, usually results in more 

expeditious steps to address resource 

conditions and can help avoid lengthy 

administrative appeals. 

Comment: Some comments supporting 

the purposes of the proposed rule, agreed 

that there is a need for improving working 

relationships with users. One comment 

pointed out that cooperation with ranchers 

would minimize incompatible uses 

of interspersed private lands, such as 

subdivisions, and another said that it would 

provide better care for the land. 

Response: BLM recognizes that ranchers 

who are committed to the health of the land 

are valuable partners. These regulatory 

changes are designed, among other things, 

to ensure sufficient oversight of public land 

grazers, and to facilitate better cooperation 

between BLM and the ranching community, 

while protecting the land. 

Comment: Comments opposing the 

rule stated that the emphasis on certain 

considerations, such as the social, economic, 

and cultural effects of agency actions that 

change levels of grazing preference, would 

have adverse effects on natural resources, 

leading to degradation of the public lands. 

Comments stated that improving working 

relationships with grazing permittees and 

lessees would tend to weaken the ability 

of BLM to manage rangelands in a timely 

fashion by adding considerable time before 

action can be taken. One comment stated that 

BLM should have working relationships with 

the public, not just ranchers. Another accused 

BLM of appeasing ranchers and increasing 

the level of environmental damage. 

Response: BLM retains the discretion 

to determine how much time is warranted 

in coordinating with grazing permittees and 

lessees. Considering the social, economic, 

and cultural effects of actions that change 

grazing use levels contemporaneously with 

considering the environmental effects should 

not appreciably increase this time or the time 

consumed in implementing decisions. We 

have not materially changed current policy 

in this regard in this rule, and therefore 

anticipate few additional delays in the 

authorization or implementation of grazing 

management actions on public lands. 

BLM does have a working relationship 

with many publics and encourages public 

participation in the management of public 

lands. However, with respect to management 

actions involving livestock, close 

coordination by BLM with those responsible 

for the “hands on” management of the 

livestock, in other words, the permittees and 

lessees, is essential to ensure that livestock 

use effects on resources do not prevent 

achieving other multiple use management 

objectives.

Comment: Many comments stated that 

the proposed rule will slow down or diminish 

any progress made by the 1995 rule.

Response: The Rangeland Reform effort 

of 1994-95 made numerous significant 

changes directed at restoring rangeland 

health. The changes in this rule continue to 

provide strong regulation to protect resources 

while allowing public land grazing to occur 

as allowed under the Taylor Grazing Act and 

other laws. In this rule, some timeframes 

for developing appropriate management 

decisions and, in some cases, implementing 

changes in the amount of forage authorized 

5-25
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

for grazing use have been lengthened. 

We expect that having more time to make 

decisions will lead to better decisions, 

supported by reliable data gathered through 

monitoring, and to result in achieving longterm management goals and rangeland health. 

These new regulatory changes do not change 

the resource protection values of Rangeland 

Reform, but they do provide additional time 

for developing appropriate actions to effect 

grazing changes. 

Comment: A comment stated that the final 

rule should reflect the legal requirements for 

cooperation with the public, other agencies, 

and users, in various laws, including the 

Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act (FLPMA), the Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act, the Public Rangelands Improvement 

Act (PRIA), the Sikes Act, and the Taylor 

Grazing Act (TGA). 

Response: We are complying with all 

relevant laws. However, attempting to list the 

various requirements of multiple Federal laws 

in the grazing regulations would be unwieldy 

and would require amendment of the 

regulations to reflect future changes in these 

laws or the addition of new laws. Rather, the 

BLM utilizes manuals, handbooks, and other 

guidance to ensure compliance with relevant 

laws. 

Comment: One comment stated that the 

proposed rule failed to consider the definition 

of “principal or major uses” in Section 103 

of FLPMA, which “includes, and is limited 

to, domestic livestock grazing, fish and 

wildlife development and utilization, mineral 

exploration and production, and timber 

production.” 

Response: The rule addresses domestic 

livestock grazing, which is one of the 

principal uses of the public lands under 

FLPMA. Regulations on other principal uses 

of public lands are found elsewhere in Title 

43 of the CFR. 

Comment: One comment stated that 

politicians should be barred from direct 

intervention in matters related to public lands 

grazing. 

Response: Presumably the comment 

is referring to congressional contacts or 

oversight associated with livestock grazing. 

BLM manages the public land, and takes 

into consideration the views of all interested 

parties when it is appropriate to do so. This 

may include the views of public officials, 

including Members of Congress. 

Comment: Many comments expressed 

the concern that the proposed rule would 

lead to impairment of the health of the 

rangelands. They phrased this concern in a 

variety of ways. Comments stated that the 

proposed rule would do little to promote 

riparian recovery or prevent decline of plants 

or animals. Others stated that the rule would 

cause additional resource damage to specific 

geographical areas, such as the Northern 

Rockies. Comments stated that granting 

greater discretion to permittees and lessees 

and to BLM managers may result in more 

resource impairment. One comment stated 

that the proposed changes would reduce 

cooperation in achieving rangeland health 

objectives. One comment urged that the rule 

should provide for rangeland management 

to avoid resource depletion and to conserve 

resources for the future. Comments disagreed 

that the changes in the rule were largely 

administrative in nature with little direct 

effect on the environment. Comments 

urged that the rule should be amended to 

avoid the short-term adverse effects on the 

environment predicted in the Environmental 

Impact Statement. Comments stated that 

the objectives of the regulations should be 

revised to recognize the real purpose of the 

proposed rule: to keep ranching operations 

viable, with rangeland health as a secondary 

objective. One comment urged that BLM 

5-26 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

consider that healthy lands improve local 

economies. 

Response: BLM has not changed 

the regulatory text in response to these 

comments. Many provisions in the proposed 

rule, including increasing the requirements 

for monitoring, removing the 3-year limit 

on temporary nonuse, sharing title to range 

improvements, and others, are designed to 

protect and enhance the long-term health 

of the land. The anticipated environmental 

impacts of the changes are set forth in detail 

in Section 4.3 of this EIS. We believe that the 

changes will improve working relationships 

with permittees and lessees, protect and 

improve the health of the public rangelands, 

and improve administrative efficiency. Again, 

we will address specific regulatory changes in 

greater detail later in this chapter of the EIS. 

Comment: Many comments stated that 

the monitoring requirements in the proposed 

rule would cause increased workloads for 

BLM field managers and personnel. 

Response: We acknowledge that the 

monitoring requirements in the rule will 

likely increase the workload of BLM field 

range managers and specialists somewhat, 

but we anticipate that the increases in 

monitoring will be accompanied by the 

benefits of improved management and saved 

time in the end. This workload increase will 

require BLM to reprioritize work or to find 

alternative means of collecting monitoring 

data, or some combination of these, to the 

extent that additional monitoring is required. 

This may include cooperation with the 

grazing permittees and lessees themselves 

and with local citizen volunteers. BLM 

believes the changes in the regulations 

associated with monitoring will help achieve 

sustainable management objectives.

Comment: One comment stated that 

BLM has indicated the necessity of making 

permit administration more efficient, but 

that these regulatory changes are motivated 

by a determination to exclude the interested 

public from the decision process. It went on 

to say that if BLM claims to have processed 

over 10,000 permits and issued over 13,000 

permits, the agency should break down 

these numbers to show what percent of 

permits were renewed each year, how many 

were renewed under Appropriations Act 

“riders”, and how many were appealed. The 

comment said that this would help establish 

a quantitative assessment of the need for 

change. 

Response: The BLM does not believe a 

quantitative assessment of permit renewals is 

necessary to explain the need for efficiency 

changes to the overall administration of the 

grazing program. Efficient use of public 

resources, including Federal funding and 

management, are always proper goals of 

agency management. However, BLM has 

revised Section 3.4.1 in the EIS in an effort 

to address the concerns expressed in the 

comment. Section 3.4.1 in the EIS now 

provides additional information which further 

quantifies and explains the permit renewal 

process. 

The comment also states that our motive 

in making these regulatory changes was 

to exclude the interested public from the 

decision process. In fact, the final rule 

requires consultation with the interested 

public where such input is of the greatest 

value, such as when deciding vegetation 

management objectives in an allotment 

management plan, or preparing reports 

evaluating range conditions. BLM retains the 

discretion to determine and implement the 

most appropriate on-the-ground management 

actions to achieve the objectives and/or 

respond to range conditions. BLM values 

productive consultation with the interested 

public. However, we must retain flexibility 

in order to take responsive, timely, and 

efficient management action. We believe 

that a more efficient consultation process 

5-27
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

will help facilitate efficient management 

of the rangelands while still providing for 

significant input from interested parties.

Comment: Many comments stated that

BLM should increase funding to improve 

working relations with permittees and lessees 

and promote conservation of public lands, 

and that even small funding increases could 

greatly contribute to the mutual goals of 

continued grazing and healthy rangelands, 

if they are applied in an innovative and 

collaborative manner to facilitate improved 

on-the-ground livestock management 

practices.

Response: BLM manages its 

Congressional appropriations in light of its 

varied and diverse statutory missions and 

responsibilities, and seeks opportunities 

to leverage its funding by engaging in 

partnerships wherever possible. Funding 

of BLM programs is not within the scope 

of this rulemaking. However, BLM intends 

that the rule will broaden opportunities for 

partnerships. 

Comment: BLM should establish policy 

and subsequent regulations with procedures 

for optimizing habitat quantity and quality for 

the variety of multiple uses and those species 

that are considered biologically dependent on 

their respective ecosystems.

Response: BLM manages for multiple 

uses under the guidance found in BLM 

land use plans. BLM land use planning 

regulations, and policy and procedure are 

found in 43 CFR Subparts 1601 and 1610, 

BLM Manual 1601—Land Use Planning, 

and BLM Handbook H-1601-1—Land 

Use Planning Handbook. BLM policy 

and procedures regarding management 

of wildlife and their habitats, sensitive 

species and the introduction, transplant and 

augmentation of fish, wildlife, and plants 

are found in BLM Manuals 6500—Wildlife 

and Fisheries Management, 6525—Sikes 

Act Wildlife Programs, 6840—Special 

Status Species Management and 1745—

Introduction, Transplant, Augmentation, 

and Reestablishment of Fish, Wildlife and 

Plants. Promulgating regulations concerning 

these subjects is outside the scope of this 

rule. Species-specific provisions are not 

appropriate for national regulations, and 

should be contained in local land use plans 

issued in accordance with these manual 

provisions and the planning regulations. 

Comment: BLM should not change the 

regulations because there has been no data 

presented that support the contention that 

range health standards will improve as a 

result of the changes.

Response: The intent of the proposed 

regulations is to improve working 

relationships with permittees and lessees, 

protect the health of the rangelands, and 

increase administrative effectiveness and 

efficiency. Most the regulatory changes are 

administrative and are expected to have little 

or no effect on the environment. We believe 

the rationale in Section 1.2 of the EIS, 

“The Purpose and Need for the Proposed 

Action,” provides sufficient justification 

for changing the regulations. Section 4.3, 

“Alternative Two: Proposed Action,” presents 

a detailed analysis of the environmental 

consequences of the proposed alternative. 

Data show declines in development of 

range improvements since 1995 (see 

Table 3.4.3.1), and inability to meet action 

deadlines (leading to resource-diverting legal 

challenges and a cumulative negative impact 

on our administrative procedures). The 

invalidation of the regulatory provisions on 

conservation permits led to the need for more 

flexibility in allowing and administering 

temporary nonuse. 

5.4.4 Range of Alternatives 

Considered

Comment: Some comments 

recommended major changes to the grazing 

5-28 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

program. Some comments asked BLM 

not to permit grazing on arid lands. Others 

advocated eliminating grazing in riparian 

areas. Other comments recommended use of 

long-term rest to help achieve standards. One 

comment recommended reducing stocking 

rates by 25 percent on allotments not 

meeting standards of rangeland health. Some 

comments recommended that the alternatives 

considered address the relationship between 

livestock grazing and other uses of the 

public lands. Some comments recommended 

that BLM develop alternatives to address 

a number of specific aspects of grazing 

management, such as: (1) determining the 

capacity of the land to support wildlife, 

watershed function, and livestock; (2) 

determining livestock stocking rates; and 

(3) requiring allotments to demonstrate 

statistically significant improvement. 

Response: In light of the broad sweep 

of the changes in the regulations in 1995 

and the accompanying analysis in the EIS 

at that time, and based on the nine years of 

experience in implementing those regulatory 

changes, we have determined that meeting 

our purposes and needs – the health of 

the public rangelands, improved working 

relationships with permittees and lessees, and 

improved administrative efficiency – does 

not require major changes in the grazing 

program. 

The matters identified in these comments 

generally are best considered in land use 

planning or otherwise on a site-specific basis, 

not in a rule related to overall regulatory 

provisions. The relationship between 

livestock grazing and other uses of the public 

lands, and the capacity of the land to support 

wildlife, watershed function, and livestock, 

are questions of multiple use management, 

i.e., how public lands and their various 

resources “are utilized in the combination that 

will best meet the present and future needs 

of the American people.” 43 U.S.C. 1702(c) 

(definition of “multiple use”). Pursuant to 

section 202 of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1712), 

BLM prepares resource management 

plans (RMPs) to consider and balance the 

multiple uses that may be appropriate for 

tracts of public lands. Decisions determining 

or adjusting livestock stocking rates, or 

determining how to measure an allotmentʼs 

improvement in rangeland health, ordinarily 

require site-specific information that can 

most efficiently be obtained by developing 

an allotment management plan (AMP) or a 

grazing decision. 

Comment: Some comments suggested 

that the EIS should have included an 

alternative more directed at conservation 

interests and the recommendations of 

environmental advocates, such as one that 

includes sage grouse conservation measures. 

They believed that the regulation changes are 

biased toward the interests of the livestock 

industry and that the livestock industry would 

benefit at the expense of other users and the 

environment. One comment urged BLM 

to add specific sage grouse consideration 

measures to the alternatives considered. 

Response: BLM does not believe that 

these changes will benefit the livestock 

industry at the expense of other users and 

the environment. The long-term objective 

of requiring livestock grazing operations to 

meet standards for rangeland health has not 

been changed from the 1995 regulations. 

As discussed in the Draft and Final EIS for 

Rangeland Reform ʼ94, the overall changes 

adopted in that rulemaking were anticipated 

to have a number of positive environmental 

impacts, including positive impacts for sage 

grouse. The rule now under consideration is 

designed to make refinements in the existing 

regulations and is not a significant departure 

from the regulations as revised in 1995. 

We believe that standards for rangeland 

health can be achieved without the major 

changes that may have been included under 

5-29
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

a substantially different “conservation 

alternative” suggested by some of the 

comments. Such changes would be likely to 

have significant effects on many livestock 

operators who are dependent on public 

rangelands for their livelihood. The changes 

to the regulations were never intended to 

be either a comprehensive restructuring of 

the grazing program or a replacement of the 

1995 grazing regulations. We do not believe 

that a broad “conservation alternative” 

which makes major changes to the livestock 

grazing program falls within a reasonable 

range of alternatives that meet the purpose 

and need of the Proposed Action. Measures 

to protect sage grouse and their habitat are 

appropriately considered in the Bureauʼs 

sage grouse conservation measures. We 

address the sage grouse conservation strategy 

generally in Chapter 1 and Chapter 4 of this 

EIS.

Comment: Some comments suggested 

that the alternatives analyzed in detail in the 

EIS do not provide a clear basis for choice. 

Some comments focused on a concern that 

the alternatives in the EIS do not represent a 

reasonable range of alternatives because they 

are too similar. Some comments stated that 

BLM should prepare an EIS that thoroughly 

analyzes the cumulative impacts of a range 

of alternative actions that will truly enable 

the agency to manage grazing lands under 

its jurisdiction responsibly. Some comments 

suggested an alternative that would provide 

for the development of baseline data 

on the grazing capacity of public lands. 

Some comments said that BLM cannot so 

narrowly define the scope of a project that 

it forecloses a reasonable consideration 

of alternatives.(Colorado Environmental 

Coalition v. Dombeck, (185 F.3d 1162, 

1174 (10th Cir. 1999)). Many comments 

recommended that BLM should examine 

alternatives that would make major changes 

in the grazing program or in the relationship 

between livestock grazing and other uses of 

the public lands. 

Response: The broad-ranging analysis 

suggested by these comments was addressed 

in Rangeland Reform in 1994 and the 

accompanying EIS for the 1995 regulatory 

changes. As explained in the EIS for this 

rulemaking under The Purpose of and Need 

for the Proposed Action, some of these 

revisions to the grazing regulations were 

developed as a means of achieving BLM s 

rangeland management objectives, including 

meeting the standards for rangeland health. 

It is not BLM s intent to revise major aspects 

of multiple use management or the livestock 

grazing program in this rule. BLM s intent 

is to make the existing livestock grazing 

program work better to achieve the standards 

for rangeland health on all allotments. 

The regulatory changes are narrow in 

scope, and make no changes in grazing 

fees, the substance of the fundamentals 

of rangeland health, or the standards and 

guidelines for grazing administration. They 

leave the majority of the 1995 regulatory 

changes in place. The changes are driven 

by specific issues and concerns that BLM 

has recognized, either based on our own 

experience or from input by stakeholders, and 

we believe that all may benefit from these 

amendments of the regulations. Additional, 

markedly different, alternatives would not 

meet the purpose of and need for the action. 

While there may be conflicts among resource 

uses on specific sites that may point to a 

need to change the way in which livestock 

grazing occurs on an allotment, such conflicts 

are more appropriately resolved on an 

allotment-specific basis, rather than in the 

grazing regulations. We believe the three 

alternatives analyzed in detail in the EIS 

provide a reasonable range of alternatives 

that best provides a meaningful comparison 

for achieving the purpose and need described 

in the EIS.

5-30 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

Comment: Some comments expressed 

concern over the relative lack of 

quantification of effects in the EIS. They 

contended that this limits BLMʼs ability to 

compare alternatives.

Response: At the rulemaking tier of 

decision-making, such as in the case of 

developing the rule now considered in this 

EIS, meaningful quantification is generally 

not appropriate. Quantification is more 

appropriate at site-specific levels of decision, 

where on-the-ground issues are analyzed and 

resolved. To provide perspective on how the 

regulation changes may affect all allotments, 

the EIS provides information (see Section 

5.4.5) on the number of allotments where 

assessments have been completed, and the 

percentage of those that meet standards for 

rangeland health. Of those that do not meet 

the standards, we also provide the percentage 

of allotments where standards are not met 

because of livestock grazing on the allotment. 

BLM will make grazing decisions to ensure 

that management on all allotments that do 

not meet standards due in significant part 

to existing grazing management practices 

or levels of grazing use is changed to help 

achieve the standards. The timeframes 

amended under the rule may also affect 

those allotments. These numbers provide a 

perspective on the percentage of allotments 

where the rule, e.g., in section 4110.3, may 

apply. Because the rule does not make any of 

the site-specific decisions on where livestock 

grazing occurs and how, BLMʼs ability to 

present and analyze quantifiable estimates in 

this EIS is limited. 

Comment: Some comments 

recommended the No Action alternative, or 

at least the No Action alternative with regard 

to one or more of the changes. The No Action 

alternative considers that each of the changes 

would not occur. Some comments stated they 

preferred the No Action alternative because 

they believed that the proposed changes were 

designed to undermine the amendments made 

in the regulations in 1995. Some comments 

believed the regulatory changes could open 

the door to potentially adverse environmental 

consequences.

Response: The changes in the regulations 

were designed to accomplish one or more of 

the three objectives stated at the beginning 

of this section and under purpose and need 

for the Proposed Action. The overall land 

management objective, both in 1995 and in 

this rulemaking, is to amend the regulations 

to assist BLM in managing the grazing 

program in a way that makes progress toward 

achieving the standards for rangeland health 

on all allotments. As experience has shown, 

some provisions in the 1995 rule have 

negative effects on BLMʼs ability to improve 

rangeland health, and the Federal Court 

rejection of the provision for conservation 

use permits created a need for more flexibility 

in authorizing temporary nonuse to promote 

rangeland recovery. 

The most useful comparison for the 

changes in the regulations is to compare 

the changes (Proposed Action) to the 

1995 regulations (No Action). Most of the 

regulation changes do not lend themselves 

to being implemented in stages or degrees 

of implementation in a way that would 

materially affect environmental effects or 

rangeland health. Those that do are addressed 

in the section-by-section analysis of 

comments. 

Comment: Many comments expressed 

concern that alternatives should have been 

considered for several of the changes in 

specific sections of the regulations. These 

specific provisions include the 24-month 

period after a determination on an allotment 

that livestock grazing is a significant factor 

failing to achieve the standards for rangeland 

health under section 4180.2(c), and the 5-year 

period for phasing in reductions in active 

use of more than 10 percent, under section 

5-31
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

4110.3-3(a). 

Response: We examined what we believe 

to be an appropriate range of alternatives, 

and have not added additional ones in the 

final EIS. When considering time limitations, 

an infinite array of options is theoretically 

possible. The alternatives considered here 

were reasonable, given the nature of the 

proposed rule, and sufficiently distinct to 

allow for meaningful comparisons in the 

analysis. 

Currently, section 4180.2(c) requires 

that corrective action to be taken by the 

start of the next grazing season when 

grazing is determined to be a significant 

factor in the failure to achieve a rangeland 

health standard. While BLM desires to take 

effective corrective action as quickly as 

possible, recent experience has demonstrated 

that complex circumstances can sometimes 

require extended periods of time to form 

effective long-term solutions. Rangeland 

standards failures have often developed 

slowly over many years and may take years 

to remedy completely. Factors complicating 

the formulation of action plans include the 

legal requirements of NEPA, the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and ESA; 

water rights adjudications; and the presence 

of multiple permittees on an allotment. We 

determined the proposed action timeframe 

of 24 months to be the shortest reasonable 

timeframe that would accommodate the vast 

majority of corrective actions. The final rule 

added language to recognize that, in some 

instances, even more time may be required 

due to delays outside the control of BLM. 

We initially considered other deadlines, such 

as 12 or 18 months, but we viewed them as 

inadequate to deal with the more complicated 

situations. We considered removing all 

timeframe guidance, but determined that 

a reasonable deadline would be useful to 

help ensure that BLM actions were not 

inadvertently delayed.

BLM examined two alternatives for 

active use changes greater than 10 percent 

in this EIS, in addition to the current 

regulations (the No Action Alternative). 

Scoping indicated that permittees and lessees 

supported a five-year option to address the 

financial shocks that can come in the rare 

instances when large decreases are made in 

active use. Scoping did not indicate strong 

support for longer or shorter timeframes. 

BLM addressed the impacts associated with 

mandatory or discretionary phase-in systems. 

This was a reasonable range of alternatives 

for this issue.

Comments that address specific sections 

of the regulations and BLMʼs responses are 

addressed under separate headings, in this 

case the section entitled “Timeframe for 

Taking Action” and “Active use- Definition, 

Increases and Decreases.” 

5.4.5 Affected Environment and 

Impact Analysis

Comment: Large numbers of comments 

addressed environmental effects of the 

proposed rule, mostly in opposition to the 

rule. One comment, however, stated that 

BLM has overstated the adverse effects of 

the proposed rule, and that we should say that 

the short-term effects of regulatory changes 

would be so minuscule as to be not worth 

mentioning. It went on to agree that, in the 

long term, changes under the proposed rule 

can be expected to improve range conditions. 

Response: The environmental effects of 

the rule are analyzed in Section 4.3 of this 

EIS. As discussed in detail in Section 4.3 

2, we anticipate short-term adverse effects 

only in those few instances where vegetation 

recovery is delayed by the extended 

implementation deadline. This will likely be 

rare, since BLM has authority under section 

4110.3-2 and section 4110.3-3 of the rule 

to decrease use or suspend use if resource 

conditions demand, even if the 24 months 

5-32 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

allowed for determining an action have not 

passed. Only in those instances where longer 

term reductions are requested and rangeland 

health is not imperiled would the recovery of 

vegetation be somewhat delayed. 

Comment: Many comments expressed 

concern that the combination of changes 

in the regulations would lead to multipleyear deferment of appropriate actions. The 

concern was that requiring monitoring in 

order to make a determination, allowing 

up to 24 months to develop and analyze an 

appropriate action, and requiring up to 5 

years to implement changes of more than 10 

percent in level of use, could lead to as much 

as 9 years of delay in changes being made on 

allotments that most needed the adjustment in 

grazing management. Effects on wildlife and 

habitat, threatened and endangered species, 

invasive weed infestations, recreational uses, 

and BLM workload and funding were all 

issues of concern.

Response: The timeframes provided 

for each of the actions listed are limits. In 

most cases, the maximum amount of time 

allowed for each of the 3 issues (monitoring, 

appropriate action development, and 

implementing changes) will not likely be 

needed. At the end of Fiscal Year 2002, 

only about 16 percent of the 7,437 (or about 

1,189) allotments assessed for land health 

status were not achieving standards because 

of existing livestock grazing management. 

Assessments of the remaining 84 percent 

indicated that standards were met, or that 

there was a reason other than existing 

livestock grazing for not meeting standards. 

Most of the adjustments on these less than 

1,190 allotments that failed to meet standards 

due to existing livestock management have 

been made in the season of use, or movement 

and control of livestock, rather than in levels 

of active use, leaving less than 595 that 

required decreases in active use. An unknown 

portion of these adjustments were changes of 

more than 10 percent in active use and would 

be allowed to phase in their reductions over 5 

years. 

In 2003 the forage actually consumed, 

as documented by billings, was 6.7 million 

AUMs, while the amount authorized by 

term permits was 12.6 million AUMs. 

This reduced amount of actual grazing was 

largely due to drought, plus other reasons, 

such as fire. However, it reflects the fact that 

grazers are already taking temporary nonuse 

or being suspended, either voluntarily or 

by agreement, due to the current range and 

weather conditions. 

As stated in section 4.3.7 of the EIS, there 

may be limited short-term negative effects 

if the full 24 months or more is needed to 

develop an appropriate action and complete 

the required coordination and consultation. 

However, the extra time taken to develop 

a meaningful action is expected to provide 

greater long term benefits to other resources. 

For example, merely reducing the level of use 

in a riparian area is not likely to improve the 

riparian area condition, because adjustments 

in season, frequency, and duration of use are 

much more effective management strategies 

for restoring riparian functionality. Taking 

the additional time to develop an appropriate 

action may actually decrease the amount 

of time taken to implement the decision, 

particularly if the decision is not appealed 

as a result of the additional time spent in 

consulting with permittees and formulating 

and analyzing options. Implementing 

decisions can be delayed by 18 to 36 months 

if appealed and if a stay is granted. 

Under the selected alternative, monitoring 

will not be necessary on every allotment in 

order to make a determination, but only on 

those allotments that fail to meet standards 

due to levels of grazing use or management 

practices. The number of allotments where 

all three action issues (monitoring, 24 months 

to develop remedial action, and 5-year phase 

5-33
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

in of adjustments) are needed is expected 

to be small. Finally, the rule provides the 

authorized officer authority to close an 

allotment or portions thereof immediately 

if continued grazing use poses an imminent 

likelihood of significant resource damage. 

As a result, BLM retains the discretion to 

address resource problems on a timely basis. 

Comment: One comment that opposed 

the rule stated that BLM should not adopt 

grazing regulations that will hurt the land in 

the short-term while betting that long term 

studies will lead to better land conditions at 

some indefinite time in the future. 

Response: BLM believes that adoption of 

the rule will lead to improved land conditions 

in the long-term as indicated in the analysis 

in section 4.5 of the EIS. That analysis states 

that some adverse effects are unavoidable, 

but in the long-term more comprehensive and 

sustainable decisions would be developed 

by relying on data and information collected 

through monitoring.

Comment: One comment stated that BLM 

should acknowledge that western rangelands 

are in decline due to improper grazing 

strategies, and lack of appropriate measures 

or changes to deal with drought, fire, exotic 

weeds, and excessive horse populations. 

Response: As stated in a previous 

response, as of the end of 2002, we had 

completed evaluations on 7,437 allotments. 

We determined approximately 16 percent 

of those allotments not to be meeting land 

health standards because of livestock grazing 

management. We conclude from this that 

generally most public rangelands are not 

in decline, or at least not to levels that we 

deem unsatisfactory. To the extent that more 

than 16 percent of allotments may have 

declined to a state of unsatisfactoriness, we 

have found that grazing is not a significant 

cause. We have begun actions to address the 

problems we identified. The changes made in 

the rule now under consideration in this EIS. 

The rule will improve our ability to assess 

rangeland health and implement effective 

corrective measures. Furthermore, we believe 

the rule will result in more collaboration 

and cooperation with permittees and lessees 

in addressing problems. We believe that 

we have adequate measures in place in the 

grazing regulations to deal with emergency 

situations such as drought and fires (section 

4110.3.3(b)). The BLM believes it continues 

to make progress in our livestock grazing and 

wild horse and burro management programs, 

particularly in terms of taking appropriate 

action to address rangeland health issues. 

The long term goal of this rule is to reverse 

declines in western rangeland health, in 

those areas where there are declines, through 

improved consultation and cooperation 

with ranchers, state and local authorities in 

devising means to restore degraded areas and 

maintain currently healthy areas. 

Comment: Comments stated that BLM 

should not adopt the new regulations because 

they will weaken wildlife protections. 

One comment stated that BLMʼs analysis 

shows that the regulatory changes would 

not mitigate declines in populations of mule 

deer, sage grouse, and many other species, 

except when ranchers agree not to graze 

for 3 years. Another comment asked BLM 

to show by allotment the current status and 

population trends of greater sage grouse 

and analyze the cumulative effects of the 

regulatory changes. One comment asked 

BLM to discuss the agencyʼs capacity, in 

terms of budget and personnel, to assess and 

monitor the status of sage grouse, and how its 

capacity would be affected by the regulatory 

changes. Other comments urged BLM 

to add specific sage grouse conservation 

measures to the regulations. A comment 

stated that BLM should consider the effects 

of the rule on nongame bird species that are 

likely candidates for listing as threatened or 

endangered species. Another said that BLM 

5-34 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

should consider values of wildlife displaced 

by livestock on public lands in order to 

address the loss of wildlife associated 

recreation which has occurred under current 

management

Response: Most of the changes in 

the rule will have little or no detrimental 

effect on wildlife. The changes are largely 

administrative in nature to improve working 

relationships with permittees and lessees, 

to protect rangeland health, and to improve 

efficiency and effectiveness, including 

bringing the regulations into compliance 

with court decisions. Land use plans and 

site-specific analyses are the proper vehicles 

for considering the site-specific effects of 

grazing on wildlife. Allowing adjustments 

in active use in excess of 10 percent to be 

implemented over a 5-year period could 

have short-term adverse effects on plants 

and wildlife. Specific effects would be 

determined on a case by case basis in sitespecific NEPA analyses and would identify 

possible mitigation measures. Changes in 

active grazing use in excess of 10 percent 

are infrequent. Also, the provision for 

phased in changes in use would not apply if 

it conflicted with an applicable law, e.g., if 

immediate implementation was a condition 

of a biological opinion under the Endangered 

Species Act. 

Furthermore, under section 4110.3-

3(b), if BLM determines that resources 

require immediate protection or continued 

grazing use poses an imminent likelihood 

of significant resource damage, we can 

immediately close allotments or portions of 

allotments or modify grazing use to protect 

the resources in question. Providing BLM 

up to 24 months to propose and analyze 

appropriate action to address failure to meet 

rangeland health standards may adversely 

affect wildlife in the short-term, but will 

benefit wildlife in the long term. The 

provision which allows for BLM to extend 

the timeframe beyond the 24 months would 

only be invoked if failure to comply with 

legal requirements was outside of BLMʼs 

control, i.e., the responsibility of another 

agency. The most likely occurrence of that 

nature would be if there was a delay due 

to the requirements of the Endangered 

Species Act not being fully met. Concerns 

and issues regarding specific species such 

as sage grouse and any specific threatened, 

endangered, or other special status species 

are fully addressed in land use or activity 

planning or permit or lease issuance or 

renewal environmental analyses. Specific 

detailed analysis for individual species is 

beyond the scope of this rule. In developing 

these regulations, BLM ensured that it had 

the mechanisms in place to take appropriate 

action to protect, as necessary, wildlife 

resources. This EIS discusses the sage grouse 

conservation strategy at the end of Chapter 

1 and addresses the effects of the rule on the 

sage grouse strategy in the cumulative effects 

analysis in Section 4.4.6. Effects on wildlife 

in general are discussed are analyzed in 

Sections 4.3.7 through 4.3.9 of this EIS.

Comment: One comment stated that 

procedures followed by BLM in the 

management of public rangelands contribute 

to petitions for Federal listings under the 

Endangered Species Act, and ultimately to 

more restricted and costly management of 

Federal lands. The result of this management 

is rangeland with reduced capacity to support 

native big game and upland game species, 

which has an adverse affect on western 

cultural, social, and economic values. 

Response: This rule focuses on 

improving the efficiency of livestock grazing 

administration on public lands. During each 

step of the land use planning process, BLM 

considers and analyzes the potential effects 

on wildlife. This consideration begins at the 

broad land use planning phase, and continues 

through allotment management planning, 

5-35
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

activity planning, and during development 

of terms and conditions of a grazing permit 

or lease. We recognize that recreation and 

tourism, including the viewing or hunting 

of animals, have increased in their relative 

contribution to many local and regional 

economies. The rule adopted today does 

not alter the way BLM considers potential 

effects on wildlife. Therefore, this rule is 

not expected to have an observable direct 

effect on the ability of the public to enjoy 

wildlife, and will not adversely affect the 

economic values associated with wildlife. 

Specific effects on local or visiting wildlife 

enthusiasts would be more appropriately 

addressed in any subsequent land use plan or 

allotment management plan analysis.

Comment: Several comments raised a 

number of other environmental factors that 

BLM should discuss, and stated that grazing 

has adverse effects on them: air quality, wild 

horses and burros, the prevalence of invasive 

weed species. Comments stated that the 

proposed rule would encourage the spread 

of invasive species, threatening shrub-steppe 

habitat, and damaging riparian and wet areas. 

Response: These issues are discussed 

in detail in the EIS in sections 4.3.6, 4.3.9, 

and 4.3.2, respectively. To the extent that 

the fundamentals of rangeland health and 

the standards and guidelines for grazing 

administration address these issues in Subpart 

4180, the rule makes no substantive changes 

in the fundamentals or standards themselves. 

Addressing more specific effects on wild 

horses and burros is outside the scope of 

the rule. Specific effects on wild horses and 

burros are more appropriately addressed in 

subsequent land use plans, landscape-level 

analyses, or undertaking-specific analyses.

Comment: Comments also asked BLM 

to impose various levels of restriction on 

grazing in the rule, including eliminating 

public land grazing altogether on the 

grounds that domestic livestock are exotic 

to the western range. Some urged us not 

to increase grazing in arid lands. Another 

comment suggested that BLM should require 

permittees and lessees to fence all riparian 

areas to eliminate livestock as a cause of 

degraded riparian areas. Others advocated 

eliminating grazing in riparian areas. 

Response: The rule does not directly 

result in a change in levels of active use 

on arid lands or anywhere else. The rule 

continues to allow BLM to manage the public 

rangelands to address adverse effects. For 

example, the rule retains BLMʼs authority to 

close allotments or portions of allotments to 

grazing by any kind of livestock or to modify 

authorized grazing use when we determine 

and document that continued grazing use 

poses an imminent likelihood of significant 

resource damage. Thus, if a riparian area is 

threatened with significant damage, we can 

have it fenced to exclude livestock. The rule 

also retains the fundamentals, standards and 

guidelines provisions of the rule to address 

rangeland health. 

Although fencing of riparian areas to 

improve grazing management is appropriate 

under certain circumstances, a requirement to 

fence all riparian areas would be impractical 

due to potential conflicts the fences might 

pose with other multiple uses such as 

recreation and wildlife habitat, and because 

of the expense of construction and ongoing 

maintenance. 

Comment: Some comments suggested 

that the EIS should include a description 

and analysis of the effects that the proposed 

changes would have on specific resource 

elements. Comments asked the BLM to 

describe the water quality effects resulting 

from livestock waste; the effects of livestock 

grazing on water quality because of the 

interaction between livestock, watersheds, 

riparian zones and streams; livestock grazing 

effects on fish, birds and many animal 

species; effects on wildlife resulting from 

5-36 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

competition for forage between livestock 

and wildlife; the capability and suitability 

of grazing on steep slopes; and finally a 

quantitative expression of the overall effects 

of the proposed changes on the land and the 

resources. Other comments suggested that the 

role of soil microbiotic crusts and the extent 

of different soil types, their erosion rates, and 

the effects of livestock grazing on each soil 

type should be described in the EIS.

Response: This EIS documents in a broad 

way the environmental effects that would 

result from the proposed regulatory changes. 

The proposed regulatory changes address 

several individual administrative steps in 

the overall process of managing grazing 

on public lands. Therefore the analysis is 

necessarily broad, and ecological elements 

and the potential effects of the proposed 

regulatory changes are described in a general 

context. It is not BLMʼs intent in this rule 

making to initiate major changes to the 

livestock grazing program or to make land 

use decisions. Most of the changes in the 

rule will have little or no effect on wildlife, 

water quality or soil erosion rates. Normally, 

land use plans and activity level plans are 

the proper vehicles for analyzing the effects 

on and interaction of grazing, wildlife, soils 

and water quality. We have modified the EIS 

to quantify the amount of public lands that 

may be affected in the short-term by those 

regulatory changes that may affect wildlife, 

soils, or water quality. The total number of 

allotments affected by the selected alternative 

is expected to be small because only 16 

percent of the allotments evaluated during 

the last 5 years needed adjustments in current 

livestock grazing management. See Section 

4.3.1 of this EIS.

Steep slopes can strongly influence 

livestock grazing patterns on rangelands. 

When preparing allotment evaluations at 

the field office level, BLM evaluates this 

influence when conducting livestock use 

pattern mapping, range trend analysis, 

range health assessments and through 

other monitoring efforts. This information 

is considered when developing effective 

livestock management strategies at the 

allotment planning level, along with the 

locations of highly erodible soils, fragile 

biotic soil crusts, critical fish and wildlife 

habitat, riparian zones, water bodies, and 

other resource values. Again, the proposed 

action and alternatives analyzed here do not 

address this level of detail, which is more 

appropriately analyzed at the allotment 

management and activity planning level. 

Comment: Some comments suggested 

that BLM use information from several 

references and studies to analyze the impacts 

of grazing management because these 

publications describe the flaws with livestock 

management on public lands. The following 

references were suggested: “Welfare 

Ranching, The Subsidized Destruction of 

the American West”; “The Western Range 

Revisited: Removing Livestock from Public 

Lands to Conserve Native Biodiversity”; 

“Waste of the West”; and the National 

Research Councilʼs “Riparian Areas: 

Functions and Strategies for Management”; 

a 1988 GAO study that determined the best 

method for promoting riparian recovery is 

livestock exclusion; a BLM study and the 

methodology used to show why exclosure 

fences are unnecessary if allotments are 

rested to allow recovery; and a study by 

Catlin et al (2003) and Stevens et al (2002) 

which criticize a number of elements of the 

current PFC assessment processes.

Response: The BLM selected the 

literature used in this EIS based on the 

resource specialist s best professional 

judgment as to the its relevance and 

suitability for the analysis. It would be 

impossible to review and include all 

literature on a particular topic. We are 

familiar with several of the references and 

5-37
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

studies identified in the comments. Welfare 

Ranching, The Subsidized Destruction of the 

American West was cited in the discussion 

on social effects. Several of the studies 

address issues that are not relevant to the 

analyses in this EIS. We did not examine 

large scale changes to the grazing program 

in this rulemaking, nor did we consider a no 

grazing scenario. The intent was to address 

amendments fine-tuning the regulations rather 

than wholesale revisions. In conclusion, we 

believe that the studies and reports reviewed 

for and used in the preparation of this EIS 

were pertinent and sufficient for the level and 

focus of the analyses. 

Comment: One comment suggested that 

the EIS should include a summary of BLM 

surveys (showing densities, population sizes, 

and distributions) of special status species, 

how much of its land has been surveyed, 

what species are considered special status 

species by states and how they and their 

habitat are affected by livestock grazing 

because actions are commonly taken without 

presenting supporting data. The comment 

also suggested that BLM should delineate 

how its management will specifically protect 

each threatened, endangered or sensitive 

species or their habitat that occurs on BLM 

lands.

Response: It is not practical or necessary 

to summarize all surveys and maintain an 

inventory of special status species on a 

national level for the purpose of analyzing a 

programmatic regulatory amendment such 

as this rulemaking. Individual BLM state 

offices manage current information and data 

relative to special status species in close 

coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS), the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, Fisheries 

(NOAA Fisheries), and appropriate state 

agencies. Special status species surveys are 

periodically conducted in BLM Districts and 

are required for all activity level projects. The 

conservation and protection of special status 

species is outlined in the BLM Special Status 

Species Management Policy as reflected 

in section 3.11 of the EIS. Actions taken to 

protect special status species from livestock 

grazing are developed in interdisciplinary 

allotment evaluations and outlined in the 

terms and conditions of grazing permits and 

leases. In the case of listed species, grazing 

permit terms and conditions are developed 

from a Biological Opinion issued by the 

FWS or NOAA Fisheries, and are based 

on supporting data from a BLM Biological 

Assessment.

Comment: Some comments 

recommended that the EIS should provide 

additional data on range improvements, 

allotment conditions, permit renewals, and 

the use of authority in section 4110.3-3(b) to 

curtail grazing because of grazing effects on 

upland soils. The range improvement data 

requested was the type, proportion funded by 

BLM, and the current condition of the range 

improvement. Permit renewal information 

the comment requested was the number 

of permits renewed since 1999 that were 

analyzed through a NEPA process, number of 

permits expiring in the next 5 years, and the 

current schedule to complete NEPA analysis 

of the remaining permits that were re-issued 

using Congressional authority that allowed 

renewal without NEPA analysis.

Response: This programmatic EIS 

documents the environmental effects that 

would result from the proposed regulatory 

changes. The changes affect several 

individual administrative and timing 

provisions in the grazing regulations. 

Therefore the analysis is necessarily broad, 

and ecological elements and the potential 

effects of the proposed regulatory changes 

are described in a general context. Detailed 

data on range improvements is not readily 

available or relevant to the analysis of the 

regulatory changes that would allow shared 

5-38 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

title between BLM and the permittee or 

lessee. Table 3.4.3.1 in the EIS presents data 

on range improvements to aid in analyzing 

the proposed regulatory amendment. 

Allotment level activity and condition 

data is valuable for land use planning and 

allotment management planning but would 

not provide meaningful analysis for this 

programmatic EIS. NEPA guidance provided 

by the Presidentʼs Council for Environmental 

Quality states that the level of detail 

presented in the affected environment section 

be succinct and only provides detail that is 

relevant to the level of impact analysis.

Section 3.4.1 of the EIS provides a 

discussion of BLMʼs permit renewal status 

including the number of permits expiring, 

permits renewed, and the number that will 

expire in the next 5 years. In response to the 

request for additional information on grazing 

permit renewals, we have added information 

to this section of the EIS on the permits 

renewed using the authorization provided in 

the Congressional appropriations language 

and the schedule to eliminate this backlog. 

Proposed and final decisions to renew grazing 

permits under this authority remain subject 

to protest and appeal by the interested public 

and monitoring and evaluation reports used 

as a basis for permit renewal remain available 

to the interested public in the rule.

BLM does not maintain data on the 

frequency of use of authority in section 

4110.3-3(b) to curtail grazing because of 

grazing effects on upland soils.

Comment: Some comments requested 

that we provide additional explanation 

of the process used to transfer range 

improvement ownership between permittees, 

how ownership of range improvement 

is determined in a cooperative range 

improvement agreement, and the reason a 

section 4 range improvement permit can not 

be used to develop water. 

Response: In response to the request 

for explanation of the process used to 

transfer any interest in range improvement 

between permittees or lessees we have added 

information on the pertinent sections of 

the regulations that require a documented 

agreement between the new and former 

permittee or lessee in section 3.4.3 of the EIS. 

The transfer of any interest or obligation in 

permanent range improvements is provided 

for in section 4110.2-3(a)(2) and section 

4120.3-5. As described in section 4.3.1 of 

the EIS, shared title to range improvements 

is documented in a cooperative range 

improvement agreement (CRIA) between the 

United States and a cooperator “in proportion 

to their financial or labor contribution 

toward the projectʼs development and 

construction.” Section 4 range improvement 

permits can not be used to authorize water 

developments because section 4120.3-2(b) 

states “authorization for all new permanent 

water developments...shall be through 

cooperative range improvement agreements” 

as mentioned in the EIS in 3.4.4.

Comment: One comment requested 

that the affected environment section of the 

EIS disclose additional information about 

the methodology used to show vegetation 

composition. This comment expressed 

doubt in the validity of using this condition 

assessment tool to depict environmental 

conditions of wildlife habitat on public land. 

Another comment wanted BLM to describe 

why vegetation conditions appear to have 

declined from those conditions presented in 

the 1994 Range Reform DEIS.

Response: BLM used standard protocols 

(BLM Technical Manual on Site Condition/

Status) to portray vegetation conditions in 

this EIS. As the comment stated, wildlife 

habitat is dependent on structural qualities, 

forage species abundance, diversity and 

production of both overstory and understory 

5-39
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

vegetation. The National Rangeland 

Inventory data is not intended as the single 

data element used to rate habitat condition, 

however it is useful for characterizing 

general rangeland vegetation condition. The 

environmental analysis is specific to changes 

in grazing regulations and is not intended to 

address wildlife habitat assessment methods. 

Vegetation information at the ecological site 

level, where available, resides in the field 

offices. This information is often summarized 

and utilized for analysis in land use plans 

and allotment management plans but is not 

appropriate for a programmatic analysis.

At present it is unclear whether 

vegetation conditions on public lands 

have markedly improved or declined in 

the 10 years since publication of the 1994 

Rangeland Reform DEIS. Many factors 

such as sustained drought conditions, 

livestock use and many other public land 

uses can play a role in the status of plant 

communities. Natural revegetation tends to 

be slow and stochastic on arid and semiarid 

rangelands, where water frequently limits 

or prevents plant establishment and growth 

(Call, C. A., and B. A. Roundy, 1991). The 

influence of grazing on species composition 

and productivity can be minor relative to 

the changes caused by variations in rainfall 

(Archer, S., and F.E. Smeins, 1991). 

Comment: Some comments suggested 

that BLM should include in the Affected 

Resource section of this EIS additional 

information regarding fire and fuels, the 

various studies that describe the influence 

of human activities, including grazing, on 

the proliferation and spread of exotic annual 

grasses, and the resulting changes in fire 

regimes. Another comment suggested that 

BLM should include a discussion of the role 

of livestock in changing the dynamics and 

moisture characteristics in the Basin sage and 

sage-steppe communities and their effects on 

fire frequency and intensity. Finally another 

comment suggested that BLM should clarify 

whether pinyon–juniper habitat has expanded 

due to grazing.

Response: In response to these comments 

we have modified section 3.6, Description 

of Affected Environment, of the EIS to 

address the proliferation and spread of annual 

grasses, resulting in larger and more intense 

wildfires. 

 Grazing practices prior to 1934 played a 

role in the reduction of herbaceous vegetation 

and the increase in woody vegetation. The 

dramatic changes resulting from these 

grazing practices are one of the reasons 

the Grazing Service and later BLM, was 

established. There are now over 50 percent 

fewer livestock on public lands now than 

there was in 1934. The combination of 

historic grazing practices and 50 years of 

aggressive fire suppression has had a major 

effect in the increase in woody vegetation, a 

buildup or fuels and the increase in severity 

of fire. A major contributing factor to the 

increased severity of fires is the prolonged 

drought in the west. The fuel loading and 

dryness of the fuels are causing suppression 

problems, further contributing to the size of 

recent fires. 

While it is likely that there has been 

some change in the dynamics and moisture 

regimes in the Great Basin sagebrush steppe 

vegetation communities, the documentation 

of the degree of change and its affect on fire 

frequency and intensity would be difficult, if 

not impossible to define, especially in view 

of the other confounding factors like the 

invasion of cheatgrass and other changes in 

vegetation composition. For this reason we 

are not incorporating this discussion in the 

EIS.

There are three major thoughts about the 

causal factors of juniper expansion on shrub 

and grasslands: (a) grazing of domesticated 

livestock, (b) suppression of wildfires, and 

(c) climactic shifts (Young and Evans 1981). 

5-40 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

European activity may have played a role in 

limiting fire spread with the construction of 

roads and breaking up the continuity of fuels. 

There are too many variables affecting the 

expansion of pinyon–juniper on rangelands, 

and some that are of varied opinions, 

therefore the EIS will not be modified to 

address this comment. 

Comment: We received comments on 

the description of BLMʼs wild horse and 

burro program. One comment stated that 

BLM should recognize that establishing 

Appropriate Management Levels (AML) by 

2005 is unlikely based on past performance 

and on the requirement that a “thriving 

natural ecological balance” be achieved. 

Another comment asked BLM to explain 

why it believes that AML can be achieved by 

2007, since that goal seems unlikely in light 

of past performance and the fiscal situation of 

the wild horse and burro program.

Response: The establishment of 

Appropriate Management Levels (AMLs) 

for all Herd Management Areas by 2005 is 

a “strategic goal” of the BLM. The agency 

has developed a blueprint to reach this goal, 

pursuant to adequate funding provided by 

Congress. Achieving AML by 2005, not 

2007, as stated in the comment, will be 

useful for the purpose of analysis of the 

direct and indirect effects of the proposed 

action and alternatives. Achieving AML by 

2005 is feasible, considering current funding 

proposals and internal capabilities of BLM.

Comment: One comment pointed out 

that the statement in section 3.13 of the 

EIS: “More highly developed recreational 

activities and those recreationists from 

local or rural areas tend to be less affected 

by rangeland conditions” is incorrect. 

Recreationists from local and rural areas can 

be more affected by rangeland conditions 

because they tend to recreate on rangelands 

more than people from distant or urban areas. 

Response: We agree that local and rural 

recreationists may be more affected by 

rangeland conditions than urban visitors, in 

that they often spend more time on public 

lands due to the close proximity of public 

lands and ready accessibility. We have 

revised section 3.13 accordingly.

Comment: Some comments suggested 

that BLM add detailed economic analysis 

of the effects of the proposed changes to the 

regulations. One comment asked the BLM 

to make distinctions and cite statistics for 

each recreation group (for example, hunters, 

fishermen, off highway users) to identify 

the economic costs and benefits of grazing 

compared to the loss of recreation benefits. 

One comment suggested the addition of 

economic data on wildlife and other resource 

values in order to understand the economic 

importance of each resource segment. 

Some comments stated that the economic 

contribution of public land livestock 

grazing is insignificant at the local, regional 

and national scale therefore BLM should 

acknowledge this and revise its analysis of 

effects. Another comment stated that the 

community of Leadore, Idaho should not be 

used to illustrate ranchingʼs contributions 

to local economies. Finally, a comment 

requested responses to specific questions 

about livestock economic contributions 

and proportions attributable to Federal land 

grazing. 

Response: This programmatic EIS 

documents in a broad way the economic 

effects that would result from proposed 

changes in several individual administrative 

and timing provisions in the grazing 

regulations. Therefore the analysis is 

necessarily broad, and describes economic 

factors and the potential effects of the 

proposed regulatory changes in a general 

context. Estimating costs associated with 

decreased recreational opportunities is 

5-41
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

possible at the allotment or land use plan 

scale but would be difficult to do for this 

programmatic analysis. In a strict quantitative 

economic sense, the EIS does not analyze 

tradeoffs in dollars for wildlife or other 

resource values. However, BLM does include 

consideration of wildlife and other resources 

in the EIS, including analysis of effects of 

the alternatives on those resources. BLM 

recognizes that other resources as noted in 

section 3.16 of the EIS, especially recreation 

and wildlife, contribute significantly to the 

growing diversification of rural, regional, and 

statewide economies in the western states.

We acknowledge in EIS Tables 3.16.3, 

3.17.1, and 3.17.2 as well as Section 3.16 

that there are other social, economic, 

and demographic conditions and trends 

occurring in the western U.S. that affect the 

relative contribution of agriculture, such 

as a higher rate of population growth than 

other regions of the country, diversification 

of local, regional, and statewide economies, 

and that agriculture itself is undergoing 

structural change. Among those changes are 

increasing reliance on off-farm income to 

supplement the income of low- to negativeprofit livestock operations The EIS also 

acknowledges that livestock grazing on 

public lands is increasingly competing with 

other growing multiple-use demands that 

contribute to economic activity, including 

recreational pursuits such as hunting, fishing, 

wildlife viewing, OHV use, mountain 

biking, hiking, and camping. Because of 

these changes, livestock grazing on public 

lands has become more limited in regional 

and national economic importance. The EIS 

discusses the proportion of the livestock 

industry to which public lands grazing 

contributes, and also the varying levels 

of dependency of public lands livestock 

operations, e.g. Table 3.16.3. However, 

authorized livestock grazing on public lands 

remains an important contributor to the social 

and economic fabric of many communities 

throughout the western U.S. 

The example of Leadore, Idaho presented 

in Section 3.17 of the EIS, is provided as 

a case study to supplement more general 

discussions presented in this section. It 

is used to illustrate the reliance of one 

community on livestock ranching and the 

authorized grazing of adjoining public lands. 

Livestock grazing is the economic basis for 

much of that population and supports the 

social fabric of the community. As noted 

in the EIS...”dominance of ranches, both 

economically and socially, fosters a common 

social view that the entire communityʼs social 

future is tied to the fate of ranchers.” Whether 

the income derived from livestock grazing 

is spent within or outside the community 

does not diminish the relative importance of 

the source of the income or the support of 

the local tax base to the affected citizens of 

Leadore. 

Comment: One comment found fault with 

the analysis of the effects of the proposed 

regulations on BLM Special Areas. The 

comment suggested that the analysis should 

include information on which areas are 

grazed or not grazed, the laws and mandates 

for each area, or the effects on attributes of 

these areas that resulted in their designation.

Response: The information presented in 

this EIS analyzes the environmental effects 

that would result from proposed regulatory 

changes in administrative and timing 

provisions. The continuation or termination 

of gazing on individual special areas is not an 

issue addressed in this rulemaking. Individual 

land use plans are appropriate venues for 

addressing these types of questions and land 

use decisions. 

Comment: The BLM should clearly show 

its long-term budget strategy that outlines the 

monitoring programs, funding, and personnel 

that will be added to the agencyʼs capacity 

to carry out the implied monitoring because 

5-42 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

BLM does not have adequate funding, 

personnel, and management support to 

adequately monitor vegetation, Special Status 

Species, and Birds of Conservation Concern, 

let alone other resources.

Response: BLM funding is beyond the 

scope of this rulemaking. Funding is provided 

by annual congressional appropriation. 

We will prioritize allocation of monitoring 

funding to address issues and provide a 

foundation for management adjustments. 

BLM agrees that monitoring is a critical 

component providing data for evaluation 

and adjustments of terms and conditions of 

grazing authorizations. We will continue to 

prioritize funding to fill monitoring needs.

Comment: BLM should revise the 

analysis in Chapter 4 and other sections 

because the effects are greatly understated, 

there is no link on effects to any valid science 

and the BLM has omitted scientific literature. 

Response: Many of the proposed changes 

are largely administrative and would have 

little direct effect on the environment. 

They are intended to improve agency 

administrative efficiency and effectiveness, 

improving consistency across the Bureau, or 

meeting other administrative objectives. The 

analysis presented in the DEIS represents 

the best available knowledge of the potential 

effects of the regulation changes. 

Comment: BLM Range Health Standards 

should be based on reputable science and 

research.

Response: The 1994 National Research 

Council publication Rangeland Health: 

New Methods to Classify, Inventory, and 

Monitor Rangelands provided the basis for 

BLMʼs Fundamentals of Rangeland Health 

and, subsequently, the rangeland health 

standards developed by BLM State Directors 

in consultation with appropriate Resource 

Advisory Councils.

5.4.6 Definitions— Other 

Recommendations

This section contains comments on 

some of the proposed definition changes and 

recommendations that we received during 

the comment period. Definition changes for 

active use, grazing preference, interested 

public, and temporary nonuse are addressed 

under separate headings on those specific 

issues. 

Comment: One comment suggested 

that we revise the definition of ephemeral 

grasslands. Other comments also suggested 

changes in this definition similar to those 

suggested by this comment. Changing this 

definition was not in the proposed rule, 

but the change suggested in the comment 

was more of a clarification than a change, 

removing the notion that production of 

sufficient forage by ephemeral range was 

necessarily unusual. 

Response: We have revised the definition 

for this term as suggested in the comments. 

We removed the phrase “may briefly produce 

unusual volumes of forage” and added in its 

place the phrase “from time to time produce 

sufficient forage.”

Comment: One comment from a State 

game and fish agency stated that we should 

not amend the definitions of “grazing lease” 

and “grazing permit,” because inclusion of 

preference in the text of a grazing lease leads 

to the lease establishing the stocking rate. 

The comment contended that a grazing lease 

is not the appropriate vehicle for establishing 

a stocking baseline. 

Response: Changes in the definitions are 

required in order to remove conservation use 

from the regulations, based on the 1999 Tenth 

Circuit Court of Appeals decision. Grazing 

preference, as well as other allowable uses 

on BLM lands, is established in land use 

plans. Grazing permits and leases are the 

instruments that authorize grazing use, based 

5-43
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

on land use planning allocations. Under 

section 4110.3, BLM will periodically review 

the grazing preference specified in a grazing 

permit or lease, and make changes in the 

grazing preference as needed to help achieve 

management objectives to attain rangeland 

health. 

Comment: Comments stated that the 

definitions should not provide that the 

grazing permit or lease is the document that 

authorizes grazing on public lands, because 

this unnecessarily triggers the need to 

document NEPA compliance.

Response: The Taylor Grazing Act directs 

BLM to authorize livestock grazing through a 

permit or lease. The National Environmental 

Policy Act provides requirements for Federal 

actions including the issuance of grazing 

permits and leases. BLM must comply with 

provisions of both laws. 

Comment: Comments urged BLM to 

amend the definition of a grazing permit 

to require that landowners be engaged in 

the livestock business in order to acquire a 

Federal grazing permit. They stated that this 

requirement is based on a provision of the 

Taylor Grazing Act. 

Response: The Taylor Grazing Act does 

not require a permit or lease holder to be 

in the livestock business. Section 3 of the 

Act states, “Preference shall be given in the 

issuance of grazing permits to those within or 

near a district who are landowners engaged 

in the livestock business.” Therefore, being 

in the livestock business is not a requirement, 

only a point of priority for receipt of a forage 

allocation. 

Comment: Other comments cited 

legislation pending in Congress that would 

allow the voluntary buyout of grazing 

permits, and stated that the proposed 

definition of “grazing permit” would 

complicate the potential for such voluntary 

buyouts. 

Response: BLM has not changed the 

rule in response to this comment. Pending 

legislation is not authority for regulation. If 

the legislation were to pass both Houses of 

Congress and be signed by the President, 

BLM would, if necessary, amend the 

regulations to implement the new legislation. 

Comment: Some comments urged BLM 

to clarify the regulations by changing the 

term “actual use” to “actual livestock use,” 

and “actual use report” to “actual livestock 

use report,” because the terms relate only to 

use by livestock.

Response: The definitions of “actual use” 

and “actual use report” in the final regulation 

remain unchanged. The current definition 

states that actual use relates to livestock use. 

Incorporating the suggestion would require 

adjusting the regulations in a number of 

areas in the regulations. We believe that 

such changes would not add clarity to the 

regulations.

Comment: One comment stated that 

BLM should revise the grazing rules to 

make consistent the concepts of active use, 

monitoring, rangeland studies, livestock 

carrying capacity and the term “forage 

available on a sustained yield basis.” The 

comment contended that currently they 

lack consistency between themselves 

and throughout the existing rules and the 

proposed rules.

Response: We believe that these terms, 

as used in the grazing regulations, are used 

consistently with one another.

Comment: Many comments suggested 

that we define the term “affected interest.” 

Some provided suggested language: 

“Affected interest means a permittee, lessee, 

allotment owner, or property owner who 

is directly and materially affected by BLM 

action related to livestock grazing plans or 

actions related to those plans” and stated 

that under Section 8 of PRIA, BLM has 

responsibility to directly consult, coordinate, 

5-44 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

and cooperate with any allottee, lessee, and 

landowner in a situation where they would 

be directly and materially affected by a BLM 

action or proposed action. Another comment 

asked BLM to define the term “affected 

person, interest, or party” and clearly limit 

those who are considered “affected” to 

people who would directly suffer economic 

and cultural loss. The comment said that this 

would prevent those who would use legal 

processes to impair or stop prudent land 

management from having standing to bring 

suit. Another said that such a definition would 

be consistent with the difference between 

a member of the public who enjoys certain 

opportunities for public involvement in BLM 

land use plans as part of the NEPA process, 

and the permittee, lessee, or landowner 

who is assured of “careful and considered 

consultation, cooperation, and coordination.” 

One comment stated that the term “affected 

interest” was too vague and could be 

misused, and suggested that BLM should 

refer instead specifically to the permittee or 

the landowner, as the case might be. 

Response: The terms “affected person,” 

“affected interest,”and “affected party” do 

not appear in Part 4100. There are references 

to “affected applicant, permittee or lessee, 

and any agent and lienholder of record,” 

“affected permittees or lessees, and the 

State having lands or responsibility for 

managing resources within the area” and 

other references to affected parties such “as 

landowners.” In these cases, the definition 

of the word “affected” is clearly evident, as 

pertaining to those persons whose interest 

is directly affected by the provision of the 

regulation. There is therefore no need to 

provide a separate definition for the term 

“affected interest” or any of its variants.

We have not adopted the recommendation 

to replace the term “interested public” in the 

regulations with the term “affected interest” 

and to restrict its definition to include only 

an allotment owner, lessee, or landowner that 

is directly and materially affected by a BLM 

action related to livestock grazing plans or 

actions related to those plans. Although the 

sections of PRIA that address consultation 

and coordination (sections 5 and 8) list 

those entities that BLM should include in 

the decision process on allocation of range 

improvement funds and in the formulation 

of allotment management plans, they do 

not limit public involvement during the 

process leading to such BLM decisions. To 

involve all those who may be interested in 

participating in the decision process is not 

in conflict with the portions of PRIA that 

address consultation and coordination. As 

noted elsewhere, the rule does affect the 

role of the interested public and removes 

the consultation requirement from several 

day-to-day management level decisions. The 

effect of these changes is that the interested 

public, permittees, and lessees all have 

opportunities to participate under Section 202 

of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1712) in decisions on 

land use plans and allotment management 

plans that form part of the basis for grazing 

management decisions, while some dayto-day management decisions require 

consultation opportunities for permittees and 

lessees but not with the interested public. 

BLM believes that this best balances the 

legitimate need for wide public participation 

in the management of public lands with the 

need for efficiency in day-to-day matters that 

directly affect permittees and lessees.

Comment: One comment urged BLM to 

revise the definition of “animal unit month,” 

stating that the existing definition is outdated 

and causes confusion. It suggested that the 

definition should be based on livestock size 

and class, since these vary. 

Response: The suggestion to define an 

animal unit month in terms of livestock size 

and class would make implementation of the 

regulation prohibitively complex and costly.

5-45
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

Comment: One comment stated that 

BLM should define the term “authorized 

use” as it was defined by the Interior Board 

of Land Appeals in New Burlington Group 

Grazing Association, IBLA 2003-324: “the 

level of AUMs granted in the permitteeʼs 

grazing permit.” According to the comment, 

this would make it clear that authorized 

use is not the previous yearʼs actual use, 

an interpretation rejected by IBLA in New 

Burlington, and would avoid confusion as to 

what use is authorized. 

Response: We have not adopted the 

recommendation in the comment, since the 

term does not appear in this form in these 

regulations. Terms similar to “authorized 

use” that appear in these regulations include 

“preference” or “grazing preference” and 

“active use,” all of which are defined in 

section 4100.0-5. These definitions and 

the use of these terms in the regulations 

address the concern in the comment that the 

regulations should have a term pertaining to 

the number of AUMs authorized by a permit 

or lease. 

Comment: One comment asked BLM 

to define the terms “authorization” and 

“authorized” to ensure clarity of application 

of these terms in the regulations. Another 

comment stated that, to end current confusion 

and ambiguity regarding meaning of the 

terms “authorization” and “authorized” in the 

grazing regulations, BLM should include a 

definition of “authorized” in the regulations 

as “the level of AUMs granted by the 

permitteeʼs term grazing permit,” or, as “all 

AUMs included within the permitteeʼs term 

grazing permit.”

Response: BLM does not agree that it 

should define the terms “authorization” and 

“authorized” as the comment suggested. In 

the absence of a definition in the regulations, 

we apply the common dictionary definition 

and meaning. This is true for terms like 

“authorization” and “authorized,” whose 

dictionary definition is sufficient. The term is 

used throughout the regulations in the sense 

of to “allow” or “grant permission,” and in 

areas that do not directly relate to forage 

amounts, such as when BLM authorizes 

construction of a range improvement through 

a cooperative range improvement agreement. 

Moreover, the BLM is not limited to 

authorizing grazing through the use of term 

permits and leases. We may also authorize 

grazing on a temporary and nonrenewable 

basis where the applicant is not a preference 

holder.

The rule states unambiguously at section 

4130.2(a) and through the definitions of 

“grazing permit” and “grazing lease” at 

section 4100.0-5 that the grazing permit 

or lease is the document that authorizes 

grazing use on the public lands and other 

BLM-administered lands that are designated 

in land use plans as available for livestock 

grazing. Consistent with statutory language in 

Sections 3 and 15 of the Taylor Grazing Act, 

and with the use of the term “permit or lease” 

in Section 402 of the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act, BLM intends that the 

grazing permit or lease, which specifies the 

terms and conditions of grazing use allowed 

by the permit or lease during its term, be 

relied upon as the document that authorizes 

grazing use. 

In the proposed rule, we removed 

the term “annual grazing authorization” 

from section 4140.1(b)(1)(i) (which had 

prohibited grazing without a permit or lease 

and an “annual grazing authorization”). 

We found that this term was confusing 

because it implied that there was some other 

document besides a permit or lease (or in 

limited circumstances, an exchange of use 

agreement) that authorizes public lands 

grazing. 

The grazing regulations provide some 

flexibility to make minor adjustments in the 

grazing use within the terms and conditions 

5-46 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

of the permit or lease. The amount of forage 

consumed in any one year need not exactly 

reflect the amount of forage that could be 

allowed to be consumed as shown on the 

authorizing permit or lease. Such flexibility 

is necessary to be responsive to forage 

conditions that can vary from year to year 

due to weather conditions or as a result 

of emergencies such as wildfire, or to be 

responsive to personal or business needs of 

the livestock operator. 

BLM collects fees for use authorized 

by the grazing permit or lease, as may be 

adjusted. The use shown on the grazing fee 

billing becomes a part of the permit or lease 

for the period of grazing use that is specified 

by the grazing fee billing

Comment: One comment urged BLM 

to define “livestock carrying capacity” in 

terms that address and meet ecological needs, 

including plant productivity, soil nutrient 

cycles, ground cover, plant community 

composition, wildlife habitat function, and 

habitat resilience.

Response: The current definition of 

“livestock carrying capacity” found in the 

BLM grazing regulations accords with the 

commonly accepted definition of this term 

and reads: “Livestock carrying capacity means 

the maximum stocking rate possible without 

inducing damage to vegetation or related 

resources. It may vary from year to year 

on the same area due to fluctuating forage 

production.” “Related resources” include the 

ecological needs of rangelands. Also, Subpart 

4180—Fundamentals of Rangeland Health 

and Standards and Guidelines for Grazing 

Administration, provides guidance for 

ensuring that grazing management meets the 

ecological needs of rangelands.

Comment: One comment urged BLM to 

clarify the regulations by adding a definition 

of “forage available on a sustained yield 

basis,” as follows: “Forage available on 

a sustained yield basis means the average 

“livestock carrying capacity” as determined 

by monitoring over time.”

Response: We considered the proposed 

definition and determined that it would 

not add clarity to the regulations. The 

proposed definition would equate an amount 

of forage with livestock carrying capacity. 

“Livestock carrying capacity” is defined 

by the regulations in terms of a “stocking 

rate.” “Stocking rate” is a standard term that 

describes a number of animals, over time, 

per unit area. Ultimately, were the suggestion 

to be adopted, the result would be to make 

an amount of forage the equivalent of a 

number of animals over time per unit area. 

To put it simply, “forage available on a 

sustained yield basis” is not the same thing 

as a number of animals per unit area per time 

period. Moreover, adopting this suggestion 

would create a internal conflict with 43 

CFR § 4100.0-8, which states that land use 

plans establish allowable resource uses and 

program constraints. In other words, BLM 

may consider factors other than the results of 

monitoring in determining livestock carrying 

capacity.

Comment: Comments suggested that 

BLM should include in the definitions 

of “monitoring” and “rangeland studies” 

the requirement to apply BLM-approved 

analytical methodology. One criticized 

BLMʼs proposal that monitoring 

methodologies be handled through policy 

guidance in manuals and handbooks. 

Another comment asked for clarification that 

monitoring is not mere observation but must 

occur through rangeland studies set forth in 

approved BLM manuals. It concluded that 

this monitoring should include data collected 

on actual use, utilization, climatic conditions, 

special events, and trend. Others urged that 

the rule ensure that monitoring will occur 

through rangeland studies, as set forth in 

approved BLM Manuals, and not by the 

“whims” of the authorized officer.

5-47
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

Response: We have not changed the 

regulations in response to these comments. 

The BLM Manual, handbooks, and other 

BLM internal instruction materials provide 

adequate guidance on monitoring and 

rangeland studies, and these materials are 

more easily updated than regulations. The 

comments generally agree with this approach, 

and mainly discuss how we should address 

monitoring in our internal guidance. We will 

consider these comments when we review 

our Manual provisions and other internal 

guidance. 

Comment: Comments stated that BLM 

should restrict monitoring to rangeland 

studies. They suggested that “monitoring” 

should be defined as “means the orderly 

collection of rangeland studies data to 

evaluate ...,” stating that this would contrast 

monitoring with observations and indicate 

that only the collection of “rangeland studies” 

will be considered valid monitoring. Further, 

they stated, “rangeland studies” should be 

defined as “any study methods as set forth in 

approved BLM manuals for collecting data 

on actual use, utilization, climatic conditions, 

other special events, and trend to determine if 

management objectives are being met.” The 

commentʼs position was that this will ensure 

that management decisions are based on 

sound information.

Response: We considered the suggested 

definitions. However, we determined that 

BLM needs flexibility to use site-specific 

methods in addition to those monitoring 

methods set forth in Manual guidance. 

This flexibility will allow BLM to employ 

techniques that meet local needs and that 

we can develop in cooperation with other 

agencies and partners.

Comment: One comment stated that BLM 

should define the term “multiple use” to 

include outdoor recreational activities, such 

as hiking, hunting, fishing, and other outdoor 

activities, because the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act provides authority for 

managing lands on the basis of multiple use.

Response: Although the comment 

correctly interprets outdoor recreation 

activities to be included in any definition 

of multiple use, we have not adopted the 

recommendation to define the term “multiple 

use” in the regulations on livestock grazing. 

The term “multiple use” is defined in the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

and the BLM planning regulations (43 CFR 

1600.0-5) and needs no further definition in 

these regulations.

5.4.7 Documentation of Social, 

Economic and Cultural Effects

Comment: We received several comments 

that opposed including language providing 

that before BLM changes grazing preference, 

we will analyze, and if appropriate, document 

relevant social, economic, and cultural effects 

of this action. These comments urged BLM 

to abandon the provision to include social, 

economic, and cultural considerations in 

its grazing decisions. The reasons provided 

by these comments were: neither NEPA, 

FLPMA, nor PRIA authorize BLM to adopt 

rules to protect the “custom and culture” 

of the western cowboy or rancher, protect 

ways of life, or insulate the public land 

livestock industry from economic effects, 

nor does NEPA authorize BLM to ignore 

the resource protection requirements of 

FLPMA and PRIA; BLM should apply an 

even-handed administration of existing 

laws and regulations rather than try to 

preserve a way of life and rural character of 

ranching communities, which the agency 

has no authority to do; open space and rural 

character are best preserved through local 

zoning and tax policies; despite the fact that 

NEPA does not require analysis of social, 

economic, and cultural considerations except 

in connection with preparing an EIS, BLM 

field managers have routinely considered 

5-48 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

these effects, which is why rangeland 

conditions are still unsatisfactory; it sets the 

agency up for failure, since no permittee 

would be willing to share the financial 

aspects of their operation with BLM; NEPA 

already allows for consideration of such 

effects into environmental analyses, so this 

proposal is duplicative and unnecessary; 

BLMʼs policy strategy is based on a skewed 

interpretation of the law; NEPA does not 

require that grazing decisions incorporate 

analyses of social, economic and cultural 

effects when preparing environmental 

assessments (EA); Federal law directs that 

the public lands be managed for multiple 

uses, of which grazing is only one; it would 

result in management that benefits ranchers 

over the short-term and damages the land 

over the long term; and public land grazing is 

not very cost effective to begin with, and this 

provision would perpetuate that.

Response: We have not adopted the 

suggestion to abandon the requirement 

for BLM managers to analyze and, if 

appropriate, document their consideration 

of relevant social, economic, and cultural 

factors before changing grazing preference. 

BLM is obligated under 40 CFR 1508.8(b) 

to assess the consequences, i.e., impacts or 

effects, of BLM actions, authorizations, and 

undertakings on environmental, aesthetic, 

historic, cultural, economic, social, or health 

aspects of the human environment. CEQ 

regulations at 40 CFR 1508.9(b) also direct 

that Environmental Assessments include brief 

discussions of the effects of the proposed 

action and alternatives. The provision 

at section 4110.3 is consistent with this 

direction and intent of NEPA. Consideration 

of these factors in the NEPA context does not 

result in a particular outcome, but ensures 

from a procedural perspective that the 

information is considered and, if appropriate, 

documented in the associated NEPA analysis.

Comment: Other comments urged BLM 

to include in any future direction, guidance, 

or regulation formulated with respect to 

social, economic, or cultural considerations, 

an emphasis on the requirement for a 

comprehensive and thorough assessment of 

the effects on multiple resource values of the 

public rangelands, not just grazing effects, 

including: the ecological, educational, 

aesthetic, cultural, recreational, economic 

and scientific value to the nation of fish and 

wildlife; the relevant social, economic and 

cultural effects of livestock overgrazing 

on recreational users, municipal water 

users, threatened and endangered species 

management, the need and cost for erosion 

control, threatened and endangered species 

recovery, and restoration and rehabilitation 

of public lands, watersheds, and wildlife 

habitat damaged by livestock grazing; the 

economic, social, and cultural considerations 

of the vast majority of the people in this 

country who view public lands as a place to 

produce wildlife, for recreational enjoyment, 

clean water, and wild and scenic vistas, and; 

any economic effects of the subsidy inherent 

in the grazing program due to the cost of 

administering the program, undervalued 

Federal grazing permits, and the benefits of 

foregone uses.

Response: The BLM agrees that some 

of the considerations and assessment topics 

listed in the comment may be relevant to 

specific proposal(s) for changes in grazing 

preference. Those determinations would be 

made for each individual proposal on a caseby-case basis. BLM would likely consider 

other factors listed in the comment, such 

as grazing subsidies related to grazing fee 

issues or costs of administering the program, 

and the value of grazing permits, outside the 

scope of future site-specific proposals for 

changes in grazing preference.

Comment: Another comment stated 

that, if BLM adopts the proposal to consider 

social, economic, and cultural considerations 

5-49
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

in its grazing decisions, we should be 

required to consider the past, present, and 

future effects of grazing management 

decisions on the culture and traditions of 

Tribal members. This comment asserted 

that BLM must include in its analysis a full 

review of the economic costs to the public 

of livestock grazing on public lands, and 

the economic, social, and cultural effects 

that grazing has on Tribal nations and 

their members due to the effect of grazing 

activities on the Tribal resources (e.g., fish, 

wildlife, roots, berries).

Response: With respect to considering 

effects of changing grazing preference on 

Tribal members, the consideration, when 

appropriate, of social, economic, and 

cultural factors will not necessarily preserve 

any particular lifeway associated with 

the use of public lands. Under NEPA, the 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act, 

and the National Historic Preservation Act, 

however, BLM must specifically consider 

the effects of BLM actions and undertakings 

with respect to the concerns and traditional 

cultural properties of federally recognized 

Indian Tribes. The rule does not subvert this 

direction.

Comment: One comment stated that 

BLM should consider social, economic, and 

cultural effects only to the extent that agency 

decisions move toward balance and harmony 

with the environment, which is the stated 

purpose of NEPA. Another urged BLM to 

provide criteria for an “appropriate analysis,” 

because the regulation is not clear as to what 

analysis would be appropriate and whether 

any action could be taken until the analysis 

has been conducted.

Response: NEPA is a procedural statute, 

and does not direct the outcome of any 

agency decision-making process. The 

selection of impact topics to be considered 

in any environmental document is not 

pre-ordained and BLM must tailor it to 

the issues identified for each proposed 

action, authorization, or undertaking. The 

commensurate level of impact analyses 

are tied to these selections. BLM believes 

the consideration of social, economic, and 

cultural factors provided for in section 

4110.3(c) of the regulatory changes making 

— “analyze and, if appropriate, document 

relevant social, economic, and cultural effects 

of the proposed action” — is consistent with 

the intent of NEPA. 

BLM has decided not to provide criteria 

for an “appropriate analysis” because 

the level of analysis considered to be 

“appropriate” will vary with each sitespecific proposal and, consequently, specific 

criteria are unnecessary. As with all proposed 

actions for which environmental analysis 

is conducted pursuant to NEPA, the level 

of analysis must be tailored to the issues 

identified for each proposal and the level of 

effects anticipated. Additionally, as with other 

Federal actions for which NEPA analysis 

is required, no action may be taken until a 

decision by the authorized officer is final. 

This is no different from any other analysis 

conducted under NEPA where a decision 

must be made before taking action.

Comment: Other comments stated 

that emphasis on considerations such as 

the social, economic, and cultural effects 

of agency decisions that change levels of 

grazing preference would have adverse 

effects on natural resources, leading to 

degradation of the public lands. Comments 

stated that improving working relationships 

with grazing permittees and lessees would 

tend to weaken the ability of BLM to manage 

rangelands in a timely fashion by adding 

considerable time before action can be taken. 

One comment stated that BLM should have 

working relationships with the public, not 

just ranchers. Another accused BLM of 

appeasing ranchers and increasing the level 

of environmental damage.

5-50 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

Response: We have not materially 

changed current policy with regard to the 

consideration of social, economic, and 

cultural effects of decisions in the grazing 

program. We currently consider the social, 

economic, and cultural effects of actions that 

change grazing use levels, as well as other 

aspects of grazing operations in the NEPA 

process. The main difference is that, under 

these changes to the regulations at section 

4110.3 (c), BLM will more consistently 

document these considerations. This 

change in the regulations will help improve 

evenness across the Bureau in the analysis 

of social, economic, and cultural effects. The 

consistent documentation of these concerns 

does not come at the expense of protecting 

natural resources and maintaining healthy 

rangelands. Rather, it improves working 

relationships between BLM and ranchers by 

ensuring that social, economic and cultural 

effects are analyzed and disclosed where 

appropriate. Since this provision requires no 

additional analysis than current policy does, 

we anticipate few delays in the authorization 

and implementation of grazing management 

actions on public lands attributable to this 

provision.

Comment: Several comments suggested 

that BLM include a “social and economic” 

land health standard to demonstrate 

consistency with the proposed requirement 

that BLM consider relevant social, economic, 

and cultural effects in their NEPA analyses of 

the effects of changing levels of grazing use.

Response: BLM believes that land health 

standards should focus on the biotic and 

physical components of the ecosystem, and 

that “human dimension” considerations are 

best dealt with in the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) analyses that we conduct. 

In order to assure consistent disclosure and 

consideration of social and economic effects, 

we have included requirements in section 

4110.3(c) to analyze and, if appropriate, 

document relevant social, economic, and 

cultural effects as required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act before changing 

grazing preference. 

5.4.8 Active Use— Definition, 

Increases, and Decreases

Comment: BLM received several 

comments that suggested alternative 

definitions for the term “active use.” Some 

comments suggested that active use should 

be based on “forage available on a sustained 

yield basis.” The comments also suggested 

that we define the term “forage available on 

a sustained yield basis.” Other comments 

suggested that the definition of active use 

should include reference to monitoring data 

and documented resource conditions in an 

allotment. One comment suggested that 

“active use” should include both “authorized 

use” and “nonuse.”

Response: The term “active use” is the 

amount of forage that is available for grazing 

use under a permit or lease. Active use is 

based upon resource conditions within an 

allotment. When permittees or lessees apply 

not to use all or a portion of their active use 

in any particular year, they are applying 

for “nonuse.” If BLM finds it necessary to 

reduce the level of grazing use permitted 

either temporarily or indefinitely, we will 

suspend “active use.” At that point, active use 

is reduced and suspended use is created or 

increased, either temporarily or indefinitely. 

“Active use” is a grazing-program-specific 

administrative term and does not include all 

forage available on a sustained yield basis 

within an allotment, because other forage, 

or potential forage, within the allotment is 

allocated under the auspices of the applicable 

land use plan to watershed protection, plant 

maintenance and reproduction, to wildlife 

habitat and, where wild horses or burros are 

present, to forage for those animals. 

5-51
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

Comment: BLM received numerous 

comments asking that a permitteeʼs or 

lesseeʼs stewardship efforts be included as 

criteria for determining who is to receive 

temporary, as well as permanent, increases in 

grazing use. 

Response: Additional forage that is 

temporarily available most often occurs in 

years when favorable growing conditions 

result in forage production exceeding the 

average livestock grazing capacity in a 

given area, upon which the active grazing 

preference is based. Although stewardship 

efforts can contribute to additional forage 

for livestock that is temporarily available, 

BLM believes that in most cases, it would be 

difficult to ascertain the role of stewardship 

versus the role of good growing conditions 

in contributing to the increase. Therefore, 

requiring BLM to consider and reward this 

role would be impractical. 

Comment: One comment asserted that 

only existing permittees and lessees should 

be eligible for being granted additional 

forage for livestock when BLM finds that it is 

available under section 4110.3-1(b).

Response: Section 4110.3-1 provides that 

if BLM determines that there is additional 

forage available for livestock within an 

allotment, it will first be apportioned to 

remove any suspensions of that allotmentʼs 

permittees or lessees, then to those permittees 

or lessees in proportion to their contributions 

to stewardship efforts that led to the increased 

forage production, then to those permittees 

and lessees in proportion to the amount 

of their grazing preference, then to other 

qualified applicants. The comment urges 

BLM to remove “other qualified applicants” 

from the list of possible recipients of the 

forage increase. BLM believes that it would 

be a rare occasion when there would be an 

increase in forage available for livestock 

that would be made available, following 

satisfaction of the other requirements of this 

regulation, to “other qualified applicants.” 

Nonetheless, BLM sees no need for undue 

restrictions on who may receive this public 

benefit.

Comment: One comment advocated that 

BLM should determine if additional forage is 

temporarily available only upon application 

by a qualified applicant. If, the comment 

went on, following such application, BLM 

finds additional forage to be temporarily 

available, we should be obliged to approve its 

use by the applicant, following consultation, 

cooperation, and coordination with the 

preference permittee or lessee. 

Response: BLM generally responds to, 

rather than solicits, applications for TNR 

use. It is unnecessary to make it a regulatory 

provision that BLM can determine additional 

forage to be available only if first a qualified 

applicant applies for it. Most commonly, 

BLM receives applications for TNR use 

from the permittee or lessee with preference 

for use in the allotments where the forage is 

available. The regulations provide also that a 

person other than the preference permittee or 

lessee may apply for TNR use. 

Comment: One comment urged us to 

provide in this section that BLM must consult 

with wildlife agencies before temporarily, 

as well as permanently, increasing grazing 

use, so that they can effectively manage 

wildlife whose populations can be affected by 

grazing. 

Response: As provided by section 

4130.6-2, BLM is required to consult, 

cooperate, and coordinate with the preference 

permittee or lessee and the state having lands 

or responsibility for managing resources in 

the area prior to authorizing TNR use. Thus 

the state agencies responsible for managing 

wildlife resources will be consulted prior to a 

proposed decision for increases or decreases 

in active use as well as for TNR use. In 

addition, BLM will consult with state wildlife 

5-52 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

agencies as part of the process to develop the 

NEPA compliance documentation.

Comment: One comment suggested that 

the interested public should be excluded from 

consultation, cooperation, and coordination 

under section 4110.3-1(b)(2). 

Response: The allocation of additional 

livestock forage available on a sustained 

yield basis, after satisfaction of any 

suspension of preference of the permittee 

or lessee for the allotment where the 

additional forage is located, is considered a 

planning decision by the BLM. Therefore, 

it is appropriate to consult, cooperate, and 

coordinate with the interested public, as well 

as affected permittees, lessees, and the state, 

before issuing a proposed decision allocating 

that additional livestock forage. 

Comment: One comment asked BLM to 

clarify in this section that additional forage 

will be, rather than may be, apportioned to 

qualified applicants consistent with land use 

plans. 

Response: BLM retained the term “may,” 

rather than “will,” apportion additional 

forage available for livestock grazing to 

retain its complete discretion in this matter. 

The wording in the rule reflects that in the 

pre-1995 provision. It means that BLM will 

not apportion additional forage temporarily 

available if there is no demand for it. (As to 

additional forage available on a sustained 

yield basis, on the other hand, the regulations 

state that BLM will first use it to end 

suspensions that were in place due to lack 

of forage. Any further apportionment of 

such forage, however, will occur only after 

consultation with the affected state agencies, 

permittees, lessees, and the interested public.)

Comment: One comment interpreted 

changes in this section to mean that BLM 

could designate ephemeral or annual 

rangelands based on a finding that forage 

was temporarily available and allow BLM to 

approve grazing regardless of land use plan 

decisions and land conditions.

Response: A BLM determination that 

additional forage for livestock is available on 

a temporary basis does not serve to designate 

ephemeral or annual rangelands. BLM makes 

these determinations in land use plans.

Comment: One comment asked BLM 

to make it clear that section 4110.3-1(b)(2) 

refers only to forage available for livestock, 

so that the regulation is not interpreted to 

preclude allocations of additional forage 

available on a sustained yield basis to other 

uses. 

Response: Section 4110.3-1 (b)(2) is 

within paragraph (b), which would amend in 

the final rule by adding the word “livestock,” 

so that it states in part, “When the authorized 

officer determines that additional forage is 

available for livestock use on a sustained 

yield basis, he will apportion it in the 

following manner ... .” BLM believes that 

this makes it clear that the forage being 

referred to is forage allocated to livestock 

through planning and decision processes, as 

compared with, for example, forage that is 

allocated to wild horses and burros, or forage 

that is allocated to wildlife, using the same 

planning and decision processes. 

Comment: Another comment asked BLM 

to include assurances or a requirement that 

increased forage allocation to wildlife will 

result when wildlife organizations contribute 

to a project that increases available forage. 

Response: The suggestion to provide 

assurances in this Subpart that increased 

forage resulting from projects funded by 

wildlife organizations is outside of the scope 

of this rule. However, before agreeing to fund 

projects that will increase forage available 

on public lands, wildlife organizations are 

free to negotiate the terms under which to 

make such contributions, and to memorialize 

these arrangements through cooperative 

5-53
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

agreements with BLM and other project 

participants. 

Comment: Another comment urged BLM 

to establish criteria that must be met before 

preference can be increased.

Response: Regulatory criteria for 

making changes in grazing preference, 

including increases in preference, appear in 

section 4110.3(a). They include: to manage, 

maintain, or improve rangeland productivity, 

to assist in restoring ecosystems to properly 

functioning condition, to conform to land use 

plans or activity plans, or to comply with the 

provisions of Subpart 4180.

Comment: One comment urged BLM to 

provide permittees and lessees the right to 

“petition” for increased grazing use up to 

the limit of their preference, subject to its 

availability. 

Response: Under previous and current 

regulations at section 4130.1-1, permittees 

and lessees have the right to apply for 

grazing use at whatever level they desire, 

regardless of preference. BLMʼs response to 

the application, however, will be guided by 

available resource information pertinent to 

the decision, be consistent with land use plan 

objectives and decisions, and comply with 

these grazing regulations. 

Comment: One comment stated that 

BLM should develop and demonstrate a 

process that would allow grazing to increase 

if monitoring shows that an increase is 

warranted.

Response: The section discussed in 

this portion of the EIS already contains 

procedures to allow grazing to be increased. 

Comment: Several comments on this 

section stated that BLM should have the 

option to require that preference reductions 

made under section 4110.3-2(b) be placed in 

“nonuse” rather than be suspended by BLM. 

Response: Adopting this suggestion 

would confound, rather than clarify, the 

management implications of the action 

of “suspending” active preference versus 

approving the “nonuse” of active preference. 

Before 1995, the grazing regulations 

provided that when active use was reduced, 

the amount reduced could be either “held 

[by BLM] in suspension or in nonuse for 

conservation or protection purposes.” 

This pre-1995 terminology created 

three categories of preference: “active,” 

“suspended” and “nonuse for conservation 

or protection purposes.” Having three 

categories of preference made it less clear 

under what management circumstances it 

was appropriate for BLM to suspend active 

use rather than “hold” nonuse (of active use) 

for conservation or protection purposes. 

Further conceptual blurring was created 

by BLM policy, as stated in our handbook, 

that a permittee or lessee could annually 

apply and receive approval for nonuse of 

all or a part of their active use for reasons 

associated with personal or business needs, 

or for “conservation and protection of the 

range,” but this “short-term” nonuse did not 

affect preference status. Based on the pre1995 regulations, there currently are some 

grazing permits and leases which list nonuse 

that is being “held” by BLM and which 

is included as a part of the total grazing 

preference. However, this nonuse, i.e., that 

portion of active use that was “held in nonuse 

conservation or protection” under the pre1995 regulations, is the practical equivalent 

of suspended preference as this term is used 

in this rule. 

This rule intends to establish and clarify a 

distinction between “suspended” preference 

and “nonuse” of preference, thus: 

• Suspended preference arises from an 

action initiated by BLM. BLM suspends 

preference when necessary to manage 

resources by decreasing active use under 

section 4110.3-1 or as a penalty action 

for grazing regulations violations under 

5-54 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

section 4170.1-1. In contrast, nonuse 

arises when BLM approves an application 

submitted by a grazing permittee or lessee 

not to use some or all of the active use 

authorized by a permit or lease under 

section 4130.4.

• Suspended preference is shown on the 

grazing permit or lease, and along with 

active use is part of the total grazing 

preference of the permittee or lessee. 

BLM does not issue a grazing permit 

or lease to authorize nonuse. The 

“conservation use permitting” provisions 

that allowed for this practice were 

disallowed by the 10th Circuit Court of 

Appeals in 1998 and are removed from 

the grazing regulations by this rule. As 

explained previously, because of the 

regulations that were in place before 

1995, there is one exception to the 

statement that we do not issue grazing 

permits or leases that authorize nonuse. 

On some permits and leases, BLM 

still shows nonuse as a part of the total 

preference because pre-1995 regulations 

allowed reductions of active preference 

to be “held in nonuse for conservation 

or protection purposes.” However, this 

nonuse is the practical equivalent of 

suspended preference as clarified by this 

rule. 

• BLM may suspend preference on a 

short-term basis, as may be needed, 

for example, to allow recovery of 

vegetation after a fire. BLM also may 

suspend preference for a longer term 

or indefinitely, as may be needed, for 

example, when BLM determines through 

monitoring that there is not enough 

livestock forage produced on a sustained 

yield basis to support the active use 

authorized by a permit or lease, and 

that forage production is not expected 

to be able to support that level of use 

for the foreseeable future. To receive 

BLMʼs approval for nonuse, permittees 

or lessees must apply for nonuse of some 

or all of the active use authorized by 

their permit or lease, prior to the start 

date of the grazing use period specified 

on their permit or lease. The BLM 

authorized officer authorizes the nonuse 

by approving the application, as indicated 

by his signature on the application. 

BLM will not approve of nonuse for 

longer than one year at a time, and will 

approve it only if we agree that nonuse is 

warranted for the reasons provided on the 

application. 

• BLM must issue a grazing decision 

to suspend preference. BLM records 

suspended preference on permits and 

leases and in operator case records for 

recordkeeping purposes, but suspended 

preference is not available for active 

use under the permit or lease. BLM 

need not issue a decision to approve 

nonuse. If BLM approves an application 

for nonuse for reasons of rangeland 

conservation, protection, or enhancement, 

or for personal or business needs, the 

permittee or lessee is precluded from 

using the amount of active use that has 

been approved for nonuse. BLM may 

subsequently approve a later application 

to make use of what had been approved 

as nonuse should circumstances change 

(e.g., moisture is received later in the 

season that increases forage production, 

thereby alleviating the need for nonuse 

for conservation reasons, or an operator 

purchases livestock mid-season and 

because of this can use forage that he 

previously could not because he did not 

own enough livestock).

5-55
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

Suspended preference is a recordkeeping 

convention adopted by the BLM. If, after 

the suspension, BLM determines that there 

is an increase in the amount forage available 

for livestock on a sustained yield basis, this 

record indicates who has priority for its use 

and in what amount. As explained above, due 

to the regulations in place before 1995, some 

permits and leases show “nonuse” as a part 

of the grazing preference. In actuality, this 

nonuse is equivalent to suspended use as the 

concept has been clarified by this rule

Comment: One comment requested that 

BLM not change the regulation and continue 

to provide that the active use that is reduced 

under section 4110.3-2 be terminated rather 

than suspended. 

Response: It is important to keep record 

of any reductions in active preference as 

“suspended” preference. It helps BLM to 

track, by allotment, permittee or lessee, and 

base property, the original livestock grazing 

use forage allocation, the attachment of that 

allocation to base property, and subsequent 

adjustments arising both from management 

actions to increase or reduce use, and from 

administrative actions such as preference 

transfers. Suspended preference is attached 

to base property, and is transferred along 

with active preference. This record facilitates 

BLMʼs ability to apply section 4110.3-1 to 

reinstate active use to permittees and lessees, 

upon a BLM determination that forage for 

livestock, in an amount that exceeds active 

preference, has become available on a 

sustained yield basis. 

Comment: Another comment asked 

that BLM cross-reference this paragraph to 

section 4110.3-1 in order to make it clear 

that activation of preference suspended under 

section 4110.3-2(b) would be governed by 

that section. 

Response: BLM did not adopt this 

suggestion. BLM does not believe that 

cross-referencing section 4110.3-1 in section 

4110.3-2(b) is needed to ensure that it is 

understood that activation of preference 

suspended under section 4110.3-2(b) is, in 

fact, governed by section 4110.3-1. 

Comment: One comment asked BLM to 

change the criteria that justifies a reduction of 

active use as described in paragraph 4110.3-

2(b) from “when monitoring or documented 

field observations show that grazing use or 

patterns of use are inconsistent with Subpart 

4180, or that grazing use is otherwise causing 

an unacceptable level or pattern of use, or 

that use exceeds livestock carrying capacity,” 

to “when monitoring shows that active use is 

inconsistent with objectives of the applicable 

land use plan, activity plan, or decision, or 

shows that active use exceeds the forage 

available on a sustained yield basis.” This 

comment said that this change would clarify 

that land use plans governed actions that 

affected the amount of active use authorized. 

Response: BLM believes that these 

criteria are sufficiently clear to serve the 

purpose intended by the regulation. These 

criteria allow for the affects of grazing use 

to be measured against objectives tailored 

specifically to a local area, such as a single 

stretch of a riparian area, or an individual 

pasture, that may not be addressed in 

sufficient management detail in a land 

use plan, activity plan, or decision of the 

authorized officer. These local objectives 

would be consistent with the more general 

management objectives typically found in 

land use plans and activity plans. Moreover, 

section 4110.3(a) provides that BLM will 

change grazing preference as needed to 

conform to land use plans or activity plans. 

Comment: Another comment stated that 

because grazing use or patterns of use are 

by definition a part of monitoring, including 

them in paragraph 4110.3-2(b) is redundant. 

Response: BLM acknowledges that 

use pattern mapping and measurement of 

utilization are a part of monitoring. The 

5-56 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

wording in the regulation, however, is not 

redundant. The regulation requires that when 

this information shows that grazing use levels 

or patterns of use are unacceptable, BLM 

will reduce active use, otherwise modify 

management practices, or both. 

Comment: One comment stated that BLM 

should provide for payment to the permittee 

or lessee for any cuts in permit numbers 

at the prevailing appraised rate in order to 

curtail cutting permits under the pretense of 

the Endangered Species Act.

Response: It is not clear from the 

comment how the conclusion that BLM 

paying a permittee or lessee for reductions in 

grazing use would curtail reductions made as 

a result of compliance with the requirements 

of the Endangered Species Act. In any event, 

grazing permits and leases convey no right, 

title, or interest held by the United States in 

any lands or resources. Therefore, payment 

for reduced livestock use would be neither 

appropriate nor legally supportable.

Comment: One comment stated that BLM 

should not reduce preference, and suggested 

that individual monitoring would provide the 

information needed to make grazing changes 

that would address management issues 

without having to reduce preference. 

Response: We have not adopted the 

suggestion that BLM not be allowed to 

reduce preference. This would unduly restrict 

the statutory authority of the Secretary 

to manage grazing use on public lands. 

Depending on circumstances, there are 

management solutions to grazing issues that 

do not involve reducing preference. However, 

this is not always the case.

Comment: One comment asked BLM 

to require that increases in active use be 

implemented by decision, so that the action 

could be protested and appealed, and to 

make it consistent with the requirement at 

section 4110.3-3(a)(2), which, the comment 

states, requires that decreases in active use be 

implemented by decision. Another comment 

stated that BLM should remove its authority 

at section 4110.3-3 to implement changes 

in active use by decision, so that range 

improvements could be installed in lieu of 

reducing active use. 

Response: This provision in section 

4110.3-3 was not proposed for change in 

the proposed rule. BLM believes that it is 

important to retain the discretion to change 

preference by agreement or by decision, 

depending on management circumstances 

that can vary greatly from instance to 

instance, and not require the use of one 

method or the other. Section 4110.3-3(a)(2) 

does not require that decreases in active use 

be implemented by decision. This section 

requires that when a reduction in permitted 

use is implemented by decision, as opposed 

to by agreement, the decision first be 

issued as a proposed decision, except when 

immediate land protection is needed because 

of circumstances such as drought, fire, flood, 

or insect infestation, or when continued 

grazing use poses an imminent likelihood 

of resource damage. There are times when 

the installation of range improvements can 

negate the need for indefinite suspension 

of active use, such as when a new water 

development improves grazing distribution 

enough that forage not previously available 

becomes available for livestock use. 

However, range improvements are not always 

the appropriate management response. 

Comment: One comment urged that, 

in case of fires in allotments, the allotment 

should be rested for a minimum of 3 years, 

and 5 years if any BLM permittee has 

livestock on a burn area prior to approval 

plus a substantial reduction in their grazing 

permit. 

Response: The issue of how much rest 

from livestock grazing is needed after a 

fire is a matter for internal guidance, and is 

outside the scope of the rule and this EIS. 

5-57
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

Furthermore, prescribing rest periods for 

lands through the regulatory process does not 

allow site-specific analysis and consideration 

of on-the-ground resource conditions and 

potential impacts. 

Comment: One comment suggested 

rewriting sections 4110.3-2 and 4110.3-3 so 

that they are clearer and donʼt cross-reference 

each other so much. 

Response: Each of the two sections 

specified in the comment contains one crossreference to the other section. We do not 

consider this an unreasonable number of 

cross-references. We have reviewed the two 

sections and do not see how they could be 

written more clearly and still provide the 

information necessary. 

Comment: One comment suggested 

making the 5-year phase in of changes 

in active use greater than 10 percent 

discretionary with BLM, stating that it would 

allow BLM to react in a timely manner if 

resource conditions were in more immediate 

need of improvement, for whatever reason, 

and result in greater benefits to wildlife.

Response: The additional discretion 

suggested by the comment would affect 

only a small number of allotments. At the 

end of FY2002, BLM determined that 16 

percent of the allotments with completed 

land health evaluations needed adjustments 

to current livestock grazing management in 

order to help make progress toward meeting 

the standards, as described in section 4.3.1 

of this EIS Also, section 4110.3-3 provides 

mechanisms allowing BLM to act more 

quickly to avoid significant resource damage. 

Comment: One comment urged BLM 

to make adjustments when data indicates 

livestock numbers are out of balance with 

the capacity of the land. Estimates of 

stocking rates in plans do not necessarily 

reflect BLMʼs willingness to reduce stocking 

levels. Another comment stated that Federal 

rangeland health standards demand that 

the rule should focus decision-making on 

management objectives stated in land use 

plans, activity plans, and grazing decisions. 

Response: Stocking rates are best 

determined in the land use planning process. 

However, as we stated earlier, the regulations 

contain mechanisms for making changes 

in grazing use to avoid significant resource 

damage. As provided in Subpart 4180, we 

will use monitoring and standards assessment 

to determine whether changes in management 

practices are necessary. 

Comment: Several comments suggested 

modifications to this section of the proposed 

rule. One was that BLM should consult with 

any base property lienholder before closing 

allotments to grazing or modifying grazing 

authorizations due to emergencies or when 

continued grazing use will result in resource 

damage. Another was to include consultation 

with county commissioners where downward 

adjustments in grazing use levels are being 

planned, and that the reductions should be 

justified by reasons that are documented in an 

allotment evaluation that is conducted before 

the adjustments occur. A third suggested 

change was to change 4110.3-3 (b)(1) and 

(b)(2) by replacing the term “authorized 

grazing use” with “active use” because there 

is no definition of “authorized grazing use” in 

the regulations.

Response: BLM is not changing the 

regulations in response to these comments. 

BLM implements changes in active use by 

grazing decision. Our regulations provide 

for sending such decisions to any lienholder 

of record. If such lienholders requested 

“interested public” status, they would also be 

able to provide input and comment on reports 

BLM uses as a basis for making decisions to 

increase or decrease grazing use. Given these 

opportunities for lienholder input to BLMʼs 

decision-making process, there is no need for 

BLM to require itself to consult specifically 

with lienholders before implementing 

5-58 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

changes in active use. Further, in the pursuit 

of sound resource management, it would 

be inappropriate to allow consideration of 

whether base property is subject to a lien to 

affect or change a BLM decision to close 

allotments to grazing or to modify grazing 

permits or leases due to emergencies or when 

continued grazing use will result in resource 

damage. 

The state having lands or responsibility 

for managing resources in the affected 

area may choose to include county 

commissionersʼ input as part of the stateʼs 

consultation with BLM. BLM may also 

consult directly with county commissioners 

at its option. BLM believes that these two 

avenues of consultation provide adequate 

opportunity for county commissioners to 

make their views known to BLM regarding 

management issues. BLM makes either 

downward adjustments in grazing use levels 

temporarily in response to emergencies 

or indefinitely after it has determined that 

livestock forage is insufficient on a sustained 

yield basis to support grazing at levels 

that had been previously authorized. In 

either case, the decision implementing the 

downward adjustment provides the rationale 

for the action and is subject to review upon 

appeal. In most cases of indefinite downward 

adjustments in grazing use levels, such 

rationale relies upon analysis found in a 

documented allotment evaluation. 

Pargraphs 4110.3-3 (b)(1) and (b)(2) 

allow BLM to modify authorized grazing 

use in response to emergencies, including 

complete closure of an area to grazing when 

necessary to provide immediate protection 

because of conditions such as drought, fire, 

flood and insect infestation. “Active use” 

refers to a number of animal unit months 

(AUMs) of forage. The term “authorized 

grazing use” is more expansive and refers 

to all the terms and conditions of use 

authorized by a term permit or lease. These 

terms and conditions include at a minimum, 

the number of livestock authorized, where 

they may graze, and the season of the year 

and period that they may graze. Although 

BLM may modify “active use” in response 

to emergency resource conditions, we may 

also modify the other parameters of use such 

as location, period, and season in response to 

these conditions.

Comment: One comment suggested 

removing the provision authorizing BLM 

to close allotments to grazing or modify 

authorized grazing use when the authorized 

officer determines that resources on public 

land require immediate protection or 

continued grazing use poses an imminent 

likelihood of significant resource damage 

(section 4110.3-3(b)(1)). The comment stated 

that the provision is too vague and could be 

used as a catch-all to eliminate grazing at any 

time.

Response: The phrase “or where 

continued use poses an imminent likelihood 

of significant resource damage” is in fact a 

catch-all to cover situations not otherwise 

specified in the regulation (i.e. “because of 

conditions such as drought, fire, flood, or 

insect infestation”). It would be impractical 

for BLM to list in the regulations all possible 

situations where an immediate closure or 

modification of grazing may be needed. All 

BLM decisions that close or modify grazing 

use are supported by rationale stated in the 

decision, and decisions may be appealed 

under Subpart 4160 and Part 4.

Comment: One comment stated that, 

because of the problems associated with 

recurrent long term drought, the regulations 

should require that base property provide 

forage or other means of sustaining livestock 

should the necessity arise to remove livestock 

from the public lands. Furthermore, the 

comment went on, the base property should 

be real fee property of the permittee or lessee 

5-59
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

and not leased property from a state or other 

private property owner.

Response: In areas where land serves 

as base property, BLM specifies the length 

of time that the property must be capable 

of supporting authorized livestock during 

the year (see section 4110.2-1(b)), thus 

including the concept that the base could 

be used to sustain the livestock should the 

necessity arise to remove them from public 

lands. This “base property requirement” 

differs depending on the BLM jurisdiction, 

but generally ranges from 2 to 5 months. In 

the desert southwest, where water or water 

rights can serve as base property, there is no 

similar requirement. Regardless, BLM can 

close allotments or portions of allotments to 

grazing use immediately to protect resources 

because of conditions such as drought. BLM 

sees no need to require that base property 

must not be leased property.

Comment: One comment identified an 

incorrect reference to 43 CFR 4.21 in 4110.3-

3(b)(2). A stay relative to grazing is granted 

in accordance with 43 CFR 4.472. 

Response: The rule contains the 

correction.

5.4.9 Phasing in Changes in Active 

Use

Comment: Many comments opposed 

the provision allowing up to 5 years to 

implement changes in active use greater than 

10 percent. Some stated that the provision is 

inconsistent with the regulatory objective: 

“to accelerate restoration and improvement 

of public rangelands to properly functioning 

conditions.” Others reasons given for 

opposing the provision included concerns 

that it would allow unhealthy range 

conditions to persist, delay range recovery, 

or lead to additional range degradation, 

especially of riparian and wetland habitats. 

They said the provision would have negative 

effects on natural resources and other uses 

of the land. Some of these comments stated 

that the provision showed that BLM is 

more concerned with private financial wellbeing of permittees than with managing 

publicly owned natural resources in the 

public interest. One comment said that if 

the condition of the natural resources on a 

grazing allotment is so bad that a reduction 

in permitted livestock numbers in excess of 

10 percent is necessary, then the situation is 

probably so bad that delaying implementation 

of the reductions would be tantamount 

to criminal neglect. Others said that such 

delays would lead to continued petitions 

for listing species under the Endangered 

Species Act. One comment opposed this 

provision because it would contradict the 

goal of increasing administrative efficiency, 

negate the requirement for prompt action to 

address harmful grazing practices, and limit 

the conditions under which BLM may revoke 

a grazing permit. Others said that it would 

tend to weaken the ability of the local BLM 

field offices to manage rangelands in a timely 

fashion by adding considerable time before 

we can take action. 

Response: We believe the rule gives 

BLM sufficient discretion to handle a wide 

range of circumstances. The rule does 

not change the BLMʼs ability to cancel 

a permit in whole or in part if necessary. 

The rule is flexible enough to provide 

for immediate, full implementation of a 

decision to adjust grazing use if continued 

grazing use poses an imminent likelihood of 

significant soil, vegetation, or other resource 

damage. The rule also allows BLM and the 

permittee to agree to a shorter timeframe 

for implementation. The rule allows BLM 

to initiate necessary adjustments while 

giving the permittee an opportunity to make 

changes in their overall business operation. 

The provision in the rule allows us to begin 

reducing active use when necessary, while 

considering the human aspect of the effects 

5-60 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

of the reduction. Our cooperative approach 

should lead to a decreased likelihood of 

appeal on the part of the permittee or lessee. 

This decreased likelihood of appeal in turn 

should result in implementing necessary 

grazing reductions more quickly, thus 

allowing the BLM to remedy resource 

problems more efficiently. During the last 5 

years, BLM has determined that 16 percent 

of the allotments with completed land health 

evaluations needed adjustments of current 

livestock grazing management in order to 

help make progress toward meeting the 

standards, as described in Section 4.3.1 of 

this EIS. Most of these adjustments have 

been made in the season of use, or movement 

and control of livestock rather than in levels 

of active use. An unknown portion of these 

adjustments were changes of more than 10 

percent in active use. Where adjustments 

are needed to improve riparian or wetland 

condition, the adjustments are rarely in active 

use, but are frequently adjustments in season 

of use, or changes in length of time livestock 

are allowed access to the riparian area (e.g., 

grazing might be changed from 6 weeks in 

the summer to 3 weeks in the spring).

Comment: Several comments offered 

alternatives to the 10 percent threshold 

and the 5 year implementation period. One 

comment proposed that the threshold for 

changes that prompt a delay of 5 years in 

implementation should be increased from 

10 percent to at least 25 percent, reasoning 

that small adjustments would result in 

ascertainable changes in resource condition in 

a season or two. Another comment suggested 

that the authorized officer implement changes 

in active use of 5 percent or less in 1 year, 

5 to 15 percent equally over 3 years, and in 

excess of 15 percent equally over 5 years. 

The comment stated that this formulation 

would ensure equal, incremental decreases 

or increases in active use over time, and 

accelerate decreases or increases in active use 

when a relatively small change is made. 

Response: The 10 percent threshold and 

5 year implementation period proved to be a 

practical combination prior to being changed 

in the 1995 rules. The lower threshold 

allows affected permittees to avoid rapid 

adjustments in such significant numbers. 

However, the number of permittees and 

allotments affected by this provision is 

not likely to be large, given that over the 

last 5 years, most adjustments in grazing 

management resulting from land health 

assessments have been made in the season 

of use, or movement and control of livestock 

rather than in levels of active use. At the 

end of fiscal year 2002, BLM found that 16 

percent of the allotments with completed 

land health evaluations needed adjustments 

to current livestock grazing management in 

order to help make progress toward meeting 

the standards. See Section 4.3.1 of this EIS. 

An unknown portion of these adjustments 

were changes of more than 10 percent in 

active use.

Comment: Some comments expressed 

concern that annual conditions or fluctuations 

in weather could require more than 10 

percent reductions on an annual basis, 

particularly in the arid southwest. 

Response: In practice, during prolonged 

drought conditions, ranchers voluntarily 

reduce their livestock numbers because of the 

economics of their industry. However, this 

section of the rules applies to adjustments in 

the terms of the grazing permit, rather than 

in temporary adjustments made on an annual 

basis. When temporary adjustments need to 

be made because of annual conditions, BLM 

and the permittee or lessee can respond by: 

1) resorting to temporary changes in grazing 

use within the terms and conditions of the 

permit or lease under section 4130.4(a); 

5-61
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

2) electing temporary nonuse under section 

4130.4(d); 

3) decreasing active use through suspensions 

under section 4110.3-2; or, 

4) in more extreme cases of drought, fire, 

flood, or insect infestation, closing or 

partially closing allotments under section 

4110.3-3(b). 

Comment: One comment pointed out 

that BLM has not reviewed many grazing 

allotments for over a decade. The comment 

concluded that, considering improvements in 

our knowledge of range science and of best 

management practices for rangelands over 

the past 20 years, it is likely that changes 

in active use in excess of 10 percent will be 

required on numerous allotments. 

Response: BLM is evaluating current 

resource conditions in relation to land health 

standards. By the end of 2003, we had 

evaluated 40 percent of allotments, and plan 

to evaluate the remainder by the end of 2008. 

As we stated earlier, based on results and 

changes made because of these evaluations, 

most adjustments in grazing management 

are being made in the season of use, or 

movement and control of livestock, rather 

than in active use. 

Comment: One comment stated that 

slowing the response to unhealthy rangelands 

seems to be inconsistent with the current 

Administration policy of accelerating 

management responses to fire and the 

conditions that lead to or exacerbate fires. 

Response: This comment is attempting 

to compare two situations that are not 

comparable. Fires in the wrong locations 

threaten life and property, and it is vital to 

accelerate management efforts to deal with 

these threats. Rangeland degradation does 

not normally carry equivalent threats. The 

regulations are flexible enough to allow 

accelerated management to address range 

degradation that cannot wait for the phase-in 

period provided in section 4110.3-3(a)(1). 

As stated earlier, the rule at section 4110.3-

3(b)(1)(i) allows BLM to remove or modify 

livestock grazing when immediate protection 

is needed because of conditions such as 

drought, fire, flood, or insect infestation. 

In 1994, the BLM amended its grazing 

regulations to address the health of public 

rangelands. These changes, including 

the standards and guidelines for grazing 

administration, remain in the rule and 

continue to contribute to improving the health 

of public rangelands. The changes adopted in 

this final rule seek to refine, without altering 

the fundamental structure of, the grazing 

regulations. In other words, we are adjusting 

rather than conducting a major overhaul of 

the grazing regulations. 

5.4.10 Range Improvements

Comment: Numerous comments opposed 

the change in section 4120.3-2 providing for 

shared title to permanent range improvements 

by BLM and the cooperators. One frequently 

expressed concern was that a shared title 

creates potential takings issues if the need 

to change from grazing to some other land 

use in an allotment arises in the future. 

Comments asserted that a permittee or lessee 

with shared title to a permanent structure on 

public land would demand compensation 

for the lost value of his or her property if 

the BLM proposed changes in the land use 

that would reduce or discontinue grazing 

in an allotment. Comments also stated that 

the BLM would lack the funds needed to 

compensate the permittee, and would be 

unable to take the management actions 

needed to sustain rangeland health. 

Response: The BLM disagrees that a 

joint title to range improvements creates 

“takings” issues. The existing regulations 

already assure that permittees and lessees 

5-62 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

are appropriately compensated for their 

investment in range improvements that can 

no longer be used because of government 

action. Section 4120.3-6(c) provides that 

“whenever a grazing permit or lease is 

canceled in order to devote the public lands 

covered by the permit or lease to another 

public purpose, including disposal, the 

permittee or lessee shall receive from the 

United States reasonable compensation 

for the adjusted value of their interest in 

authorized permanent improvements placed 

or constructed by the permittee or lessee 

on the public lands covered by the permit 

or lease.” The selected alternative does not 

change this requirement for compensation. 

The regulations do not address compensation 

for other types of cancellations. For 

example, there is no provision addressing 

compensation where permits are canceled 

for noncompliance. In another example, if 

a permittee or lessee voluntarily sells his 

property and interest, he may negotiate 

compensation with the new owner for the 

permitteeʼs share of a range improvement 

title. However, BLM would not be a party to 

that transaction, except to decline to approve 

the transfer of the preference in the event that 

the new owner has not agreed to compensate 

the transferrer, as described in section 

4120.3-5. 

Comment: Some comments stated that the 

provision for the United States to hold title to 

range improvement structures on public land 

was consistent with the TGA. 

Response: BLM is choosing to share title 

to range improvement projects constructed 

under Cooperative Range Improvement 

Agreements to encourage greater private 

investment in range improvements. This is 

not inconsistent with the TGA. 

Comment: Some comments concluded 

that the change in section 4120.3-2 gives 

permittees and lessees exclusive title to 

new range improvements. Other comments 

opposed the change because, they asserted, it 

could create an interest in the land prohibited 

by the Taylor Grazing Act. A related concern 

expressed by comments was that BLM 

would be unable to take the management 

actions needed to sustain rangeland health 

when range improvements were owned by 

permittees. One comment took the opposite 

view that the change in the rules was not 

necessary, because the ranchers already have 

property rights on public lands. 

Response: The rule change does not 

create an exclusive right, title, or interest in 

the public land, which is prohibited by the 

Taylor Grazing Act. Section 4120.3-2(b) 

specifically states: “Subject to valid and 

existing rights, cooperators and the United 

States share title to permanent structural 

range improvements...” The regulations are 

equally clear on the creation or the existence 

of an interest in the land prohibited by the 

Taylor Grazing Act. Holding a joint title to 

an improvement does not create a permittee 

interest in the public land. Section 4120.3-

1(e) states, “A range improvement permit or 

cooperative range improvement agreement 

does not convey to the permittee or 

cooperator any right, title, or interest in any 

lands or resources held by the United States.” 

Since the United States retains ownership 

of the land, and shared ownership of the 

improvements, BLM management actions 

would not be constrained by a permitteeʼs 

interest in a range improvement.

Comment: Several comments noted 

that the changes would be inconsistent with 

common law or Forest Service regulations. 

Response: BLM believes that consistency 

with Forest Service regulations, though 

desirable at times, is not necessary 

for implementing effective rangeland 

management practices. BLM is not obligated 

to accept common law rules for ownership of 

improvements on public lands (Public Lands 

Council v. Babbitt, 167 F.3d 1287, 1302 (10th

5-63
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

Cir. 1999), affʼd on other grounds, 529 U.S. 

728 (2000)).

Comment: One comment objected to joint 

title to range improvements because it would 

increase the BLMʼs administrative burden.

Response: BLM disagrees that 

the proposed change will increase our 

administrative costs. BLM is currently 

obligated to record and track the value of 

contributions that cooperators provide for 

range improvements, including the imputed 

value of their labor. This is necessary under 

the current rules to meet our requirement 

that we reasonably compensate a cooperator 

if the permit or lease is canceled to devote 

to another use or for other purposes. Thus, 

our administrative responsibilities will 

exist whether BLM shares the title to the 

improvement, or holds it solely in the name 

of the United States. Consequently, the 

shared title does not result in an additional 

administrative burden. 

Comment: One comment expressed 

concern about how joint title would affect 

Tribal consultation, cooperation, and 

coordination requirements and whether BLM 

is abdicating control of these responsibilities.

Response: BLM is responsible for 

consultation with the Tribes and will ensure 

that the required consultation will occur 

for all appropriate activities on public land. 

BLM does not believe that shared title with 

a cooperator for a range improvement is 

mutually exclusive with consultation. We 

again refer to section 4120.3-1(e), which 

states that establishing a range improvement 

does not convey any right, title, or interest 

in any lands or resources held by the United 

States. Under the rule, BLM retains control 

of when and where improvements are 

installed, and other terms and conditions of 

the development (section 4120.3-1). Also, 

the cooperatorsʻ title and interest are limited 

to the proportion of structural improvements 

in which they invested. Considering these 

factors, cooperative range improvements 

should have no affect on Tribal consultations,

BLM control of the land, or any Indian trust 

responsibilities.

Comment: Several comments observed 

that evidence is absent or inconclusive that 

joint ownership of title to improvements 

encourages permittees to invest in further 

improvements, thereby improving range 

conditions, or increases the permitteeʼs ability 

to secure a loan. 

Response: State-by-state data on range 

improvements is shown in the EIS in Table 

3.4.3.1. It is clear from the data that the 

number of new range improvements has 

declined since 1995 when the rule was 

last changed. The number has declined in 

every state with grazing on public land. The 

average decline is 38 percent. From 1982 

to 1994, BLM authorized an average of 

1,945 range improvements per year. From 

1995 to 2002, we authorized an average 

of 1,210 per year. Several factors may be 

contributing, but it is reasonable to conclude 

that some of that decline may have been 

the result of the 1995 rule change. It is 

logical to assume that sharing title among 

cooperators and the United States provides 

the opportunity to maintain some asset value 

for investments made, thereby encouraging 

and facilitating private investment in range 

improvements. A permittees or lesseeʼs 

belief that sharing the title to improvements 

in which he invests contributes to stable 

ranch operations is also significant. Shared 

title to range improvements also provides 

an opportunity for permittees and lessees 

to document investment in their business 

enterprises, which is useful for securing 

business capital and demonstrating value 

of their overall private and public lands 

operations. Permittees and lessees perceive 

this recognition of investment as crucial to 

their business and, therefore, as an important 

factor when considering personal investment 

5-64 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

in range improvements. Beyond ranch 

economics, range improvements improve 

range conditions. Those benefits accrue to 

all land and resource managers. BLM may 

enter into a cooperative range improvement 

agreement with any person, organization, 

or other government entity to develop range 

improvements. The shared title to such 

improvements is expected to serve as an 

incentive for all potential cooperators to 

participate and partner with the BLM in the 

development of range improvements to assist 

in meeting management or resource condition 

objectives. 

Comment: Other comments were 

concerned that the effects of shared title were 

not sufficiently analyzed, including the effect 

of increased wildlife use as range condition 

improves. 

Response: The BLM considers 

improvement in wildlife habitat that may 

result from range improvements and 

subsequent upward trend of overall watershed 

condition to be benefits of the rule.

Comment: Some comments questioned 

the fairness of sharing title to improvements 

with permittees and lessees. They regarded 

the assignment of shared title as preferential 

treatment that is undeserved when terms and 

conditions of permits or leases are violated. 

One comment disapproved of shared 

ownership of improvements because they 

would be a constraint on other permittees or 

lessees in a common allotment. 

Response: The BLMʼs commitment to 

fairness is an important aspect of the joint 

title to range improvements. A permitteeʼs or 

lesseeʼs share of the title to a development 

in which he or she invests has no affect 

on BLMʼs administration of terms and 

conditions of the grazing permit or lease. 

Under section 4120.3-6(c), permittees and 

lessees are only compensated for the adjusted 

value of their interest in range improvements 

in the event the permit or lease must be 

canceled to allow the land to be devoted to 

another purpose. There is no compensation if 

there is no remaining value of their interest 

in the improvement. BLM believes this is 

an equitable approach. If a permittee or 

lessee loses his grazing preference due to 

noncompliance with the permit or lease, there 

is no compensation for range improvements 

that remain on the allotment. However, he 

or she would be given the opportunity to 

remove improvements unneeded by BLM. 

The former permittee or lessee would 

also be responsible for restoration of the 

improvement site. Regarding common 

allotments, planning and implementation 

of range improvements on common 

allotments is an inclusive process involving 

all permittees or lessees authorized to graze 

in the allotment. As provided in section 

4120.3-2(a), BLM enters into cooperative 

range improvement agreements to achieve 

management or resource condition objectives 

and does so through a collaborative process.

Comment: One comment suggested that 

all range improvements, not just permanent 

improvements, should be eligible for shared 

title based on contributions of the cooperator. 

Response: BLM currently allows title to 

temporary, removable range improvements 

installed under range improvement permits 

to be held by the permittee or lessee (section 

4120.3-3). The existing regulations already 

incorporate the suggested provision.

Comment: One comment expressed 

concern about who would be liable if a public 

land user was injured in connection with a 

privately owned improvement.

Response: Based on our previous 

experience with joint Federal-private 

ownership, we do not recognize any liability 

issues that should be addressed in this 

rulemaking. Issues of liability generally are 

fact-specific, and are best resolved on a caseby-case basis. Moreover, cooperative range 

improvement agreements will continue to 

5-65
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

include provisions that protect the interests of 

the United States in its lands and resources. 

Comment: An additional comment 

suggested that BLM should retroactively 

provide for shared title to range 

improvements constructed under cooperative 

range improvement agreements after the 

1995 rules changes took effect. 

Response: The Department has declined 

to make the proposed change retroactive to 

1995, since such retroactive changes have 

been discouraged by the Supreme Court 

(Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital, 488 

U.S. 204 (1988)). 

Comment: We received two comments 

recommending that BLM authorize 

permanent range improvements under range 

improvement permits, noting that such 

permits are allowed under Section 4 of the 

Taylor Grazing Act. 

Response: Under Section 4 of TGA 

(43 U.S.C. 315), the Secretary has the 

authority to determine whether to issue 

permanent range improvements under range 

improvement permits or under cooperative 

range improvement agreements. BLM 

believes it is in the best interests of the public 

to authorize all permanent developments such 

as spring developments, wells, reservoirs, 

stock tanks, and pipelines under cooperative 

range improvement agreements to promote 

achievement of management and resource 

objectives. 

Comment: We received an additional 

comment suggesting that BLM consult with 

all permittees associated with an allotment 

prior to approving nonrenewable use, and 

require cooperation from all permittees or 

lessees with the temporary operator.

Response: Under section 4130.6-2, which 

addresses nonrenewable grazing permits 

and leases, BLM is required to consult, 

cooperate, and coordinate with all affected 

permittees or lessees, as well as the state 

having lands or responsibility for managing 

resources within in the area, before issuing 

a nonrenewable grazing permit or lease. If 

BLM issues such a nonrenewable permit or 

lease, the preference permittee or lessee shall 

cooperate with the temporary authorized use 

of forage by another operator. BLM agrees 

that all preference permittees or lessees in 

an allotment with temporary use authorized 

should be consulted and should cooperate. 

Therefore, we have amended section 4120.3-

3(c) in the rule by adding “with all preference 

permittees or lessees within the allotment.” 

Comment: One comment urged that 

we revise section 4120.3-3(c) to remove 

any reference to the permittee or lessee 

cooperating with a temporary authorized use 

of forage by another operator, stating that 

BLM should not have the discretion to allow 

someone other than an allotmentʼs preference 

holder to graze in an allotment. Doing so, 

according to the comment, could cause 

conflict among BLM, the preference holder, 

and the temporary grazers.

Response: BLM needs the discretion to 

authorize grazing use on public lands when 

forage is available. We realize that there 

is potential for conflict, as the comment 

describes. We have rewritten paragraph 

4120.3-3(c) to make it clear that BLM will 

consult with the preference operator before 

authorizing such use.

5.4.11 Cooperation with 

Governments, Advisory Boards, and 

Other Agencies

Comment: BLM received comments 

regarding advisory council membership and 

function. A comment stated that we should 

re-establish Multiple Use Advisory Councils 

(MUAC) to resolve local issues, contending 

that the Resource Advisory Councils (RAC) 

that superceded MUACs and Grazing 

Advisory Boards in 1995 in many cases 

cover too large an area to respond adequately 

5-66 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

to local issues. Such MUACs reorganized 

on a District or Field Office basis, according 

to the comment, could be a positive force 

for problem solving, conflict resolution, and 

vetting land management issues far beyond 

grazing management matters. Another 

comment suggested that RAC membership 

be made up of 50 percent conservationists, 

10 percent community interests, and 30 

percent independent biologists and not be 

dominated by ranchers who represent their 

narrow special interest. One comment stated 

that BLM should drop reference to resource 

advisory councils as public oversight bodies 

because they are ineffective at arriving at a 

decision.

Response: The suggestion to re-establish 

MUAC is outside the scope of this EIS. To 

the extent there is concern that RACs in many 

cases cover too large an area to address local 

issues adequately, the regulations pertaining 

to RACs at 43 CFR Subpart 1784 provide for 

the formation of RAC subgroups to gather 

local level input on specific issues. If you 

believe a particular issue should be addressed 

on a smaller subgroup scale by the RAC with 

which you are associated, you, as a member 

of the public, may suggest such an action to 

the RAC. The comment implies that RACs 

only consider grazing management matters. 

However, the regulations at 43 CFR Subpart 

1784 provide that RACs can address all 

facets of public land management. Regarding 

RAC composition, regulations at section 

1784.6-1(c) and (d) require that the Secretary 

provide for balanced and broad representation 

from commercial, environmental, scientific, 

and aesthetic interests, as well as the public, 

Tribes, and state and local governments. 

This composition of the RAC comports with 

the statutory requirements of Section 309 of 

FLPMA. 

Comment: Some comments expressed 

disappointment that BLM choose not 

to propose reestablishment of Grazing 

Advisory Boards as suggested during the 

public scoping process on the ANPR and the 

notice of intent to prepare an environmental 

impact statement. They further expressed 

disappointment in the justification for not 

pursing regulations that would allow board 

establishment that was presented in the DEIS 

section 2.4.

Response: The Resource Advisory 

Councils (RAC) that were established 

following the 1995 grazing regulation 

amendments have generally assumed the 

role played by the Grazing Advisory Boards, 

whose authority “sunset” on December 31, 

1985. RACs provide an evenly balanced 

advisory board to cooperate with BLM, 

and are available to represent local interests 

on all facets of public land management. 

The regulations governing board functions 

at 43 CFR Subpart 1784 also provide for 

the formation of RAC subgroups to gather 

local level input on specific issues. The 

suggestion to redefine the role of Resource 

Advisory Councils is outside the scope of 

the rulemaking and this EIS. Moreover, we 

disagree that they are ineffective as public 

oversight bodies. The RACs represent a 

balance of views among various interests 

concerned with the management and use of 

the public lands. Furthermore, the Councils 

are advisory in nature and have given the 

public an effective forum for participating in 

the management of the public lands, as well 

as giving land managers direct public insight 

into proposed programs and policies. BLM 

has included in the rule a provision that BLM 

cooperate with Tribal, state, county, or locally 

established grazing boards when reviewing 

range improvement projects and allotment 

management plans on public lands. We feel 

that these existing and proposed provisions 

adequately address the need for a forum 

for cooperation and coordination on both 

local and regional issues affecting livestock 

grazing on public lands.

5-67
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

Comment: One comment stated that BLM 

should collaborate with other agencies like 

FWS, and another stated that state wildlife 

agencies should be fully engaged, because 

BLM decisions can easily affect these other 

agencies and their work, because BLM 

decisions can affect species of concern, 

and because effective wildlife management 

requires coordination with uses related to 

grazing management.

Response: BLM routinely consults with 

FWS and NOAA Fisheries in accordance 

with the requirements of the ESA and BLM 

Manual 6840 on Special Status Species 

Management. This consultation ensures that 

actions requiring authorization or approval by 

the BLM are consistent with the conservation 

needs of species of concern and do not 

exacerbate the need to list additional species. 

As for state agencies, current regulations 

require cooperation with them. This rule 

does not change this. Section 4120.5-2 

states, “The authorized officer shall, to the 

extent appropriate, cooperate with Federal, 

State, Tribal and local governmental entities, 

institutions, organizations, corporations, 

associations, and individuals.” Many specific 

provisions also call for cooperation and 

consideration with the staff having lands 

or managing resources in the area affected 

by proposed BLM grazing management 

decisions. 

Comment: One comment urged BLM to 

address the concept of grazing associations, 

explain what they are and examine if all 

members of an association must own base 

property.

Response: A grazing association is 

a group of ranchers organized into an 

association for the common benefit and 

welfare of the members. Grazing associations 

are organized under the laws of the state 

where they are located. Under section 

4110.1(a)(2), a grazing association may apply 

and qualify for grazing use on public lands if 

all members of the association own or control 

land or water base property.

Comment: Many comments supported 

the addition of state, local, and countyestablished grazing boards to those groups 

we routinely cooperate with in administering 

laws and regulations relating to livestock, 

livestock diseases, and sanitation) to section 

4120.5-2. These comments gave a variety of 

reasons. 

Comment: A comment stated that 

the regulations should require agency 

cooperation with State, county, and local 

grazing boards, because the creation and 

use of grazing advisory boards would give 

BLM land managers direct resource-related 

information from subject matter experts 

in the local areas, increasing our ability to 

devise appropriate strategies for managing 

public lands under the multiple-use mandate. 

Another supported the amendment because 

state and local governments and local 

citizens have more at stake in the health 

of the land in their area than does BLM. 

The comment said that where state and 

local governments have established grazing 

advisory boards to provide for the health 

and management of public lands in their 

jurisdiction, they should be given maximum 

opportunity to do so. Other comments 

supported the proposed provision because 

consultations between grazing boards and 

BLM officials will provide for improved 

working relations on issues of significant 

importance to all stakeholders, and the new 

provision also fulfills statutory and regulatory 

requirements for consultation, cooperation, 

and coordination. One comment stated that 

grazing advisory boards can be used to help 

resolve conflicts between the agency and 

allotment owners, while another said that 

local grazing advisory boards allow for more 

efficient use of agency resources and money. 

Response: The BLM intends cooperation 

with grazing boards to provide BLM land 

5-68 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

managers local resource-related information 

from subject matter experts in local areas, 

thus increasing BLMʼs ability to develop 

and recommend appropriate strategies in 

developing allotment management plans and 

planning range improvements. BLM agrees 

that cooperation with local, county, and state 

agencies, governmental entities, and grazing 

boards established by state, county, and local 

governments will help us in considering how 

best to apply land management practices and 

spend range improvement funds. Cooperation 

with all groups and individuals, including 

Tribal entities, to achieve the objectives of 

grazing management, is required in section 

4120.5-1 of the existing grazing regulations. 

Existing policy and law provides for the 

consultation, cooperation, and coordination 

with these groups as well as others. BLM 

recognizes that these entities have a high 

stake in promoting healthy public lands 

in their area. We therefore also intend the 

provision to direct BLM field managers 

to cooperate with state, county, and local 

government boards in carrying out the 

boardsʼ functions. That is, we will participate 

in their meetings, provide information on 

request when it is legal and appropriate to 

do so, answer inquiries, provide advice, 

and generally interact with the boards 

in a cooperative manner. The amended 

regulations would formalize the role of 

grazing boards in providing input and helping 

to avoid or resolve conflicts between BLM 

and grazing permittees and lessees. However, 

it is not the intent of the regulations to confer 

upon any grazing board cooperating agency 

status. 

Comment: One comment stated that 

BLM should provide an opportunity for 

local collaborative groups to be creative and 

proactive in the management of local public 

lands. The comment added that private lands 

adjacent to the public lands—often the base 

property for permittees—are usually the most 

important habitat (for example, critical winter 

range) for many wildlife species.

Response: BLM agrees that informal 

collaboration with local publics is beneficial 

to management of public lands and 

recognizes that adjacent private lands and 

land and water base properties often provide 

important wildlife habitats, for the same 

reasons that historically these lands were 

more likely to have been homesteaded or 

otherwise converted from public domain 

to private ownership. Our regulations at 

section 4120.5-1 require us to cooperate with 

individuals and other local entities, to the 

extent appropriate, to achieve the objectives 

stated in the regulations. However, the only 

requirement added in section 4120.5-2 is 

that we cooperate with government and 

government-created boards, not informal 

citizen groups, in the administration of 

laws and regulations relating to livestock, 

livestock diseases, sanitation, and noxious 

weeds. 

Comment: Many comments opposed the 

addition of paragraph (c) to section 4120.5-

2. These comments also gave a variety of 

reasons. 

Comment: One comment stated that the 

provision gives the impression that grazing 

board concerns have greater weight than the 

interests of other groups. The comment said 

that the perspectives of these other groups 

can also be valuable to the BLM decisionmaking process. Others stated that it will 

reduce BLMʼs role as an independent land 

management agency, and that it will duplicate 

or supplant the current arrangement BLM has 

with, and will undermine the efforts of, the 

Resource Advisory Councils (RAC). 

Response: BLM is required, to the extent 

appropriate, to consider the views of all 

stakeholders providing input into BLMʼs 

decision-making process, and will not be 

constrained in its management by input from 

grazing boards. This means that, assuming 

5-69
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

we have the manpower, we will attend their 

meetings when invited, provide information 

when requested, and invite their input 

when appropriate. The boards will provide 

expertise in reviewing range improvements 

and allotment management plans on public 

lands.

The role of the RACs is broader, in that it 

also encompasses input into and review of the 

Standards of Rangeland Health under Subpart 

4180. There may be some overlap between 

these groups in the discussion of grazing 

allotment management issues. Nevertheless, 

this input will be valuable to BLM, 

broadening perspectives as to the issues. As 

a result, we expect that our decision-making 

process will be more effective and our data 

will be more comprehensive. Of course, laws, 

regulations, policy, and a multitude of other 

factors also guide and direct BLMʼs decisionmaking process.

Comment: A comment from a state 

wildlife management agency stated that 

specific language should be added to 

paragraph (c) to address appropriately the 

requirements for consultation with state 

wildlife management agencies called for in 

several Federal laws, including the Taylor 

Grazing Act.

Response: Section 4120.5-1 requires 

BLM to cooperate, to the extent appropriate, 

with Federal, state (including state 

wildlife management agencies), Tribal, 

and local government entities, institutions, 

organizations, corporations, associations, 

and individuals to achieve the objectives of 

the regulations in Part 4100. Section 7 of 

the Endangered Species Act requires formal 

consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service or the NOAA, Fisheries if a federally 

listed species may suffer effects due to a 

proposed action. No additional language is 

necessary in the grazing regulations regarding 

coordination with state wildlife management 

agencies. 

Comment: One comment stated that 

paragraph (c) should be removed because 

many states, counties, and local areas do 

not have any established grazing boards. 

Another stated that it is not clear how these 

grazing boards are defined or established, 

nor what it would take for a grazing board to 

qualify as “established.” One comment stated 

that paragraph (c) was tantamount to the 

reestablishment of grazing advisory boards, 

the authority for which expired on December 

31, 1985 (43 U.S.C. 1753(f)). 

Response: The establishment of grazing 

boards is at the discretion of state, county, 

and local governments, and is not required 

or authorized by BLM. This rule change 

formally recognizes the benefit of consulting 

and cooperating with existing and any 

future grazing boards. Each specific grazing 

board, or the governmental entity creating or 

authorizing it, determines the grazing boardʼs 

establishment, internal organization, and role. 

Comment: One comment stated that 

BLM should include other groups and boards 

representing various public land resource 

interests in the local area (such as Tribal 

Associations) in section 4120.5-2(c), because 

many of these groups and agencies utilize 

BLM lands. 

Response: In section 4120.5-2 of the 

grazing regulations, the authorized officer is 

required to cooperate, to the extent consistent 

with applicable laws of the United States, 

with the involved state, county, and Federal 

governmental agencies in administering 

certain laws and regulations. Section 

4120.5-1 requires cooperation, to the extent 

appropriate, with all groups and individuals, 

including Tribal entities, to achieve 

the objectives of grazing management. 

Cooperation with grazing boards, where 

they exist, can give BLM land managers 

resource-related information from local 

subject matter experts, thus increasing our 

ability to develop appropriate strategies for 

5-70 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

managing grazing allotments and developing 

range improvements under the multiple-use 

mandate. We have added Tribal associations 

to paragraph (c) in response to the comments. 

Comment: One comment suggested 

that we expand the scope of paragraph (c) 

to require cooperation with local grazing 

boards as to other elements of rangeland 

management. The comment stated that these 

groups could assist with the resolution of 

such issues as conflicts between permittees 

and other users of the public lands and in 

designing monitoring programs.

Response: Tribal, state, county, and 

local government-established grazing 

boards are independent entities, set their 

own agendas, select their own members, 

and determine the level of their interest in 

reviewing allotment management plans and 

range improvements. Under this rule, BLM 

will not establish, sanction, or direct the 

function of grazing boards. BLMʼs role, as 

identified in the grazing regulations, is to 

weigh any input from the grazing boards as 

well as from others as we consider allotment 

management plans and range improvements. 

BLM coordinates with Federal, state, Tribal, 

and county government entities and RACs 

on a wide variety of public land management 

issues and proposed actions. 

Comment: One comment stated that 

grazing boards should be consulted but 

should remain autonomous from Resource 

Advisory Councils, as provided in the 

Taylor Grazing Act. Another stated that 

grazing boards comprised of members of the 

general public may have personal concerns 

or pet issues that should not affect BLM 

management practices. 

Response: Under the proposed grazing 

regulations, grazing boards established by 

state, county, and local government and 

Resource Advisory Councils will remain as 

distinct organizations. The grazing advisory 

boards referred to in the Taylor Grazing 

Act were terminated in 1974 in accordance 

with Section 14 of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. App. 1), 

and should not be confused with the grazing 

boards in the proposed grazing regulations. 

These grazing boards are neither established 

nor sanctioned by BLM. Partly in response to 

the confusion and concerns demonstrated by 

these comments, we are amending paragraph 

(c) to add the word “government” after the 

word “local.” This should make it clear 

that the grazing boards referred to in the 

provision with which BLM must cooperate in 

administering livestock laws are only those 

created or sanctioned by state, county, Tribal, 

or local government entities. 

Comment: One comment suggested that 

only affected permittees, and not individuals 

from other locations, should be consulted 

regarding section 4120.5-2, “Cooperation 

with State, county and Federal agencies.” 

Response: That section does not include a 

consultation requirement with the interested 

public, but does require BLM to cooperate 

with Tribal, state, county, and other Federal 

agencies regarding the administration of laws 

and regulations related to livestock, livestock 

diseases, sanitation, and noxious weeds. 

BLM believes it is important to continue to 

work cooperatively with other governmental 

authorities on these issues. 

5.4.12 Temporary Nonuse 

Comment: Several comments expressed 

general support for the changes in the 

temporary nonuse provisions. Various other 

comments suggested amendments for the 

definition of “temporary nonuse:”

1) To include nonuse that is required by 

BLM in response to fire, drought, or in 

other cases where range restoration or 

improvement is necessary;

5-71
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

2) To provide that BLM will manage 

decreases in livestock numbers by 

temporary nonuse rather than suspension; 

and 

3) To require permittees and lessees to apply 

for temporary nonuse on an annual basis, 

in order to make the definition consistent 

with section 4130.4(d)(1). 

Response: The first two suggestions 

are related. Some grazing permittees and 

lessees do not want to have authorizations 

suspended for drought, fire, and range 

restoration. Although no reason is given 

in the comments, apparently these grazing 

operators consider a suspension tantamount 

to a penalty. However, there is no stigma 

associated with this kind of suspension. 

Nonuse to allow fire rehabilitation or drought 

recovery at the request of BLM is properly 

achieved by suspension. Also, having a 

suspension imposed by BLM in this situation 

eliminates the paperwork burden associated 

with applying for temporary nonuse. 

BLM cannot adopt the third suggestion. 

Definitions are in the regulations to describe 

what a term means. The definition is not the 

proper place to describe how to implement it. 

Section 4130.4 gives sufficient information 

about the implementation of temporary 

nonuse; it is unnecessary to repeat it in the 

definition. 

Comment: One comment from a state fish 

and game agency opposed the definition of 

temporary nonuse, relating it to its opposition 

to the proposed definition of “preference.” 

The agency opposed institutionalizing a 

stocking number in grazing permits. Instead, 

the comment supported the definition in 

the current regulations, stating that forage 

allocations should be based on available 

forage. 

Response: Changes in the definition of 

“temporary nonuse” in the rule are necessary 

to implement the ruling of the 10th Circuit 

Court in Public Lands Council v. Babbitt (167 

F.3d 1287 (10th Cir. 1999)) on conservation 

use. The interpretation in the comment of 

the relationship between temporary nonuse 

and grazing preference is incorrect. The rule 

defines “grazing preference” or “preference” 

as the total number of animal unit months on 

public lands apportioned and attached to base 

property owned or controlled by a permittee, 

lessee, or an applicant for a permit or lease. 

A permit or lease is a long-term (up to 10 

years) authorization to graze livestock on 

public land and is based on available forage. 

BLM may authorize temporary nonuse, on 

the other hand, for a short-term, one year, 

when applied for by a permittee or lessee, for 

a variety of reasons.

Comment: One comment stated that 

BLM should amend the rule with regard 

to temporary nonuse to make the negative 

effects on grazing permittees as predicted in 

the DEIS positive. 

Response: We believe the long-term 

effects of the rule will be favorable to 

the health of the range. BLM is free to 

disapprove nonuse if resource conditions do 

not warrant approval of temporary nonuse for 

conservation reasons, and to allow temporary 

use by other operators if the nonuse is for 

personal or business reasons. The regulations 

contain checks and balances to minimize 

adverse effects. 

Comment: Several comments expressed 

the concern that, if we adopt the rule as 

proposed, BLM would be unable to deny 

nonuse for conservation purposes. The 

comments pointed out the possibility that 

since the rules do not limit the number 

of years that a grazing operator could 

potentially be approved for nonuse of 

their grazing permit or lease, conservation 

organizations could acquire grazing permits 

and perpetually receive BLM approval not 

to use them for reasons of natural resource 

5-72 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

conservation, enhancement, or protection. 

Another comment supporting the proposed 

rule expressed concern that BLMʼs discretion 

to grant nonuse for more than 3 years 

allows a de facto “conservation use” permit 

in violation of the TGA, FLPMA, and the 

decision in Public Lands Council v. Babbitt, 

supra. Also, the proposed rule stated that 

BLM “will” authorize nonuse to provide for 

natural resource conservation, enhancement 

or protection or for the personal or business 

needs of the permittee. 

Response: In the rule, BLM has changed 

the term “will” to “may” to make clear that 

BLM retains the discretion to disapprove 

nonuse if BLM, based on the facts applicable 

to the circumstances, does not agree that 

nonuse is warranted.

The rule also does not change provisions 

that authorize BLM to cancel permits and 

leases if they are not used for the purpose 

intended — namely, to graze livestock 

— and to award them to other applicants in 

accordance with the decisions, goals, and 

objectives of the governing land use plan. 

BLM believes it necessary to retain discretion 

to approve or disapprove nonuse based on 

the facts and circumstances at hand, so that 

it may adapt its management to the needs of 

the resources as well as the resource user. 

The regulations adopted today provide that 

unless the BLM approves nonuse in advance, 

it is not approved. BLM may deny nonuse if 

we find that it is not needed either for natural 

resource conservation, enhancement or 

protection, or for personal or business needs 

of the permittee. If BLM denies a permitteeʼs 

application for nonuse, the permittee would 

be obligated to graze in accordance with 

their permit or lease. If the permittee failed 

to make use as authorized by their permit 

or lease for two consecutive fee years, then 

BLM could cancel the unused preference 

under section 4140.1(a)(2) and allocate it to 

other applicants under sections 4110.3-1(b) 

and 4130.1-2. 

If the BLM approves nonuse for personal 

or business reasons of the permittee or lessee, 

we may authorize other qualified applicants 

to graze the forage that is temporarily made 

available due to the nonuse by the preference 

permittee under section 4130.4(e). If BLM 

approves nonuse for reasons of resource 

conservation, enhancement, or protection, 

and should a qualified applicant believe that 

BLMʼs approval of nonuse for any of these 

reasons is not justified, that applicant could 

apply to use the forage that he believes to 

be made available as a result of BLMʼs 

approval of nonuse. Because the regulation 

at section 4130.4(e) would not allow 

BLM to approve an application for forage 

made available as a result of temporary 

nonuse approved for reasons of resource 

conservation, enhancement, or protection, 

BLM would then necessarily deny such 

an application for use by grazing decision. 

This grazing decision would be subject to 

protest and appeal, thereby providing the 

applicant an opportunity to demonstrate to 

an administrative law judge or board why 

he believes BLMʼs decision to approve the 

nonuse application was in error, and to have 

the court compel BLM to either require 

that the forage be used by the preference 

permittee or to make the forage available for 

use by other applicants.

Comment: Some comments stated that the 

Supreme Court found that unlimited nonuse 

was not consistent with the TGA. 

Response: The rule does not authorize 

BLM to grant unlimited nonuse. The 

rule restores to BLM flexibility to approve 

permittee or lessee applications for nonuse 

as long as BLM determines annually that 

the nonuse is warranted by resource needs 

or by the personal or business needs of the 

operator. 

5-73
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

Comment: One comment questioned why 

temporary nonuse must be subject to annual 

application, stating that in at least some cases 

it should be easy to predict that the benefits 

from nonuse would take several or even 

many years to accumulate. The comment 

suggested that an analysis of historic 

employment of temporary nonuse might 

shed light on reasons ranchers applied for 

temporary nonuse: BLM proposals to reduce 

AUMs; business reasons of the permittee or 

lessee; or cooperative agreements to allow 

range or riparian recovery.

Response: Annual reconsideration of 

temporary nonuse allows BLM to determine 

whether it is still necessary. Of course, in 

some cases the determination will be easy 

to make. Historical analysis of temporary 

nonuse is not necessary. Of the three reasons 

for nonuse suggested in the comment, two 

are explicitly provided for in the regulations 

at section 4130.4(d)(2)(i) and (ii). As for the 

other reason suggested for temporary nonuse, 

that BLM is proposing to reduce AUMs, 

temporary nonuse may be a preferable, less 

drastic, alternative, which will give the range 

an opportunity to recover to forage levels 

that will support the permitted AUMs before 

BLM cancels the AUMs.

Comment: One comment urged BLM to 

ensure that the grazing regulations provide 

for maximum flexibility for nonuse, or 

reduced use, including allowing nonuse 

for 3 years for reasons other than resource 

management. Upon 3 years of nonuse, 

then, according to the comment, BLM 

should consult with the preference holder to 

determine how to make the nonuse AUMs 

temporarily available to other applicants 

engaged in the livestock basis, or to 

reallocate them permanently in accordance 

with the grazing regulations. The comment 

concluded that BLM should limit nonuse 

for resource protection reasons to 5 years 

to protect the range from rangeland health 

concerns some contend start to accrue after 5 

years without livestock grazing.

Response: The final regulations provide 

sufficient flexibility for approving nonuse 

for reasons other than resource management. 

BLM should not wait for 3 years before 

authorizing other applicants to graze 

AUMs made available due to a preference 

permitteeʼs nonuse for personal or business 

reasons, as there may be times where the 

use can appropriately be made immediately. 

However, we disagree that there should 

be an arbitrary limit on nonuse for reasons 

of resource conservation, enhancement, 

or protection. There may be times when 

nonuse based on these needs is justified 

for longer than 5 years, which BLM will 

determine based on monitoring and standards 

assessment.

Comment: One comment urged that 

BLM should not propose reductions and 

eliminations in resting or nonuse because 

this action, which is only beneficial to the 

permittee or lessee, implies that the BLM is 

only concerned about short-term production 

of livestock and not the long term benefit of 

stewardship.

Response: BLM does not believe that 

granting nonuse when it is beneficial to a 

permittee or lessee implies that BLM is only 

interested in short-term livestock production. 

Long-term stewardship of public lands is 

inherent in the stated missions and goals of 

the agency in Section 102(a) of FLPMA. 

There are also many sections (such as section 

4130.3-3(b), Subpart 4180, etc.) in the 

grazing regulations that provide mechanisms 

for exercising stewardship of the public lands 

to ensure that the lands are productive and 

available to future generations. Additionally, 

the concept is embodied in BLMʼs mission 

statement: “sustains the health, diversity, 

and productivity of the public lands for the 

use and enjoyment of present and future 

generations.”

5-74 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

Comment: One comment suggested that 

the regulations should provide that when 

permit holders request nonuse or a reduction 

or suspension of what is currently permitted 

use, such requests would be granted. 

Response: Section 4130.4 provides that 

BLM may authorize temporary nonuse for 

natural conservation reasons or for business 

or personal reasons of the permittee or lessee. 

If the applicant supports the request with 

appropriate reasons, BLM will normally 

approve the request, on a year-to-year basis, 

as provided by section 4130.4(d)(1)(ii). BLM 

believes it necessary to retain discretion to 

approve or disapprove nonuse based on the 

facts and circumstances at hand, so that it 

may adapt its management to the needs of the 

resources as well as the resource user.

Comment: One comment stated that 

BLMʼs consideration of a request for 

conservation use should consider whether 

that use would create a fire hazard.

Response: The rule allows permittees and 

lessees to apply for temporary nonuse for 

conservation purposes. BLMʼs deliberation 

regarding an application for nonuse 

for conservation purposes will include 

consideration of whether approval would 

result in other effects such as unhealthy 

buildup of fuels. 

5.4.13 Fundamentals of Rangeland 

Health 

Comment: Some comments expressed 

concern that BLM was replacing the 

fundamentals of rangeland health in section 

4180.1 with the rangeland health standards 

in section 4180.2. The reasons given for 

concern were: (1) BLM might no longer 

take action if we determined that conditions 

expressed as fundamentals of rangeland 

health did not exist; (2) BLM would not be 

able to evaluate the effectiveness of state 

or regional guidelines; and (3) land health 

standards would take precedence over the 

fundamentals.

Response: Land health standards do 

not replace or take precedence over the 

fundamentals of rangeland health, but 

further define the conditions that must 

exist in order to achieve Fundamentals of 

Rangeland Health at the local or regional 

level. Section 4180.2(b) clearly states that 

standards must provide for conformance with 

the fundamentals of section 4180.1. Because 

of the hierarchical relationship between the 

fundamentals and the standards of rangeland 

health, if the standards are met, then the 

conditions exist to meet the fundamentals. 

The effectiveness of state or regional 

guidelines will be determined by evaluating 

whether or not standards are met when the 

guidelines are followed. The purpose of the 

change in section 4180.1 is to make it clear 

that when standards describing the conditions 

necessary to meet the fundamentals have 

not yet been developed, that failure to 

achieve (or make progress toward achieving) 

fundamentals will be the basis for taking 

appropriate action.

Comment: A comment suggested 

removing or revising section 4180.1 

because, as framed in the current rules, 

the fundamentals do not conform to the 

concepts and parameters presented in 

the National Research Councilʼs 1994 

publication “Rangeland Health, New 

Methods to Classify, Inventory, and 

Monitor Rangelands,” and “New Concepts 

for Assessment of Rangeland Condition” 

(Journal of Range Management, SRM 48(3), 

May 1995). It also suggested that the Criteria 

and Indicators developed by the Sustainable 

Rangeland Roundtable be incorporated into 

Subpart 4180.

Response: BLM considered the National 

Research Council publication cited in the 

comments in 1995 in preparing the proposed 

5-75
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

direction for developing state or regional 

standards and guidelines (Rangeland Reform 

ʼ94 Final Environmental Impact Statement,

page 13). These national concepts were 

retitled the “fundamentals of rangeland 

health” in the 1995 final rule (60 FR.9954). 

The Journal of Range Management 

article “New Concepts for Assessment of 

Rangeland Condition” provided a number 

of recommendations for assessing and 

reporting range condition based on ecological 

sites and “Site Conservation Ratings.” 

The fundamentals of rangeland health are 

not intended to describe a condition rating 

system; rather, they describe a threshold 

condition which either exists or does not 

exist, and provide BLM a criterion for taking 

corrective action. BLM has been a participant 

in the “Sustainable Rangeland Roundtable,” 

and that work is still in progress. We have 

determined that further adjustments of 

the regulations to be consistent with the 

“Sustainable Rangeland Roundtable” 

products would not be prudent at this time.

Comment: Other comments suggested 

moving the fundamentals of rangeland health 

from the grazing regulations in Subpart 4180 

to the planning regulations in Subpart 1610, 

stating that the fundamentals are clearly 

planning rather than management concepts. 

According to the comments, the move would 

accomplish the 3 criteria listed in Federal 

Register (68 FR 68457): (1) promoting 

cooperation with affected permittees, 

especially land owners; (2) promoting 

practical mechanisms for protecting 

rangeland health, and (3) improving 

administrative efficiencies. 

Response: As explained in the proposed 

rule, we did not consider it appropriate to 

expand of the scope of the rule and EIS to 

address planning regulations at Subpart 1610.

Comment: A number of comments 

addressed the references to “at-risk and 

special status species” and the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) in Subpart 4180. All 

suggested removing the term “at risk 

species” found in 4180.1(d), 4180.2(d)(4), 

4180.2(e)(9) and 4180.2(f)(2)(viii) because 

it is not a term used or authorized in the 

ESA. Most expressed concern that including 

the term would lead to single species 

management when BLM should be managing 

for plant and animal communities and 

ecosystems. Some also suggested removing 

the term “special status species” for the same 

reasons.

Response: FLPMA directs BLM to 

manage for multiple uses, including native 

vegetation communities, and food and 

habitat for wildlife as well as livestock. 

Even though it is preferable to manage 

native plant and animal communities or 

ecosystems, the ESA requires threatened and 

endangered species to be managed by BLM, 

species by species. “Special status species” 

is defined in BLM Manual 6840, Special 

Status Species Management, and includes 

listed, proposed and candidate species, 

state-listed species, and sensitive species. 

Considering “other special status species” in 

standards and guidelines (4180) will identify 

potential management opportunities to avoid 

future listing of State listed and sensitive 

species. Once a species is listed under the 

ESA, multiple use management becomes 

increasingly complex and uses of the public 

lands may become more restrictive. Thus, 

BLM needs optimum habitat conditions for 

all special status species. However, because 

the term “at-risk species” is not defined in 

ESA or in BLM manuals or handbooks, we 

have removed it from the regulatory text. The 

rule retains the term “special status species,” 

because it is consistent with our objectives in 

Subpart 4180 and is clearly defined in BLM 

Manual 6840.

5-76 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

5.4.14 Basis for Rangeland Health 

Determinations 

Comment: Some comments contained 

suggestions for implementing the rule. 

Many encouraged BLM to provide sufficient 

funding to collect the monitoring data needed 

under the rule, and one comment requested 

a funding strategy to show how BLM 

will provide the resources to complete the 

monitoring necessary to implement this rule. 

One comment suggested that permittees fund 

any monitoring above that currently required 

by BLM to make decisions. Some comments 

suggested priority-setting strategies so that 

high priority areas receive first consideration 

for monitoring.

Response: Priority setting is also a policy 

issue addressed during the annual budget 

development along with determinations on 

appropriate funding levels. Funding sources 

and amounts for monitoring vary from 

year to year, and BLM plans to work with 

permittees and others to determine how data 

collection will be funded or completed. 

Comment: Several comments expressed 

a desire for BLM to update policy and 

handbooks to clarify methods and levels 

of monitoring needed so that there would 

be consistency in data collection and 

interpretation. One comment requested 

incorporation of “the Catlin et al. 2003 

report and statistical tests (Grand Staircase 

or Escalante National Monument)” into 

the EIS because the report and statistical 

tests provide tools to assist BLM staff in 

making rangeland health determinations. 

Comments offered monitoring indicators for 

all the land health standards, and suggested 

that monitoring should be focused on 

goals and objectives agreed upon using the 

consultation, cooperation, and coordination. 

It was recommended that monitoring should 

be conducted by qualified professional 

agency personnel working with permittees 

using approved agency methods to collect 

data relevant to the decisions being made. 

Response: BLM agrees that clear 

guidance on monitoring methodologies is 

desirable. Many of the suggestions are more 

appropriately addressed in the development 

of policy, handbooks, and technical 

references, rather than in regulations. This 

applies particularly to techniques and 

methods for collecting and interpreting 

data. The suggestion to update policy and 

handbooks is appropriate, and BLM it is 

planning on doing so. 

Comment: One comment suggested the 

BLM should add the following wording 

to 4180.2 (c)(2): “If the appropriate action 

requires a change in active use, such 

change will be implemented in accordance 

with section 4110.3-3” to clarify that 

timing conflicts are not intended between 

the implementation requirements of this 

section and those of section 4110.3-3 on 

implementing changes in active use under the 

changes recommended herein. 

Response: The regulations state in section 

4180.2(c)(3), “Appropriate action means 

implementing actions pursuant to Subparts 

4110, 4120, 4130, and 4160 of this part....” 

How changes in preference and active use 

will occur is specified in 4110.3-3, so we 

believe the suggested word change to section 

4180.2 is unnecessary.

Comment: Some comments stated that 

the regulations in section 4180.2 should 

provide for individual allotment management 

plans with specific goals and objectives, and 

including monitoring plans be developed 

through consultation, cooperation, and 

coordination. 

Response: Section 4120.2, on allotment 

management plans, directs that such plans 

provide for monitoring to evaluate the 

effectiveness of management actions in 

achieving the resource objectives of the 

5-77
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

plan. These plans are to be developed in 

consultation, cooperation, and coordination 

with permittees, landowners, other agencies, 

and the interested public. Therefore, we 

believe the suggestion has already been 

addressed in the regulations. 

Comment: A variety of comments 

opposed requiring both monitoring and 

assessments to make determinations that 

rangeland health standards are not being 

met because of current livestock grazing 

management. Most were concerned that 

BLM did not have the budgetary resources 

to provide adequate data collection and 

analysis and that the requirement would 

impose an unrealistic workload on the BLM 

staff, putting resources at risk by delaying 

appropriate actions. Setting priorities and 

assuring that low priority areas were not 

monitored at the expense of high priority 

areas was a concern. 

Response: As previously stated, BLM 

prioritizes expenditure of resources for 

monitoring as well as for other activities 

in the range program. For example, BLM 

assigns high monitoring priority to areas 

it believes to be at risk, are in degraded 

condition, or in downward trend and 

in danger of losing capability. BLM 

believes that it is more effective to expend 

resources to collect data in these high 

priority areas, and to use that data to ensure 

sustainable decisions from a resource and 

implementation perspective.. Under the rule, 

monitoring would not be necessary on every 

allotment to make a determination that an 

allotment is failing to achieve standards and 

conform to the guidelines. The rule requires 

monitoring and data assessment only on those 

allotments which are found to have failed to 

meet standards or conform to guidelines, and 

if it is reasonably likely that the failure was 

caused by livestock grazing, to determine 

whether the failure is in fact due to levels 

of grazing use and grazing management 

practices. As of the end of Fiscal Year 2002, 

about 16 percent of the 7,437 allotments 

evaluated were determined not to be meeting 

land health standards because of existing 

livestock grazing management. We focused 

our first round of assessments on areas 

with potential problems. Nevertheless, it 

is reasonable to use this experience as an 

indicator of the proportion of allotments 

that are likely to fail to meet standards as a 

result of livestock grazing practices in the 

future. Thus, we expect to be required to 

have monitoring data to support probably 

less than 16 percent of our determinations 

that we make after adoption of the revised 

regulations. Under projected budgets, we 

fully expect to have appropriate monitoring 

data to support a much larger proportion of 

our determinations, regardless of whether 

they lead to a finding of failure to meet 

standards due to livestock grazing. 

Comment: Other comments expressed 

opinions that monitoring was unnecessary 

and existing direction was adequate for 

making determinations and necessary 

adjustments, including flexibility to use 

existing data, that using follow-up monitoring 

to determine if the change was needed is 

an appropriate strategy, and that allowing 

immediate action when destructive grazing 

practices and abuse are obvious is essential to 

good management. One comment stated that 

requiring monitoring would lead to increased 

litigation.

Response: The level of monitoring 

needed to determine whether existing 

livestock grazing is a significant factor 

in failing to achieve standards will vary 

depending on such factors as how obvious 

the causes are for not meeting standards, 

presence of threatened or endangered species, 

conflicts between uses, and other criteria. 

While BLM cannot control the number of 

appeals or the amount of litigation after 

issuing a grazing decision, we believe having 

5-78 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

a defensible basis for the decision will reduce 

the number of instances where appropriate 

action is delayed because of protracted 

administrative and judicial processes. In 

addition, BLM would have stronger basis for 

implementing the corrective actions during 

a protest, appeal, or stay situation when the 

decision is founded on monitoring data. 

Comment: Another comment maintained 

that range monitoring as practiced by BLM 

consistently under-reports biological impacts 

of cattle grazing on desert environments, 

particularly riparian areas, and that some 

monitoring methods do not report loss of 

habitat function for wildlife, increased 

susceptibility of soils to erosion, invasion of 

exotic plants, or destruction of cryptobiotic 

crusts. 

Response: BLM does not agree with 

this comment. Monitoring is designed to 

document conditions of a particular attribute 

or set of attributes at the time data is 

collected. BLM uses a number of techniques 

and methods to measure wildlife habitat 

conditions (including cover, structure, and 

vegetation composition), ground cover, and 

presence of exotic plants. In doing so, we 

rely on many BLM Technical References 

and Technical Notes, including TR 1734-4 

“Sampling Vegetation Attributes,” 1996; TN349 “Terrestrial Wildlife Inventories: Some 

Methods and Concepts,” 1981; “Inventory 

& Monitoring of Wildlife Habitat,” 1986, 

by Cooperider, Boyd, and Hansan; TN 395 

“Evaluation of Bighorn Habitat: A Landscape 

Approach,” 1996; TR 1730-1 “Measuring 

and Monitoring Plant Population,” 1998; 

and TN 417 “Identifying and Linking 

Multiple Scale Vegetation Components for 

Conserving Wildlife Species that Depend 

on Big Sagebrush Habitat: A case Example 

– Southeast Oregon,” 2004. This monitoring 

provides BLM with information about the 

condition and trend in condition of resources. 

When monitoring the effects of livestock 

use, BLM commonly measures utilization, 

cover, and frequency, and relies on actual 

use reports and photographs. Data is then 

correlated to various management activities 

to determine effectiveness of management in 

achieving objectives. 

Comment: Several comments 

recommended that the rule should allow 

BLM to use monitoring or assessment data or 

both for making determinations, as provided 

in Alternative 3 in the EIS. The comment 

stated that this flexibility would enhance 

efforts to protect rangeland health.

Response: We believe that devoting 

attention to areas with highest priority will 

allow us to address range health issues. 

In fact, at the end of Fiscal Year 2002, 

about 16 percent of the 7,437 allotments 

that had been evaluated were determined 

not to be achieving standards because of 

existing livestock grazing management. 

See section 4.3.1 of this EIS. This indicates 

that monitoring should be focused on high 

priority areas where there is a risk of not 

achieving land health standards because of 

existing livestock grazing.

Comment: The BLM should not 

unnecessarily place the burden of proof on 

itself to justify management changes by 

requiring years of monitoring data before 

management changes can be mandated 

because it will delay management changes.

Response: The rule only requires 

assessment and monitoring to show that 

existing grazing management practices or 

levels of grazing use on public lands are 

significant factors in failing to achieve the 

standards and conform with the guidelines. 

For the most part, BLM has been focusing 

its monitoring efforts on those allotments 

where there are concerns or problems. We 

believe that this requirement is reasonable 

and necessary to ensure that we have 

adequate data to formulate and analyze an 

appropriate action. Further, as we have stated, 

5-79
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

careful monitoring will make for better, more 

defensible decisions. BLM is adding the 

requirement to use standards assessments and 

monitoring data to support determinations 

of failure to achieve standards and conform 

with guidelines because of existing grazing 

management practices or levels of grazing 

use because both the public and the livestock 

industry are concerned about a lack of 

existing data for making determinations. 

Although we often make these determinations 

based on existing monitoring data, adding 

this requirement provides for a consistent 

approach to making determinations.

We do not expect this provision to have 

significant budgetary effects because, as 

described in section 4.3.1, only 16 percent of 

the allotments assessed over the last 5 years 

have failed standards because of existing 

livestock grazing practices. While this 

requirement may increase the data collection 

workload in the grazing program, we expect 

to accomplish monitoring in those areas we 

believe to be at risk, in degraded condition, 

or in downward trend and in danger of 

loosing capability. Refocusing data collection 

priorities may affect watershed assessment 

schedules and could delay the permit renewal 

process in areas where current monitoring 

data is not available. Under projected budgets 

we expect to have appropriate monitoring 

data to support our determinations. The 

amount of monitoring data needed is 

likely to vary from case to case. We will 

be developing guidance on monitoring to 

address such issues as timing and levels of 

monitoring. 

Comment: Many comments addressed 

monitoring on public lands, and suggested 

ways that BLM could use monitoring to 

improve public land management. Comments 

stated that BLM should not authorize grazing 

on areas where it lacks adequate data to 

determine that standards are met or to ensure 

that resource damage is avoided. They 

recommended that BLM set up exclosures 

as control sites representing various 

major ecological types of land in order to 

establish benchmarks for assessing grazing 

management. 

Response: BLM authorizes livestock 

grazing on areas that have been determined 

through the land use planning process to 

be available for grazing. BLM determines 

whether lands are available for livestock 

grazing through the land use planning 

process in compliance with FLPMA and 

43 CFR part 1600. The process involves 

public participation, assessment, decisionmaking, implementation, plan monitoring 

and evaluation, as well as adjustments 

through plan maintenance, amendment, and 

revision. This planning process adheres to 

the principles of multiple use and sustained 

yield and uses an interdisciplinary approach 

to integrate physical, biological, economic 

and other sciences. BLM is required to 

take appropriate action if we determine that 

existing grazing management practices or 

levels of grazing use are significant factors in 

failing to achieve the standards and conform 

to the guidelines for grazing administration. 

The rule emphasizes the importance of using 

monitoring data by adding a requirement for 

its use when determining whether existing 

grazing management is a significant factor in 

failing to achieve the standards and conform 

with the guidelines under section 4180.2(c). 

BLM endorses the use of exclosures to 

determine the compared effects of grazing 

and its absence on various ecological types 

of land, and discusses their use in several 

BLM and interagency rangeland monitoring 

technical references.

Comment: Comments suggested that 

monitoring was so critical to determining 

whether multiple use objectives are being 

met on grazing allotments that it should be 

specifically required in all allotments, along 

with other methodologies, in the regulations. 

5-80 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

Response: BLM agrees that monitoring 

is important in measuring progress toward 

meeting objectives in grazing allotments 

and elsewhere on public land. Allotmentlevel monitoring is generally a component 

of allotment management plans, and is 

sometimes addressed in land use plans. 

Current allotment management planning 

includes monitoring on the maximum 

possible number of priority areas, limited 

only by budget and workforce. Specific 

methods are better addressed in handbooks 

and technical references, which are much 

more readily updated.

Comment: One comment stated that 

BLM should incorporate the scientific and 

economic principles expressed in Catlin et 

al. (2003) and Stevens et al. (2002) into its 

analysis and permit renewal processes, so 

that appropriate changes are made to ensure 

that native diversity and productivity are 

restored to grazed BLM lands. (The comment 

refers to Catlin, James, Jaro Walker, Allison 

Jones, John Carter, and Joe Feller, 2003: 

Multiple use grazing management in the 

Grand Staircase National Monument. A tool 

provided to the Monument range staff by 

the Southern Utah Land Restoration Project

and Stevens, Laurence E., Peter Stacey, Don 

Duff, Chad Gourley, and James C. Catlin, 

2002: Riparian ecosystem evaluation: a 

review and test of BLMʼs proper functioning 

condition assessment guidelines.) 

Response: Employment of the technical 

procedures and principles described by these 

documents is appropriately addressed in 

policy, manuals, and guidance rather than in 

a rule. 

Comment: One comment stated that 

BLM should clearly show its long-term 

budget strategy that outlines the monitoring 

programs, funding, and personnel that will 

be added to the agencyʼs capacity to carry 

out the implied monitoring. The comment 

asserted that BLM does not have adequate 

funding, personnel, and management support 

for adequate monitor vegetation, Special 

Status Species, and Birds of Conservation 

Concern, let alone other resources.

Response: Funding is provided by 

annual congressional appropriation. We will 

prioritize allocation of monitoring funding to 

address issues and provide a foundation for 

management adjustments. BLM agrees that 

monitoring is a critical component providing 

data for evaluation and adjustments of terms 

and conditions of grazing authorizations. 

We will continue to prioritize funding to fill 

monitoring needs. 

Comment: Another comment stated that 

utilization studies sanctioned by BLM should 

include methodology for determining which 

species consumed the forage to ensure that 

measures taken to correct overutilization are 

effective.

Response: Methodologies for utilization 

studies are better addressed in reference 

manuals, guidance, and policy.

Comment: BLM does not have 

the monitoring data to assert that their 

management practices are having any effect 

on improvement of water quality on public 

lands.

Response: One of BLMʼs primary 

resource management objectives is to meet 

state water quality standards in water bodies 

affected by management activities on public 

lands. Achievement of state water quality 

standards is a rangeland health standard in 

each BLM region or state. BLM determines 

total maximum daily loads of pollutants 

and develops best management practices 

(BMPs), with coordination with and approval 

by each stateʼs environmental quality office. 

We conduct water quality monitoring to 

assess the effectiveness of BMPs, as well as 

direct water column sampling to determine 

compliance with standards in cooperation 

with the appropriate state agencies. Streams 

and lakes are not removed from the statesʼ 

5-81
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

lists of impaired water bodies without 

full verification and direct sampling data. 

Monitoring to determine the effectiveness of 

each change in management is not possible, 

but priority watersheds with existing water 

quality problems are monitored sufficiently 

to determine whether new management 

practices designed to improve water quality 

are effective. 

5.4.15 Timeframe for Taking Action 

to Meet Rangeland 

Health Standards

Comment: Many comments supported 

the amendments in the proposed rule to 

allow BLM 24 months after determining 

that grazing management practices or levels 

of use were significant factors in failing to 

meet standards or conform to guidelines to 

formulate, propose, and analyze appropriate 

action. They stated that providing adequate 

time to develop and analyze appropriate 

actions with adequate public and permittee 

involvement would result in better decisions 

appropriate to the need. They said that the 

longer timeframes would allow a more 

accurate evaluation, and allowing 24 months 

instead of 12 months for initiating changing 

in grazing practices is more practical. BLM 

agrees and has not changed any of the 

pertinent provisions of the regulations in the 

rule.

Response: Under the rule, the BLM field 

manager has discretion as to whether to 

allow 24 months for BLM to address failure 

to meet rangeland health standards. There 

is no language in the rule that precludes 

a shorter deadline, once BLM meets its 

consultation, cooperation, and coordination 

requirements. Allowing 24 months to develop 

appropriate action should improve the 

likelihood of determining the correct remedy 

for a vegetative resource problem. Also, if 

immediate action is needed to protect soil, 

vegetation, or other resources, BLM may 

invoke section 4110.3-3(b) and immediately 

close the area to grazing either totally or 

partially. 

Comment: Those who made comments 

opposing the change in the amount of time to 

develop an appropriate action when livestock 

grazing was determined to be a significant 

factor in not achieving a land health standard 

focused on 3 areas. The first was that the 

extra time allowed is inconsistent with the 

objective of accelerating restoration and 

improving public rangelands and that it 

would create a delay leading to additional 

degradation of resources or harm to wildlife. 

The second was that current rules provided 

adequate time to take action, and that a ruling 

of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, upholding 

the current regulations, should be continued 

as a management directive. The third area 

of focus was that the change would provide 

preferential treatment not given to other 

permitted uses. 

Response: With respect to the first 

concern, BLM believes that the proposal 

to allow up to 24 months (except in those 

cases where completing legal obligation that 

are beyond BLMʼs responsibility require 

additional time) to propose and analyze 

appropriate action needed to address the 

failure to meet a rangeland health standard 

will result in improvements rather than harm 

to resources, including wildlife. As stated in 

section 4.3.7 of the EIS, there may be limited, 

short-term adverse effects if BLM needs 24 

months or more to develop an appropriate 

action that involves extensive coordination 

and consultation. However, we expect the 

extra time taken to develop a meaningful 

action to provide greater long term benefits to 

other resources and an overall improvement 

in rangeland condition. For example, just 

reducing the level of use in a riparian area, 

rather than developing a management system 

that considers timing of use, is not likely 

5-82 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

to improve the riparian area condition. 

Taking the additional time to develop an 

appropriate action may actually reduce 

the amount of time taken to implement a 

decision, particularly if the decision is not 

appealed. Also, taking additional time should 

improve the quality of the BLM decisions 

and reduce the likelihood of successful 

appeal, and hopefully the number of appeals. 

Implementing decisions can be delayed by 

18-36 months if appealed. At the end of 

FY2002, about 5 percent of grazing decisions 

issued after 1997 had been appealed. Labor 

and funds spent to address these appeals are 

diverted from developing and implementing 

workable plans. In many cases, the full 

24 months may not be needed to develop 

appropriate actions. Based on determinations 

made through the end of Fiscal Year 2002, 

the number of allotments affected by this 

rule appears to be fairly limited. Of the 7,437 

allotments assessed prior to October 1, 2002, 

BLM determined that 16 percent did not meet 

standards due at least in significant part to 

existing livestock grazing management or 

levels of use. See Section 4.3.1of this EIS

Regarding the second area of concern, 

the BLM has determined that the additional 

time is needed to enable us to develop and 

implement better action strategies. We 

assume the ruling noted in the comments 

is Idaho Watersheds Project v. Hahn, 187 F.3d 

1035 (9th Cir. 1999). In the proceedings that 

led up to that appellate decision, the district 

court provided a schedule for completing 

evaluations of land health standards and 

subsequent NEPA documents for 68 

allotments, and issued interim management 

guidelines pending completion of the NEPA 

documents and issuing grazing permits. The 

decision referred to interprets the current 

regulations, the effects of which are analyzed 

as part of the No Action Alternative. The 

rule under consideration in this EIS will 

give managers and partners an opportunity 

to develop, as a result of the additional time, 

better alternatives that will result in more 

positive long-term environmental effects. 

The fact that the 9th Circuit upheld the current 

regulations does not preclude the BLM 

from proposing to amend the regulations to 

improve our grazing management program. 

We do not agree that the changes in the 

regulations give preferential treatment to 

grazing interests by extending the allowable 

timeframe for developing and implementing 

corrective actions. Grazing permittees are 

the only users required by these regulations 

to change management in a specified period 

of time if that management is a significant 

factor for not achieving rangeland health 

standards. If other activities are determined to 

be the cause for not meeting those standards, 

the regulations do not impose deadlines on 

making changes in such activities, or even 

require changes in them. 

Comment: Comments provided 

suggestions for changing the proposed 

rule. One was to increase the time given to 

develop an appropriate action to more than 

24 months, because climate, weather, or 

other conditions might require longer studies 

to determine rangeland health. Another 

was to provide for a variable timeframe 

on a case by case basis, because different 

problems required varying time periods for 

initiating and scheduling improvements. A 

third suggestion was to identify problems 

associated with grazing practices within 3-6 

months, and devise measures to correct them 

within 2-4 months after they are identified, 

including (a) planning an appropriate 

action with appropriate consultation and 

coordination, (b) completing NEPA and 

Section 7 ESA requirements, and (c) issuing 

a final decision to implement the action. 

Response: We have revised the rule 

to provide additional time to develop 

appropriate actions when legally required 

processes outside BLMʼs purview prevent 

5-83
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

completion of all legal obligations within 

the 24 month time period. In most cases, 

24 months is an adequate period of time to 

develop appropriate action. Sometimes a 

corrective action is as simple as changing 

a grazing period or rotation. In other 

circumstances, corrective actions are more 

complex and difficult to conceive and 

implement, such as when multiple permittees 

in large allotments with multiple resource 

issues are involved. When the process 

includes numerous legal requirements, 

such as ESA Section 7 consultation, or 

extensive consultation and coordination with 

numerous interests, we may need additional 

time to complete the process. Developing 

appropriate action to implement remedial 

grazing management can vary greatly in 

complexity depending on the management 

circumstances of the allotment. Sometimes 

a corrective action is as simple as changing 

a grazing period or rotation. In other 

circumstances, corrective actions are more 

difficult to conceive and implement, such 

as when working with multiple permittees 

in large allotments with multiple resource 

issues. In more complex circumstances, 

just developing the appropriate action(s) is 

often not straightforward. Time is needed 

for planning and budget considerations, such 

as developing and coordinating a workable 

proposal, engineering survey and design if 

range projects are a part of the corrective 

action, consulting with Tribes and complying 

with Section 106 of the NHPA, NEPA 

analysis including consultation with multiple 

entities and agencies, and securing moneys 

to support these processes. In practice, when 

faced with more complex circumstances, 

the relatively short period allowed by the 

current regulation within which to devise and 

implement the appropriate action(s) may not 

allow BLM time for internal alignment of 

the planning and budget needed for timely 

implementation of the corrective action. 

Current resources available to BLM to assess 

rangeland conditions on 160 million acres 

make it impractical for BLM to implement 

and maintain a program to identify problems 

associated with grazing within “3-6 months.” 

Often, trends in range conditions are not 

discernible until several years of monitoring 

data are collected and analyzed. In light of 

these operational realities, BLM cannot adopt 

recommendations to shorten this timeframe. 

Comment: One comment expressed 

concern that the effect of allowing up to 24 

months to develop and analyze an action 

to make needed adjustments in grazing 

would be to protect poor stewards and 

uncooperative ranchers. 

Response: The rule change is intended 

to provide adequate time “to formulate, 

propose, and analyze actions in an 

environment of consultation, cooperation and 

coordination.” Rather than protecting poor 

management, this rule provides opportunity 

to develop an appropriate action. BLM 

will still take appropriate action to modify 

livestock grazing management where changes 

are needed to achieve land health standards 

before the end of the 24-month period 

specified in the regulations. The proposed 

change to grazing management would be 

issued by a grazing decision under Subpart 

4160. BLM is responsible for initiating a 

change in management regardless of the 

cooperativeness of the permittees or lessees 

or their management abilities. Additionally, 

section 4110.3-3(b)(1) includes the phrase 

“reasonable attempt to consult with” to allow 

BLM to implement immediate actions to 

address resource conditions in situations 

where an entity is uncooperative.

Comment: One comment urged BLM to 

eliminate completely the use of the “rapid 

assessment” or indicators of rangeland health 

(Technical Reference 1734-6) in assessing 

rangeland condition, stating that this is 

nothing more than the old apparent-trend 

5-84 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

scorecard that the range management and 

scientific community abandoned 70 years ago 

as being too subjective.

Response: The authors of the 1994 

National Research Councilʼs (NRC) 

publication Rangeland Health: New 

Methods to Classify, Inventory, and Monitor 

Rangelands proposed an approach to assess 

rangeland health that uses integrity of soil 

and ecological process as measures of 

rangeland health (p. 95). They recommended 

the use of 3 criteria upon which to base an 

evaluation of rangeland health: (1) degree 

of soil stability and watershed function, (2) 

integrity of nutrient cycling and energy flow, 

and (3) presence of functioning recovery 

mechanisms (p. 97, 98). The report suggests 

a number of indicators that can be used to 

measure and assess rangeland health. The 

report also describes the use of indicators 

(soil and vegetation characteristics) 

that are used by the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS—formerly the 

Soil Conservation Service, SCS) to indicate 

apparent trend (USDA, SCS, 1976). The 

majority of indicators listed in Technical 

Reference (TR) 1734-6 (jointly developed 

by United States Geological Survey, NRCS, 

Agricultural Research Service and Bureau of 

Land Management, 2000) are those listed in 

the NRC publication. BLM recognizes that 

the process for assessing and interpreting 

indicators of rangeland health as described 

in TR 1734-6 is qualitative, but is extremely 

useful for providing an initial assessment 

of land health. This initial assessment 

can then be substantiated by collection of 

quantitative data through monitoring on those 

areas where concerns are identified (BLM 

Manual Handbook H-4180-1 Rangeland 

Health Standards, chapter III). BLM expects 

to continue to use this tool in conjunction 

with monitoring to make determinations of 

rangeland health and whether or not existing 

livestock grazing is a significant causal factor 

where land health standards are not achieved. 

5.4.16 Rangeland Health Standards

Comment: Some comments included 

requests to provide BLM State Directors 

authority to petition the Secretary for 

additions or changes to current land health 

standards, stating that providing this authority 

would allow BLM to modify standards based 

on current conditions or needs and desires of 

local working groups.

Response: The final regulations retain the 

provisions in section 4180.2(b) that give the 

State Director the responsibility and authority 

to develop or modify regional standards, 

following consideration of Resource 

Advisory Council (RAC) recommendations. 

The Secretary of the Interior must approve 

state or regional standards or guidelines 

developed by the State Director prior to 

implementing them.

Comment: One comment urged BLM to 

find ways to reward ranchers who achieve 

100 percent compliance with the standards 

for rangeland health, and to manage 

permittees who fail to achieve compliance 

with the standards in order to improve 

conditions on public lands. 

Response: From a policy perspective, 

BLM does not agree that it should “reward” 

ranchers whose grazing practices do not 

prevent achievement of rangeland health 

standards. Under the rule, where grazing 

management practices or levels of grazing 

use are significant factors in failing to achieve 

the standards and conform to the guidelines, 

BLM must take appropriate action as soon as 

practicable, but no later than the start of the 

next grazing year that follows the execution 

of an agreement or the issuance of a grazing 

decision that addresses the causes of failing 

to achieve, or to progress towards achieving 

the standards or conform to the guidelines.

5-85
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

Comment: One comment stated that BLM 

grazing regulations should have provisions 

in Subpart 4180 that ensure protection 

of rangelands from further degradation, 

improvement of water quality, and restoration 

of areas adversely affected by grazing.

Response: BLM, in consultation with 

Resource Advisory Councils, has developed 

and approved regional standards for 

rangeland health and guidelines for grazing 

administration under section 4180.2 in 

all areas that BLM manages for livestock 

grazing, except for the California Desert 

District. In the California Desert District 

the fallback standards and guidelines in 

section 4180.2(f) currently apply. Section 

4130.3-1(c) requires that permits and leases 

incorporate terms and conditions to require 

conformance to standards and guidelines. 

BLM believes that these standards and 

guidelines adequately provide for the 

protection of rangelands from degradation, 

improvement of water quality, and restoration 

of areas adversely affected by livestock 

grazing. 

Comment: One comment requested that 

we restrict the fallback guideline in section 

4180.2(f)(2)(x) to the use of native plants and 

eliminate the use of non-native plant species 

for rehabilitation or restoration projects. 

Another comment encouraged us to retain the 

use of non-native plants for restoration and 

rehabilitation projects under the conditions 

listed in the fallback guideline in section 

4180.2(f)(2)(x). 

Response: It is BLM policy to use 

native plant species in range improvement 

and other projects intended to re-establish 

vegetation where they are available and 

if we expect them to be effective. The 

current fallback guideline at section 4180.2 

(f)(2)(x) recognizes that at times native 

plant materials are in short supply and in 

certain circumstances native plant species 

cannot compete with established exotic 

invasive species. Section 4180.2(d)(12) also 

continues to provide that state or regionally 

developed standards for rangeland health 

“[i]ncorporat[e] the use of non-native plant 

species only in those situations in which 

native species are not available in sufficient 

quantities or are incapable of maintaining or 

achieving properly functioning conditions 

and biological health.” State or regionallydeveloped standards created under this 

regulation have recognized that on some 

sites, native species are incapable of 

successfully competing with invasive exotics. 

Where this occurs, BLM uses non-natives in 

rehabilitation projects.

Comment: One comment asserted that it 

may be misleading to state that most BLM 

states have completed establishment of 

standards. The comment went on to state 

that, in many of these states, the grazing 

industry controls state legislatures or has 

influence over them out of proportion 

to the contribution of the industry to the 

economy and to society, and that this 

brings into question the validity of state 

rangeland health standards. BLM should 

have ultimate responsibility for making 

this determination on lands entrusted to it 

by the public, the comment concluded, and 

these determinations should be made using 

techniques of rangeland science, by qualified 

individuals, either employed by or under 

contract to BLM.

Response: The comment misinterpreted 

what we meant by “BLM states.” BLM is 

organized into different administrative levels 

and boundaries. One of those levels is by 

state and at the state level there is a state 

office. Some of the administrative states 

actually include more than one state. For 

example, the Montana State Office includes 

the states of Montana, North Dakota, and 

South Dakota. In the DEIS in Section 2.2.8, 

when we stated “Most BLM States have 

completed establishment of standards and 

5-86 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

guidelines...,” we were referring to the BLM 

administrative State Offices. 

BLM professionals, along with many 

of our interested publics, including but not 

limited to RACs, ranchers, and various 

organizations and individuals, were involved 

with the development of the BLMʼs 

rangeland standard and guidelines. In most 

states, BLM coordinated or consulted with 

state agencies or the state Governorʼs Office 

during the development of land health 

standards, but not with state legislatures. 

All rangeland standards and guidelines are 

based on current rangeland science. BLM is 

responsible for implementing the standards 

and guidelines and determining the condition 

of the public rangelands that we administer.

5.4.17 Conservation Use

Comment: Several comments opposed 

removing the concept of conservation 

use permits from the regulations. Others 

stated that the regulations should not 

make it difficult or a lower priority for a 

conservation group to buy grazing permits. 

They pointed out that if BLM collects its 

fees from a conservation group, from a 

revenue perspective it makes no difference if 

the conservation group decides not to graze 

livestock, and that such nongrazing would 

have minimal effect on western economies. 

The comment also said that such groups are 

often able to pay willing sellers higher prices 

for permits, and that such transactions result 

in healthier rangelands. Another comment 

said that BLM should convene a forum of 

permittees, conservationists, and agency 

representatives to explore regulatory options 

for facilitating “willing seller–willing buyer” 

grazing permit retirement.

One comment that supported removal 

of reference to “conservation use permits,” 

stated that not grazing can result in fuel 

build-up and catastrophic fires. 

Response: The removal of the term 

“conservation use” from the regulations is 

required by Federal court decision (Public 

Lands Council v. Babbitt, 167 F.3d 1287, 1308 

(10th Cir. 1999)), affʼd on other grounds, 

529 U.S. 728 (2000)). Regional Resource 

Advisory Councils may be one forum for 

permittees or conservationists to discuss 

options for grazing permit retirement. 

However, creating and administering 

“willing seller–willing buyer” grazing permit 

retirement opportunities is beyond the scope 

of the rule.

Comment: Many comments urged BLM 

to provide means and methods for reducing 

or eliminating grazing in specific areas, such 

as by appealing and challenging the courtʼs 

ruling against conservation use permits 

or allowing conservation buy-outs as a 

provision of the regulations, giving a number 

of reasons:

a. Some areas require long-term or 

permanent protection for rangeland 

environmental health.

b. The proposed rule will not promote 

sustainable grazing.

c. The elimination of conservation use 

also eliminates the opportunity for a 

conservation easement.

d. Such arrangements can have substantial 

economic and other benefits for all 

concerned.

e. Most people consider conservation to be 

a legitimate use of the land.

Response: BLM is able to designate 

areas as not available for grazing by decision 

based upon the land use planʼs multiple use 

objectives, or to withdraw areas from grazing 

5-87
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

under Section 204 of FLPMA. The Bureau 

is also able to make changes in grazing 

management, such as reducing or eliminating 

grazing use, based upon a determination that 

livestock grazing is a factor in not meeting 

the standards for rangeland health. 

“Conservation buy-outs” are outside the 

scope of the rule. 

Removing the term “conservation use” 

from the regulations is required by the 

judicial decision (Public Lands Council v. Babbitt, 

supra. 

Comment: One comment stated that BLM 

and Congress should consider amending the 

Taylor Grazing Act to allow for conservation 

use, because that might be the only legal way 

to protect resources from livestock grazing. 

Response: Amending laws, such as the 

Taylor Grazing Act, FLPMA and PRIA, is 

not within the scope of the rulemaking or the 

authority of BLM. 

5.4.18 Grazing Preference and 

Suspension 

In the first part of this section on grazing 

preference we will deviate slightly from the 

format used earlier to describe and reply 

to comments. The first three paragraphs 

describe comments on grazing preference. 

This is immediately followed by a response 

that describes the concept and usage of the 

term over time.

Comment: BLM received some 

comments supporting and some comments 

opposing the removal of the term “permitted 

use” and expanding the definition of “grazing 

preference” to include a livestock forage 

allocation. Favorable comments suggested 

that the term connects a public land livestock 

forage allocation with base property owned 

by the preference holder, thus facilitating 

preference transfer when the property 

changes hands, thereby providing stability 

and certainty for grazing operations as well 

as ranching communities, and eliminating 

the confusion that use of the term “permitted 

use” generated. Some of the comments in 

support of the change erroneously suggested 

that preference was somehow a fixed 

quantity, not subject to change.

Comments opposing the change stated 

that the definition of preference has no basis 

in law, that it weakens BLM s administrative 

authority, that it will cause confusion unless 

further clarified, and that it would create 

expectations that BLM, when choosing 

among possible public land management 

actions, would be obligated to minimize 

livestock forage reductions, ensure they are 

temporary, and restore historical livestock 

forage allocations. Other comments opposing 

the change stated that, since allotments 

are quantified in terms of acres, further 

quantification in terms of forage is both 

unnecessary and unrealistic because the 

amount of forage produced on a given area 

is not a fixed quantity. Another comment 

suggested that the proposed definition of 

preference should not be adopted because 

it elevated a livestock forage allocation 

as first priority above other valid uses of 

vegetation, such as wildlife habitat and 

watershed protection. Some comments stated 

that the present definitions of preference and 

permitted use were consistent with the TGA.

Response: Amending the definition 

of preference and removing the term 

“permitted use” will remove administrative 

inconsistencies from the regulations and 

provide for improved BLM administration 

of forage allocations on public lands. The 

amendment will alleviate confusion in the 

regulated community that has existed since 

1995. Further responses to comments in this 

section of the EIS will expand on this. 

Comment: One comment suggested that 

the term preference should be redefined to 

mean the current livestock carrying capacity 

following forage allocations to wildlife, 

watershed protection, and land recovery. 

5-88 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

Another comment suggested that the 

definition of preference should incorporate 

the concepts of distance from water and the 

percent slope or steepness of terrain. Another 

comment suggested that BLM should include 

in the definition of “grazing preference” the 

concept that forage is allocated according to 

land use plans, to emphasize the connection 

between permitted activities and the land use 

plan.

Response: The rule includes the definition 

of “grazing preference” or “preference” as 

proposed. As explained in the preamble to 

the proposed rule, the 1995 rules changes 

introduced some inconsistencies into the 

regulations by creating the term “permitted 

use” to mean the forage allocation, and 

narrowing the definition of “preference” to 

mean only a priority position as against other 

applicants for forage.

“Preference” or “grazing preference” is a 

grazing program-specific administrative term 

that connects an individual entityʼs allocation 

of public land forage to property that it 

owns or controls. It allows BLM to record, 

in accordance with other applicable grazing 

regulations, a forage allocation on public 

lands, expressed in terms of “active use” and 

use that has been suspended, or “suspended 

use,” together constituting “preference,” and 

administratively connect it to privately owned 

base property. It facilitates both the transfer 

of preference from one party to another or 

from one property to another, and the making 

of equitable adjustments of preference in 

“common allotments” (allotments permitted 

or leased to more than one operator), when 

needed in the course of land management. 

In the 1978 grazing regulations, the 

BLM formally defined “grazing preference” 

to be a forage allocation on public lands, 

expressed in Animal Unit Months, that is 

apportioned and attached to base property 

owned or controlled by a permittee or 

lessee. These regulations also stated that 

“grazing preference shall be allocated to 

qualified applicants following the allocation 

of the vegetation resources among livestock 

grazing, wild free-roaming horses and 

burros, wildlife, and other uses in the land 

use plans.” Before 1978, BLM called 

livestock forage allocations on public 

lands “grazing privileges.” The amount 

of privileges awarded to individuals and 

attached to their base property was limited 

by the “qualifications” of the property. 

Determination of land base property 

qualifications was based in part upon the 

forage that was produced on the base 

property, and was used to help calculate 

BLMʼs determination of the property 

ownerʼs forage allocation on public lands. 

Determination of water base property 

qualifications relied upon the forage 

production that occurred on public lands 

within the service area of the water that 

the water base property owner controlled. 

Adjudication of grazing privileges occurred 

independently from, and in many cases 

pre-dated, pre-FLPMA land use planning 

processes. Grazing privileges on public 

lands that were awarded in recognition of 

base property qualifications were informally 

referred to by ranchers and BLM alike as 

“preference AUMs,” and were distinguished 

from forage use approved on a temporary 

and nonrenewable basis and from forage 

consumed in the exercise of livestock 

crossing permits.

 Following the 1978 grazing regulation 

changes that formally defined the term 

“grazing preference,” establishment of 

preference was based on forage allocations 

that occurred in the course of implementing 

land use plans under FLPMA. In the majority 

of cases, these forage allocations mirrored the 

apportionment of forage that occurred under 

pre-FLPMA livestock grazing adjudications. 

In any event, all allocations were supported 

by resource information, including inventory 

5-89
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

and monitoring. Allocations that pre-dated 

FLPMA, and the preference that arose there 

from in the course of implementing land 

use plans under FLPMA, do not “trump” 

BLMʼs multiple use mandate that was 

formalized under FLPMA. On the contrary, 

forage allocations made under the auspices 

of FLPMA land use plans superseded the 

forage allocations made by the pre-FLPMA 

adjudications. All BLM offices with a grazing 

program are covered by land use plans 

completed since the enactment of FLPMA. 

The definition of “preference” 

corresponds with the requirement that 

livestock forage allocations on public land 

be made within a multiple use context as set 

forth in land use plans under section 4110.2-

2. When BLM determines that additional 

forage is available for livestock within a 

planning area, through land use planning or 

activity planning, this definition, coupled 

with other grazing regulations, provides that 

the preference holder is “first in line” for that 

portion of the available forage that occurs 

within his permitted or leased allotment(s). 

The proposed definition does not mean 

and should not be construed to imply that 

satisfying a permitteeʼs or lesseeʼs livestock 

forage allocation (the preference) has the 

highest priority when BLM employs land 

use planning or activity planning processes 

to determine possible uses, or values to 

be managed for, that depend on available 

vegetation. Reconciling competing and 

possibly conflicting demands placed on 

public land resources still lies squarely 

within the realm of BLMʼs land use planning 

process, and must be reflected in subsequent 

activity plans and management decisions. 

As discussed below, increasing active 

preference or activating suspended preference 

is a valid grazing program goal. However, 

when considering management opportunities 

presented by an increase in vegetation 

available for forage or other uses and values, 

meeting this goal must be considered in 

concert with meeting other equally valid 

goals established by the land use plan. 

BLM is aware that an absolute quantity 

of forage production on public lands is not 

fixed in time. In accordance with the TGA 

and FLPMA, the grazing regulations provide 

for monitoring and assessment to support 

both temporary and long-term adjustments in 

grazing use, including the amount of forage 

that may be removed under a permit or lease, 

when BLM determines that such adjustments 

are warranted. It has been BLM policy for 

two decades that changes in the amount of 

forage allowed for grazing use under a term 

permit or lease (regardless of whether it is 

called “active use” or “active preference”) 

must be supported by monitoring, or, since 

1995, other resource information that 

indicates a need for adjustment, such as when 

the authorized livestock grazing significantly 

contributes to not meeting rangeland 

health standards (and excepting, of course, 

adjustments that are based on significant 

changes in management circumstances, 

such as land disposals rendering less land 

available for grazing use). However, although 

livestock grazing capacity can and does 

fluctuate in response to both natural events 

and to management inputs, BLM also seeks 

to provide reasonable stability to permittees 

and lessees who rely on public land forage 

authorized by their permit or lease. Therefore, 

BLM established a preference for removal of 

a specific amount of forage. There is no need 

to include a requirement for consideration of 

physical factors such as distance from water 

and steepness of terrain in the definition 

of preference. The appropriate place for 

including this type of guidance is in technical 

references and handbooks that address how 

to establish livestock grazing capacity. As 

indicated in section 4110.3, BLM may adjust 

preference for several reasons, including the 

need to conform the livestock grazing use 

5-90 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

program to the provisions of applicable land 

use plans. BLM may also cancel preference 

outright when circumstances warrant, such as 

to impose a penalty for egregious regulatory 

violations, or when public land is transferred 

to private hands or devoted to another public 

purpose that precludes livestock grazing.

The regulatory provisions to place 

preference in “suspension” indefinitely apply 

when BLM adjusts allowable livestock 

forage removal based on a determination 

that grazing use or patterns of use are not 

consistent with the provisions of Subpart 

4180, or grazing is causing unacceptable 

utilization, or when use exceeds the livestock 

carrying capacity as determined through 

monitoring, ecological site inventory, 

or other acceptable methods, or for 

other purposes consistent with legal and 

regulatory requirements. The assumption 

behind indefinitely suspending preference 

is that, should management inputs result 

in restoring acceptable patterns or levels 

of utilization, or increased production of 

forage available to livestock, then BLM may 

reinstate the suspended use under section 

4110.3-1(b). BLM believes it appropriate to 

encourage management input by ranchers 

who hold preference by providing that 

when management inputs result in increased 

forage for livestock available on a sustained 

yield basis, they can expect that this forage 

will be made available to them without 

having to compete for it with other potential 

applicants. We view the reinstatement of 

suspended preference as an appropriate 

livestock grazing program goal that provides 

incentive to preference holders for improved 

livestock grazing management. Attaching 

the suspended preference to base property 

results in a record that transcends any one 

entityʼs or individualʼs tenure of ownership 

or control of that base property. In the event, 

perhaps decades later, that BLM determines 

that increased forage for livestock is 

available within a specified area, this record 

allows BLM to make fair and appropriate 

distribution of the increased livestock forage 

first to those with preference for grazing use 

in the area in question.

To conclude, the definition of grazing 

preference in the rule is consistent with its 

longstanding meaning—a meaning that was 

in formal usage for 17 years before it was 

changed by the 1995 grazing regulations — 

and consistent with how the term “preference 

AUMs” was informally used before 1978.

Comment: Several comments stated that 

the definition of “suspension” could cause 

problems because it allows for withholding of 

active use “by agreement.” These comments 

urged that we remove the phrase “or by 

agreement” from the definition, so that the 

definition would read: “ʻSuspensionʼ means 

the withholding from active use, through a 

decision issued by the authorized officer, of 

part or all of the grazing preference specified 

in a grazing permit or lease.” They stated that 

allowing suspensions by agreement could 

allow the creation of de facto conservation 

use permits, contrary to the decision of the 

Federal Court, and would short circuit the 

grazing decision process under Subpart 4160. 

Response: We have not adopted the 

recommendation to change the definition 

of “suspension” in the proposed regulation. 

The phrase “or by agreement” was in the 

definition prior to the 1995 revision of the 

regulations. It is in the definition partly to 

recognize that the permittee may not wish to 

contest the suspension. The definition also 

supports our goal of using cooperation with 

permittees and lessees to achieve rangeland 

management objectives. When an action that 

meets the objective of achieving rangeland 

management objectives is implemented 

through agreement with affected permittees 

or lessees, the action carries no less weight 

than when it is implemented through 

decision. The implementation of an action to 

5-91
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

place active use in suspension, for example, 

still requires sound rationale, whether 

implemented through agreement or decision, 

and may be appealed by parties with standing 

to appeal. 

Comment: Another comment stated 

that BLM should implement a process to 

ensure that suspended use is reinstated to 

active use. The current regulations deprive 

permittees of this credit, unjustifiably 

eliminating base property qualifications that 

are kept on the books in suspended status 

at the time of permit renewal based on an 

allotment evaluation. The comment went on 

to suggest that, as range conditions improve, 

BLM should reinstate the active use that is 

presently in suspended use. 

Response: BLM agrees that it is 

important to keep track of grazing use that 

has been reduced, and section 4110.3-2(b) 

provides that BLM will place such reductions 

in suspension. If range conditions improve in 

the future and BLM finds there is additional 

forage for livestock on a sustained yield 

basis, section 4110.3-1(b) requires such 

additional forage to be applied first to reduce 

or eliminate any suspensions.

Comment: Some comments stated that 

BLM should not change the definition of 

suspended use, but rather retain the one in the 

1995 regulations.

Response: BLM has not adopted the 

recommendation to retain the 1995 definition 

of “suspension.” The rule changes the 

definition to be consistent with the restored 

definition of “preference.”

Comment: One comment on specifying 

grazing preference urged BLM to give 

preference to buffalo ranchers in issuing 

grazing permits because use by buffalo predates use by cattle on the range, and they 

therefore have right by history to receive 

first consideration for grazing use. Another 

comment stated that BLM should let ranchers 

decide how many livestock should be grazed 

and adjusted based on their judgment because 

most ranchers are good stewards of the land. 

Another comment urged BLM not to make 

changes in preference solely on the basis of 

forage allocations in land use plans, stating 

that monitoring must be used to justify 

changes in authorized levels of grazing use.

Response: BLM has no authority to give 

preference to buffalo ranchers when issuing 

grazing permits or leases. The TGA requires 

that when issuing grazing permits, the 

Secretary must give preference to landowners 

engaged in the livestock business, bona fide 

occupants or settlers, or owners of water or 

water rights, as may be necessary to permit 

the proper use of lands, water, or water rights 

owned, occupied, or leased by them. Grazing 

permits authorize grazing use on lands within 

grazing districts established under Section 1 

of the Act. The Act also requires that when 

issuing grazing leases, the Secretary must 

give preference to owners, homesteaders, 

lessees, or other lawful occupants of lands 

contiguous to the public lands available 

for lease, to the extent necessary to permit 

proper use of such contiguous lands, with 

certain exceptions. Grazing leases authorize 

grazing on public lands outside grazing 

districts. The regulations define livestock to 

be cattle, sheep, goats, horses, or burros, but 

not buffalo. Thus, a change in this provision 

is outside the scope of the rule. BLM may 

issue permits to graze privately owned 

buffalo under the regulations that provide 

for “Special Grazing Permits or Leases” for 

indigenous animals (section 4130.6-4), so 

long as the use is consistent with multiple use 

objectives expressed in land use plans.

Both Sections 3 and 15 of the Taylor 

Grazing Act and Sections 402(d) and (e) 

of FLPMA entrust to the Secretary of 

Interior the responsibility for determining 

and adjusting livestock numbers on public 

lands. The Secretary has delegated this 

responsibility to the Bureau of Land 

5-92 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

Management. BLM may not delegate this 

responsibility to the ranchers. BLM works 

cooperatively with ranchers, the state 

having lands or responsibility for managing 

resources, and the interested public in 

determining terms and conditions of grazing 

permits and leases, including the number of 

livestock to be grazed. Permits and leases 

contain terms and conditions to ensure 

that grazing occurs in conformance to land 

use plans which are developed with public 

involvement.

The regulations at section 4110.2-2 do not 

provide for the establishment of preference 

solely on the basis of the forage allocation 

contained in the land use plan. Rather, they 

state that, alternatively, preference may be 

established in an activity plan or by decision 

of the authorized officer under section 

4110.3-3. Some land use plans determined 

a forage allocation for livestock on an areawide basis and apportioned that allocation 

among qualified applicants. Other land use 

plans simply recognized previous allocations 

and stated that future adjustments to these 

allocations would be guided by the multiple 

use objectives contained in the land use plan, 

be implemented by grazing decisions, and be 

supported by monitoring information.

Comment: A comment on transfer of 

grazing preference suggested that before 

issuing a permit or lease that arises from 

transfer of preference, BLM should conduct 

capacity surveys, condition assessments, 

evaluate monitoring data, and complete 

NEPA compliance documentation so that 

the terms and conditions of the permit or 

lease that we issue reflects current allotment 

conditions. 

Response: BLM does not control 

when or for what allotments it will receive 

applications to transfer grazing preference 

and issue a permit arising from that transfer. 

By the end of fiscal year 2003, BLM had 

assessed about 40 percent of its allotments 

for achievement of standards of rangeland 

health. In these areas, BLM reviews the 

application in light of the existing assessment 

and NEPA compliance documentation and 

issues the permit or lease with appropriate 

terms and conditions. BLM continues to 

prioritize its data gathering needs based 

on known resource management issues. 

If BLM does not conduct an assessment 

of rangeland health and otherwise “fully 

process” a permit or lease application that 

accompanies a preference transfer, it includes 

terms and conditions on the newly issued 

permit or lease to ensure achievement of the 

standards and conformance to appropriate 

guidelines. These permit or lease terms and 

conditions include a statement that, if a future 

assessment results in a determination that 

changes are necessary in order to comply 

with the standards and guidelines, BLM 

will revise the permit or lease terms and 

conditions to reflect the needed changes.

Comment: One comment stated that 

BLM should only consider changes in 

preference when there has been a permanent 

change in the number of AUMs available for 

attachment to base property. The comment 

asserted that, because AUMs of preference 

were established through formal adjudication, 

it would be inappropriate for BLM to change 

grazing preference as needed to manage, 

maintain, or improve rangeland productivity, 

to assist in restoring ecosystems to properly 

functioning condition, to conform to land 

use plans or activity plans, or to comply with 

the provisions of Subpart 4180. Another 

comment stated that is was important for 

permittees and lessees to retain preference as 

to potential AUMs that have been suspended, 

so that when productivity improves the 

AUMs are awarded to those who own 

or control the base property to which the 

suspended preference is attached. Yet another 

comment stated that BLM should make clear 

in this section that any changes to grazing 

5-93
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

preference must be supported by monitoring 

that is conducted using BLM-approved 

Manual procedures. 

Response: BLM rejects the contention 

that because a forage allocation reflected by 

an existing preference may have at its roots 

a pre-FLPMA formal adjudication, it would 

be inappropriate to change it when needed 

to improve rangeland productivity, restore 

ecosystems to properly functioning condition, 

conform to land use plans or activity plans, 

or comply with the provisions of Subpart 

4180. As pointed out by the Supreme Court 

in Public Lands Council v. Babbitt, supra, 

“the Secretary [of the Interior] has since 1976 

had the authority to use land use plans to 

determine the amount of permissible grazing, 

43 U.S.C. § 1712.” Further discussion of 

the role of FLMPA-mandated land use plans 

with respect to BLMʼs statutory multiple use 

mission, including the mission to provide 

for the orderly administration of livestock 

grazing on public lands under the Taylor 

Grazing Act and to improve rangeland 

conditions, is included in the previous section 

that addresses removing the definition of 

“permitted use” and redefining “preference” 

to include a forage allocation element.

The final regulations in section 4110.3-

2(b) provide that when BLM decreases 

active use on an allotment, we will put the 

reduction in suspension and it will remain 

associated with base property to which 

the preference for use in the allotment is 

attached. This will ensure that the preference 

holder will be given first consideration for 

use of the additional forage as provided at 

section 4110.3-1(b)(1). BLM considered 

the comment that urged requiring that 

changes in grazing preference be supported 

by monitoring methods contained in BLM 

Manuals and determined that that BLM 

needs flexibility to use site-specific methods 

in addition to those monitoring methods set 

forth in Manual guidance. This flexibility 

will allow BLM to use techniques that meet 

local needs and that BLM may develop in 

cooperation with other agencies and partners.

Comment: One comment urged BLM 

to include, in addition to the provision as 

proposed, provisions to require BLM to work 

closely with local planning departments, 

to include consultation, cooperation, and 

coordination with the grazing permittee 

or lessee, state and local government in 

this section, and to give consideration 

to provision for local, state and regional 

governance.

Response: Under 43 U.S.C. 1712(c)(9), 

40 CFR 1500.4(n), 1501.2(d)(3), 

1501.7(a)(1), 1506.2(b), and Departmental 

Manual and BLM Handbook 1790, BLM is 

directed to coordinate to the degree feasible 

with state and local governments. BLM sees 

no need to reaffirm existing guidance on 

this aspect of planning and environmental 

analysis in this rule.

Comment: One comment stated that BLM 

should require data used to support changes 

in grazing preference to be acceptable to the 

permittee or lessee, as well as to the BLM 

authorized officer.

Response: Congress entrusted 

the Secretary of the Interior with the 

responsibility to manage the public lands. 

The Secretary, in turn, has delegated this 

responsibility to BLM. We do prefer the 

data we use to support changes in grazing 

preference to be acceptable both to BLM and 

the affected permittees or lessees. However, 

if the data BLM uses is not acceptable to a 

permittee or lessee, BLM is still obligated to 

make its management decision in light of its 

statutory management responsibilities.

5.4.19 Definition and Role of the 

Interested Public

Comment: We received many comments 

regarding the definition of “interested 

public.” Many of the comments on the 

5-94 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

topic were concerned that this change 

could unduly exclude public input from the 

grazing management decision process. Some 

comments stated that this change could lead 

to secretive decision-making by the BLM. 

Others stated that the new qualification 

criteria posed an unreasonable barrier to 

participation. Contrarily, a significant number 

of comments stated that more requirements 

should be imposed to avoid what they saw 

as unnecessary delays and frivolous protests 

and administrative appeals. Suggestions 

for additional requirements included an 

annual application process or other time 

limit on interested public status. Creating 

a substantive standard for the participation 

requirement was also suggested. Some 

comments suggested that the interested public 

be narrowed to include only grazing lessees 

and permittees and local users of the land. 

Finally, a significant number of comments 

supported the changes as proposed.

Response: BLM seeks to balance the 

legitimate need for public involvement in the 

management of public lands with the public 

interest in the cost-effective management 

of those same lands. Since the definition of 

interested public was last changed in 1995, 

BLM has devoted substantial resources to the 

public participation process. Some of these 

resources have been devoted to tasks such as 

maintaining lists that include individuals and 

groups that have not participated in allotment 

management activities in years. These 

uninvolved members of “interested public” 

still receive periodic mailings at taxpayer 

expense. 

BLM recognizes the importance of 

public participation and desires to provide 

an opportunity for all those who demonstrate 

an ongoing interest in an allotment to 

participate. Requiring some follow-up 

activity is not unreasonable, but allows the 

individual or group to demonstrate true 

continuing interest in the activities on the 

allotment. BLM has not adopted any further 

qualification requirements, in order to 

maintain an open process available to all of 

the public. Annual applications or minimum 

substantive criteria standards would create 

additional paperwork requirements, and 

could run counter to the administrative 

efficiency goal. Also note that the change to 

the interested public definition does not in 

any way affect the public notice and public 

participation opportunities available when 

potential grazing decisions are analyzed 

under NEPA. 

Comment: One comment stated that, to 

enhance BLMʼs working relationship with the 

permittee and to bring cohesive management 

into the decision-making process, monitoring 

should be conducted only by the permittee 

and BLM, omitting the interested public.

Response: Section 202(f) of FLPMA 

makes clear that it is the direction of 

Congress that BLM must allow for public 

involvement and allow the public to comment 

upon and participate in the formulation 

of plans and programs relating to the 

management of public lands. An important 

element of our plans is the establishment of 

resource management objectives, which then 

must be monitored. The grazing regulations 

do not address who should or should not be 

involved in monitoring. It is BLMʼs policy 

to encourage partnerships with appropriate 

interests to accomplish our work. When 

the interested public joins in conducting 

monitoring studies with the BLM, they 

bring their perspective to the management of 

resources, which often is different from the 

perspective of BLM or the permittee. BLM 

benefits from this perspective by receiving 

more diverse information upon which to base 

its decisions. BLM retains discretion to reject 

monitoring information that does not meet 

agency standards, regardless of who collects 

it.

5-95
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

Comment: One comment suggested that, 

in the definition of “interested public”, we 

should specifically identify that a “lienholder 

of record” is an entity that may be considered 

an interested public. 

Response: We have not adopted this 

suggestion. A lienholder of record would be 

an individual, a group, or an organization, 

and there is no need to mention them 

specifically in the definition.

Comment: Numerous comments 

addressed the role of the interested public 

in grazing management. The proposed rule 

contained a definition change for the term 

and also modified the special involvement 

opportunities for those with interested public 

status. 

Response: BLM has considered the 

comments but has decided not to make major 

changes in the rule. The rule represents 

what BLM believes to be the proper balance 

between public participation and the need for 

flexibility in day-to-day grazing management 

operations. 

Under the previous regulations, you 

could gain interested public status simply 

by (1) making a written request to be treated 

as the interested public or (2) by submitting 

comments regarding grazing management 

on a specific allotment during formal public 

comment periods. Submitting a written 

request is sufficient to obtain interested 

public status initially, but this alone is no 

longer sufficient to maintain that status. 

Instead, you must also subsequently comment 

or otherwise participate in the decisionmaking process when an opportunity arises. 

This requirement is designed to avoid an 

inefficient use of Federal resources on 

clerical duties associated with persons 

and entities that have no longer expressed 

an active interest in the issue. Submitting 

comments during formal public comment 

periods, however, is still enough to qualify as 

a member of the interested public. In short, 

those who request the status must follow up 

with later actions, while those who initially 

demonstrate their interest via comments 

automatically qualify as the interested public 

for that decision process. Any member of 

the general public may initially achieve 

interested public status through these means, 

and former members of the interested public 

may also regain that status through these 

same means at any time. 

Comment: Many were concerned that 

this definition change would unduly limit 

participation by the public. On the other 

hand, some comments on the proposed rule 

expressed the opinion that the term was still 

too broadly defined, and more requirements 

should be implemented before one qualifies 

as a member of the interested public. 

Response: It is important to remember 

that the opportunities available to the 

“interested public” are not the full extent 

of public involvement. Any member of the 

public can provide input and comments 

regarding general grazing policy, and many 

decisions involve formal public comment 

periods where anyone may comment or be 

heard at public meetings. By modifying 

the definition, though, BLM hopes to avoid 

the sometimes inefficient use of Federal 

resources that has been associated with 

the interested public system, while still 

maintaining a valuable outlet for public 

participation. 

Comment: Many comments opposed 

these reductions in consultation with the 

interested public. Some recreationists and 

other nongrazing public land users were 

particularly opposed to having opportunities 

for the interested public limited in any way. 

These comments emphasized the view that 

multiple use public lands are best managed 

when multiple interests are involved with 

both planning level and implementation level 

decisions. Some stated that while the system 

may lead to some inefficiency, when viewed 

5-96 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

from a grazing economics perspective, 

democratic principles favored more public 

involvement on public lands. 

Response: We have retained the proposed 

changes in the rule. BLM is confident that 

consultation with the interested public on the 

larger scale planning decisions will continue 

to provide ample opportunity for public input. 

These broader scale decisions then guide the 

day-to-day management. The changes will, in 

turn, allow these daily decisions to be made 

in a more timely and efficient manner. 

Comment: Many comments expressed 

opposition to any reduction in the role 

of the interested public, and many cited 

the modification of permits as a general 

concern. Many felt it was important to 

have nongrazing interests involved in both 

planning and implementation-level decisions. 

Numerous other comments supported a 

general reduction in mandatory consultation 

with the interested public, seeing these as 

activities that would benefit from faster and 

more efficient action.

Response: Permit and lease modifications 

are routine management activities. BLM 

modifies permits and leases to maintain 

consistency with broader planning decisions 

such as land use plans and allotment 

management plans. These planninglevel decisions are made with extensive 

involvement of the interested public and 

public participation opportunities through 

environmental analysis under NEPA. 

Modifications may also be made as a 

result of monitoring studies, evaluations of 

rangeland health standards and guidelines 

for grazing administration or biological 

assessments or evaluations prepared as part 

of the Section 7 consultation requirements 

under the Endangered Species Act. In these 

cases, BLM provides the interested public, 

to the extent practical, an opportunity to 

review and provide input on these reports 

and evaluations during their preparation, in 

accordance with section 4130.3-3(b). Most 

modification decisions themselves require 

site specific NEPA analysis leading to public 

notice and potential public participation. 

Additionally, the interested public will be 

specially notified of a proposed decision and 

can protest if so desired. 

In BLMʼs view, informal consultations 

and the ability to review the NEPA document 

and protest a proposed decision provide 

adequate mechanisms for identifying 

legitimate public concerns over permit 

modifications. The rule maintains the 

opportunity, to the extent practical, for the 

interested public to review and provide input 

on reports that evaluate monitoring or other 

data. BLM appreciates that the interested 

public can potentially provide important 

insights on reports that will be used to shape 

implementation decisions. Because this is 

information that postdates planning decisions, 

yet will influence future daily implementation 

decisions, it is appropriate for the interested 

public to participate in reviewing this data.

Comment: Many comments opposed 

any reduction in the role of the interested 

public when considering changes in active 

use, but relatively few comments addressed 

these particular functions. Some comments 

supporting the change noted active use 

changes as an area where efficiency could be 

improved by removing the interested public 

consultation requirement. 

Response: Note again that the role of 

the public under NEPA is unaffected by this 

rule change. Additionally, members of the 

interested public will have an opportunity to 

review and provide input on any reports used 

as a basis for decisions on changes in grazing 

use. The interested public will still receive 

the proposed and final decisions for changes 

in active use, and they could protest the 

proposed decision if so desired. 

In BLMʼs view, the NEPA process, 

informal consultations, the opportunity to 

5-97
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

review and provide input on reports used as a 

basis for decisions, and the ability to protest 

before a decision is final, all are adequate 

mechanisms for identifying legitimate public 

concerns over active use changes. No protest 

could be filed against an emergency closure, 

which is issued as a final decision, but these 

decisions require management flexibility 

to allow a quick response to changing 

circumstances on the ground

Comment: One comment stated that 

removing the requirement that BLM consult 

with the interested public before making an 

allotment boundary adjustment would affect 

the public role in NEPA analysis of boundary 

changes. 

Response: That is incorrect. The public 

role under NEPA is unaffected by this rule 

change. 

Comment: One comment stated that 

allotment boundary adjustments could affect 

native plant populations and requested 

continued public involvement. Environmental 

issues such as effects on native plants are best 

addressed through the NEPA process, which 

is unaffected by this change. 

Response: The BLM has found that 

much of the required consultation with the 

interested public is duplicative of these 

other processes and often delays routine, 

noncontroversial decisions. In BLMʼs view, 

the NEPA process, informal consultations and 

the ability to protest before a decision is final 

provide adequate mechanisms to identify 

legitimate public concerns over boundary 

changes. 

5.4.20 Land Use Planning and 

Grazing Retirement 

Comment: BLM received numerous 

comments addressing the types of uses 

that are generally allowed on public lands. 

They suggested eliminating some uses 

or dedicating lands to a single use. The 

comments included eliminating livestock 

grazing on areas with wild horses and burros, 

establishing rules to optimize wildlife habitat, 

phasing out livestock grazing completely, 

selling public lands, not allowing any 

commodity uses, and dedication of land for 

water conservation. 

Response: BLM manages public lands in 

accordance with numerous laws passed by 

Congress, including FLPMA, which requires 

these lands to be managed for multiple 

use and sustained yield. FLPMA defines 

“multiple use” as “the management of the 

public lands and their various resource values 

so that they are utilized in the combination 

that will best meet the present and future 

needs of the American people; making the 

most judicious use of land for some or all 

of these resources or related services over 

acreages large enough to provide sufficient 

latitude for period adjustments in use to 

conform to changing needs and conditions; 

the use of some of the land for less than all of 

the resources; a combination of balanced and 

diverse resource uses that takes into account 

the long-term needs of future generations 

for renewable and nonrenewable resources, 

including, but not limited to, recreation, 

range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife 

and fish, and natural scenic, scientific and 

historical values; and harmonious and 

coordinated management of the various 

resources without permanent impairment of 

the productivity of the land and the quality 

of the environment with consideration being 

given to the relative values of the resources 

and not necessarily to the combination of 

uses that will give the greatest economic 

return or the greatest unit output.” 43 U.S.C. 

1702(c).

BLM cooperatively develops local land 

use plans in order to determine balanced, 

appropriate, and sustainable land uses, 

following processes defined by various laws, 

regulations, and policies. These grazing 

regulations govern management of grazing 

5-98 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

on lands that have been determined through 

land use planning to be appropriate for 

livestock grazing. BLMʼs land use planning 

processes are governed by regulations in 43 

CFR part 1600, and are not addressed in this 

rule. The sale of BLM lands, while permitted 

by FLPMA, is outside the scope of this rule.

Comment: Comments stated that BLM 

should determine the forage capacity of its 

land using scientific livestock utilization 

rates and re-set permitted use or preference 

to reflect that condition. The comment 

went on to say that the fact that AUMs are 

in suspension demonstrates that the range 

cannot support those levels of grazing.

Response: This issue is outside the scope 

of this EIS. BLM makes the determinations 

referred to in the comment during the 

planning process. AUMs are in suspension 

due to current conditions that may not be 

permanent, such as, for example, drought 

conditions. Forage availability may also 

change in the future as a result of range 

improvements or improved health of the 

rangelands. 

Comment: We received several comments 

that addressed our land use planning 

processes, suggesting that better control of 

motorized vehicle use and access would 

improve rangeland conditions. Others 

suggested that BLM should lease lands for 

recreation, wildlife, and water conservation 

rather than assign grazing as a sole use. 

Still others urged BLM not to recommend 

or provide interim protection for more 

Wilderness Study Areas or Wild and Scenic 

Rivers, stating that their management 

overtaxes BLMʼs capability. 

Response: BLM develops local land use 

plans to address land use activities such as 

off-road vehicle and other recreational uses, 

wildlife, and water conservation uses. Local 

land use planning allocations are beyond the 

scope of this rule. BLM will not recommend 

or designate any additional Wilderness Study 

Areas under the Utah Wilderness Settlement 

and its application, by policy, to BLM lands 

outside of Utah. IM No. 2003-274 and IM 

No. 2003-275. The regulations governing 

management of Wilderness Areas and Wild 

and Scenic Rivers are in 43 CFR part 6300 

and 43 CFR 8351.2, respectively. Those 

regulations are beyond the scope of this EIS. 

Comment: A comment stated that 

Federal rangeland health standards demand 

that BLMʼs rule focus decision-making on 

management objectives stated in land use 

plans, activity plans, and grazing decisions.

Response: The rule provides that its 

objectives will be realized in a manner 

consistent with land use plans. The 

regulations also provide that active use is 

based on the amount of forage available 

for livestock grazing as established in the 

land use plan, activity plan, or decision 

of the authorized officer. The regulations 

allow BLM to make changes in the grazing 

preference as needed to conform to land use 

plans or activity plans, to apportion additional 

forage to qualified applicants for livestock 

grazing use consistent with multiple-use 

management objectives specified in the 

applicable land use plan. BLM may modify 

terms and conditions of permit and leases 

when the active use or related management 

practices do not meet management objectives 

specified in the land use plan, allotment 

management plan or other activity plan, or an 

applicable decision. 

Comment: A comment stated that BLM 

has not effectively addressed resolution of 

multiple use conflicts that leads to demands 

for livestock-free lands. 

Response: FLPMA requires BLM to 

manage lands for multiple. We resolve 

conflicts among competing uses on individual 

tracts of public land through land use 

planning, with participation by the interested 

public and by or on behalf of the proponents 

of the competing uses.

5-99
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

Comment: One comment stated that 

either BLM should establish regulations that 

provide for making land use planning-level 

determinations regarding whether public 

lands are “chiefly valuable for grazing” as 

described in the October 2002 Solicitorʼs 

Memorandum, or the Secretary should 

withdraw that memorandum and provide for 

grazing permit “retirement” within its land 

use planning process or through its permit 

issuance or renewal processes.

Response: The comment alludes to 

an M-Opinion issued on October 4, 2002. 

M-Opinions (i.e., major opinions) usually 

are responses to requests by agencies of the 

Department of the Interior regarding the 

interpretation of statutes administered by the 

Department. M-Opinions are signed by the 

Solicitor or his designee, may receive the 

concurrence of the Secretary, and are binding 

on all agencies of the Department of the 

Interior. 

Grazing retirement and the TGA s chiefly 

valuable standard have been discussed in 

two recent Solicitor s memoranda, as well as 

the 2002 M-Opinion. In one memorandum, 

Solicitor Leshy concluded that Congress, at 

43 U.S.C. 1752(c) and 1903(c), specifically 

provided for the possibility of retiring public 

lands from livestock grazing, but that BLM 

must make such a decision in a land use 

plan or an amendment to a land use plan. 

Memorandum to the Director of BLM from 

the Solicitor (January 19, 2001). 

While the later M-Opinion supersedes 

the 2001 Solicitor s memorandum, it agrees 

that land use planning is an appropriate 

process for considering retirement of grazing. 

In addition, the M-Opinion concludes that 

a decision to cease livestock grazing is not 

permanent. Memorandum to the Secretary 

from the Solicitor, M-37008 (October 4, 

2002). The M-Opinion was later clarified in 

a memorandum stating that, whenever the 

Secretary considers retiring public lands from 

grazing, she generally need not determine 

that such lands are no longer chiefly valuable 

for grazing and raising forage crops, within 

the meaning of Section 1 of the TGA, 43 

U.S.C. 315. Instead, a chiefly valuable 

determination is required only when the 

Secretary is considering creating or changing 

boundaries of grazing districts. Memorandum 

to the Assistant Secretary for Policy, 

Management and Budget, Assistant Secretary 

for Land and Minerals Management, and the 

Director of BLM from the Solicitor (May 13, 

2003). 

Thus, a rulemaking is not needed to 

address the “chiefly valuable” standard. 

Moreover, land use planning – the 

appropriate process for considering grazing 

retirement – is governed by 43 CFR part 

1600, which is outside the scope of this rule. 

For these reasons, we have not adopted the 

suggestion for a rule. 

Comment: One comment stated that BLM 

should provide for permit or lease retirement 

with compensation to the permittee. 

Response: The suggestion that permittees 

and lessees be compensated for grazing 

retirement is not adopted. BLM lacks 

statutory authority to provide for such 

compensation.

Comment: One comment stated that, if 

BLM considers itself obligated to preserve 

public land ranching in the West in the 

face of competing economic pressures 

for use of ranches and ranchland, then we 

should reconsider previous policy proposals 

that were dropped, such as conservation 

easements and acquisition of ranches, 

because these may be creative ways to 

sustain viable operations without inducing 

further damage to the land.

Response: Under FLPMA, BLM is 

obligated to manage the public lands on the 

basis of multiple use and sustained yield 

unless otherwise specified by law. FLPMA 

includes livestock grazing as one of the 

5-100 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

principal or major uses of the public lands, 

along with fish and wildlife development 

and utilization, mineral exploration and 

production, rights-of-way, outdoor recreation, 

and timber production. BLM never proposed 

acquisition of ranches as a policy proposal. 

BLM dropped consideration of trading public 

lands for conservation easements on private 

lands after comments received in the spring 

of 2003 indicated general public opposition 

to this policy proposal. 

Comment: One comment urged BLM to 

update our allotment management plans.

Response: BLM usually determines 

which allotments require allotment 

management plans (AMPs) in land use 

plans. The timing, development, and 

updating of AMPs is determined through 

BLM s budgeting process, not in the grazing 

regulations. Therefore, this issue is outside 

the scope of this rulemaking.

Comment: Some comments suggested 

that BLM should enforce all of its current 

regulations or strengthen them to prevent 

environmental damage caused by livestock 

grazing or coal bed methane development. 

Another comment stated that BLM should 

allow permittees and lessees to “manage” 

recreation on public lands. 

Response: BLM agrees that it should 

enforce all of its public land regulations and 

does so with the resources and authority 

provided to it by Congress. We believe that 

the final grazing regulations provide adequate 

authority for BLM to take action when 

necessary to arrest and reverse environmental 

damage attributable to the livestock grazing 

on public lands. Regulations governing coal 

bed methane development are found in 43 

CFR part 3100 and are not addressed in 

this rule. BLM cannot grant management 

authority for one user group, as such, to 

“manage” another user group. However, any 

qualified individual or business entity may 

obtain a permit under BLM regulations to 

carry on specific activities on public lands. 

For example, a rancher can obtain a special 

recreation permit under 43 CFR part 2930 

and operate as an outfitter or guide. However, 

the rancher cannot obtain authority to bar 

casual recreational use of the allotment he 

uses, as the comment seems to suggest would 

be desirable. 

Comment: Several comments raised 

issues that are tied to the provision on 

decreases in land acreage in section 4110.4-

2. One comment suggested that BLM 

should be able to designate lands as not 

available for grazing when this is needed to 

protect critical or sensitive areas. Another 

comment stated that BLM should develop 

regulations providing: (a) for the retirement 

or nonuse of grazing permits by conservation 

organizations; (b) that a voluntary permit 

relinquishment automatically triggers the 

immediate permanent closure an allotment 

to livestock grazing when that closure 

would benefit conservation purposes; and 

(c) that at the request of the permittee, BLM 

will promptly initiate a planning process 

to determine whether the applicable landuse plan should be amended to provide 

that all or a portion of an allotment will be 

made unavailable for grazing authorized by 

FLPMA and PRIA. The comment stated that 

“voluntary retirement” of grazing permits 

is sometimes the fastest, simplest, most 

effective, and most amicable method of 

resolving disputes over livestock grazing in 

environmentally-sensitive areas.

Response: FLPMA directs BLM to 

develop and maintain land use plans to 

provide for multiple use of the public lands, 

including livestock grazing use. Land use 

plans, which are developed at the local office 

level with the involvement of the general 

public, identify lands available and not 

available for livestock use and management. 

BLM can and does designate lands as not 

available for grazing, and assigns them to 

5-101
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

other uses. This results in reductions in land 

acreage available for grazing, and BLM acts 

under section 4110.4-2 to implement the 

reductions by canceling grazing preference. 

BLM amends or revises land use plans 

under the planning regulations (43 CFR 

part 1600) and the BLM land use planning 

handbook. An agreement on voluntary 

relinquishment of a grazing permit (and 

preference) for purposes of furthering a 

proposal to amend a land use plan to provide 

for the retirement of an area from livestock 

grazing is not a permanent contractual 

relationship between the entity relinquishing 

the permit and BLM. Even if BLM amends 

the land use plan and effectively retires 

the area from grazing for the immediate 

or foreseeable future, this action can be 

amended or reversed under subsequent BLM 

planning and decision processes. 

Comment: One comment stated that, in 

addition to the permittee or lessee, BLM 

also should give 2-year notification to any 

base property lien holder before canceling 

a permit or lease when the lands under the 

permit or lease will be devoted to a public 

purpose that precludes livestock grazing as 

stated in 4110.4-2(b) because this will level 

the playing field. 

Response: This suggestion is consistent 

with existing BLM policy to provide as a 

courtesy, upon request, notification to known 

base property lien holders of actions that may 

affect the value of that property. BLM does 

not believe, however, that it should require 

itself by regulation to provide lienholder 

notice in this circumstance. Lenders normally 

include provisions in their contracts with the 

borrower requiring the borrower to notify 

them of actions that will affect the value of 

their collateral.

5.4.21 Water Rights

Comment: We received many comments 

objecting to the change in the water 

rights provision. Most common were the 

general concerns that the proposed change 

communicated less commitment by the 

United States to hold the water rights on 

public land which would result in more 

water rights in the name of permittees or 

others, complicating multiple use land 

management in a variety of ways. The 

identified complications included clouding 

title, hindering land exchanges and transfers 

of preference, encouraging takings claims by 

privatizing public resources, and devaluing 

public land. The over-riding concern of these 

comments was the supposed rejection by 

the proposed rule change of the fundamental 

connection of water to the land.

Response: We believe that the predicted 

complications that may be triggered by 

removing the requirement for BLM to apply 

for water rights for livestock use in the name 

of the United States have a low probability 

of occurring. First, an increase in the 

number of water rights for livestock use on 

public lands held in the name of permittees 

or lessees is probable, but we believe it 

unlikely to compromise our ability to manage 

public lands effectively in accordance with 

FLPMAʼs requirement of multiple use 

management. Use of water on public land 

for wildlife, recreation, mining, and other 

uses will continue with rights for those uses 

usually in the name of the United States. By 

agreeing that permittees and lessees will hold 

livestock water rights, BLM may be able 

to negotiate better cooperative agreements, 

resulting in improved cooperation between 

BLM, States and permittees and lessees. 

Second, ownership of water rights by 

permittees will have no affect on title to the 

land, since land remains in the ownership 

of the United States (section 4120.3-1(e)). 

Third, complications in exchanges or 

preference transfers resulting from permittee 

ownership of water rights for livestock use 

could occur, although we do not expect 

5-102 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

them to be common. When they occur, they 

can often be resolved through negotiated 

settlements among all parties. Moreover, 

in most cases, BLM will not exchange or 

dispose of large tracts of the public lands; 

thus, private party ownership of water rights 

on these lands will have little impact. In 

addition, a transfer of preference would likely 

involve a transfer or sale of a permitteeʼs base 

property or base water to a new permittee. A 

settlement would have to be reached between 

transferrer and transferee on compensation 

for range improvements and water rights. 

BLM does not believe that the necessity for 

this type of agreement will hinder transfer. 

BLM disagrees that private ownership of 

water rights on public lands will lead to 

takings claims. A water right is a property 

right that is distinct and separate from title 

to the land. Finally, BLM agrees with the 

comment that the value of public land may 

be reduced if BLM does not control the water 

rights. BLM also believes, however, that any 

such decrease will not affect our ability to 

manage the public lands. 

Comment: Several comments anticipated 

a loss of incentive to comply with grazing 

rules or consult and cooperate with BLM 

by permittees who own the livestock water 

rights. 

Response: We disagree that this 

expectation is likely. Many water rights are 

currently held by permittees, or jointly owned 

with BLM, and we have not seen evidence 

that holding a water right discourages 

cooperation or compliance with terms and 

conditions of grazing permits. BLM will 

enforce the regulatory procedures in Subparts 

4140 and 4160 regardless of the name in 

which the water right is held. 

Comment: Two comments observed that 

the proposed rule was inconsistent with laws 

governing water rights ownership on most 

state land, on land managed by the U.S. 

Forest Service, and on privately owned land. 

Response: BLM agrees that there is 

inconsistency among the laws and policies 

governing water rights ownership in states 

and agencies throughout the country. For 

example, the BLM grazing program is 

guided by different laws, regulations and 

policies than the Forest Serviceʼs program. 

Further, states assign water rights under 

different state laws, regulations, and policies. 

In this patchwork regulatory setting the 

flexibility afforded by the regulatory changes 

will benefit BLM in cooperating with 

permittees and states. We believe that any 

inconsistencies are unlikely to interfere with 

BLM land management.

Comment: Several comments questioned 

why permittees had any need for a water 

right that was associated with a water 

development. One asked why water right 

ownership would affect a permittee, as long 

as he had the water needed for his operation. 

Another said that water right ownership by 

the permittee was unnecessary now that the 

permittee has title of the water development. 

Another felt the water right should be public, 

if BLM was investing public funds in the 

developments.

Response: The BLM disagrees with 

these comments. Although many water rights 

for livestock use are associated with water 

developments, it is not always the case. 

Moreover, water rights are separate and 

distinct from water developments. The water 

right provides for appropriation of water 

for a specified beneficial use for a specified 

season of use according to the applicable 

state law. A cooperative range improvement 

agreement authorizes the development of 

and provides the terms, specifications, and 

conditions for the construction, maintenance, 

or abandonment of a water development or 

other range improvements. The permittee or 

lessee and BLM share the cost of and title to 

the development; not all the funds used for 

a water development are public. Ownership 

5-103
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

of the water right could benefit the permittee 

or lessee by ensuring that the water will 

remain available to him for livestock, and by 

increasing the value of the permitteeʼs private 

property. 

Comment: One comment urged BLM not 

to implement the proposed change because 

it would encourage more livestock water 

developments to the detriment of wildlife. 

Response: Ownership of water rights 

does not affect the approval of water 

developments. Further, BLM disagrees 

that encouraging more livestock water 

developments would be to the detriment of 

wildlife. Water developments are constructed 

to improve grazing management and 

watershed condition. Before BLM authorizes 

a water development, the development is 

analyzed in accordance with NEPA. Such 

analysis will consider the developmentʼs 

impacts on wildlife, often positive as well 

as negative, and the ultimate authorization 

would include the mitigation measures 

necessary to limit any negative effects. 

Ownership of water rights does not affect the 

approval of water developments, nor does it 

imply a guarantee of approval of any water 

development. 

Comment: Several comments stated that 

BLM should not acquire or retain water 

rights for livestock use on public lands. 

Response: The BLM disagrees with this 

statement as contrary to current and proposed 

regulations, and contrary to the intent of most 

state water laws to put the statesʻ water to 

beneficial use by the senior appropriator and 

claimant. Neither the current regulations nor 

the rule prevents BLM from filing on some 

water rights, or filing jointly with a permittee 

or lessee, when it is in the interest of good 

rangeland management, supports meeting 

the objectives of BLM land use and activity 

plans, and is in accordance with state law. 

5.4.22 Qualifications, Applications, 

Service Charges, and Satisfactory 

Performance

Comment: Comments urged BLM to add 

a qualification requirement that permittees 

“must be engaged in the livestock business,” 

stating that this requirement is in the Taylor 

Grazing Act, but not in the regulations. The 

comment went on to say that addition of that 

statutory requirement would ensure that a 

permittee has an economic motive to graze 

livestock on the permitted allotment and is 

not merely acquiring a permit in order to 

retire it. 

Comment: Although those engaged in the 

livestock business are preferred recipients 

of permits, being engaged in the livestock 

business is not a statutory prerequisite for 

permit eligibility. Section 3 of the Taylor 

Grazing Act states that grazing permits shall 

be issued only to U.S. citizens or those who 

have filed a valid declaration to become a 

U.S. citizen, or to corporations, groups, or 

associations authorized to conduct business 

under the laws of the states within which 

the grazing district is located. Section 3 of 

the Act also states that “[p]reference shall 

be given in the issuance of grazing permits 

to those within or near a [grazing] district 

who are landowners engaged in the livestock 

business, bona fide occupants or settlers, or 

owners of water or water rights, as may be 

necessary to permit the proper use of lands, 

water or water rights owned, occupied or 

leased by them... .” For lands outside grazing 

districts, Section 15 of the Taylor Grazing Act 

provides that the Secretary may issue leases 

for grazing purposes to nearby landowners 

and does not require that before they can 

receive a lease, they must be engaged in 

the livestock business. BLM requires that 

to receive and retain preference for a term 

grazing permit or lease, one must own or 

lease land or water that serves or is capable 

5-104 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

of serving as a base for livestock operations 

and either be a citizen or have filed a valid 

petition to become a citizen, or be a group or 

corporation authorized to conduct business 

in the state where the permit or lease is 

sought, and must have a satisfactory record of 

performance as defined by the regulations.

Comment: One comment urged that 

the regulations should require that to 

hold a grazing permit or lease, one must 

own livestock, stating that this is a clear 

requirement of the Taylor Grazing Act as 

most recently clarified by the Supreme Court 

in Public Lands Council v. Babbitt.

Response: Our approach is consistent 

with the TGA, which directs that 

“[p]preference shall be given to landowners 

engaged in the livestock business” (43 U.S.C. 

315b). Adopting the comment could unduly 

interfere with a permitteeʼs or lesseeʼs ability 

to pasture leased livestock on the BLM 

allotment where they are permitted to graze. 

BLM has long allowed a permittee or lessee 

to “control,” rather than own, the livestock 

grazing under their permit or lease. It also 

is common in the livestock industry that 

livestock are routinely bought and resold 

during the course of a year, and it may 

happen during a typical year that a permittee 

may not, in fact, own livestock on a particular 

date. It would be impractical for BLM to 

track, much less enforce, a requirement that, 

to maintain status as a BLM permittee or 

lessee, one must maintain ownership of at 

least one cow, sheep, goat, horse or burro 

throughout the entire year. 

In Public Lands Council v. Babbitt, supra, 

where the plaintiff objected to BLMʼs 1995 

removal from the grazing regulations the 

requirement that one must be “engaged in the 

livestock business” to qualify for a grazing 

permit or lease, the Supreme Court found 

that the Taylor Grazing Act continues to limit 

the Secretaryʼs authorization to issue grazing 

permits to bona fide settlers, residents, and 

other stock owners and that BLM need not 

repeat that requirement in their regulations 

for it to remain a valid requirement. 

However, the Court also looked behind the 

issue at the plaintiffʼs concern that with the 

removal of the requirement that an applicant 

must be “engaged in the livestock business,” 

entities could acquire permits specifically 

to not make use of them (ostensibly for 

conservation or speculative purposes), 

thereby excluding others who could make use 

of the range. The Court pointed out that under 

the regulations, a permit holder is expected 

to make substantial use of the permitted 

use set forth in the grazing permit. These 

provisions remain in the rule and provide that 

a permittee or lessee may lose their grazing 

privileges if they fail to make substantial use 

of them, as authorized, for two consecutive 

fee years. The phrase, “as authorized,” is 

included to make clear that BLM-approved 

(i.e. authorized) nonuse of grazing privileges, 

or privileges that BLM has suspended, are 

not at risk of loss for failure to use.

Comment: One comment stated that BLM 

should not allow large corporations to acquire 

grazing permits but instead reserve permits 

for local families who have a tradition of 

farming and ranching in the area.

Response: It is not within BLMʼs 

authority to adopt this suggestion. The Taylor 

Grazing Act authorizes the Secretary to issue 

grazing permits to “corporations authorized 

to conduct business under the laws of the 

State in which the grazing district is located.” 

The TGA does not place limits on which 

corporations may be issued permits based on 

their size.

Comment: One comment asked BLM to 

clarify whether state government agencies are 

qualified to hold public land grazing permits.

Response: Section 4110.1 on mandatory 

qualifications states that to qualify for 

grazing use on public lands, one must own 

5-105
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

land or water base property and either must 

be a citizen, or have filed a declaration of 

intention to become a citizen or petition 

for naturalization, or a group or association 

authorized to conduct business in the state 

where the grazing use is sought, all members 

of which are citizens or have filed petitions 

for citizenship or naturalization, or, a 

corporation authorized to conduct business 

in the state in which the grazing use is 

sought. Although state agencies may acquire 

base property, they are not a citizen, group 

or association, or corporation authorized 

to conduct business in the state in which 

the grazing use is sought. As such, state 

agencies are not qualified under the grazing 

regulations for grazing use on public lands. 

Thus, unless the exception for base property 

acquisition by an “unqualified transferee” 

in the circumstances described at section 

4110.2-2(e) applies (which provides for 

issuing a permit or lease to an unqualified 

transferee for up to two years when they 

acquire base property by “operation of law 

or testamentary disposition”), state agencies 

may not be granted a grazing permit or lease. 

BLM recognizes that at times a state 

agency, typically the state wildlife agency, 

will acquire base property for various 

purposes, and may apply for the associated 

grazing preference on public lands, express 

their wishes that the grazing preference be 

reallocated to wildlife, or express an interest 

to limit use of the grazing preference and 

permit to grazing treatments that are, for 

example, necessary for maintenance or 

improvement of habitat for wildlife. BLM 

will cooperate with state agencies wherever 

possible to pursue common goals. However, 

BLM land use plans set forth management 

goals and objectives and the ways and means 

available for achieving those objectives. 

Where state agencies have acquired base 

property and do not wish to use the public 

land grazing preference associated with that 

property in conformance to the governing 

land use plan, BLM may work with the state 

agency, affected permittees or lessees, and 

any interested public to consider options 

regarding the management of affected public 

lands. This could include reallocating the 

forage to another permittee or lessee. It is 

not within BLMʼs authority to issue term 

grazing permits to state agencies, even if 

they own livestock, because they do not 

meet mandatory requirements to qualify for 

grazing use on public lands. This, however, 

does not preclude other arrangements such 

as where the state agency may form a 

separate corporation chartered by the state for 

purposes of holding and managing a public 

lands grazing permit. 

Comment: One comment suggested that 

we amend section 4130.1-1 to require that 

BLM offer permittees and lessees a new 

permit or lease 150 days in advance of their 

permit or lease expiration date, and suggested 

that we amend section 4110.1(b) to refer to 

this proposed requirement. 

Response: Permit renewal timeframes are 

best addressed in BLMʼs policy guidance and 

the BLM Manual rather than in regulations. 

Also, section 4110.1 deals only with 

qualifications of applicants, and the only 

necessary cross-reference is to provisions in 

section 4130.1-1 on determining satisfactory 

performance, which is a mandatory 

qualification. Other procedural matters are 

not relevant to section 4110.1. 

Comment: Finally, one comment urged 

BLM to prohibit the transfer of preference to 

groups seeking to eliminate grazing. 

Response: BLM has not changed its 

regulations in response to this comment. In 

order to qualify for grazing use on public 

lands, one must still meet the requirements of 

section 4110.1. Other regulatory provisions 

allow BLM to cancel preference should a 

permittee or lessee fail to make grazing use 

as authorized.

5-106 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

In the proposed rule we invited comments 

on whether we should require an application 

for renewal of a grazing permit or lease (68 

FR 68456). Several comments addressed this 

issue. 

Comment: Several comments urged BLM 

to change section 4130.1-1(a) to provide that 

only new applicants for grazing permits or 

leases need to submit a formal application, so 

that it is clear that the holder of an expiring 

10-year term permit or lease does not have 

to submit a formal application for renewal of 

that permit or lease. These comments stated 

that Section 402(c) of FLPMA provides that, 

so long as the lands under the permit or lease 

remain available for livestock grazing, the 

holder of the expiring permit has complied 

with applicable regulations and accepts the 

terms and conditions of the new permit or 

lease, the holder of the expiring permit must 

be given first priority for receipt of the new 

permit or lease. They offered several policy 

reasons for not requiring preference holders 

to reapply for permits every ten years, stating 

that requiring such applications would allow 

the agency too much discretion; be used by 

environmental groups as tools to force review 

of environmental conditions on allotments; 

consume agency resources; burden permittees 

and lessees; increase the importance of 

performance reviews and perhaps lead to 

using the performance review as an excuse 

to deny a new permit; have allowed or will 

allow agency personnel to use the lease 

renewal process to extract inappropriate 

concessions from, or impose inappropriate 

requirements, on permittees and lessees on 

environmental and other issues. They stated 

that FLPMA allows a preference holder 

the right to renew. One contended that, if 

grazing allotments are designated in the 

land use plan, they should not be considered 

discretionary activities requiring periodic 

review before renewal.

One comment, however, felt that 

permittees and lessees should submit an 

application for renewal when their permits 

or leases expire. It stated that the renewal 

application should be thoroughly reviewed by 

BLM before a decision is made to renew.

Response: The first group of comments 

is correct in that BLM must give the holder 

of an expiring permit or lease priority for 

receipt of a new permit or lease, so long as 

the conditions of Section 402(c) of FLPMA 

are met. However, there is administrative 

utility in requiring application for the renewal 

of an expiring permit or lease. The regulatory 

text does not explicitly require an application, 

but by referring to “the applicant” it implies 

the requirement. Submitting a permit or 

lease renewal application by the holders of 

an expiring permit or lease documents their 

interest in their continued use of the permit 

or lease and that they are aware that their 

permit or lease will be expiring and must 

be renewed. Submitting an application for 

renewal also allows an opportunity for the 

holders of the expiring permit or lease to 

apply for changes in its terms and conditions 

that they may desire, and provides them 

certainty under the Administrative Procedure 

Act (5 U.S.C. 558 (c)(2)) as to continued use 

of their permit or lease in the event that its 

renewal is delayed due to BLMʼs inability to 

process the application in a timely manner. 

The application will also be a useful element 

of the administrative record. 

Comment: Other comments suggested 

that we amend the introductory text of 

section 4130.1-2 (conflicting applications) to 

provide that applicants with preference have 

priority for receipt of increased available 

forage, rather than that preference is treated 

co-equally with the other factors listed in 

paragraphs (a) through (h) of the section. 

Response: Priority for preference 

holders in apportioning additional forage is 

5-107
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

already required by section 4110.3-1. It is 

unnecessary to restate this priority in this 

section. This section, however, directs BLM 

to consider the other factors in addition 

to preference, to resolve conflicts among 

applicants with preference. 

Comment: Some comments generally 

supported increases in the service charges, 

stating that they would allow BLMʼs services 

to be self-supporting, or stating that the 

service charges should better reflect the costs 

of grazing administration. However, some 

of these comments objected to the size of 

the proposed increases. One comment stated 

that the maximum service charge should be 

$25. Another stated that increases ranging 

from 500 percent to 1,450 percent appeared 

excessive. Finally, one comment stated 

that the proposed service charges were too 

low, and suggested $275 for the issuance 

of a crossing permit, $2,045 for the transfer 

of a grazing preference, and $250 for the 

cancellation and replacement of a grazing fee 

billing, in order to shift the full cost of those 

services to permittees.

Some comments opposed service fee 

increases for a number of reasons. For 

example, they stated that increases would not 

improve working relations between BLM and 

permittees, would not address legal issues or 

administrative inefficiencies, and would be 

too expensive for operators to afford. One 

comment stated that BLM should reduce 

the costs of providing services rather than 

increasing service charges. Some comments 

objected specifically to the proposed service 

charge for issuance of a crossing permit. 

One comment stated that crossing permits 

merely authorize an operator access to his 

own allotment, and many such permits are 

consistent with historical usage or consent 

of neighboring operators. Some comments 

supported the increases for preference 

transfers and for canceling and replacing 

a grazing bill, but stated that increasing 

the service charge for crossing fees would 

provide operators a disincentive to report 

a need to cross lands occupied by others. 

These comments stated that BLM needs to 

know when operators are crossing public 

lands occupied by others, that there are safety 

concerns when operators trail livestock along 

highways, and that there may be concerns 

about insurance.

Response: We believe the proposed 

service charges will not damage working 

relationships with permittees, will contribute 

to the goal of covering a portion of 

administrative costs, and will not likely 

lessen BLMʼs goal of protecting rangelands. 

We do not believe that operators will avoid 

contacting BLM for a crossing permit in 

order to avoid the service charge, since 

this could lead to a trespass violation with 

serious consequences. We also believe that 

the proposed service charges are reasonable, 

as required by Section 304(a) of FLPMA, 

43 U.S.C. 1734(a). They range from $50 

to $145, reflecting the processing costs 

associated with transactions that require BLM 

officers to engage in analysis and decisionmaking activities. Issuing a crossing permit 

involves analysis of terms and conditions 

for the grazing use that is incidental to a 

crossing. The transfer of a grazing preference 

requires findings with respect to base 

property, qualifications, and other matters. 

The $75 service charge for the cancellation 

and replacement of a grazing fee billing will 

be assessed only when a BLM officer must 

change a billing notice because a permittee or 

lessee files an application to change grazing 

use after BLM has issued billing notices for 

the affected grazing use. That service charge 

can be avoided altogether merely by applying 

to change grazing use, in those cases where 

a permittee knows of the grazing use change, 

before BLM issues the annual bill in March. 

Additionally, BLM will not assess the 

service charge if, after a grazing fee billing 

5-108 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

is issued, BLM changes the grazing fee bill 

because BLM has approved an operatorʼs 

grazing application not to use all or a portion 

of their preference for reasons of resource 

conservation, enhancement, or protection.

Comment: Some comments suggested 

that BLM add a service charge of $50 to 

$75 for filing a protest, and $100 to $150 for 

filing an appeal, in order to reimburse BLM 

for a portion of the initial costs of processing 

protests and appeals. One comment 

supported the proposed service charges, and 

suggested that BLM add a service charge 

of about $50 to accompany applications for 

cooperative agreements or permits for range 

improvements, stating that permittees and 

lessees would become more serious about 

implementing a project, having more invested 

in it.

Response: Instituting additional service 

charges is not necessary or appropriate at 

this time. Parties, including permittees and 

lessees, may be discouraged from filing 

legitimate protests or appeals of grazing 

decisions if they have to pay service 

charges. Further, aggrieved parties do not 

generally have to pay service charges in 

order to seek administrative remedies in 

other BLM programs. Applications for 

range improvements should not be subject to 

service charges because range improvements 

are useful to BLM in rangeland management, 

and because the public receives more 

palpable benefits from range improvements 

than they do from crossing permits, transfers 

of grazing preference, or the cancellation and 

replacement of a grazing fee billing.

Comment: One comment stated that, 

instead of increasing service charges, BLM 

should increase grazing fees to fair market 

value because such fees would eliminate the 

need for the proposed service charges. 

Response: As previously indicated, 

grazing fees and related issues are not 

being addressed in this rulemaking. BLM 

believes the proposed changes in service 

charges respond to the increasing need for 

cost recovery. Further, it would not be fair to 

operators who do not need to transfer their 

preference, obtain a crossing permit or ask 

for a rebilling, to subsidize those who do. 

Although a fair market value fee system may 

result in higher revenues, this is a separate 

and more complex issue that is outside the 

scope of this rulemaking.

Comment: One comment urged BLM 

to clarify when BLM or the permittee will 

absorb charges for grazing fee billings 

under certain circumstances, for example, 

when permittees take temporary nonuse at 

the suggestion of BLM due to continuing 

drought. 

Response: Section 4130.8-3(b) in the rule 

provides that BLM will not assess a service 

charge when BLM initiates the action. That 

provision is adopted as proposed. Thus, if 

BLM suggests temporary nonuse due to 

drought, there will be no service charge.

Comment: One comment noted the 

absence of specific information on the 

proposed increases in service charges. 

Response: In response to this concern, we 

included in the EIS additional information 

on current average costs associated with 

the proposed service charges. Specific 

information on the average cost of issuing 

billings, free use permits, exchange of 

use permits, trailing permits, temporary 

nonrenewable permits and the average 

cost of processing preference transfers 

including issuance of a permit to a preference 

transferee with all NEPA compliance, ESA 

consultation and protests and appeals, and 

data management support including GIS 

costs during Fiscal Year 2003 is found in 

Section 2.2.15 of the EIS.

Comment: One comment urged BLM 

not to adopt the proposed rule provision 

5-109
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

regarding satisfactory record of performance, 

stating that the proposed wording is an 

attempt to show favoritism to someone with 

past recent violations that did not occur 

on the allotment for which the applicant 

is applying. Another comment stated that 

permittees could avoid violations by timing 

applications to particular grazing allotments 

where they had not committed a violation in 

the last 3-year period. 

Response: The consequences of a 

grazing permittee or lessee not having a 

satisfactory record of performance remain 

the same under this rule as they were in the 

existing grazing regulations. We made minor 

changes to provide consistent direction on 

what constitutes a satisfactory record of 

performance. Determining a satisfactory 

record of performance is not limited to 

grazing permit or lease violations on the 

particular allotment for which an application 

is being made. Section 4130.1-1(b)(2) states 

that the authorized officer will consider 

applicants to have a satisfactory record of 

performance when the applicant has not had 

any Federal grazing permit or lease canceled 

for violation of the permit or lease within the 

36 months preceding the date of application.

Comment: One comment suggested that 

BLM should subject a permit applicant who 

has a poor management record to a public 

hearing as part of its process for determining 

whether the applicant has a satisfactory 

record of performance. The author of the 

comment stated that legitimate users of the 

land do not need to have someone who is 

known to ignore good range management 

standards abusing the land or BLMʼs staff, 

and added a request for open hearings so that 

the public interest could be heard. 

Response: BLM will determine whether 

applicants for renewal or issuance of new 

permits and leases and any affiliates have 

a satisfactory record of performance. BLM 

agrees that a poor operator who abuses 

public land is detrimental to sound land 

management. BLM will not approve such 

renewal or issuance unless the applicant 

and all affiliates have a satisfactory record 

of performance, as provided in 4130.1-1 

(b). BLM does not believe that any useful 

purpose would be served by including a 

public hearing as part of the process of 

determining whether an applicant for a 

permit or lease has a satisfactory record of 

performance. If rejected applicants appeal 

BLMʼs decision to deny them a permit or 

lease based on an unsatisfactory record of 

performance, they would have the right 

to a hearing of their appeal before an 

Administrative Law Judge under 43 CFR Part 

4, which would be open to the public.

Comment: Several comments urged BLM 

to remove section 4130.1-1(b)(2)(ii), stating 

that cancellation of a state grazing permit 

should not be grounds for determining that a 

permittee or applicant has an unsatisfactory 

record of performance. The comments stated 

that some state rules go beyond practices 

directly related to livestock grazing. Another 

comment stated tht the provision exceeds 

BLM s authority under Section 302(c) of 

FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1732(c). 

Response: The provision in question 

provides standards for determining that 

an applicant has a satisfactory record of 

performance. BLM will find a record of 

performance satisfactory if the applicant 

has not had a state permit or lease of lands 

within the allotment for which the applicant 

seeks a Federal authorization, canceled for 

violation of its terms or conditions within the 

preceding 36 months. Note that the threshold 

in the regulations is cancellation, in whole 

or in part, for violation of the state permit or 

lease rather than for other reasons under state 

law, such as cancellation because the state 

declines to issue permits for the particular 

time or land or the state has disposed of 

the land. Section 302(c) states that any 

5-110 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

instrument authorizing the use of public 

lands shall include a provision authorizing 

BLM to revoke or suspend the instrument 

upon a final administrative finding of a 

violation of any term or condition of such 

instrument. Section 302(c) does not limit 

the scope of what BLM may require of an 

applicant. 

Comment: One comment requested BLM 

to clarify whether a person has a satisfactory 

record of performance if he is damaging 

the public lands, but has not had a Federal 

permit or lease canceled, has not had a state 

permit or lease canceled on the pertinent 

allotment, and has not been barred from 

holding a Federal permit or lease by a court 

of competent jurisdiction. On the other hand, 

another comment stated that requiring a 

permittee to apply for renewal will increase 

the importance of the performance review in 

the renewal process, but could lead to using 

the performance review as an excuse not to 

renew a permit. 

Response: BLM will consider the 

question whether a person is damaging the 

public lands in determining whether he is in 

substantial compliance with the terms and 

conditions of his permit or lease and with the 

regulations applicable to the permit or lease. 

Whether or not there has been a cancellation, 

BLM may find a permittee not in substantial 

compliance with permit or lease terms and 

conditions or with the regulations, and 

consider this finding in determining whether 

to renew the permit or lease. BLM will also 

consider whether the lack of substantial 

compliance was due to circumstances beyond 

the control of the permittee or lessee. 

Comment: One comment suggested that 

section 4130.1-1(b)(2) also provide that a 

party would not be considered to have a 

satisfactory record of performance if he –

1) Obstructs public access to public lands;

2) Grazes livestock after the end of the 

grazing period;

3) Removes water sources used by wildlife; 

or

4) Poaches or kills wildlife. 

Response: A permittee or lessee who 

does things like those listed in the comment 

may be found not in substantial compliance 

with the terms and conditions of the permit 

or lease, and thus not to have a satisfactory 

record of performance. 

Comment: One comment stated that BLM 

should change its qualifications to receive 

a grazing permit so that applicants with a 

criminal background are barred from getting 

a permit.

Response: We have considered the 

comment and decided that it would be 

impractical for BLM to bar applicants with a 

criminal background from getting a grazing 

permit, unless the criminal conviction was 

directly related to the loss of a Federal 

or state grazing permits or leases due to 

violations, or the applicant was barred from 

holding a Federal grazing permit or lease by a 

court of competent jurisdiction as provided in 

section 4130.1-1 et seq. Furthermore, it is not 

Federal or BLM policy to prevent a person 

who has been convicted of a crime, served 

his sentence, and been rehabilitated, from 

gainful employment. 

Comment: One comment stated that 

BLM should consider increasing the “statute 

of limitations” on conditions for having a 

satisfactory record of performance in section 

4130.1-1(b)(2) to more than 3 years. 

Response: The 36-month period has been 

in the regulations since the requirement to 

have a satisfactory record of performance 

was added in the 1995 rule. We have no 

evidence that this threshold is not working. 

5-111
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

5.4.23 Grazing Permits and Leases

Comment: Some comments stated that 

the amendment of this section for the purpose 

of clarifying that the grazing permit or lease 

is the document that BLM uses to authorize 

grazing creates an unnecessary burden on 

the BLM to prepare NEPA analysis prior to 

issuing a permit or lease. The comment stated 

that grazing use on public lands is authorized 

by the land use plan coupled with grazing 

preference, and that therefore NEPA analysis 

is not necessary when issuing a permit or 

lease. 

Response: The Taylor Grazing Act directs 

BLM to authorize livestock grazing through 

a permit or lease. NEPA requires site-specific 

analysis of effects before an agency can 

authorize activities on public land. Most land 

use plans do not meet site-specific NEPA 

analysis requirements for issuing permits or 

leases on individual allotments. The IBLA 

Comb Wash decision (94-264) reaffirmed the 

need to prepare site-specific NEPA analysis 

when issuing grazing permits and leases.

Comment: A comment suggested that 

BLM should not state that the grazing 

permit or lease is the only document that 

authorizes grazing use because each year 

BLM may approve applications for grazing 

use under terms and conditions that do not 

exactly match the terms and conditions listed 

on the grazing permit or lease. Therefore, 

the comment went on, BLM should also 

consider the approval of such an application 

as a grazing authorization. BLM also should 

require proof of payment of grazing fees 

before allowing grazing.

Response: The TGA directs BLM to 

authorize livestock grazing through a permit 

or lease. FLPMA provides that a grazing 

permit or lease will have a 10-year term with 

certain exceptions. BLM evaluates permits 

and leases before it issues them pursuant 

to its obligations under NEPA and its land 

use planning regulations. One outcome of 

this process is permit or lease terms and 

conditions of grazing use that are compatible 

with achieving multiple-use management 

objectives specified in BLM land use plans. 

The grazing regulations require that terms 

and conditions of permits and leases include, 

as a minimum: the allotment(s) to be grazed, 

the number of livestock, the period of use, 

and the amount of forage to be removed. 

Since forage growth and livestock operation 

needs can change slightly from year to year, 

BLM allows or requires adaptive minor 

adjustments in the number of livestock, 

use period, and amount of forage, so long 

as the adjustments are within the terms 

and conditions of the permit or lease and 

accord with applicable land use plans. These 

adjustments are documented by BLM case 

records, decisions and grazing fee billings or 

payment records. Such adjustments become 

a part of the term grazing permit or lease 

for the period the adjustments are in effect. 

However, the term permit or lease is the 

document that authorizes the grazing use, not 

the application and paid grazing fee bill. 

Comment: Another comment suggested 

that grazing permit changes that do not 

affect the environment or change the terms 

and conditions of a permit, but only involve 

paper changes such as a transfer, should not 

be subject to NEPA, or at most should only 

involve a categorical exclusion.

Response: Addressing whether the 

issuance of a permit or lease that is a result of 

a preference transfer and that is substantially 

unchanged from the immediately preceding 

permit or lease should be subject to NEPA 

is not within the scope of this rulemaking. 

In a separate effort to streamline permitting 

processes, BLM is reviewing its current list 

of actions that are categorically excluded 

and examining whether a permit or lease 

that meets specific criteria also should be 

categorically excluded. 

5-112 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

Comment: Some comments suggested 

that a requirement for consultation, 

cooperation and coordination with 

permittees or lessee should be reiterated at 

section 4130.2(f) in order to emphasize the 

importance of consultation regarding permit 

or lease terms and conditions.

Response: While we recognize the 

importance of coordinating with permittees 

and lessees when developing terms and 

conditions, there is no need to restate this 

requirement because it is redundant. The 

requirement for consultation, cooperation, 

and coordination with affected permittees or 

lessees before issuing or renewing grazing 

permits and leases is already provided for at 

section 4130.2(b).

Comment: Numerous comments 

expressed displeasure with any reduction in 

the role of the interested public, and many 

cited the issuance or renewal of permits and 

leases as specific instances where the rule 

should not be changed. These comments 

stated that the issuance of a grazing permit 

or lease was a significant decision worthy 

of extensive public involvement. Comments 

also argued that reliance on NEPAʼs public 

participation opportunities was not sufficient, 

due to the backlog of grazing permit 

environmental assessments and the recent 

history of special legislation authorizing 

renewals without traditional NEPA 

compliance. Other comments supporting the 

rule described the grazing permit or lease 

as the decision that has suffered the most 

inefficiency because of the interested public 

consultation requirements. Some argued 

that grazing permits and leases should be 

processed in a timely manner and only the 

BLM and permittees and lessees should be 

directly involved in this process.

Response: BLM issues or renews an 

average of nearly 2,000 permits and leases 

each year, and, thus, we view these as day-today grazing management decisions. Permits 

and leases implement decisions made in land 

use plans, allotment management plans and 

other grazing activity plans—decisions made 

with significant public input. Many of the 

comments requesting continued interested 

public consultation actually raised broad 

level allocation issues (i.e. whether grazing 

should occur at all) that would properly be 

addressed in a land use plan rather than at 

the permit issuance stage. There currently 

is a backlog of grazing permits requiring 

final NEPA compliance. BLM is working 

hard to eliminate this backlog as soon as 

possible. Under current funding levels, 

BLM is scheduled to complete full NEPA 

processing of all permits and leases by 2009. 

Although timely NEPA participation may 

be temporarily delayed for some permits, 

the interested public will ultimately have 

the opportunity to participate in the NEPA 

process. If BLM contemplates any changes 

in levels of grazing use or in permit or lease 

terms and conditions, we will provide the 

interested public an opportunity to review 

and provide input during the preparation 

of any evaluation or other reports that the 

authorized officer may use as a basis for 

such changes. Such reports may include 

monitoring reports, evaluations of standards 

and guidelines, biological assessments or 

evaluations, and any other formal evaluation 

reports that are used in the decision-making 

process. Also, the interested public will be 

notified of proposed decisions and retains the 

option to protest before a decision is final. 

This level of participation should achieve 

a balance that utilizes public input while 

allowing for timely processing of permits and 

leases. 

Comment: One comment stated that 

BLM should not grant priority for renewal 

of permits and leases to permittees and 

lessees who hold expiring permits and leases 

unless they, in addition to meeting the other 

criteria found at section 4130.2(e), have a 

5-113
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

satisfactory record of performance. This 

would make section 4130.2(e) consistent with 

the proposed rule at section 4130.1-1(b) and 

(b)(1).

Response: The existing regulations in 

section 4130.2(e)(2) require, under Section 

402(c)(3) of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1752(c)(3)), 

that the permittee or lessee be in compliance 

with the rules and regulations and the terms 

and conditions in the permit or lease to 

have first priority for a new permit or lease. 

This provision is very similar to language 

at section 4130.1-1(b)(1)(i) that addresses 

satisfactory performance. We determined that 

the language in the rule is adequate.

Comment: Another comment suggested 

that BLM should remove the requirement 

that acceptance of terms and conditions of a 

new permit or lease is required of holders of 

expiring permits and leases in order for them 

to receive priority for receipt of the permit 

or lease. It stated that this requirement is 

redundant to the statement that “a permit or 

lease is not valid unless both the BLM and 

the permittee or lessee have signed it,” and 

that it is also an inappropriate condition upon 

which to base priority for renewal of a permit 

or lease. 

Response: We have determined that 

retention of section 4130.2(e)(3) reflects 

criteria established in Section 402(c)(3) of 

FLPMA regarding priority to receive new 

permits and leases.

5.4.24 Terms and Conditions 

of Permits or Leases, and 

Administrative Access

Comment: Some comments objected to 

the exemption from appeal for those terms 

and conditions resulting from a biological 

opinion. In cases where a biological opinion 

(BO) is the basis for additional terms and 

conditions in a grazing permit or lease, 

they felt the affected permittee or lessee 

should be able to appeal those additional 

terms or conditions that are based on the 

biological opinion. They asserted that in 

those cases, as may be necessary for a full 

and true disclosure of the facts, where the 

BLM authorized officerʼs decision rests, 

in whole or in part, on a material fact not 

appearing in the agencyʼs record, such as the 

material constituting a biological evaluation, 

biological assessment, or biological opinion, 

the affected permittee should be entitled to an 

opportunity to rebut such fact. 

Response: Currently, terms and 

conditions required in a BO, as well as 

implementation of a reasonable and prudent 

alternative if required in the BO, are the 

only terms and conditions not subject to 

OHA review. However, this exclusion 

from OHA review is based on Secretarial 

memoranda dated January 8, 1993, signed by 

Secretary Lujan, and April 20, 1993, signed 

by Secretary Babbitt. It has thus been the 

policy of the Department of the Interior that 

the Office of Hearing and Appeals (OHA) 

does not have the authority to review BOs 

issued under Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). Under these Secretarial 

memoranda, if BLM decides to implement a 

reasonable and prudent alternative set forth 

in a Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) BO, or 

if BLM implements the mandatory terms and 

conditions of a BO, OHA is not entitled to 

“second guess” the FWS findings in the guise 

of reviewing the BLM decision. Any review 

of FWS BOs is limited to the Federal courts 

pursuant to the review mechanism created 

by Congress in Section 11(g) of ESA (16 

U.S.C. 1540(g)). We dropped this provision 

because BLM believes the Secretarial 

memoranda signed by Secretaries Lujan and 

Babbitt provide sufficient clarity regarding 

the inability of the Office of Hearings 

and Appeals to review the merits of FWS 

biological advice. This example has been 

removed from the rule. 

5-114 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

Comment: Some comments stated that 

BLM should remove the requirement that 

“grazing permits and leases shall contain 

terms and conditions...to ensure conformance 

to the provisions of Subpart 4180” at section 

4130.3(a) and section 4130.3-1(c). Subpart 

4180 describes Fundamentals of Rangeland 

Health and Standards and Guidelines for 

Grazing Administration. The comments 

reasoned that this change would clarify that 

permits and leases must be in conformance 

to all of the provisions of Part 4100 and 

the management objectives established by 

applicable land use plans. They felt that these 

provisions were redundant because standards 

and guidelines developed under Subpart 4180 

are made a part of land use plans and there is 

an existing requirement that livestock grazing 

activities conform to land use plans. 

Response: It is true that terms and 

conditions included in permits and leases 

implement all the provisions of Part 4100 

pertinent to the permit or lease. The provision 

on conformance to Subpart 4180 does 

not mean that the terms and conditions 

must only conform to the fundamentals of 

rangeland health, standards, and guidelines 

found in Subpart 4180. They must also 

conform to the appropriate land use plans. 

The reference to Subpart 4180 appears 

in this newly designated paragraph (a) 

(which was the entire section 4130.3 in the 

1995 regulations) as a matter of emphasis. 

Management objectives from applicable land 

use plans also establish desirable outcomes 

that BLM strives to achieve. As such, terms 

and conditions of permits and leases should 

conform to and not hinder progress towards 

management objectives, fundamentals, 

and standards. BLM has considered these 

comments and has determined that, despite 

the redundancy pointed out by the comment, 

it would be best to continue to state plainly in 

the regulations that permits and leases must 

incorporate terms and conditions that ensure 

conformance to Subpart 4180.

Comment: Some comments stated 

the BLM should remove the proposed 

language at section 4130.3(b)(2) which 

would not allow protest or appeal of terms 

and conditions placed on grazing use on 

additional land acreage outside designated 

allotments. The comment stated that this 

would violate Taylor Grazing Act Section 9 

hearing rights relative to grazing use upon 

“additional land acreage” within a Grazing 

District, and that there is no rational basis 

to treat appeal rights for permits issued 

for additional land acreage different from 

appeal rights for permits issued as a result of 

preference transfer or permit renewal.

Response: In response to this comment 

we have removed the provision at section 

4130.3(b)(2) from the rule.

Comment: Comments suggested that 

BLM insert a standard term and condition 

into all grazing permits that states 

unequivocally that nothing in the terms and 

conditions of the permit shall be construed 

as affecting valid existing rights of way, 

easements, water rights, land use rights, 

vested rights, or any other property rights of 

any kind.

Response: The comment expresses 

concern that the issuance of a grazing 

permit or lease and the BLM management 

of the public lands associated with the 

permit or lease may affect valid existing 

rights, including, among other things, 

“property rights of any kind.” The TGA 

provides that the Secretary “shall make 

such rules and regulations ... enter into 

such cooperative agreements, and do any 

and all things necessary to accomplish the 

purposes of” the TGA “and to insure the 

objects of such grazing districts, namely, to 

regulate their occupancy and use, , preserve 

the land and its resources from destruction 

5-115
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

or unnecessary injury, to provide for the 

orderly use, improvement, and development 

of the range.” BLM accomplishes these 

goals through grazing permits and leases, 

which authorize grazing use on the public 

lands. Typically, the terms and conditions 

of a permit or lease specify such things as 

seasons of use and numbers of livestock. If 

we were to adopt the comment and add a 

term and condition in grazing permits that 

would prohibit BLM from doing anything 

that would affect any valid existing rights 

or any other property rights of any kind, 

it would impose an unlawful limit on the 

Secretaryʼs broad authority to regulate 

the use of the public rangelands. Because 

of the potential confusion the suggestion 

in the comment would create, because 

property rights are adequately protected 

by the U.S. Constitution, and because 

there are established avenues for seeking 

compensation for “takings,” we have not 

adopted the comment.

Comment: One comment suggested 

that BLM include a statement in section 

4130.3 that terms and conditions will include 

compliance with management goals and 

objectives.

Response: Authority to include terms 

and conditions in a grazing permit or lease 

to assist in achieving management goals and 

objectives is sufficiently addressed in section 

4130.3-2.

Comment: Another comment stated that 

the regulations should provide that the new 

permit or lease that BLM offers to the holder 

of an expiring permit or lease should reflect 

changes in terms and conditions that apply 

at the time of renewal, or reflect the terms 

and conditions of the expiring permit or lease 

until the terms and conditions are officially 

changed.

Response: When renewing a permit 

or lease, BLM must retain the discretion 

to authorize grazing use under terms 

and conditions that it determines to be 

appropriate, even if those terms and 

conditions are different from the permit 

or lease that recently expired. The final 

regulations also provide in section 4160.4 

that, should OHA stay any term or condition 

included in a BLM decision that renews a 

permit or lease, the BLM will continue to 

authorize grazing under the permit or lease, 

or the relevant term or condition thereof, that 

was in effect immediately before the decision 

was issued, subject to any relevant provisions 

of the stay order. 

Comment: One comment stated that BLM 

should discourage the use of supplemental 

feed on public land because such feed can 

introduce weeds and pollute water with 

excess nutrients.

Response: Supplemental feed, as referred 

to in section 4130.3-2(c), means a feed that 

supplements the forage available from the 

public lands and that the operator provides 

to improve livestock nutrition or rangeland 

management. BLM grazing regulations allow 

placement of supplemental feed, including 

salt, for improved livestock and rangeland 

management, but prohibit placement of 

supplemental feeds on public lands without 

authorization, or contrary to the terms of 

the permit or lease. When BLM authorizes 

the use of supplemental feed it includes 

all necessary restrictions, including any 

requirements for avoiding the introduction 

or spread of noxious weeds, and directions 

for placement to ensure that its use does not 

contribute to resource degradation. We have 

not amended the regulations in response to 

this comment. 

Comment: Some comments suggested 

that BLM should include in section 4130.3-

2(f) a requirement that the Bureau must 

develop a “findings” document containing 

the relevant facts, based on documented 

resource data, supporting decisions BLM 

issues to change current terms and conditions 

5-116 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

of grazing permits or leases for any of the 

reasons stated in paragraph (f). They stated 

that such a “findings” document also should 

accompany any grazing decision placed in 

full force and effect by the Bureau.

Response: Section 4130.3-2(f) 

provides that BLM may temporarily delay, 

discontinue, or modify grazing use as 

scheduled by the permit or lease to allow 

for plant recovery, improvement of riparian 

areas, protection of rangeland resources 

or values, or to prevent compaction of wet 

soils, such as when delay of spring turnout 

is required because of weather conditions or 

lack of plant growth. This provision allows 

for timely implementation of temporary 

changes to grazing use that are needed to 

respond to on-the-ground conditions that 

cannot be reliably predicted when the permit 

or lease is issued. Similarly, BLM makes 

grazing decisions effective immediately 

(“full force and effect”) only when needed 

to respond to temporary and unpredictable 

conditions such as lack of forage due to 

wildfire, drought, or insect infestation, or to 

close grazing areas to abate unauthorized 

grazing use. 

In most cases, the resource conditions 

that trigger a temporary change in terms 

and conditions should be evident to both the 

permittee or lessee and BLM. In the event 

that they are not and the permittee or lessee 

does not voluntarily agree to such temporary 

changes, BLM would need to issue a grazing 

decision to require the temporary changes. 

Such a grazing decision would include a 

rationale for the temporary changes and be 

subject to appeal and petition for stay. 

Because the need for changes cannot be 

reliably predicted and can arise suddenly, 

BLM cannot accept the suggestion that a 

“findings” document be required before 

making temporary changes or before making 

changes by grazing decision effective 

immediately. Such a requirement could result 

in unnecessary delay of actions that are 

needed to conserve and protect resources.

Comment: Some comments stated that 

BLM should modify the regulation at section 

4130.3-2(g) by removing the phrase, “within 

the allotment” with respect to lands allowed 

for exchange of use, so that a permittee 

or lessee who owns land within another 

permitteeʼs or lesseeʼs allotment may be 

credited on his grazing fee bill for the forage 

that their lands are providing to the other 

permittee. 

Response: An exchange of use agreement 

is not the appropriate instrument to document 

the arrangement described by the comment. 

The arrangement described by the comment 

is where BLM acts as an intermediary 

between two permittees or lessees by: (1) 

collecting grazing fees from the first party for 

their grazing use of the second partyʼs private 

lands that are located in the first partyʼs 

grazing allotment; and (2) then crediting the 

grazing fee billing of the second party (for 

grazing use in a different allotment) in the 

amount collected from the first party. BLM 

suggests that a more appropriate approach to 

this situation would be: (1) the first permittee 

lease for grazing purposes land owned by 

the second permittee that is located in the 

first permitteeʼs allotment; and, (2) the first 

permittee then provide BLM a copy of the 

lease to show evidence of control sufficient 

for BLM to enter into an exchange of use 

agreement with them. BLM recognizes that 

where the second permittee does not fence 

his land and state or local law provides that 

lands must be fenced before a landowner 

can gather stray livestock from their land, 

there is no incentive, other than good will, 

for the first permittee to lease the second 

permitteeʼs land because he can graze the 

second permitteeʼs land for free (although 

they cannot stock to the capacity of the 

public and private lands considered together 

because they cannot demonstrate control of 

5-117
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

the private land). Therefore, at the local office 

level, BLM may be willing to provide the 

intermediary billing services described above 

through the terms of a cooperative agreement 

or service contract with all involved parties.

The purpose of an exchange of use 

agreement is to allow a permittee who 

owns or controls land that is intermingled 

with and unfenced from public land within 

his allotment to stock to the capacity of 

the public and private lands considered 

together and be charged grazing fees only 

for the forage that occurs on the public 

lands. Removing the phrase “within the 

allotment” from this paragraph would allow 

permittees to offer lands in exchange of use 

that are not within the allotment for which 

they have a permit. Although removing this 

phrase could facilitate BLM performing the 

intermediary billing service described above 

in some circumstances, generally allowing 

lands outside allotments to be offered in 

exchange of use could create an expectation 

that the permittee would be allowed to stock 

his permitted allotment to the extent of the 

forage produced on the land outside his 

allotment offered in exchange of use, plus 

the forage that occurs on lands within his 

allotment. This expectation could not be met 

by BLM because the resulting stocking level 

would not comply with the requirement at 

section 4130.3-1(a) that livestock grazing use 

authorized by a grazing permit or lease not 

exceed the livestock carrying capacity of the 

allotment.

Comment: Several comments stated that 

the regulations should retain the provision in 

section 4130.3-2(h) regarding administrative 

access across private lands in order for 

agency staff to perform resource management 

activities on public lands efficiently. 

Comments expressed concern that removal 

of this provision might impede the agencyʼs 

management of public lands, and pointed out 

that such access is an implied condition of a 

grazing permit. Other comments supported 

the removal of this provision, asserting that 

the agency should only have access across 

private property by permission of the land 

owner or to respond to an emergency. Some 

comments thought this provision should be 

retained because its removal would limit 

public access to public lands, misinterpreting 

the intent of this provision. This provision 

does not apply to public access across private 

land; it only applies to agency administrative 

access to perform necessary resource 

management activities on the public lands.

Response: In response to comments, 

the final rule retains the language at section 

4130.3-2(h) that we considered removing 

in the proposed rule. Administrative access 

is an important component of BLMʼs 

ability to manage the lands for which it 

is responsible, including, but not limited 

to, Federal grazing lands. The provisions 

of paragraph (h) regarding administrative 

access refer to reasonable access across a 

permitteeʼs or lesseeʼs owned or controlled 

lands to reach Federal lands so that BLM, 

including BLM staff and third party 

contractors working for BLM, may perform 

necessary resource management activities 

on those lands. These include such activities 

as range use supervision, compliance 

checks, trespass abatement, monitoring 

of resource conditions, and evaluating the 

conditions of or the need for range or other 

improvements. Land management agencies, 

like any landowner, need appropriate access 

to the lands they manage. Efficient and 

reasonable access to, for example, grazing 

allotments, is needed and is consistent with 

the partnership between grazing permittees or 

lessees and the agency to manage rangelands 

properly. Retaining paragraph (h) is the most 

effective and efficient means of informing 

the public, including interested parties, of the 

requirement that a permittee or lessee provide 

reasonable administrative access across lands 

5-118 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

owned or controlled by them to BLM for the 

orderly management and protection of the 

Federal lands under BLM management. 

Comment: One comment suggested that 

BLM should require other users of the public 

lands to get permission to be on public land 

from BLM and BLM should inform the 

permittee when other users or BLM staff will 

be out on the permitteeʼs allotment.

Response: Determining whether and 

under what circumstances users other than 

livestock permittees need approval to use 

public lands is outside the scope of this 

rulemaking. Whenever feasible, BLM will 

inform the livestock operators in advance 

about BLM field operations that affect 

grazing management of allotments where 

they have permits or leases in the spirit of 

consultation, cooperation, and coordination. 

A regulation requiring advance notification, 

however, would be impractical to implement 

and detract from efficient management of the 

public lands. 

Comment: Several comments stated that 

BLM should remove paragraph (d) from 

section 4130.1-2, Conflicting applications, 

because [p]ublic access across private 

lands should be given voluntarily and never 

become a condition for consideration by the 

BLM under any part of these regulations. 

Response: Section 4130.1-2(d) provides 

that when BLM must decide among 

conflicting applicants who is to receive 

grazing use, it may consider, along with 

the several other factors listed in this 

section, [p]ublic ingress or egress across 

privately owned or controlled land to public 

lands. This provision first appeared in 

the regulations (Grazing Administration 

– Outside Grazing Districts and Exclusive of 

Alaska) in 1968, in the following form:

§4121.2-1 (d)(2) The Authorized 

Officer will allocate the use of the 

public land on the basis of any or 

all of the following factors: (i) 

Historical use, (ii) proper range 

management and use of water for 

livestock, (iii) proper use of the 

preference lands, (iv) general needs 

of the applicants, (v) topography, 

(vi) public ingress and egress across 

preference lands to public lands 

under application (where access is 

not presently available), and (vii) 

other land use requirements.

Paragraph (d)(2)(vi) included a footnote 

that stated, “Where the United States 

obtains such a right-of-way, it will assume 

responsibility therefore to the full extent 

authorized by law.” The major rewrite of the 

regulations in the mid-1970s combined the 

regulations for inside and outside grazing 

districts. The provision in the current 

regulations is a “carry over” from the Section 

15 grazing lands regulations. The regulation 

in its original form does in fact direct that, 

all other factors being equal, if there were 

several applicants for use of a specific tract 

of public land, and one applicant offered 

public access across their base property to the 

public lands and the others did not, we would 

choose the applicant that did, and obtain and 

manage a right-of-way across their lands. 

BLM obtains public ingress and egress across 

the successful applicantʼs base property and 

the successful applicant receives a grazing 

permit or lease, so that both parties benefit. 

We may consider amending this provision 

in a future rulemaking exercise. 

5.4.25 Modification of Permits or 

Leases

Comment: Some comments suggested 

that BLM not use the need to conform to the 

provisions of Subpart 4180 as justification for 

modifying terms and conditions of a permit 

or lease. The comment stated that standards 

developed under Subpart 4180 are subjective, 

5-119
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

and there are no requirements to collect data 

to support a determination of achievement or 

failure to meet those standards. 

Response: BLM developed rangeland 

health standards and guidelines for livestock 

grazing administration in consultation with 

Resource Advisory Councils in most states 

and regions. The fundamentals of rangeland 

health and standards and guidelines recognize 

rangeland ecological complexity and multiple 

values, and are among the many tools BLM 

uses to ensure sustainable multiple use 

of public lands. Evaluation of rangeland 

conditions is carried out using all available 

monitoring, inventory, and assessment 

data. Permit modifications are based on 

range health assessments and evaluations, 

completed by an interdisciplinary team, 

using all available monitoring data and all 

available resource information. The rule 

further emphasizes the importance of using 

monitoring data by adding a requirement for 

its use when making a determination that 

existing grazing management is a causal 

factor in the failure to meet a standard 

at section 4180.2(c). The rule retains the 

provision on conformance to Subpart 4180. 

Comment: Another comment suggested 

adding requirements to collect monitoring 

data that shows that current grazing use or 

management is the cause of not meeting 

management objectives. A similar comment 

suggested adding requirements to document 

facts and findings, supported by resource 

data, as a justification for changing terms or 

conditions. Finally, another comment stated 

that BLM should make it clear in Subparts 

4110 and 4130 that any changes in grazing 

preference or changes in other grazing permit 

terms and conditions must be supported by 

monitoring done by BLM-approved Manual 

procedures. 

Response: Permit and lease 

modifications are based on land health 

assessments and evaluations, completed 

by an interdisciplinary team, using all 

available monitoring data and all available 

resource information. BLM documents 

facts and findings during the evaluation 

process by preparing an evaluation report 

and NEPA documents that reference all 

data and information used as a basis for 

recommending changes in terms and 

conditions. The rule further emphasizes 

the importance of using monitoring data 

by adding a requirement for its use when 

making a determination that existing grazing 

management is a causal factor in the failure 

to meet a standard at Subpart 4180.2(c). 

BLM needs flexibility to use site-specific 

methods in addition to those monitoring 

methods set forth in Manual guidance. This 

flexibility will allow BLM to use techniques 

that meet local needs and that we may 

develop in cooperation with other agencies 

and partners.

Comment: Another comment suggested 

that we consider adding a provision at section 

4130.3-2 stating that this regulation does not 

obviate the need to obtain other Federal, state 

or local authorizations required by law. The 

comment pointed out that the construction of 

range improvements associated with grazing 

activities, such as water improvements and 

storage structures, are often governed by 

other laws or regulations.

Response: Section 4120.3 governs the 

installation, construction, and maintenance 

of range improvements. Permittees or 

lessees must enter into a cooperative range 

improvement agreement with the BLM 

before building water improvements or 

storage structures. Through the cooperative 

agreement, BLM retains control over 

standards, design, construction and 

maintenance criteria. The provision suggested 

by the comment is unnecessary because BLM 

has a responsibility to ensure compliance 

with applicable law. Nothing in the 

regulations prevents BLM from adding such 

5-120 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

a term where it is warranted. BLM still must 

comply with NEPA, the Clean Water Act, and 

state water rights laws. Since BLM maintains 

control over range improvement planning, 

implementation and maintenance, existing 

regulations and policies ensure compliance 

with applicable Federal, state, and local law 

and regulations. 

5.4.26 Temporary Changes in 

Grazing Use Within Terms and 

Conditions of Permit or Lease 

Comment: One comment stated that 

grazing permits should contain soil, water, 

riparian vegetation, and wildlife objectives, 

in order to help determine whether it is 

appropriate to authorize early opening or late 

closing of grazing. The comment continued 

that most detrimental changes in condition of 

soil, water, riparian vegetation and wildlife 

result from ill-planned season of livestock 

use, duration of use, or amount of utilization. 

It concluded that terms and condition of the 

permit need to contain objectives that can 

address these activities, and that BLM should 

only change grazing use within the terms 

and conditions of permit or lease if they have 

monitoring and assessment data to support 

the change in use, and the change does not 

result in removing more forage than the 

“active use” specified by the permit or lease. 

Response: Objectives for soil, water, 

riparian, wildlife and other resources are 

usually developed through the planning 

process and included in land use plans, 

allotment management plans or activity 

plans, becoming more site specific at each 

level of planning. A grazing permit must 

conform to the objectives of land use plans, 

therefore terms and conditions are designed 

to achieve the objectives established in 

the relevant land use plans and it is not 

necessary to restate objectives in the permit. 

In addition to objectives established in 

overarching plans, standards for rangeland 

health provided for in section 4180.2 

establish levels of physical and biological 

condition or degree of function and minimum 

resource conditions that must be achieved or 

maintained. Terms and conditions of permits 

must conform to these rangeland health 

standards. Section 4130.4(b)(1) already limits 

the temporary use provided for in this section 

to the amount of active use specified in the 

permit or lease. Approval of applications 

for temporary changes will be dependent on 

range readiness as observed by the authorized 

officer, following the criteria in internal 

guidance and in the standards and guidelines 

under Subpart 4180. 

Comment: Another comment suggested 

that the rule should provide that grazing use 

that removes more forage than active use 

specified in the permit or lease be justified by 

monitoring and assessment data. 

Response: The regulations in this rule 

already address this situation. If BLM were 

to authorize use greater than the active use 

specified in the permit or lease, we would do 

so under section 4110.3-1, which addresses 

increasing active use, and base it on 

monitoring or documented field observations. 

Comment: Several comments, including 

one from a state wildlife agency, stated that 

the rule should provide for consultation 

with state wildlife departments before 

BLM authorizes changes within the terms 

and conditions of the permit. It went on to 

say that, just as the criteria to be used in 

justifying temporary changes in grazing use 

within the terms and conditions of a permit 

or lease include annual fluctuations in timing 

and production of forage and rangeland 

readiness criteria, so are the needs of wildlife 

species dependant upon these fluctuations. 

One comment agreed with BLMʼs approach 

on this issue, but stated that we should 

consider wildlife-critical periods when 

deciding whether to authorize the temporary 

5-121
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

changes in grazing terms within the terms of 

the permit or lease. 

Response: Consideration of wildlife 

habitat needs occurs during all stages of 

planning the multiple use of public lands. 

During each stage of this planning process 

-- land use planning, allotment management 

planning and the formulation of individual 

permits and leases -- the state is invited to 

participate in developing objectives and 

strategies to protect wildlife habitat. Since 

the temporary changes are by definition 

within the terms and conditions of permits 

or leases, we believe the state has had ample 

opportunity to communicate the wildlifecritical periods and specific habitat needs 

that BLM must consider while processing an 

application for temporary changes in grazing 

use.

Comment: Other comments urged BLM 

to reconsider applying range readiness 

criteria, and one asked for a definition of 

range readiness. They opposed the idea of 

using “locally established range readiness 

criteria” in this context, stating that the 

concept of “range readiness” is no longer 

supported by the range science community. 

Another comment stated that BLM should 

amend paragraph 4130.4(a)(1)(ii) to provide 

that the “locally established range readiness 

criteria” must have been established in 

applicable land use plans, activity plans, 

or decisions. The comment strongly 

supported recognizing that range readiness 

for turn out may vary from year to year, 

and stated that providing a 14-day window 

is prudent. Several comments stated that 

the authorization of temporary changes of 

use should not be based on active use or 

preference, but on whether forage is actually 

available.

Response: We are amending this section 

in the rule by removing the references to the 

reasons for authorizing temporary changes in 

grazing use. Thus, the rule will not contain 

any reference to “range readiness criteria.” 

We make these deletions for two reasons. 

First, we do not want to limit our discretion 

as to why we may authorize temporary 

changes in grazing use, and second, we 

recognize that the method for determining 

“range readiness” is controversial and 

technical in nature. It is therefore more 

appropriately addressed in manual, handbook 

or other technical guidance. This guidance 

will include the criteria BLM will follow in 

authorizing such changes, and appropriate 

consultation requirements. BLM considers 

the availability of forage as well as many 

other physical and biological factors when 

processing an application for temporary 

changes in grazing use.

Comment: One comment urged BLM 

to allow changes within the terms of the 

permit or lease only if BLM determines it 

appropriate before the grazing season, to 

avoid the possibility of legitimizing trespass 

by changing grazing use periods or numbers 

part way through the grazing year.

Response: BLM will not use the provision 

to approve changes in use after the fact, 

agreeing that it is inappropriate to legitimize 

grazing trespass. It is also impossible to 

determine before the grazing season starts 

what conditions will exist in ensuing months. 

We have amended paragraph (e) of this 

section to make it clear that applications 

for changes within the terms and conditions 

must be filed in writing on or before the date 

the change in grazing use would begin. We 

have also amended paragraph (b) by adding 

language recognizing that the allotment 

management plan may allow grazing beyond 

the 14-day limit. Nevertheless, grazing would 

still be limited to the total active use allowed 

in the permit or lease. 

Comment: One comment urged BLM 

to consider shortening the limit for grazing 

within the terms and conditions of the 

permit or lease to 7 days instead of 14 days. 

5-122 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

The comment stated that some permittees 

will request a 14-day opening as soon as 

forage is bite high. It went on to say that 7 

days is plenty to allow for varying weather 

conditions. The comment also said that the 

same limit should apply at the end of the 

grazing season, and that if there is more than 

7 days of forage remaining, it should be 

banked for the next year. Another comment 

asked BLM to explain how the possible 28-

day combined extension of the grazing period 

will not result in overgrazing. 

Response: We have determined that 14 

days before the begin date in the permit 

or lease provides an appropriate degree of 

flexibility in determining when to allow turn 

out, as does 14 days after the end date to 

require round up. As for the suggestion that 

excess forage measured in days should be 

saved for the next year, it is unnecessary to 

state this in the regulations. The provision 

already limits its application to the amount 

of active use called for in the permit or 

lease. Forage in excess of this amount will 

not be allocated under this provision, so 

this provision will not lead to overgrazing. 

The regulations allow increases in active 

use under section 4110.3-1 in appropriate 

circumstances. 

5.4.27 Nonrenewable Grazing 

Permits and Leases

Comment: A comment urged BLM to 

reconsider the proposal to increase grazing 

on cheatgrass ranges because of the potential 

effect of cheatgrass on native grasses and 

ecosystem functions.

Response: Grazing of cheatgrass ranges 

was given as an example in the preamble of 

the proposed rule when BLM would not be 

obliged to consult with the interested public. 

BLM would need to implement cheatgrass 

range grazing promptly at specific times 

and under specific conditions. BLM is not 

proposing permanent increases in grazing on 

cheatgrass ranges. 

Comment: A few comments expressed 

concern over removal of the interested public 

consultation requirements, they believe that 

public participation under NEPA would 

not be sufficient, and noted the possibility 

that a NEPA categorical exclusion could 

be implemented. One comment requested 

that the rule be modified to exclude any 

possibility of a categorical exclusion. Several 

comments supported the change as proposed.

Response: The NEPA process was 

not altered by the proposed change. 

Environmental analysis on nonrenewable 

grazing permits would continue under NEPA 

as before. BLM completes NEPA-required 

analysis either in response to a specific 

circumstance following an application for 

additional use, or by completing a regionallybased analysis, in anticipation of applications, 

that specifies natural resource and weatherbased criteria or thresholds that must be 

met or crossed as well as other conditions 

that must be met before BLM will authorize 

a nonrenewable grazing permit or lease. 

Further, BLM is not proposing a categorical 

exclusion related to nonrenewable permits 

and leases at this time. Categorical exclusions 

are appropriate when a category of actions 

“do not individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human environment.” 

40 CFR 1508.4. Nonrenewable grazing 

permits and leases have not been analyzed 

to determine if they meet this criterion. It 

is possible that these permits and leases, or 

a distinct subset of them, could qualify for 

a future categorical exclusion. While no 

such exclusion is sought at this time, BLM 

does not believe that a blanket ban on any 

categorical exclusion is warranted. 

Comment: Comments stated that BLM 

should retain the authority to authorize 

livestock grazing by issuing nonrenewable 

5-123
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

permits or leases to help maintain the health 

of rangelands in situations where significant 

authorized nonuse by livestock exceeds a 

period of time appropriate to the respective 

western ecosystem. 

Response: BLM retains the authority to 

authorize livestock grazing on an allotment 

even if the preference permittee is granted 

nonuse of his permit to graze that allotment 

for personal or business reasons. Although 

the rule no longer restricts nonuse of a 

grazing permit or lease to 3 consecutive 

years, section 4130.6-2(d) allows BLM to 

issue a temporary and nonrenewable grazing 

permit or lease to a qualified applicant when 

forage is temporarily available, the use is 

consistent with multiple use objectives, and 

it does not interfere with existing livestock 

operations. Under that provision and section 

4130.4(e), when an allotment has livestock 

forage available that is not being used by 

a preference permittee whom BLM has 

approved for temporary nonuse for business 

or personal reasons, BLM may grant other 

qualified applicants a nonrenewable permit 

or lease to graze it. Section 4120.3-3(c) 

requires that the preference permittee or 

lessee cooperate with the temporary use 

of forage by the permittee or lessee with 

a temporary, nonrenewable authorization 

from BLM. In contrast, if BLM approved an 

application by the preference permittee for 

nonuse for reasons of resource conservation, 

enhancement, or protection under section 

4130.4(d)(2)(i), BLM would deny an 

application for a nonrenewable permit 

under section 4130.4(e) and Subpart 4160. 

In this circumstance, if the applicant for a 

temporary, nonrenewable permit or lease 

disagreed with BLMʼs determination that the 

nonuse was warranted for reasons of resource 

conservation, enhancement, or protection, 

he would have the option to protest and 

appeal the grazing decision that denies his 

application, and BLM would need to defend 

the determination that the nonuse was 

warranted for the reasons specified.

Comment: One comment stated that BLM 

should address the effects of the grazing use 

that would be authorized by a nonrenewable 

permit on seed replenishment by annual 

forbs, root reserve replenishment by 

perennial grasses and forbs, and the potential 

for damage to soil crust. 

Response: We believe that it is 

unnecessary to address these concerns in 

the regulations, since BLM undertakes 

appropriate environmental review before 

issuing nonrenewable permits. Any effects, 

such as those identified in the comment, 

would be addressed as a result of that 

environmental review.

5.4.28 Prohibited Acts, Settlement, 

and Enforcement 

Comment: Many comments supported the 

proposed changes to the section on prohibited 

acts. They agreed that BLM should only 

enforce actions against permittees if the 

violations occur while grazing on their 

permitted allotments. Many comments stated 

that the proposed changes will promote better 

cooperation with operators.

Comment: Many comments opposed 

the changes in section 4140.1 that applied 

civil penalties only if the acts prohibited 

took place on the allotment that was subject 

to the permit or lease. They stated that 

permittees and lessees should be subject to 

civil penalties set forth in section 4170.1-1 

for performance of prohibited acts in section 

4140.1 on any public lands, not just those 

public lands that are part of their grazing 

permit or lease. The comments gave a 

number of reasons for this view. They stated 

that this policy seems inconsistent with the 

stated intent of the rule to promote strong 

partnerships with good stewards of the land 

by development of simple and practicable 

ways to attain our shared purpose of 

5-124 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

sustaining open space, habitat, and watershed 

values; permittees should be held accountable 

and responsible for all local, state and Federal 

resource related laws; it weakens BLMʼs 

enforcement of terms of its own leases and 

permits; it would have a negative effect on 

wildlife and their habitats and could lead to 

the degradation of resources; no analysis is 

provided for the validity of or necessity for 

the provision; it makes it easier for permit 

holders to violate environmental laws 

without fear of repercussions to their permit; 

it should require tougher enforcement, not 

more lenient enforcement; a convicted 

criminal should not be able to hold a grazing 

permit; BLM should discontinue leasing to 

individuals who violate BLM requirements 

on their allotments. 

Response: We intend the change in 

this provision to clarify whether or not the 

performance of the prohibited act must occur 

on the allotment for which the permittee or 

lessee has a BLM permit or lease. There is 

also some concern that some of the laws 

and regulations identified in this category 

of prohibited acts could result in penalties 

against permittees and lessees that are unfair 

because they involve a secondary penalty 

for a violation of a law or regulation whose 

primary enforcement is by another agency, 

with its own separate statutory enforcement 

and penalty authorities. BLM permittees and 

lessees are still accountable and responsible 

for violations of local, state, and Federal 

resource related laws since they are subject 

to these other penalties for violations of the 

acts listed in section 4140.1(c). These other 

penalties will still serve as a deterrent to 

violation of the prohibited acts. In addition, 

if the violation occurs on the allotment of 

the BLM permittee or lessee, that person 

is subject to the penalties in Subpart 4170. 

The amendment in section 4140.1(c) has no 

effect on enforcement of violations occurring 

on the permittee s or lessee s allotment. 

BLM has not frequently had need to apply 

this provision of the grazing regulations in 

the past. A prospective permittee or lessee 

must meet the requirements stated in section 

4110.1 and have a satisfactory record of 

performance under section 4130.1-1(b). The 

permittee or lessee must have substantial 

compliance with the terms and conditions 

applied to their grazing permit or lease and 

with the rules and regulations applicable to 

that permit or lease. The overall purpose for 

our amendments of the grazing regulations, 

including those in this section, is to develop 

strong relationships with all partners. As to 

whether or not a convicted criminal should 

be able to hold a permit, it is not Federal 

or BLM policy to prevent a person who 

has been convicted of a crime, served his 

sentence, and been rehabilitated, from gainful 

employment. 

Comment: Comments stated that the rule 

should not prohibit failure to make grazing 

use as authorized for 2 consecutive fee years, 

saying only that the provision does not 

make sense. Another comment stated that 

the rule should not cancel permitted use for 

failure to make substantial use as authorized 

or for failure to maintain or use water base 

property because threats to cancel use present 

an obstacle to developing a financial plan 

acceptable to a lender.

Response: The prohibition of failing 

to make grazing use as authorized for 2 

consecutive fee years ensures that those who 

acquire grazing permits or leases will use 

them for the purposes intended, namely to 

graze livestock. Originally, the purpose of 

this regulation was to discourage acquisition 

of base property and grazing permits or leases 

by land speculators whose primary business 

was not livestock-related. It may now also be 

applicable to those who acquire ranch base 

property and a permit or lease, yet do not 

graze so that their permitted allotments are 

“rested” from grazing, ostensibly realizing 

5-125
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

conservation benefits. Failing to make 

grazing use as authorized for 2 consecutive 

fee years would occur when a permittee or 

lessee does not obtain BLM approval for 

nonuse of their permit or lease and does not 

graze livestock as authorized by their permit 

or lease for two years in a row. 

 BLM believes the rule, and the proposed 

changes, are rational and do not constitute 

any threat to operatorsʼ finances. Failure to 

make substantial grazing use as authorized 

for 2 years, and failure to maintain or use 

water base property, are listed as prohibited 

acts so that BLM can ensure that permittees 

are grazing at authorized levels. This 

helps ensure accurate monitoring and 

data collection, and in general supports 

management of the public lands. The 

provision is also helpful in recognizing if 

someone does not intend to graze livestock. 

Such recognition can be applicable to BLMʼs 

implementation of FLPMA, which designates 

livestock grazing as a “principal or major 

use” of public lands. 43 U.S.C. 1702(l).

Comment: Comments stated that BLM 

should not make it a prohibited act for a 

permittee to violate Federal or state laws 

relating to placement of wildlife destruction 

devices, pesticide application or storage, 

alteration or destruction of stream courses, 

water pollution, illegal take, harassment or 

destruction of fish and wildlife, or illegal 

removal or destruction of archaeological 

resources. The comment stated these 

provisions will tend to remove permittees 

from Federal lands.

Response: BLM disagrees entirely with 

the implication of the comments that unless 

permittees are allowed to perform these acts, 

they will be driven from public lands. The 

vast majority of BLM permittees and lessees 

do not perform these acts and yet are able to 

maintain commercial livestock enterprises 

that depend upon grazing use of public lands. 

Such acts can have a negative effect on the 

natural resource values of the allotment. 

Comment: One comment stated that BLM 

should not make it a prohibited act for a 

permittee to violate state brand laws because 

BLM does not have authority to enforce state 

brand laws. 

Response: BLM agrees it does not 

have the authority to enforce State brand 

laws. A permittee or lessee who violates 

State brand laws would be subject to state 

penalties enforced by the state, as well as the 

Federal penalties set forth in the rule. BLM 

believes that violation of state brand laws 

is a significant infraction that warrants the 

penalties as stated in the grazing regulations. 

While states enforce their respective brand 

laws, compliance with such laws is also 

an integral part of a permitteeʼs operations 

on public lands, and facilitates BLMʼs 

own management of public lands. Section 

4140.1(c)(1)(ii) makes it clear that being 

convicted under the state enforcement 

authority is a condition precedent for being 

found in violation of this prohibited act. This 

provision will not be removed from the rule.

Comment: Several comments urged that 

the rule should not include a prohibited act 

to place supplemental feed on public lands 

without authorization, stating that BLM 

has no personnel who are knowledgeable in 

livestock nutrition.

Response: The prohibition on placing 

supplemental feed on public lands without 

authorization is already stated in the 

regulations; it is not new in the rule. The 

rule does, however, add a reminder that 

information regarding the authorization of 

placement of supplemental feed on public 

lands may be in the terms and conditions 

of the permit or lease, and those must 

be adhered to as well. We disagree with 

the assertion that BLM has no personnel 

knowledgeable in livestock nutrition. One of 

5-126 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

the intents of the prohibited act on placing 

supplemental feed on public lands without 

authorization is to manage distribution 

of livestock for improved livestock and 

rangeland management on an allotment. 

The requirement for BLM authorization 

of supplemental feeding should reduce the 

risk of spread of noxious weeds and other 

undesirable exotic plants that could be 

introduced by supplemental feeding. Also, 

supplemental feeding can influence diet 

selection of the livestock among established 

plant species, and thus potentially change 

plant species composition on the allotment.

Comment: Several comments 

recommended that BLM adopt as a 

prohibited act the provision set forth in 

Alternative 3 of the EIS: “Failing to comply 

with the use of certified weed-seed free 

forage, grain, straw or mulch when required 

by the authorized officer. Comments stated 

that such a provision would contribute to 

the ongoing efforts to control the alarming 

invasion and spreading of exotic and noxious 

plant species and would benefit wildlife and 

watersheds.

Response: BLM has decided not to 

pursue adding a prohibited act to section 

4140.1(b) addressing noncompliance with 

weed-seed free forage requirements on public 

lands at this time. We agree that promoting 

the use of weed-seed free forage products on 

public land will help control the introduction 

and spread of invasive and noxious plants. 

BLM will continue to develop and implement 

a nationwide weed-seed free forage, grain or 

mulch policy for the public lands, working 

closely with state and local governments.

Comment: One comment from a state 

department of agriculture urged BLM 

to remove all of section 4140.1(c) of the 

proposed rule. The comment stated that, if 

a permittee or lessee were convicted of a 

crime and paid the consequences under that 

conviction, any additional penalties imposed 

by the BLM or another entity would be 

arbitrary, and that there are other ways to 

encourage good stewardship of the public 

lands.

Response: The intent of section 

4140.1(c), as amended by this rule, is to help 

enforce provisions of prohibited acts that 

would affect the integrity of natural resources 

on the allotment on which the permittee 

or lessee has a grazing permit or lease. 

Stewardship of the land includes protection 

of endangered species and wildlife, 

protection from pollution by hazardous 

materials, protection of streams and water 

quality, and protection of cultural resources. 

In this rule, as explained above, we have 

limited the scope of paragraph (c) to actions 

on the allotment in question. 

Comment: One comment suggested 

reorganizing section 4140.1(c) of the 

proposed rule so that the Bald Eagle 

Protection Act and State livestock laws and 

regulations are not contained in the same 

numbered paragraph (3), even though they 

are in separately numbered subparagraphs 

(i) and (ii). The comment stated that there 

was no nexus that justified their designation 

together under paragraph (3). 

Response: There is no substantive 

basis for changing the organization of 

section 4140.1(c)(3). There is no qualitative 

difference between numbering the references 

to the Bald Eagle Protection Act and the state 

livestock laws (c)(3) and (c)(4)), respectively, 

and numbering them (c)(3)(i) and (c)(3)(ii). 

The nexus between them, if any were needed, 

is that the same penalty applies. 

 Comment: One comment suggested 

that the regulations should provide that any 

grazing use that was canceled as a penalty is 

available to other applicants.

Response: Grazing permits and leases 

that are canceled due to noncompliance 

with terms and conditions of a permit may 

be available under section 4130.1-1 to other 

5-127
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

qualified applicants who apply for grazing 

use on that allotment.

Comment: A few comments addressed the 

section on settlement of the proposed rule. 

One urged BLM to change the regulations 

to provide that a nonwillful livestock 

grazing use violation can only occur upon 

a finding that a nonvolitional act or an act 

of negligence by the permittee or lessee (or 

their affiliates) caused the violation. It stated 

that section 4150.3 should provide that an 

act of negligence by the permittee or lessee 

is required as a precedent to a finding of 

nonwillful livestock grazing trespass, so that 

BLM does not cite permittees and lessees for 

trespass when, for example, livestock stray 

from their authorized pasture because another 

party left a gate open.

Response: BLM disagrees with this view. 

Nonwillful unauthorized grazing use occurs 

when the operator is not at fault, such as 

when cattle stray from their authorized place 

of use because a third party left a gate open. 

In contrast, willful unauthorized grazing use 

occurs, for example, when the use results 

from a volitional act or act of negligence 

committed by a permittee, lessee, or affiliate. 

The grazing regulations continue to provide 

that, under certain circumstances, nonwillful 

violations are eligible for nonmonetary 

settlement. It also remains a prohibited act 

under the grazing regulations for any person 

to fail to reclose any gate or livestock entry 

during periods of livestock use.

Comment: Another comment urged 

that we add language to section 4150.3(e) 

to clarify that BLM cannot withhold a 

grazing authorization unless: (a) attempts at 

settlement have failed; (b) BLM has issued a 

decision that finds there has been a violation, 

demands payment for the amounts due, and 

provides that grazing will not be authorized 

until payment has been received; and (c) 

any petition for stay of such a decision 

has been denied. The comment stated that 

some BLM offices have been withholding 

grazing authorizations based on allegations of 

trespass that have not been finally determined 

upon review, and that this is contrary to legal 

administrative procedure.

Response: BLM agrees that the 

regulations require clarification on this 

matter. The proposed rule included new 

paragraph 4150.3(f) providing that, should 

a decision issued under section 4150.3(e) 

that demands payment for outstanding 

unauthorized use fees and penalties be 

administratively stayed, BLM will authorize 

grazing under the regulations pending 

resolution of the appeal. BLM may not 

withhold authorization to graze under this 

section unless BLM has issued a decision 

under Subpart 4160 demanding payment for 

the amount due, the decision is in effect, and 

the amount has not been paid. 

Comment: One comment urged BLM 

to provide in the regulations for mandatory 

cancellation or suspension of grazing 

authorizations, or denial of applications for 

grazing use, if permittees or lessees fail to 

pay trespass fees and fines that BLM finds 

are due under section 4150.3, so that the 

permittee or lessee does not unduly evade or 

delay payment.

Response: The regulation referenced by 

the comment provides that “[t]he authorized 

officer may take action under Subpart 4160 

to cancel or suspend grazing authorizations 

or to deny approval of applications for 

grazing use until such amounts have 

been paid.” This regulation gives BLM 

permission to take action under 4160—in 

other words, issue a grazing decision—in 

this circumstance. Subpart 4160 requires 

BLM to issue a grazing decision, with right 

of protest and appeal, to cancel or suspend 

grazing authorizations or to deny approval 

of applications for grazing use. BLM sees 

no need to mandate that failure to pay 

trespass fees will result in suspension. Facts 

5-128 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

and circumstances in each trespass case 

are unique, and BLM prefers to retain its 

discretion to determine when it would be 

appropriate to cancel or suspend a permit or 

lease. 

5.4.29 Proposed and Final Decisions 

Comment: Comments opposed the 

amendment to provide that a biological 

assessment or biological evaluation that BLM 

prepares for purposes of the Endangered 

Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 –1544) is not a 

proposed decision for purposes of a protest to 

BLM, or a final decision for purposes of an 

appeal to the Office of Hearings and Appeals 

under the Taylor Grazing Act. They stated 

that it effectively eliminates all administrative 

appeals of grazing permit or lease terms 

and conditions that result from a biological 

assessment (BA) and related biological 

opinion (BO). Other comments said that 

where the terms and conditions of a grazing 

lease or permit were mandated by a BO, the 

terms and conditions should be subject to 

appeal if they were substantially the same 

terms and conditions submitted by BLM in 

a BA or biological evaluation (BE). Both the 

TGA, 43 U.S.C. 315, and the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., 

provide a right of administrative appeal, 

comments noted.

Other comments pointed out that 

proposed section 4130.3(b)(1) presented 

similar problems. That section states that 

permit or lease terms and conditions may 

be protested and appealed unless they 

are not subject to review by the Office of 

Hearings and Appeals (OHA). This would 

include terms and conditions mandated by 

a biological opinion prepared under ESA. 

Comments opposed this provision, arguing 

that it denied permittees and members of the 

public opportunities to correct mistakes in an 

agency BE.

Response: Section 9 of the TGA, 43 

U.S.C. 315h, states that the Secretary of the 

Interior shall provide by appropriate rules 

and regulations for local hearings on appeals 

from the decisions of the administrative 

officer in charge in a manner similar to the 

procedures in the land department. This 

provision has been construed to require a 

hearing on the record under Section 5 of the 

APA, 5 U.S.C. 554. The regulations called for 

by Section 9 appear at 43 CFR Subpart 4160 

and 43 CFR 4.470 - 4.480. Appeals of BLM 

grazing decisions under these rules (or their 

predecessors) have occurred for decades.

Key to Section 9 is the notion that a 

decision is a prerequisite to an appeal. The 

rule states at section 4160.1 that a BA or 

BE is not a decision. This provision makes 

plain a fact that has long been clear from 

regulations of FWS. As defined at 50 CFR 

402.02, a BA refers to information prepared 

by a Federal agency about a proposed 

or listed species that may be present in 

an action area, and the evaluation of the 

potential effects of the action on the species. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.12(a) provide 

that a BA shall evaluate the potential effects 

of an action on listed and proposed species 

and determine whether any such species are 

likely to be adversely affected by the action. 

A BA is used to determine whether formal 

consultation is necessary.

These regulations at 50 CFR make clear 

that a BA or BE is an intermediate step that 

BLM will take in assessing its obligations 

under the ESA. A BA or BE does not grant or 

deny a permit application, modify a permit 

or lease, or assess trespass damages, which 

actions are examples of BLM decisions that 

are subject to appeal. 

A BA or BE is not a proposed decision 

for purposes of a protest to BLM, or a final 

decision for purposes of an appeal to OHA 

under the Taylor Grazing Act. The rule at 

5-129
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

section 4160.1(d) prospectively supersedes 

the decision of IBLA in Blake v. BLM, 45 

IBLA 154 (1998), affʼd, 156 IBLA 280 

(2002), which held that the protest and appeal 

provisions of 43 CFR Subpart 4160 apply to 

a BA or BE.

As explained in the preamble to the 

proposed rule at 68 FR 68464, a BA or BE 

is a tool that FWS and NOAA Fisheries 

use to decide whether to initiate formal 

consultation under Section 7 of the ESA. 

Formal consultation results in a biological 

opinion prepared by FWS. If BLM were to 

issue a decision implementing a reasonable 

and prudent alternative set forth in a BO, 

or if it issued a decision implementing 

the mandatory terms and conditions of an 

incidental take statement attached to the BO, 

any review by OHA would be limited to the 

merits of BLMʼs decision. OHA could not 

second-guess the BO or the findings of FWS, 

because its review authority does not extend 

to decisions of FWS. This policy is set forth 

in a memorandum of Secretary Lujan, dated 

January 8, 1993, and affirmed by Secretary 

Babbitt on April 20, 1993.

Concerns in comments as to review of the 

terms and conditions of a BO are addressed 

by Secretary Lujanʼs memorandum in this 

way: “In summary, OHA has no authority 

under existing delegations to review the 

merits of FWS biological opinions. Any 

review of biological opinions would 

necessarily be limited to the Federal district 

courts pursuant to Section 11(g) of the ESA. 

The longstanding administrative practice of 

not providing OHA review of the biological 

determinations of the FWS under the ESA, 

the specific remedies provided by the ESA 

itself, and the need for expedited treatment, 

all militate against a change to the existing 

delegations.”

Comment: Comments urged that BLM 

amend section 4160.3 so that the authorized 

officer cannot make decisions adverse to 

the livestock grazing permittee or lessee 

effective immediately unless he has found 

after a hearing on the record that the current 

authorized grazing use poses an imminent 

likelihood of irreparable resource damage. 

The comment also recommends that BLM 

be barred from making a decision effective 

immediately before the hearing unless the 

authorized officer declares an emergency, 

after having applied the IBLA standards 

for a stay found in 43 CFR 4.21(b)(1), in 

which case the decision would be in effect 

only for the 30-day period allowed for 

filing an appeal. In addition, the comment 

recommended retaining the consultation 

requirements already proposed for 

section 4160.1. The comment based these 

recommendations on the arguments that 

BLM grazing decisions over the past 10 

years have not been based on state of the art 

rangeland studies, and the OHA regulations 

misplace the burden of proof on appellants in 

justifying stays. 

Response: Consultation, cooperation, 

and coordination with affected permittees 

and lessees is already required before active 

use can be decreased. See 43 CFR § 4110.3-

3. Further, any reduction in active use must 

be issued as a proposed decision, subject 

to a possible protest before it is finalized, 

unless the authorized officer documents the 

emergency-type situations listed in section 

4110.3-3(b)(1). A decision may also be 

appealed after it is finalized, and a stay of the 

decision may be sought. Thus, the current 

requirements provide ample opportunity for 

affected permittees and lessees to participate 

in the decision-making process. Adding a 

pre-decisional hearing based on the OHA 

stay standards would unnecessarily limit the 

BLMʼs ability to respond in a timely manner 

to changing range conditions. 

Comment: A number of comments 

addressed proposed section 4160.3. That 

section provides that, notwithstanding section 

5-130 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

4.21(a), BLM may provide that a final 

decision shall be effective upon issuance 

or on a date established in the decision 

when BLM has made a determination under 

sections 4110.3-3(b) or 4150.2(d). (The latter 

two provisions authorize final decisions 

effective upon issuance where reductions 

in permitted use or temporary closures are 

necessary.) 

Comments expressed the opinion that 

BLM decisions, as a general matter, should 

be suspended pending resolution of an 

appeal. Comments acknowledged that special 

circumstances could apply, such as the 

likelihood of irreparable resource damage, to 

render a decision effective during this time. 

Response: The comments, if adopted, 

would, in effect, revive the provisions of 

section 4.21(a) prior to its amendment on 

January 19, 1993, at 58 FR 4939. Prior 

section 4.21(a) provided that “except as 

otherwise provided by law or other pertinent 

regulation, a decision will not be effective 

during the time in which a person adversely 

affected may file a notice of appeal, and 

the timely filing of a notice of appeal will 

suspend the effect of the decision appealed 

from pending the decision on appeal.” (A 

grazing regulation similar to prior section 

4.21(a) was only changed in 1995) This prior 

section was criticized because it allowed 

the filing of an appeal to halt agency action 

without regard to the merits of the appeal.

Current section 4.21 sets forth a general 

rule that suspends an agency decision for 

the 30-day period during which appellant 

may file an appeal and request for stay. An 

appellant seeking a stay must demonstrate, 

among other factors, the likelihood of success 

on the merits of the appeal. We believe this to 

be a superior rule. It allows agency decisions 

to go into effect reasonably quickly, but 

allows for a stay of such decisions upon a 

showing as to the likelihood of success on the 

merits and other requirements under section 

4.21. 

Proposed section 4160.3 acknowledges 

the vitality of current section 4.21(a) even as 

it sets forth an exception to its terms. It is not 

necessary to promulgate a general rule that 

would suspend a decision during appeal.

5.4.30 Administrative Appeals, Stays 

of Appeals, and Judicial Matters

Comment: Comments expressed support 

for proposed section 4160.4(b), stating 

that, in effect, the immediately preceding 

authorization would not be terminated, but 

would be extended for purposes of the stay. 

This is consistent with a stay allowing the 

status quo to continue, comments stated, 

and allows for continuity of operations 

when grazing decisions are appealed. Other 

comments thought that our use of the terms 

“authorized” and “authorization” in the 

proposed rule was confusing and should be 

clarified. 

Response: We have clarified section 

4160.4(b) in the final rule to reflect these 

comments. We state that, upon OHAʼs 

issuance of a stay of a decision described 

at paragraph (b)(1), BLM will continue to 

authorize grazing under the permit or lease 

that was in effect immediately before the 

decision was issued. Clarifying language 

has also been added to paragraphs (b)(2) and 

(b)(3).

We invited comment (at 68 FR 68465) 

on how we might effectively incorporate 

the exhaustion requirement of the APA at 5 

U.S.C. 558(c) and the APA judicial review 

“finality” provision at 5 U.S.C. 704. Section 

558(c) provides in part, “When the licensee 

has made timely and sufficient application 

for a renewal or a new license in accordance 

with agency rules, a license with reference 

to an activity of a continuing nature does 

not expire until the application has been 

5-131
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

finally determined by the agency.” The 

APAʼs exhaustion requirements are found at 

5 U.S.C. 704. As explained in our proposed 

rule at 68 FR 68465, an agency action is 

not considered final for purposes of judicial 

review where the agency requires by rule that 

an administrative appeal to a superior agency 

authority be filed and provides that the 

agency action is inoperative while the appeal 

is pending.

Comment: A comment from OHA 

suggested elimination of proposed section 

4160.4(c), stating that the rationale for 

authorizing grazing consistent with the 

stayed decision does not logically apply to 

the cases described at paragraphs (c)(2) and 

(c)(3), which addresses forage available 

on ephemeral or annual rangeland or 

temporarily available is, inherently, not 

reliably available from year to year, and BLM 

allocates it on a short-term basis of a year or 

less. Decisions allocating this type of forage 

do not involve activity of a continuing nature 

under 5 U.S.C. 558(c). We agree with this 

comment, and have adopted section 4130.6-

2(b) in lieu of proposed regulations at section 

4160.4(c)(2) and (c)(3)

This same comment stated that it is 

difficult to evaluate proposed section 

4160.4(c)(4) without knowing the full range 

of decisions to which it would apply, and 

added that it seems odd to provide for stay 

petitions in a given category of cases and also 

provide that, if a stay is granted in such cases, 

grazing will be authorized irrespective of the 

stay. If an administrative process is worth 

having, the comment stated, effect arguably 

should be given to any stays that are granted.

Other comments expressed concerns 

about trying to identify the types of cases 

to which paragraphs (b) and (c) of section 

4160.4 might apply. It is impossible to 

anticipate all types of appeals that might be 

encountered because grazing decisions do 

not fit neatly into one of the listed categories, 

these comments stated. 

Response: As a result of the concerns 

expressed in these comments, we have 

entirely removed proposed section 4160.4(c) 

from the rule and limited paragraph (b) 

to apply to a very circumscribed set of 

circumstances. With the intention of 

simplifying these provisions, and improving 

administrative efficiency, we are revising the 

regulations proposed at section 4160.4(b) to 

address the following kinds of BLM grazing 

decisions:

• Those that modify terms and conditions 

of a permit or lease during its current 

term or during the renewal process; and

• Those that deny a permit or lease to 

a preference transferee, or offer a 

preference transferee a permit or lease 

with terms and conditions that differ from 

those in the previous permit or lease.

If a BLM decision makes changes to 

terms and conditions of a permit or lease, 

and all or some of these changes are stayed 

by OHA pending appeal, then the affected 

permittee, lessee, or preference transferee 

may graze in accordance with the comparable 

provisions of the immediately preceding 

permit or lease that were changed or deleted 

by the BLM decision under appeal, subject 

to any applicable provisions of the stay order 

and subject to proposed section 4130.3(c).

There is no need for a provision 

equivalent to section 4160.4(c)(1) in the 

proposed rule. That paragraph provided 

that, notwithstanding a stay order by OHA, 

we would authorize grazing consistent with 

our decision that modifies a permit or lease 

because of a decrease in acreage available 

for grazing. On internal review, we found the 

proposed provision unnecessary in light of 

5-132 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

the provision in section 4110.4-2(b), which 

gives grazers a 2-year lag time to reduce 

grazing in decreased acreage situations. 

Comment: In our proposed rule at 68 FR 

68455, we noted that we were not addressing 

whether BLM would be assigned the burden 

of proof in appeals. A number of comments 

thought that this topic should have been 

addressed, and moreover that BLM should 

bear the burden of proof to support its 

decisions. Several cited the APA in support. 

Section 7 of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 556(d), 

provides that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided 

by statute, the proponent of a rule or order 

has the burden of proof.”

Response: We believe the comments lack 

merit for the reasons stated in our proposed 

rule. Each case must be analyzed on its 

own terms to determine the identity of the 

proponent of a rule or order. A one-size-fitsall rule would be difficult to craft. Case law 

of IBLA has answered this question in one 

context: where a rancher is claimed to have 

allowed cattle to graze in trespass, BLM 

has the burden of proof. BLM v. Ericsson, 

88 IBLA 248, 255, 261 (1985). However, 

as we pointed out in the proposed rule (68 

FR 68456), if BLM denies a permit or lease 

to a new grazing applicant, that applicant 

would have the burden of showing where 

BLM erred in its decision. See West Cow Creek 

Permittees v. BLM, 142 IBLA 224, 236 (1998). 

Comment: One comment said that we 

should not have cited in our proposed rule 

a workers compensation board case when 

discussing who bears the burden of proof in 

grazing appeals.

Response: We cited Director, Office 

of Workersʻ Compensation Programs v. 

Greenwich Collieries, 512 U.S. 267 (1994), 

in our proposed rule because it is a fairly 

recent case of the U.S. Supreme Court 

that examines section 7 of the APA in 

considerable detail. Section 7 is key to any 

decision assigning the burden of proof in a 

formal APA hearing. 

Comment: A number of comments 

suggested that BLM consider imposing bonds 

on appellants who are not directly affected 

by a BLM decision in order to help pay for 

adverse economic effects to permittees during 

the adjudication of an appeal. We have not 

adopted the comment. 

Response: In order for an appeal to be 

filed, the person or entity filing an appeal 

must be adversely affected by a decision of 

BLM. 43 CFR 4160.4. It is thus unclear who 

would have to obtain the bond suggested by 

comments. A bond is ordinarily required by 

BLM to protect the interests of the United 

States. In such a case, the holder of a permit 

would have to obtain a bond in order to 

secure the obligations imposed by the permit 

and applicable laws and regulations. See, 

e.g., 43 CFR 2803.1-4 (bonding for rights-ofway.) 

Comment: One comment stated that only 

those individuals who are directly affected 

by a decision and can meet the standing 

requirements of 43 CFR Part 4 should be able 

to appeal terms and conditions contained in a 

BLM grazing decision.

Response: Regulations at 43 CFR 

4.470(a) provide that any applicant, 

permittee, lessee, or any other person whose 

interest is adversely affected by a final 

decision may appeal to an administrative law 

judge. Thus, the requirement that an appellant 

be directly affected appears to be set forth 

in existing regulations. This requirement is 

also set forth in the standing regulations of 

IBLA, which require that an appellant be a 

party to the case and adversely affected by 

the decision on appeal. A party is adversely 

affected when that party has a legally 

cognizable interest and the decision on appeal 

has caused, or is substantially likely to cause, 

injury to that interest (43 CFR 4.410(d)).

5-133
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

Comment: One comment stated that BLM 

regulations should provide for independent 

science panels to examine and resolve 

grazing-related disputes. 

Response: We believe that the formal 

APA hearing provided by the Taylor Grazing 

Act, with its opportunity for presentation of 

evidence, cross examination of witnesses, and 

decision by an impartial tribunal, provides 

an opportunity for the evidence, including 

scientific evidence, to be impartially 

examined.

It should be noted that there are 

mechanisms in place for providing science 

advice and input before the issuance of 

a proposed and final grazing decision. 

Existing regulations at 43 CFR 1784.6-1 

and 1784.6-2 provide for the formation of 

Resource Advisory Councils (RACs), whose 

function is to “advise ... the Bureau of Land 

Management official to whom it reports 

regarding the preparation, amendment and 

implementation of land use plans for public 

lands and resources within its area.” RACs, 

in turn, may provide for the formation 

of “Rangeland Resource Teams,” whose 

function is “providing local level input to 

the resource advisory council” regarding 

issues pertaining to the administration 

of grazing on public land within the area 

for which the rangeland resource team is 

formed. While a rangeland resource team 

is not an independent science panel, one 

of its functions is to examine and provide 

the RACs advice regarding grazing-related 

disputes. The rangeland resource team, in 

turn, may request that BLM form a technical 

review team from Federal employees 

and paid consultants whose function is 

to “gather and analyze data and develop 

recommendations [for consideration by the 

rangeland resource team] to aid the decisionmaking process... .” Ultimately, if BLMʼs 

decision is disputed despite the efforts and 

advice of these groups, it may be protested 

and appealed under Subpart 4160 and Part 4.

Comment: One comment said that BLM 

should add to its regulation a requirement 

that all parties in a dispute must first litigate 

under the OHA administrative process to 

allow field solicitors to develop and resolve 

cases before they are filed in Federal Court. 

Response: The comment is in effect 

asking for a regulation requiring exhaustion 

of administrative remedies. The APA 

addresses exhaustion at 5 U.S.C. 704, 

and OHA regulations cross-reference this 

provision. OHAʼs exhaustion requirement 

appears at 43 CFR 4.21(c). That regulation 

states that no decision which at the time of 

its rendition is subject to appeal to OHA shall 

be considered final so as to be agency action 

subject to judicial review under 5 U.S.C. 

704, unless a petition for stay of the decision 

has been filed in a timely manner and the 

decision being appealed has been made 

effective pending the appeal.

Comment: A comment stated that 

BLM should add a provision to the grazing 

regulations requiring BLM to notify 

permittees when BLM has received a Notice 

of Intent to sue or has been sued under 

ESA, Clean Water ACT (CWA) or other 

environmental law, when the outcome of the 

lawsuit may affect the permitteeʼs allotments 

or grazing privileges. This advance 

notification would allow the permittee to 

take whatever action he deems necessary to 

protect his interests.

Response: Notification procedures for 

potential challenges under various Federal 

laws are more appropriately handled through 

policy rather than regulation. This is because 

as statutory or regulatory provisions change 

BLM may have to undertake a regulatory 

change which is time consuming. The BLM 

does not have rulemaking authority to 

implement CWA or ESA as to citizen-suit 

5-134 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

provisions or notice of intent provisions. The 

CWA provides that notice “shall be given 

in such manner as the Administrator [of the 

Environmental Protection Agency] shall 

prescribe by regulation.” 33 U.S.C. 1365(b). 

The FWS and NOAA Fisheries) may 

promulgate regulations for the enforcement 

of the ESA, by citizen suit and by other 

means. 16 U.S.C. 1540(f). BLM will defer to 

the rulemaking authorities of these agencies. 

As a matter of policy and customer service, 

however, BLM routinely informs grazing 

operators of such eventualities as lawsuits 

that may affect their allotments. 

Comment: One comment asserted that 

a rancher does not have to have a grazing 

permit to access his vested rights, and that the 

rancherʼs ownership of water rights, forage 

rights, and improvements are issues that 

are not appealable, and cited several court 

decisions.

Response: Under the Taylor Grazing 

Act (sections 3 and 15), ranchers must 

hold a BLM permit or lease in order 

to graze livestock on public lands. The 

current regulations, as well as the proposed 

regulations, reiterate this requirement, 40 

CFR Subparts 4130 and 4140, which has 

been upheld by decisions of Federal courts. 

See, e.g., Osborne v. United States, 145 F.2d 

892, 896 (9th Cir. 1944) (livestock grazing 

on public lands is “under the original tacit 

consent or ... under regulation through 

the permit system ... a privilege which is 

withdrawable at any time for any use by 

the sovereign.”) Although the Court of 

Federal Claims ruled in 2002 that a holder 

of ditch right-of-way established under the 

Act of 1866 also has an appurtenant right for 

livestock to forage 50 feet on each side of the 

ditch, this matter is still in litigation and no 

final decision has been rendered by the court. 

Hage v. United States, 51 Fed. Cl. 570, 580-84 

(2002). 

5.4.31 Grazing Fees 

Comment: We received numerous 

comments on grazing fees. Many comments 

favored increasing BLMʼs grazing fees to 

help fund monitoring activities and range 

improvements and to offset the costs of 

managing public rangelands. The reasons 

cited for raising fees included the following: 

the current system skews the market, belowmarket fees promote overgrazing, it is 

inequitable to increase fees for recreation and 

not for grazing, and reduction of taxpayer 

burden. Comments stated that BLM should 

no longer subsidize public land ranching 

Several comments recommended that BLM 

increase fees to fair market value or to 

private land lease rates but offer ranchers 

the financial incentives of lowered fees in 

return for conservation easements or for 

management that improves riparian areas, 

land health, and maintenance of wildlife 

habitat and corridors. Many comments 

stated that BLM should allow competitive 

bidding for allotments, and listed a number 

of reasons, including economic efficiency, 

promotion of multiple use and rangeland 

health, reduction of taxpayer burden, and 

emulation of state and eastern national forest 

grazing fees. 

Response: The grazing program has many 

purposes. Congress, in relevant statute, has 

directed that a reasonable fee be charged for 

grazing use. There are many requirements 

that we have under the law, two of which 

are to protect the health of the land and to 

manage the public lands on a multiple use 

basis, which includes livestock grazing. The 

1995 regulations and the changes contained 

in this rule combine to protect the health of 

the land while allowing appropriate public 

land grazing. The amount of appropriated 

funds that go toward the grazing program 

as opposed to that which is returned in 

various fees and charges does not amount to 

a subsidy. Additionally, there are benefits to 

5-135
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

the general public in open space preserved 

as private ranch land attached to Federal 

allotments that might not exist but for the 

grazing program. Benefits also include the 

production of beef as well as the Western 

heritage that is important to the American 

identity. 

As indicated in the ANPR (FR Volume 

68, Number 41, March 3, 2003) as well as the 

proposed rule (FR Volume 68, Number 235, 

December 8, 2003), we were not intending to 

address grazing fee issues in this rulemaking. 

We specifically stated that increasing grazing 

fees and restructuring grazing based on 

market demand were outside the scope of 

this rulemaking. We have not analyzed any of 

the grazing fee related options presented in 

comments, have not addressed grazing fees 

in the rule, and have not adopted any of the 

recommendations. The existing fee structure 

is not altered by this rule. 

Comment: One comment stated that 

BLM should implement grazing fee increases 

immediately rather than implement them over 

5 years because public land ranchers should 

not be protected from market forces.

Response: We did not propose any 

changes in grazing fees nor in how changes 

in grazing fees would be implemented. 

It appears that the individual making this 

comment misinterpreted our proposal to 

phase in implementation of changes in active 

use over a 5 year period when such changes 

were in excess of 10 percent. This proposal 

applied only to changes in grazing use—not 

changes in grazing fees.

Comment: Many comments 

recommended that the sheep or goat to cattle 

equivalency be changed from “5 sheep or 5 

goats” to “7 sheep or 7 goats.” They asserted 

that this proposed change would not involve 

a change in any portion of the established 

grazing fee formula, but would track more 

closely the amount of forage used by sheep 

as compared to cattle. Several comment 

letters pointed out that the 5:1 ratio used by 

the BLM, originated from data collected on 

sheep and cattle grazing in Utah from 1949 

to 1967. The research data was collected by 

Dr. C. Wayne Cook, who used the concept 

of metabolic body weight to reflect the 

differences between nutritional requirements 

of different species. Dr. Cookʼs research 

was based on forage consumption and 

energy expenditures for sheep and cattle and 

indicated an approximate 5:1 ratio; although 

Dr. Cook concluded that “these calculations 

do not represent a conversion factor for 

exchanging numbers of one kind of animal 

for another on the range.” This early research 

was also based upon using a 914 lb. lactating 

cow and her calf as an AUM, and a 139 lb. 

ewe and her lamb for forage consumption 

estimates. The comments stated that in 

1991, the Forage and Grazing Terminology 

Committee with participation from the U.S. 

Departments of Agriculture and Interior 

published new standardized definitions of 

animal units. The animal unit was defined 

as a 1,100 lb. nonlactating bovine, and 

estimated the weight of a mature ewe at 147 

pounds. This new definition indicated that a 

6.5:1 ratio would be appropriate. Comments 

also cited a study by the USDA-ARS 1994, 

Animal Unit Equivalents: An Examination 

of the Sheep to Cattle Ratio for Stocking 

Rangelands which supported a 7:1 ratio. 

This study was submitted with comments 

by several organizations. Several of the 

comments objected to the rationale given 

in the proposed rule for not addressing this 

issue, which was that the ratio is used for the 

purpose of calculating grazing fee billings 

and is therefore outside the scope of the 

rule. Comments stated that this issue is not 

a grazing fee issue but an issue of equity 

and improved management for the health of 

western rangelands

Response: The sheep to cattle ratio is 

strictly a matter involving grazing fees and is 

5-136 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

therefore outside the scope of the proposed 

rule. Confusion regarding the role of the 

sheep to cattle ratio is understandable due to 

the two distinct definitions of Animal Unit 

Month (AUM) in the grazing regulations. 

However, a sheep to cattle ratio is only 

stipulated in one of these definitions.

 The first definition is used in all 

aspects of grazing administration except fee 

calculation. See section 4100.0-5. Here, an 

AUM is defined as follows: “Animal unit 

month (AUM) means the amount of forage 

necessary for the sustenance of one cow or its 

equivalent for a period of 1 month.” No sheep 

to cattle ratio is stipulated, no specific amount 

of forage is designated, and no equivalency to 

any other animals is mentioned.

The second definition of AUM, the 

definition at issue here, is found at section 

4130.8-1(c). It is as follows: “For the 

purposes of calculating the fee, an animal 

unit month is defined as a monthʼs use and 

occupancy of the range by 1 cow, bull, 

steer, heifer, horse, burro, mule, 5 sheep, or 

5 goats....” This definition strictly pertains 

to the calculation of fees. The ratios of all 

kinds and classes of livestock to one another 

are based upon the administration of a 

monthʼs use and occupancy, not the amount 

of forage necessary for their sustenance or 

any other biological measure. This method 

of calculating the fee facilitates efficiency 

and consistency in permit administration 

by controlling variables associated with 

ecological site, vegetation composition or 

quality, topography, pasture, allotment, 

grazing management, breed, size, weight, 

physiological stage, metabolic rate, and so 

forth. 

Comment: On the other hand, one 

comment stated that each sheep and goat 

should be counted as one animal unit because 

all animals should be charged, and because 

any other way of accounting allows too much 

grazing. 

Response: As previously indicated, 

issues related to the fee structure, including 

the definition of an animal unit month for 

purpose of calculating fees, are not being 

addressed in this EIS. In response to this 

comment, however, we wish to clarify that, 

as defined in section 4100.0-5, an animal 

unit month (AUM) is “the amount of forage 

necessary for the sustenance of one cow or 

its equivalent for a period of 1 month.” On a 

forage-consumption basis, 5 sheep or goats 

grazing for one month is, by regulation, 

“equivalent” to one cow grazing for one 

month, and therefore comports with the 

regulation.

Comment: One comment stated that 

BLMʼs practice of not charging a grazing fee 

for calves under 6 months is antiquated, and 

BLM should charge a fee for such calves. 

Response: As previously stated, we 

are not addressing issues related to the 

fee structure, including the definition of 

an animal unit month for the purpose 

of calculating fees. In response to this 

comment, however, we provide the following 

information for clarification of the exclusion 

of calves 6 months or younger from the 

calculation of fees. Typically, calves under 6 

months of age are not weaned and therefore 

rely on their motherʼs milk rather than 

forage as their primary source of sustenance. 

Because grazing fees are charged for the 

amount of forage consumed, an animal unit 

is considered to be a mother cow and her calf 

less than 6 months of age, unless the calf has 

been weaned or becomes 12 months of age 

during the authorized period of use. 

Comment: Another comment urged BLM 

to amend the definition of an animal unit 

month in section 4130.8-1 by specifying that 

2 steers or heifers that are between 1 and 2 

years old will equal 1 animal unit month for 

the purposes of calculating the grazing fee. 

The comment explained that a heifer will not 

calve until she is over 24 months of age. Her 

5-137
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

weight is not equal to that of a grown cow. 

A weaned steer or heifer that weighs 500 

lbs. going on an allotment will not consume 

forage equal to that consumed by a cow. In 

daily intake, it will require 2 steers to equal 

1 cow. The comment concluded that this 

change would allow for more flexibility in 

livestock operations.

Response: The definition of an animal 

unit month in section 4130.8-1(c) is strictly 

for “the purposes of calculating the fee.” As 

we have stated throughout this rulemaking 

process, matters involving grazing fees are 

outside the scope of this EIS. Therefore, the 

definition of animal unit month in section 

4130.8-1(c) is outside the scope of this rule.

Comment: Numerous comments 

recommended that BLM recognize that the 

surcharge, which is added to grazing fee 

billings under section 4130.8-1(d) of the 

current regulations where an operator does 

not own the livestock that are authorized 

by permit or lease to graze on public lands, 

is not a grazing fee and eliminate or reduce 

surcharges. 

Response: We have not changed the 

requirement that a surcharge be added to 

grazing fee billings where an operator does 

not own the livestock that are authorized 

by permit or lease to graze on public lands 

(except that the paragraph is redesignated 

(f) in the rule). The surcharge equals 35 

percent of the difference between current 

Federal grazing fees and the prior yearʼs 

private grazing land lease rates for the 

appropriate state as determined by the 

National Agricultural Statistics Service. Sons 

and daughters of the permittee or lessee are 

exempt from the surcharge where they meet 

the conditions listed at section 4130.7(f).

The surcharge is BLMʼs most recent 

response to a longstanding problem, i.e., a 

potential for windfall profits stemming from 

pasturing agreements. In 1984, Congress 

enacted legislation that was intended to 

recapture such profits for the Federal 

treasury. The legislation provided that “the 

dollar equivalent of value, in excess of the 

grazing fee established under law and paid 

to the United States Government, received 

by any permittee or lessee as compensation 

for assignment or other conveyance of a 

grazing permit or lease, or any grazing 

privileges or rights there under, and in 

excess of the installation and maintenance 

cost of grazing improvements provided 

. . . shall be paid to the Bureau of Land 

Management.” Continuing Appropriations, 

1985 − Comprehensive Crime Control Act 

of 1984, Public Law No. 98-473, 98 Stat. 

1839 (1984). The penalty for noncompliance 

was mandatory cancellation of the operatorʼs 

permit or lease. BLM promulgated 

regulations to implement the 1984 legislation. 

In 1986, the General Accounting Office 

reviewed the extent to which BLM permittees 

and lessees sublease their grazing privileges, 

and the adequacy of our regulations to control 

this practice. One of the recommendations in 

the resulting report (RCED-86-168BR) was 

to require that subleasing arrangements be 

approved for a minimum of 3 years. Such a 

lease constitutes a long-term commitment, 

and thus reduces the potential for large, 

short-term profits. This recommendation was 

promulgated in 1995, and continues in effect 

at section 4110.2-3(f). 

In 1992, the Inspector General for the 

Department of the Interior recommended 

that BLM adopt more stringent measures 

further reducing the potential for collecting 

windfall profits through pasturing agreements 

or subleasing of base property. Selected 

Grazing Lease Activities, Bureau of Land 

Management, Report No. 92-I-1364 (Sept. 

1992). BLM responded by promulgating 

the existing surcharge provision at section 

4130.8-1(d).

Comment: One comment stated that the 

surcharge is an obstacle to finding ways to 

5-138 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

adapt to drought conditions. This comment 

stated that short-term flexibility is important 

so that livestock can be moved rapidly 

from an area in decline to an area where 

forage is available. Some other comments 

stated that the surcharge is an obstacle 

to adjusting stocking rates quickly when 

weather conditions change, and that the 

surcharge results in the loss of cooperation 

among ranchers in the event of a natural 

disaster. Finally, some comments stated that 

the elimination of surcharges would improve 

management flexibility, resulting in more 

effective relationships between BLM and 

operators, as well as better land management. 

Response: Drought and other weatherrelated conditions are a perennial risk in 

ranching and farming. We are not persuaded 

that the claimed extra increment of risk, 

which may or may not be added by the 

surcharge, is significant enough to warrant 

rescission.

Comment: Many comments suggested 

that the surcharge discourages livestock 

owners from entering into pasturing 

agreements with permittees who pass through 

their costs to livestock owners. According 

to these comments, the surcharge causes 

permittees to lose opportunities to collect 

income that could help them weather cycles 

of prosperity and hardship. These comments 

also allege that the surcharge causes 

destabilization of ranching operations, loss of 

open spaces and western communities, and 

fragmentation of wildlife habitat.

Response: The concerns expressed in 

these comments provide no basis for BLM to 

eliminate or reduce the surcharge. Permittees 

who want to augment their income without 

purchasing livestock may sublease all or 

some or all of their public land grazing 

privileges to another operator along with the 

base property associated with those grazing 

privileges. While BLM must approve the 

transfer of the grazing preference and permit 

in connection with the transaction, BLM 

assesses no surcharge. 

Comment: Some comments suggested 

that the surcharge is too high for permittees 

to profit from their operations while paying 

the surcharge. Several of these comments 

stated that the surcharge makes public land 

ranchers less competitive than ranchers who 

use only private land. One of these comments 

stated that the surcharge gives nonresident 

interests a foothold on public rangelands, 

and increases financial pressures for owneroperated ranches. Finally, some of these 

comments included two illustrations intended 

to show financial difficulties resulting from 

the surcharge. In one illustration, a young 

rancher is forced to abandon his efforts to 

establish a cow-calf operation. In another, 

a rancherʼs widow incurs expenses in order 

to avoid the surcharge, so that she and her 

family can remain on their ranch.

Response: It is unreasonable to assign the 

surcharge the sole blame for an individual 

rancherʼs financial success or failure. 

Ranching tends to be a low- or negativeprofit enterprise on both private and public 

lands. There are many factors in addition 

to the grazing fee surcharge that may affect 

whether a rancher will have financial success; 

the rancherʼs business acumen, operating 

loan interest rates, mortgage rates, livestock 

prices, business efficiency of the enterprise, 

and the weather are among those factors. The 

comments we received on financial effects do 

not justify changing the surcharge regulation. 

Comment: Some comments stated that the 

surcharge was instituted as a penalty, and that 

the surcharge is not a grazing fee issue. 

Response: To the contrary, the surcharge 

was implemented as a component of the 

grazing fee to reduce the potential for 

windfall profits, as identified by the General 

Accounting Office and the Office of the 

Inspector General. 60 FR at 9945. 

5-139
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

Comment: One comment stated that BLM 

should not exempt children of permittees 

from the surcharge in order to reduce the 

taxpayersʼ burden for the management of 

public lands. One comment stated that, 

assuming windfall profits are a large 

enough concern to justify the surcharge, 

BLM should waive it in cases of drought 

and stewardship contracts, and otherwise 

retain the requirement. Another comment 

stated that there is no windfall profit to the 

rancher if he brings in outside cattle. A few 

comments suggested that the surcharge 

should be eliminated because it represents 

an unnecessary workload for BLM. One of 

these comments stated that administering 

the surcharge takes valuable time away from 

on-the-ground monitoring and management 

activities. Another stated that the surcharge 

complicates the paperwork for both the 

operator and the land manager. Some other 

comments requested that we consider 

providing relief from the surcharge in cases 

of extreme drought, or where permitteesʼ 

finances are strained. Some comments stated 

that the surcharge should not apply where 

ranchers sublease their private property rights 

in their allotments. 

Response: These suggestions, like all 

those pertaining to fees, are beyond the scope 

of this EIS. Moreover, none of the comments 

provide persuasive evidence that the original 

rationale − the potential for windfall profits 

— has changed. We have not changed the 

provision establishing a surcharge. 

Comment: One comment stated that BLM 

should waive surcharges for permittees who 

enter into stewardship contracts to make 

surplus forage available to other operators, 

pursuant to Section 323 of Public Law No. 

108-7. This comment states further that a 

permittee who provides surplus forage under 

a stewardship contract performs a public 

service by helping to preserve ranches, with 

their attendant benefits to local economies, 

open spaces, and wildlife habitats.

Response: As we have stated, we are not 

addressing issues related to grazing fees, 

including surcharge issues. Furthermore, 

this rule is not promulgated to implement 

the legislation (16 U.S.C. 2104 note) that 

authorizes BLM to enter into stewardship 

contracts with private persons or entities, or 

with other public entities. That legislation is 

the subject of guidance issued by BLM and 

the U.S. Forest Service. 69 FR 4107, 4174 

(Jan. 28, 2004).

Comment: One comment stated that BLM 

should not allow “after-the-grazing-season” 

payment of grazing fees. 

Response: After-the-grazing-season 

billing is allowed only where BLM has made 

an allotment management plan (AMP) a 

part of the permit or lease and it provides 

for the privilege of after-the-grazing-season 

billing. AMPs generally contain grazing 

systems that prescribe limits of flexibility in 

the number of livestock and period of use, 

allowing operators to adjust grazing practices 

within such limits to meet the resource use 

and management goals specified in the AMP. 

BLM may cancel the privilege of afterthe-grazing-season billing if the operator 

fails to submit the required report of actual 

grazing use on time, fails to pay the grazing 

fee billing on time, or if BLM finds that the 

use is erroneously reported. BLM believes 

that after-the-grazing-season billing remains 

a useful management and administrative 

tool that happens to be advantageous to 

operators. In addition to relieving operators 

of the requirement to pay fees in advance, 

it provides flexibility for operators to make 

adjustments in grazing use, within pre-set 

limits, without first having to apply for and 

receive approval for such adjustments. BLM 

benefits from reductions in paperwork, and 

both BLM and operators benefit from the 

5-140 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

improved working relationships that result 

from AMPs.

Comment: One comment urged BLM 

to find a means of reimbursing counties 

for bearing the burden of high Federal 

land ownership in parts of the West. They 

suggested that BLM allocate a portion of 

grazing lease and permit fees to the counties. 

Response: This issue is not addressed 

in the regulations. It is, however, addressed 

in the Taylor Grazing Act. Under 43 U.S.C. 

315i, 12 1⁄2 percent of revenues from grazing 

permits and 50 percent of revenues from 

grazing leases are distributed to the states in 

which the lands producing the revenues are 

situated. The state legislature then decides 

how to spend those funds for the benefit 

of the affected counties. We note also that 

counties do receive Federal payments in lieu 

of property taxes under 31 U.S.C. 6901-

6907. (In 2003, those payments totaled 

$2,050,000.) 

5.4.32 Reserve Common Allotments

Comment: We received several comments 

on the concept referred to as “Reserve 

Common Allotments” (RCA), a proposal and 

accompanying regulations that would have 

established forage reserves. 

Response: We decided not to pursue the 

possibility of creating RCAs in the proposed 

rule following a generally unenthusiastic 

reception during the public scoping process. 

Comment: Comments that opposed 

this concept speculated that it would foster 

abuse and excessive grazing on the one 

hand, or could lead to a loss of preference 

AUMs on public lands on the other. Some 

comments supported designation of RCAs 

on a temporary basis only, not permanent 

designation that would eliminate those AUMs 

from term permit availability. Comments 

that supported the RCA concept expressed 

disappointment that we did not propose 

them because they recognized the RCA as 

a potential solution to environmental and 

economic challenges confronting modernday ranching. Another comment suggested 

that RCAs could provide an outlet for 

producers whose allotments are unusable 

due to weather, fire, or scheduled range 

improvements such as prescribed burning 

or stream restoration. This comment also 

suggested implementing the concept on a 

pilot basis and monitoring performance on 

a set of administrative and environmental 

criteria.

Response: BLM recognizes that these 

thoughtful comments demonstrate cautious 

interest and qualified support of the RCA 

concept. It is also obvious that the proposal 

rolled out in the ANPR was insufficiently 

defined and inadequately developed to 

gain full public support. We will continue 

to examine the concept of establishing 

temporary or permanent forage reserves, or 

alternative management scenarios, through 

future policymaking processes. Due to 

the keen interest in this subject, we will 

communicate with the public during any 

policy development process on RCAs.

5.4.33 Stewardship Incentives

Comment: Some comments stated that 

rangeland conditions would improve if BLM 

regulations established various incentives for 

ranchers who implement good management 

practices, or allowed “considerations” for 

permittees who voluntarily reduce livestock 

numbers or build wildlife projects, or 

provided for purchasing willow whips from 

private landowners for planting on public 

lands 

Response: In past decades, BLM, in 

consultation with user groups and the 

public, has examined various programs 

(e.g. Incentive Based Grazing Fees - 1993; 

Cooperative Management Agreements—

1984) intended to provide incentive for 

rancher stewardship of public lands for 

5-141
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

multiple uses, including wildlife habitat. 

Ultimately, consensus could not be 

achieved and these efforts were set aside. 

More recently, in early 2003, BLMʼs 

Sustaining Working Landscapes (SWL) 

policy development initiative explored 

possible incentives for ranchers to engage 

in partnerships to achieve conservation 

ends, while encouraging and enabling good 

stewardship. In mid-2003, BLM decided 

to focus its grazing program resources on 

this rulemaking effort, rather than attempt 

simultaneously to accomplish SWL policy 

development and a rule. Upon completion of 

this rule, BLM intends to revisit SWL policy 

concepts and focus on updating grazing 

manuals and technical procedures needed to 

implement the grazing rules.

Comment: One comment suggested 

adopting conservation easement tax laws 

currently in effect in Colorado, New Mexico, 

and other states.

Response: While BLM supports the use 

of conservation easements for protection 

of watershed and habitat values on private 

lands, we do not have authority to change the 

tax laws of individual states.

5.4.34 Exchange-of-Use Grazing 

Agreements

In the proposed rule, BLM invited 

comment regarding whether BLM should 

facilitate “trade-of-use” arrangements 

between operators (68 FR 68456). As stated 

in the proposed rule, this type of arrangement 

allows one permittee or lessee to own or 

control unfenced intermingled private lands 

that are not within his allotment, but in the 

allotment of a second permittee or lessee. 

Some comments urged that BLM 

facilitate “trade-of-use” in this type of 

situation by collecting a grazing fee from the 

second permittee for the use of lands owned 

by the first permittee but located in the 

second permitteeʼs allotment, and crediting 

the fees collected from the second permittee 

for these lands to the first permitteeʼs grazing 

bills.

Comment: Comments on the proposed 

rule either urged BLM to facilitate this 

arrangement or urged BLM not to facilitate 

this arrangement, but did not provide reasons 

other than either that it would “contribute 

to multiple use benefits” (from comments 

supporting BLM facilitation), or that it 

would not (from comments opposing BLM 

involvement).

Response: BLM continues to believe that 

“trade-of-use” arrangements between private 

parties are best handled by the private parties. 

The regulation continues to provide that lands 

offered in exchange-of-use must be unfenced 

and intermingled with the public lands in the 

same allotment.

Comment: Another comment urged BLM 

to include in this section a provision stating, 

“BLM will include in calculation of the total 

allotment or lease livestock carrying capacity, 

the total number of livestock carrying 

capacity AUMs of lands offered for exchange 

of use as determined by a rangeland 

survey conducted by persons qualified as 

professional rangeland managers.” 

Response: The regulation continues 

to limit the level of use on public lands 

authorized by an exchange-of-use agreement 

on public lands to the livestock carrying 

capacity of the lands offered in exchangeof-use. Guidance regarding how this level 

is determined is best contained in grazing 

management handbooks and technical 

references, not in the grazing regulations. 

5.4.35 Miscellaneous Comments

Comment: One comment expressed 

concern that proposed changes in the 

regulations would limit adaptive management 

options, and urged BLM to increase 

opportunities for adaptive management for 

unforeseen circumstances such as drought. 

5-142 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

Response: The rule is designed 

to improve working relations with 

permittees and lessees. Better working 

relationships should result in more frequent 

communication and greater willingness to 

consider additional management alternatives. 

Comment: One comment stated that 

BLM should require other users of the public 

lands to get permission to be on public land 

from BLM, and that BLM should inform the 

permittee when other users or BLM staff will 

be out on the permitteeʼs allotment.

Response: Determining whether and 

under what circumstances public land users 

other than livestock permittees need approval 

to use public lands is outside the scope of this 

rule. Casual recreationists normally do not 

need permits to visit public lands, so there is 

no way BLM can inform grazers in advance 

of such visitation. Whenever feasible, in 

the spirit of consultation, cooperation, and 

coordination, BLM will inform the livestock 

operators in advance about BLM field 

operations or public uses under permit, lease, 

or license that affect grazing management 

of allotments where they have permits or 

leases. However, a provision requiring 

advance notification would be impractical 

to implement and detract from efficient 

management of the public lands. BLM 

declines to adopt this suggestion.

Comment: One comment addressed 

the substance of the section describing 

the objectives of the grazing regulations 

(4100.0-2), stating that BLM should remove 

the statement “to accelerate restoration 

and improvement of public rangelands to 

properly functioning conditions” and should 

change the words “consistent with” to “that 

is in conformance with,” for several reasons. 

First, removal of this objective would ensure 

that the public is not distracted from the 

real objectives of grazing management, 

which are expressed in the applicable land 

use plans. These plans may or may not 

require the “restoration and improvement of 

public rangelands to properly functioning 

conditions” upon every acre of the public 

lands. Second, removal of the objective 

would make it clear that the applicable 

land use plan and relevant laws guide 

management. 

Response: We have not amended 

the objectives section in response to this 

comment. “[T]o accelerate restoration and 

improvement of public rangelands to properly 

functioning conditions” is a proper objective 

for these regulations, and consistent with 

Section 2 of the Taylor Grazing Act (“The 

Secretary ... shall make provision for the 

protection...and improvement of ...grazing 

districts and do any and all things necessary 

to insure the objects of such grazing districts, 

[including] ... to preserve the land and its 

resources from destruction or unnecessary 

injury [and] to provide for ... improvement 

of the range; and the Secretary ... is 

authorized to ... perform such work as may 

be necessary amply to protect and rehabilitate 

the areas subject to the provisions of this Act 

...”). To ensure clarity regarding the role 

of land use plans and grazing management, 

section 4100.0-8 of the regulations, which 

is not changed by the rule, continues to 

state unequivocally that “... [l]ivestock 

grazing activities and management actions 

approved by the authorized officer shall be 

in conformance with the land use plan as 

defined at 43 CFR 1601.0-5(b).” 

Rangeland Standards and Guidelines (43 

CFR Part 4180) have been or are required 

to be developed statewide or regionally 

in consultation with Resource Advisory 

Councils. Consistent with the fundamentals 

of rangeland health, rangeland watersheds 

are to be in, or making significant progress 

toward, proper functioning physical 

condition. This regulatory language does not 

imply, nor does BLM subsequently interpret 

in policy or guidance, that every single 

5-143
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

acre of a watershed is in proper functioning 

condition. Proper functioning condition refers 

to the ability of an area to sustain natural 

plant communities and basic ecological 

functions. BLM determines functionality 

at the watershed scale, determining 

functionality for each one of the 160,000,000 

acres managed is impractical. 

 BLM planning regulations define 

“conformity” or “conformance” as meaning 

that a resource management action is 

specifically provided for in the land use 

plan or, if not specifically mentioned, 

clearly consistent with the terms, conditions 

and decisions of the plan. The planning 

regulations define “consistent” as meaning 

that plans will adhere to the terms, 

conditions, and decisions of resource related 

plans, or in their absence with policies and 

programs. We cannot anticipate in land use 

plans the specific circumstances involved 

in subsequent grazing decisions. Therefore, 

the specific term chosen for use in this rule, 

either “conformance” or “consistent,” would 

not alter the intent of the objective described 

in this rule. Finally, all individual records 

of decision issued when BLM adopted land 

health standards pursuant to section 4180.2 

amended applicable land use plans to include 

those land health standards. 

Comment: One comment suggested that 

BLM should provide for payment to the 

permittee or lessee for any cuts in permit 

numbers at the prevailing appraised rate, 

in order to curtail cutting permits under the 

pretense of the Endangered Species Act. 

Response: The relevant statutes and 

regulations governing grazing on Federal 

land and case law interpreting these statutes 

and regulations have consistently recognized 

grazing on Federal land as a revocable license 

and not a property interest. A grazing permit 

or lease authorizes a privilege or revocable 

license, not a property right protected under 

the Constitution. 

Comment: One comment addressed the 

Failure to Use provision (4170.1-2 ), stating 

that BLM should not cancel a permit or 

lease for failure to make substantial use as 

authorized or for failure to maintain or use 

water base property for 2 consecutive grazing 

fee years. The comment averred that this 

provision could be construed to mean that if 

a well on private property is not used for 2 

years then BLM can cancel all or part of the 

lease. It went on to say that BLM through its 

regulations is placing an unfair burden on the 

lessee in his ability to obtain financing from 

a local lender, that BLMʼs threat to cancel or 

suspend active use creates a major obstacle in 

producing a feasible financial plan required 

by the lender, and that lenders would not be 

impressed with a plan that would force them 

to term out a loan over a period of time based 

on BLMʼs whim to create uncertainty and 

prevent a positive cash flow for the borrower. 

Response: BLM disagrees. As indicated 

by the Taylor Grazing Act, Congress intends 

grazing permits and leases to be used for 

grazing purposes as “necessary to permit 

the proper use of lands, water or water 

rights owned or leased by” the permittees or 

lessees. Failure of a permittee or lessee to 

maintain or use water base property in the 

grazing operation would indicate that the 

grazing operator is not making “proper use” 

of the water. Under these circumstances, it 

would be appropriate to revoke the grazing 

privileges that had been associated with that 

water, and to award them to someone who 

would maintain or use some other nearby 

water in the furtherance of his livestock 

operations. Agricultural lenders are, or should 

be, aware that retention of a BLM permit 

or lease is contingent upon the permittee or 

lessee complying with the grazing regulations 

that govern the permits and leases.

Comment: When adjusting allotment 

boundaries BLM should consult with base 

property lien holders before adjusting 

5-144 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Chapter 5

Public Participation, Consultation, 

Coordination, and Response to Comments

allotment boundaries, and should remove its 

authority to adjust allotment boundaries by 

decision so that the permittee or lessee has 

control over allotment boundaries rather than 

BLM.

Response: Under section 4110.2-4, BLM 

will consult with affected permittees or 

lessees before adjusting allotment boundaries. 

Should permittees or lessees wish to consult 

regarding boundary adjustment proposals 

with those holding liens on their base 

properties, they may do so at their option. 

It is necessary for BLM to retain authority 

to adjust allotment boundaries by decision 

for those situations where all affected 

parties cannot reach consensus regarding an 

allotment boundary adjustment. 

Comment: BLM policy should reflect 

that grazing decisions always be based 

on appropriate scientific data because it is 

required by the Data Quality Act. Some 

comments maintained that BLM is required 

to prove, on administrative appeal, that the 

terms and conditions of grazing permits are 

consistent with the Data Quality Act (DQA), 

Section 515 of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal 

Year 2001 (Public Law 106-554).

Response: As discussed above, BLM 

is not required to launch an affirmative 

defense of grazing permits in response to 

an administrative appeal to the Office of 

Hearings and Appeals. BLM may come 

forward with a rebuttal, but the appellant 

bears the ultimate burden of persuasion.

The Office of Hearings and Appeals 

may not be the forum of choice for 

raising questions with respect to BLMʼs 

compliance with the DQA standards (i.e., 

“the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity 

of information”). As required by the DQA, 

BLM has issued guidelines which provide an 

administrative mechanism for raising such 

questions directly with BLM (Department 

of the Interiorʼs Data Quality Guidelines, 

published October 1, 2002).

Comment: In case of fires in allotments 

the allotment should be rested for a minimum 

of 3 years and 5 years if any BLM permittee 

has livestock on a burn area prior to approval 

plus a substantial reduction in their grazing 

permit. 

Response: This issue of how much rest 

from livestock grazing is needed after a fire 

is outside the scope of this rulemaking and 

is not examined in the DEIS. Administrative 

remedies and penalties are listed in the rules 

in Subparts 4160 and 4170.

Comment: One comment letter stated the 

BLM should correct an error that appears in 

Appendix C of the DEIS, in which a number 

of references stated “The University of 

Wyoming Law School commented ... .” The 

letter concluded by saying the University 

of Wyoming Law School did not make the 

comments, but rather that they were those of 

Debra L. Donahue.

Response: We explain without excusing 

this error by stating that the email containing 

the comment on the ANPR identified the 

author with her employer in the signature 

block. Since there were so many letters 

received, over 8,300, letters were divided into 

individual comments to group like comments 

together so that we could capture the essence 

of the various concerns expressed, the 

statement in the letter, “Please note that the 

opinions expressed herein are my own, and 

not those of my employer” was separated 

from the various comments contained in the 

letter. The comments were than tagged as 

coming from the University of Wyoming. 

The author of the letter should have received 

a letter of apology already and we hereby 

retract the error that appeared in the DEIS.

5-145

Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 R-1

References

References

Abruzzi, W. S. 1995. The social and ecological consequences of early cattle ranching in the 

Little Colorado River basin. Human Ecology 23(1):75–99.

Adams, B. and L. Fitch. 1995. Caring for the green zone: Riparian areas and grazing 

management. Canada-Alberta Environmentally sustainable agriculture agreement. 

Graphcomn Printers, Ltd., Lethbridge, Alberta. 36p.

Adams, R. 1916. Public range lands—A new policy needed. American Journal of Sociology 

22(3):324–351.

Armour, C., D. Duff, and W. Elmore. 1994. The effects of livestock grazing on Western 

riparian and stream ecosystems. Fisheries 19(9):9–12.

Bailey, D. K., and F. G. Hawksworth. 1988. Phytogeography and taxonomy of the pinyon 

pines. Pages 41–64 in M. F. Passini et al., editors. II Simposio Nacional Sobre Pinos 

Pinoneros. CEMCA, Chapingo, Mexico.

Bailey, R. G. 1978. Descriptions of the ecoregions of the United States. USDA Forest 

Service, Ogden, Utah. n.p.

Bailey, R. G. 1995. Descriptions of the ecoregions of the United States. 2nd edition. USDA 

Forest Service, Miscellaneous Publication 1591. 108p.

Bailey, R,G. 1996. Ecosystem geography. Springer, New York. 204p.

Bailey, R.G. 1998a. Ecoregions: the ecosystem geography of the oceans and continents. 

Springer, New York. 176p.

Bailey, R.G. 1998b. Ecoregions map of North America. USDA, Forest Service. Washington, 

D.C. 10p.

Bartlett, E. T., R. G. Taylor, J. R. McKean, and J. G. Hof. 1989. Motivations of Colorado 

ranchers with Federal grazing permits. Journal of Range Management 42(6):454–457.

Bastian, D. T., D. M. McLeod, M. J. Germino, W. A. Reiners, and B. J. Blasko. 2002. 

Environmental amenities and agricultural land values: A hedonic model using 

geographic information systems. Ecological Economics 40:337–349. 

Beggs, J. J., J. S. Hurlbert, and V. A. Haines. 1996. Community attachment in a rural setting: 

A refinement and empirical test of the systemic model. Rural Sociology 61(3):407–

426.

Behnke, R. J. 1992. Native trout of western North America. American Fisheries Society 

Monograph 6. n.p.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

R-2 October 2004

References 

Bestelmeyer, B., J. R. Brown, K. M. Havstad, R. Alexander, G. Chaves, and J. E. Herrick. 

2003. Development and use of state-and-transition models for rangelands. Journal of 

Range Management 56(2):114–126.

Bieling, C., and R. Plieninger. 2003. ʻStinking, disease-spreading brutesʼ or ʻfour-legged 

landscape managersʼ? Livestock, pastoralism, and society in Germany and the USA 

Outlook on Agriculture 32(1):7–12.

BLM: See U.S. Department of the Interior.

Bock, C. E., V. A. Saab, T. D. Rich, and D. S. Dobkin. 1993. Effects of livestock grazing on 

neotropical migratory landbirds in western North America. N.p. in D. M. Finch and 

P. W. Stangell, editors. Status and management of neotropical migratory birds. USDA 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, 

Colorado. General Technical Report RM-229. 

Bowers, W., B. Hosford, A. Oakley, and C. Bond. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed 

rangelands, the Great Basin of southeastern Oregon: Native trout. USDA Forest 

Service General Technical Report PNW-80. n.p.

Boyd, R.J., A.Y. Cooperrider, S.L. McCulloch, H.R. Stuart. 1987. Inventory and monitoring of 

wildlife habitat. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO. 858p. 

Branch, K., D. A. Hooper, J. Thompson, and J. C. Creighton. 1983. Guide to social impact 

assessment. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. n.p.

Brown, A. A., and K. P. Davis. 1973. Forest fire: Control and use. McGraw-Hill Book 

Company, New York. 686 pp.

Brown, R. B. 1993. Rural community satisfaction and attachment in mass consumer society. 

Rural Sociology 58(3):387–403.

Brown, R. B., H. R. Geertsen, and R. S. Krannich. 1989. Community satisfaction and social 

integration in a boomtown: A longitudinal analysis. Rural Sociology 54(4):568–586.

Brunson, M. W., and L. Gilbert. 2003. Recreationist Responses to Livestock Grazing in a 

New National Monument. Journal of Range Management 56(6).

Brunson, M. W., and B. S. Steel. 1996. Sources of variation in attitude and beliefs about 

federal rangeland management. Journal of Range Management 49:69–75.

Buckner, J. C. 1988. The development of an instrument to measure neighborhood cohesion. 

American Journal of Community Psychology 16(6):771–791.

Carothers, S. W., and R. R. Johnson. 1975. Water management practices and their effects on 

nongame birds in range habitats. Pages 210–222 in D. R. Smith, editor. Management 

of forest and range habitats for nongame birds. USDA Forest Service, Washington, 

D.C. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-1. 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 R-3

References

Cawley, R. M. 1993. Federal lands, western anger: The sagebrush rebellion and 

environmental politics. University of Kansas Press, Lawrence. n.p. 

Chaney, E., W. Elmore, and W. S. Platts. 1990. Livestock grazing on western riparian areas. 

Northwest Resource Information Center, Inc., Eagle, Idaho. n.p.

Chaney, E., W. Elmore, and W. S. Platts. 1993. Managing change: Livestock grazing western 

riparian areas. Northwest Resource Information Center, Inc., Eagle, Idaho. n.p.

Chilson, P. 1997. Tree huggers and damned cowboys: The rhetoric of an environmental 

conflict. North American Review 282(1):38–45.

Clark, D. E., and C. A. Murphy. 1996. Countywide employment and population growth: An 

Analysis of the 1980s. Journal of Regional Science 36(2):235–56.

Clary, W. P., N. L. Shaw, J. G. Dudley, V. A. Saab, J. W. Kinney, and L. C. Smithman. 

1996. Response of a depleted sagebrush steppe riparian system to grazing control 

and woody planting. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, 

Utah. Research Paper INT-RP-492. 32 pp.

Clements, F. E. 1916. Plant Succession: An analysis of the development of vegetation. 

Carnegie Institution, Washington D.C. n.p.

Cody, M. L. 1985. Habitat selection in grassland and open-country birds. Pages 191–226 in

M. L. Cody, editor. Habitat selection in birds. Academic Press, New York.

Cook, P. J., and K. L. Mizer. 1994. The Revised ERS County Typology. USDA, ERS 

Rural Development Research, Washington, D.C. Report 89. [Available at http://

www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/RDRR89/]

Cooperrider, A. Y., R. J. Boyd, and H. R. Stuart, editors. 1986. Inventory and monitoring of 

wildlife habitat. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. n.p.

Cooperrider, A. 1991. Conservation of biodiversity on western rangelands. Pages 40–53 in

W. E. Hudson, editor. Landscape linkages and biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, 

D.C.

Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. Environmental justice: Guidance under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. Washington, D.C. [Available at http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/

nepa/regs/EJ/justice.pdf]

Council on Environmental Quality. 1978. Regulations for implementing the procedural 

provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508. 

Executive Office of the President, 43 CFR 55978-56007, November 29.

Coupland, R. T., and G. M. Van Dyne. 1979. Natural temperate grasslands: Systems synthesis. 

Pages 97–106 in R. T. Coupland, editor. Grassland ecosystems of the world: Analysis 

of grasslands and their uses. Cambridge University Press, New York. 401 pp. 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

R-4 October 2004

References 

Cowell, D. K., and G. P. Green. 1994. Community attachment and spending location: The 

importance of place in household consumption. Social Science Quarterly 75(3):637–

655.

Curtin, C. G. 2002. Integration of science and community-based conservation in the Mexico/

U.S. borderlands. Conservation Biology 16(4):880–886.

Darden, T. D., N. R. Rimbey, A. J. Harp, and T. R. Harris. 2001. Regional-level economic 

impacts of grazing policy changes: A case study from Owyhee County, Idaho. 

Pages 83–92 in L. A. Torell, E. T. Bartlett, and R. Larranaga, editors. Current Issues 

in Rangeland Resource Economics. New Mexico State University, Agricultural 

Experiment Station Research Report 737. [Available at http://agecon.lib.umn.edu]

DeBano, L. F., and L. J. Schmidt. 1989. Interrelationships between watershed condition and 

health of riparian areas in the southwestern United States. Pages 45–53 in Practical 

approaches to riparian resource management. Workshop sponsored by the Montana 

Chapter of the American Fisheries Society. USDI Bureau of Land Management, 

Billings, Montana.

Deller, S. C., T. H. Tsai, D. W. Marcouiller, and D. B. K. English. 2001. The role of amenities 

and quality of life in rural economic growth. American Journal of Agricultural 

Economics 83(2):352–65.

Dick-Peddie, W.A., and J. P. Hubbard. 1977. Classification of riparian vegetation. 

Importance, preservation, and management of riparian habitat: A symposium. USDA 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, 

Colorado. General Technical Report RM-43. n.p.

Dieterich, J. H. 1980. Chimney Spring forest fire history. USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. Research 

Paper RM-220. 8 pp.

Duffy-Deno, K. T. 1998. The effect of Federal wilderness on county growth in the 

intermountain western United States. Journal of Regional Science 38(1):109–36.

Dyksterhuis, E. J. 1949. Condition and management of range land based on quantitative 

ecology. Journal of Range Management 2(3):104–115

Eisenhauer, B. W., R. S. Krannich, and D. J. Blahna. 2000. Attachments to special places 

on public lands: An analysis of activities, reasons for attachments, and community 

connections. Society and Natural Resources 13:421–441. 

Elmore, W., and R. L. Beschta. 1987. Riparian areas: Perceptions in management. 

Rangelands 9(6):260-265.

Elmore, W., and R. L. Beschta. 1989. The fallacy of structures and the fortitude of vegetation. 

Pages 116-119 in U.S. Forest Service Technical Report PSW-110.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 R-5

References

Elmore, W., and R. L. Beschta. 1990. Restoring riparian areas in eastern Oregon: Grazing 

management can enhance forage, flows, and fish. Flow (Fall): 8-10

Elmore, W., and B. Kauffman. 1994. Riparian and watershed systems: Degradation and 

restoration. N.p. in M. Vavra, W. A. Laycock, and R. D. Piper, editors. Ecological 

implications of livestock herbivory in the West. Society for Range Management, 

Denver, Colorado.

Evans R. A. 1988. Management of pinyon–juniper woodlands. USDA Forest Service, 

General Technical Report INT-249. 34 pp.

Federal Geographic Data Committee, Vegetation Subcommittee. 1997. National Vegetation 

Classification Standard, FGDC-STD-005. [Available at: www.fgdc.gpv/standards/

documents/standards/vegetation]

Fennemore, F. A., and J. P. Nelson. 2001. Western rangelands reform: An analysis of the 1996 

Senate vote on Federal grazing fees. Contemporary Economic Policy 19(3):322–335. 

Ferry. G.W.R.G. Clark, R.E. Montomery, R.W. Mutch, W.P. Leenhouts, and G.T. Zimmerman. 

1995. Altered fire regimes within fire-adapted ecosystems. Pages 222-224. In: Our 

Living Resources. W.T. LaRoe, G.S. Farris, C.E. Puckett, P.D. Doran, and M.J. Mac 

eds. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Service, Washington D.C. 530 

p.

Flather, C. H., L. A. Joyce, and C. A. Bloomgarden. 1994. Species endangerment patterns in 

the United States. USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-241. n.p.

Fleischner, T. L. 1994. Ecological costs of livestock grazing in western North 

America. Conservation Biology 8(3):629–644.

Frest, T. J. 2002. Native snails: Indicators of ecosystem health. N.p. in G. Wuerthner and M. 

Matteson, editors. Welfare ranching, the subsidized destruction of the American West. 

Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Friedel, M. H. 1991. Range condition assessment and the concept of thresholds: A viewpoint. 

Journal of Range Management 44(5):422–226.

Furniss, M. J., T. D. Roelofs, and C. S. Yee. 1991. Road construction and maintenance. N.p. 

in W. R. Meehan, editor. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid 

fishes and their habitats. U.S. Forest Service Service and American Fisheries Society, 

Bethesda, Maryland. 

Gentner, B. J., and J. A. Tanaka. 2002. Classifying Federal public land grazing permittees. 

Journal of Range Management 55(1):2–11.

Gottfried, G. J., T. W. Swetnam, C. D. Allen, J. L. Betancourt, and Chung-MacCoubrey. 1995. 

Pinyon–juniper woodlands. Pages 95–132 in Ecology, diversity, and sustainability 

of the Middle Rio Grande Basin. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. General Technical Report RM-268.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

R-6 October 2004

References 

Goudy, W. J. 1990. Community attachment in a rural region. Rural Sociology 55(2):178–198. 

Griffith, J. S. 1988. Review of competition between cutthroat trout and other salmonids. 

Pages 134–140 in R. E. Gresswell, editor. Status and management of interior stocks of 

cutthroat. American Fisheries Society Symposium 4.

Griffiths, D. A. 1910. A protected stock range in Arizona. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Bureau of Plant Industry, Washington, D.C. Bulletin 177. n.p.

Gruell, G. E. 1985a. Fire on the early western landscape: An annotated record of wildland 

fires, 1776–1900. Northwest Science 59(2):97–107.

Gruell, G. E. 1985b. Indian fires in the Interior West: A widespread influence. Pages 68–74 

in J. E. Lotan, B. M. Kilgore, W. C. Fischer, and R. W. Mutch, technical coordinators. 

Proceedings of the Symposium and Workshop on Wilderness Fire, November 15–18, 

1983, Missoula, Montana. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experimental Station, Ogden, Utah. General Technical Report INT-182.

Hansen, A. J., R. Rasker, B. Maxwell, J. J. Rotella, J. D. Johnson, A. W. Parmenter, U. Langer, 

W. B. Cohen, R. L. Lawrence, and M. P. V. Kraska. 2002. Ecological causes and 

consequences of demographic change in the New West. BioScience 55(2):151–162.

Harp, A. J., J. G. Thompson, and R. Krannich. 1998. Impacts of Grazing Policy on Social 

Relationships in Rural Communities. Invited Paper for “The impact of Federal 

grazing policy on ranches and communities” at the American Agricultural Economics 

Association–Western Agricultural Economics Association Meeting, Salt Lake City, 

Utah. n.p.

Harp, A. J., R. Loucks, and J. Hawkins. 2000. Spatial distribution of economic impacts: 

Cattle prices and Federal land grazing in Idaho. Journal of Range Management 53(2):

164–169.

Harp, A. J. 1999. Social construction of community property rights to public lands. Pages 

78–82 in E. T. Bartlett and L. W. Van Tassell, editors. Grazing land economics and 

policy. Western Regional Coordinating Committee on Rangeland Economics: WCC55. Colorado State University, Fort Collins.

Harp, A. J., N. R. Rimbey, and T. D. Darden. 2001. Cohesion, integration and attachment in 

Owyhee County communities. Pages 93–100 in L. A. Torell, E. T. Bartlett, and R. 

Larranaga, editors. Current issues in rangeland resource economics. New Mexico 

State University Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report 737. [Available at 

http://agecon.lib.umn.edu]

Harper, W. L. and C. Eastman. 1980. An evaluation of goal hierarchies for small farm 

operators. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 62:742–747.

Hecox, E.B. 2001. Western stateʼs water laws: a summary for the Bureau of Land Management. 

Bureau of Land Management, National Science and Technology Center. Denver, CO. 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 R-7

References

Hockett, G. A. 2002. Livestock effects on the herbaceous components of sage grouse habitat: 

A review. Intermountain Journal of Science 8(2):105–114.

Hull, R. B., D. P. Robertson, and A. Kendra. 2001. Public understanding of nature: A case 

study of local knowledge about “natural” forest conditions. Society and Natural 

Resources 14:325–340.

Hunter, C.J. 1991. Better trout habitat: A guide to stream restoration and management. Montana 

Land Reliance. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 

Huntsinger, L., and P. Hopkinson. 1996. Viewpoint: Sustaining rangeland landscapes: A social 

and ecological process. Journal of Range Management 49(2):167–173.

Huntsinger, L., L. Buttolph, and P. Hopkinson. 1997. Ownership and management changes on 

California hardwood rangelands: 1985 to 1992. Journal of Range Management 50(4):

423–430.

Hurt, G. W., P. M. Whited, and R. F. Pringle, editors. 1998. Field indicators of hydric soils in 

the United States, version 4.0. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Fort 

Worth, Texas. 30 pp.

Iglesias, R. M. R., and M. K. Kothman. 1997. Structure and causes of vegetation change in 

state and transition model applications. Journal of Range Management 50(4)399–408.

Inman, K., D. M. McLeod, and D. J. Menkhaus. 2002. Rural land use and sale preferences in 

a Wyoming County. Land Economics 78(1):72–87. 

Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles of Social Impact Assessment. 

1994. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, NOAA, Fisheries, Washington, D.C. [Available at http://www.iaia.org/

publications.htm]

Jenny, H. 1961. Derivation of state factor equations of soil and ecosystems. Soil Science 

Society of America Proceedings 25:385–388.

Jensen, J. 1998. Mapping social cohesion: The state of Canadian research. Canadian Policy 

Research Network, CPRN Study No. F-03. n.p.

Jobes, P. C. 1987. The disintegration of gemeinschaft social structure from energy 

development: Observations from ranch communities in the western United States. 

Journal of Rural Studies 3(3):219–29. 

Johnson, K. L. 1992. Management forr water quality on rangelands through best management 

practices: The Idaho approach. N.p. in R. J. Naiman, editor. Watershed management: 

Balancing sustainability and environmental change. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

R-8 October 2004

References 

Johnson, R. R., I. T. Haight, and J. M. Simpson. 1977. Endangered species vs. endangered 

habitats: A concept. Pages 68–79 in R. R. Johnson and D. A. Jones, technical 

coordinators. Importance, preservation, and management of riparian habitat: A 

symposium. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. General Technical Report RM-43. 

Jones, A. 2000. Effects of cattle grazing on North American arid ecosystems: A quantitative 

review. Western North American Naturalist 60(2):155–164.

Joyce, L. A. 1989. An analysis of the range forage situation in the United States: 1989–2040. 

U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C. n.p.

Kasarda, J., and M. Janowitz. 1974. Community attachment in mass society. American 

Sociological Review 39:328–39. 

Kallander, H. 1969. Controlled burning on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation. Pages 

241–250 in Proceedings of the 9th Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference. Tall Timbers 

Research Station, Tallahassee, Florida.

Kenna, J. G., G. R. Robinson, Jr., B. Pell, M. A. Thompson, and J. McNeel. 1999. Ecosystem 

restoration: A managerʼs perspective. N.p. in Ecological stewardship: A common 

reference for ecosystem management (3 vols). 

Kinch, G. 1989 Riparian area management: grazing management in riparian areas, Technical 

Reference 1737-4. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO. 

Klyza, C. M. 1994. Ideas, institutions, and policy patterns: Hardrock mining, forestry, and 

grazing policy on United States public lands, 1870–1985. Studies in American Political 

Development 8. n.p.

Knight, R. L., W. C. Gilgert, and E. Marston. 2002. Ranching west of the 100th meridian: 

Culture ecology and economics. Island Press,Washington, D.C. n.p.

Knopf, F. L. 1985. Significance of riparian vegetation to breeding birds across an altitudinal 

cline. Pages 105–111 in R. R. Johnson, C. D. Ziebell, D. R. Patton, P. F. Ffolliott, and 

R. H. Hamre, technical coordinators. Riparian ecosystems and their management in 

reconciling conflicting uses. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. General Technical Report RM-120.

Knopf, F. L., R. R. Johnson, T. Rich, F. B. Sampson, and R. C. Szaro. 1988. Conservation of 

riparian ecosystems in the United States. Wilson Bulletin 100:272–284.

Kovalchik, B. L., and W. Elmore. 1991. Effects of cattle grazing systems on willow 

dominated plant associations in central Oregon. N.p. in Symposium on ecology and 

management of riparian shrub communities, May, Sun Valley, Idaho.

Krueper, D., J. Bart, and T. D. Rich. 2003. Response of vegetation and breeding birds to 

removal of cattle on the San Pedro River, Arizona (U.S.A.). Conservation Biology 

17(2):607–615.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 R-9

References

Laycock, W. A. 1991. Stable states and thresholds of range condition on North American 

rangelands: A viewpoint. Journal of Range Management 44(5):427–433.

Leenhouts, B. 1998. Assessment of biomass burning in the conterminous United States. 

Conservation Biology. 2(1): 1-24.

Leopold, A. 1924. Grass, brush, and timber fire in southern Arizona. Journal of Forestry 

22(6):1–10.

Leopold, A. 1946. Erosion as a menace to the social and economic future of the Southwest. 

Journal of Forestry 44:627–633.

Leopold, L. B. 1994. A view of the river. Harvard Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. n.p.

Liu, Q. A., V. Ryan, H. Aurbach, and T. Besser. 1998. The influence of local church 

participation on rural community attachment. Rural Sociology 63(3):432–450. 

Lorah, P., and R. Southwick. 2003. Environmental protection, population change, and 

economic development in the rural western United States. Population and Environment 

24(3):255–272.

Lybecker, D., B. L. Lamb, and P. D. Ponds. 2002. Public attitudes and knowledge of the 

black-tailed prairie dog: A common and controversial species. BioScience 52(7):

607–13.

Mack, R. N., and J. N. Thompson. 1982. Evolution in steppe with few large, hooved 

mammals. American Naturalist 119:757–773.

McClure, P., and W. Broughton. 2000. Measuring the cohesion of military communities. 

Armed Forces and Society 26(3):473–487.

McGranahan, D. A. 1999. Natural amenities drive rural population change. USDA 

Economic Research Service, Agricultural Economic Report No. 781. n.p.

Meeuwig, R. O., J. D. Budy, and R. L. Everett. 1990. Pinus monophylla Torr. & Frem., 

Singleleaf pinyon. Pages 380–384 in R. M. Burns, B. H. Honkala, technical 

coordinators. Silvics of North America, Vol. 1, Conifers. USDA Forest Service, 

Agricultural Handbook 654. n.p.

Milchunas, D. G., O. E. Sala, and W. K. Lauenroth. 1988. A generalized model of the effects 

of grazing by large herbivores on grassland community structure. American Naturalist 

132:87–106.

Miller, R. F., and J. A. Rose. 1999. Fire history and western juniper encroachment in 

sagebrush steppe. Journal of Range Management 52(6):550–559.

National Research Council, Committee on Rangeland Classification. 1994. Rangeland health: 

new methods to classify, inventory, and monitor rangelands. National Academy Press, 

Washington, D.C. 180p.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

R-10 October 2004

References 

Natural Resources Law Center. 1996. The Watershed Source Book: Watershed-Based 

Solutions to Natural Resource Problems. University of Colorado School of Law, 

Boulder, CO. 330 p.

Nord, M., and J. B. Cromartie. 1997. Migration: The increasing importance of rural natural 

amenities. Choices (Third Quarter):31–32. 

OʼBrien, D. J., and E. W. Hassinger. 1992. Community attachment among leaders in five 

rural communities. Rural Sociology 57(4):521–534.

Ohmart, R. D. 1996. Historical and present impacts of livestock grazing on fish and wildlife 

resources in western riparian habitats. Pages 245–279 in P. R. Krausman, editor. 

Rangeland Wildlife. Society for Range Management, Denver, Colorado.

Ohmart, R. D., and B. W. Anderson. 1982. North American desert riparian ecosystems. 

Pages 433–479 in G. L. Bender, editor. Reference handbook on the deserts of North 

America. Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut.

Paolisso, M. 2002. Blue crabs and controversy on the Chesapeake Bay: A cultural model 

for understanding watermanʼs reasoning about blue crab management. Human 

Organization 61(3):226–239.

Paysen T. E., R. J. Ansley, J. K. Brown, G. J. Gottfried, S. M. Haase, M. G. Harrington, M. G. 

Narog, S. S. Sackett, and R. C. Wilson. 2000. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. General Technical Report 42(2):121–158.

Pellant, M., P. Shaver, D. A. Pyke, and J. E. Herrick. 2000. Interpreting indicators of 

rangeland health. Version 3. USDI, Bureau of Land Management, National Science 

and Technology Center, Denver, Colorado. Technical Reference 1734-6. 118 pp.

Platts, W.S. 1989. Compatability of livestock grazing strategies with fisheries, in practical 

approaches to riparian resource management: an educational workshop, May 8-11, 

1989, Billings, Montana. R.E. Greswell, B.A. Barton and J.L. Kershner (eds.). USDI 

Bureau of Land Management, Billings, MT.

Platts, W.S. 1990. Managing fisheries and wildlife on rangelands grazed by livestock: a 

guidance and reference document for biologists. Nevada Department of Wildlife.

Platts, W. S. 1991. Livestock grazing. Pages 389–423 in W. R. Meehan, editor. Influences 

of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. American 

Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. 

Raish, C., and A. McSweeney. 2001. Livestock ranching and traditional culture in northern 

New Mexico. Natural Resources Journal 41:713–730.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 R-11

References

Rajulton, F., Z. R. Ravanera, and R. Beaujot. 2003. How cohesive are Canadian CMAʼs? 

A measure of social cohesion using the national survey of giving, volunteering, and 

participating. Discussion Paper 03-10, Population Studies Centre, University of 

Western Ontario. [Available at http://www.ssc.uwo.ca/sociology/popstudies/dp/dp03-

10.pdf] 

Rasker, R., and B. Alexander. 2003. Getting ahead in Greater Yellowstone: Making the most 

of our competitive advantage ranches and families. The Sonoran Institute, Tucson, 

Arizona. n.p.

Rasmussmen, C. 1995. Riparian Community and Bank Response to Management: a 

comparison of old and new surveys in the Prineville District, Bureau of Land 

Management, unpublished, September 1995.

Raymond, L. 2002. Localism in environmental policy: New insights from an old case. Policy 

Sciences 35:179–201.

Reeves, G., J.D. Hall, T.D. Roelofs, T.L. Hickman, and C.O. Baker. 1991. Rehabilitating 

and modifying stream habitats, in Influences of forest and rangeland management on 

Salmonid fishes and their habitats. W.R. Meechan (ed.) USDA Forest Service and 

American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Rice, J., R. D. Ohmart, and B. W. Anderson. 1983. Turnovers in species composition of avian 

communities in contiguous riparian habitats. Ecology 64:1444–1455.

Rich, T. D., C. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P. Blancher, G. Butcher, D. Demarest, E. Dunn, C. 

Hunter, E. Inigo-Elias, J. Kennedy, A. Panjabi, D. Pashley, K. Rosenberg, C. Rustay, 

and T. Will. 2003. Partners in Flight. North American Landbird Conservation Plan. 

n.p.

Rinne, J. N., and R. A. Lafayette. 1991. Southwestern riparian–stream ecosystems: Research 

design, complexity, and opportunity. USDA Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. n.p.

Robbins, W.G. and D.W. Wolf, 1994. Landscape and the Intermontane Northwest: an 

environmental history, in Eastside forest ecosystem health assessment: Volume III 

(Assessment) R.L. Everret, Assessment team leader; Paul F. Hessburg, Science team 

leader and tech editor. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 

Portland, OR.

Robison, M. H. 1997. Community input–output models for rural area analysis with an 

example from central Idaho. Annals of Regional Science 31(3):325–352 

Rogers, G. F., and M. K. Vint. 1987. Winter precipitation and fire in the Sonoran Desert. 

Journal of Arid Environments 13:47–52.

Rowe, H. I., E. T. Bartlett, and L. E. Swanson, Jr. 2001. Ranching motivations in two 

Colorado Counties. Journal of Range Management 54(4):314–321.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

R-12 October 2004

References 

Saab, V. A., C. E. Bock, T. Drich, and D. S. Dobkin. 1995. Livestock grazing effects in 

western North America. Pages 311–353 in T. E. Martin and D. M. Finch, editors. 

Ecology and management of neotropical migratory birds: A synthesis and review of 

critical issues. Oxford University Press, London. 

Saab, V. A., and C. R. Groves. 1992. Idahoʼs migratory landbirds: Description, habitats, and 

conservation. Nongame Wildlife leaflet 10. Idaho Wildlife (summer 1992):11–26.

Schlesinger, W. H., J. F. Reynolds, G. L. Cunningham, L. F. Huenneke, W. M. Jarrell, R. A. 

Virginia, and W. G. Whitford. 1990. Biological feedbacks in global desertification. Sc

ience 247:1043–1048.

Schubert, G. H. 1974. Silviculture of southwestern ponderosa pine: The status of our 

knowledge. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental 

Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. Research Paper RM-123. 25 pp.

Shapouri, H. 1991. Sheep production in eleven western States. USDA Economic Research 

Service, Washington, D.C. n.p.

Sharp, Jeff S. 2001. Locating the community field: A study of interorganizational network 

structure and capacity for community action. Rural Sociology 66(3):405–424.

Sheridan, Thomas E. 2001. Cows, condos, and the contested commons: The political ecology 

of ranching on the Arizona–Sonora borderlands. Human Organization 60(2):141–152.

Short, S. D. 2001. Characteristics and production costs of U.S. cow–calf operations. Pages 

5–20 in USDA Economic Research Service, Statistical Bulletin 974-3. 

Simpson, P. K. 1975. The social side of the cattle industry. Agricultural History 49:39–50.

Smith, A. H., and W. E. Martin. 1972. Socioeconomic behavior of cattle ranchers, with 

implications for rural community development in the West. American Journal of 

Agricultural Economics 54:217–225.

Stinchcombe, Arthur L. 1961. Agricultural enterprise and rural class relations. American 

Journal of Sociology 67(2):165–176.

Stinner, William F., Mollie Van Loon, Seh-Woong Chung, and Yongchan Byun. 1990. 

Community size, individual social position, and community attachment. Rural 

Sociology 55(4):494–521.

Society for Range Management. 1999. A glossary of terms used in range management. 

Society for Range Management, Denver, Colorado. 20 pp.

Steffrud, J. 1988. Rio Grande cutthroat trout management in New Mexico. Pages 90–92 in R. 

E. Gresswell, editor. Status and management of interior stocks of cutthroat. American 

Fisheries Society Symposium 4.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 R-13

References

Stoddard, L. A., A. D. Smith, and T.W. Box. 1975. Range Management, 3rd edition. 

McGraw-Hill, New York. 532 pp.

Stringham T., W. Krueger, and P. Shaver. 2003. State and transition modeling: An ecological 

process approach. Journal of Range Management 56(2):106–113

Swetam, T. W., and C. H. Baisan. 1996. Historical fire regime patterns in the southwestern 

United States since AD 1700. Pages 11–32 in C. D. Allen, technical editor. Fire 

effects in southwestern forests: Proceedings of the second La Mesa fire symposium, 

March 29–31, 1994, Los Alamos, New Mexico. USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. General 

Technical Report RM-286.

Tanaka, J. A., and B. J. Gentner. 2001. Response of public land ranchers to policy changes. 

Pages 35–42 in L. A. Torell, E. T. Bartlett, and R. Larranaga, editors. Current issues 

in rangeland resource economics. Proceedings of a symposium sponsored by Western 

Coordinating Committee 55 (WCC-55). New Mexico State University, Agricultural 

Experiment Station Research Report 737 (February).

Tausch, R. J., P. E. Wigand, and J. W. Burkhardt. 1993. Viewpoint: Plant community 

thresholds, multiple steady states, and multiple successional pathways: Legacy of the 

Quaternary? Journal of Range Management 46(5):439–47.

Thomas, J. W., C. Maser, and J. E. Rodiek. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed rangelands. 

N.p. in The Great Basin of southeastern Oregon: Riparian zones. USDA Forest Service 

General Technical Report PNW-80.

Todd, M.and W.Elmore. 1997. Historical changes in western riparian ecosystems. USDI 

Bureau of Land Management, Prineville, OR.

Torell, L. A., and S. A. Bailey. 2000. Is the profit motive an important determinant of 

grazing land use and rancher motive? Selected paper of the Western Agricultural 

Economics Association Annual meeting, Vancouver, B.C. [Available at http://

agecon.lib.umn.edu]

Torell, L. A., N. R. Rimbey, J. A. Tanaka, and S. A. Bailey. 2001. The lack of a profit motive 

for ranching: Implications for policy analysis. Pages 47–56 in L. A. Torell, E. T. 

Bartlett, and R. Larranaga, editors. Current Issues in Rangeland Resource Economics. 

Proceedings of a symposium sponsored by Western Coordinating Committee 55 (WCC55). New Mexico State University, Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report 

737. 

Trewartha, G.T. 1968 An introduction to Climate. 4th edition. McGraw-Hill, New York. 408p. 

Trewartha, G. T., and L. H. Horn. 1980. An introduction to climate. 5th edition. McGrawHill, New York. n.p.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

R-14 October 2004

References 

Trimble, S. W., and A. C. Mendel. 1995. The cow as a geomorphic agent, a critical review. 

Geomorphology 13:233–253.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2003. Summary Tape File 1 (1990) and Summary Tape 1 (2000). 

Washington, D.C. [Available at http://factfinder.census.gov]. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2000. Nonfarm growth and 

structural change alter farmingʼs role in the rural economy. Rural Conditions and 

Trends 10(2):2–6.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2002. Public lands and western 

communities. Pages 18–22 in Agricultural Outlook, June–July.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2003. Rural America at 

a glance, K. Hamrick, editor. Rural Development Research Report RDRR97-1, 

September. 6 pp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau 

of Land Management. 1992. Page 44 in Grazing fee review and evaluation update of 

the 1986 Final Report: A report from the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior. USDA 

Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau 

of Land Management. 1994. Pages 3-6–43-70 in Rangeland Reform ʻ94: Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land 

Mangement, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2003. National range 

and pasture handbook. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1980a. Control of salinity from 

point sources yielding groundwater discharge and diffuse surface runoff in the Upper 

Colorado River Basin. Denver, Colorado. n.p.

U.S. Department of the Interior,Bureau of Land Management. 1980b. Salinity control on 

BLM-administered public lands in the Colorado River Basin: A report to Congress. 

Denver, Colorado. n.p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1981. Terrestrial wildlife 

inventories: Some methods and concepts, TN-349. Denver, CO. np.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1990. Riparian–wetland 

initiative for the 1990ʼs. Washington, D.C. n.p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1993. Riparian area 

management, process for assessing proper functioning condition, TR 1737-9. Denver, 

Colorado. n.p.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 R-15

References

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Rangeland Reform ʻ94: 

Draft environmental impact statement. Washington, D.C. n.p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1996a. Evaluation of Bighorn 

habitat:a landscape approach, TN-395. Denver, CO. np.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1996b. Sampling vegetation 

attributes, TR-1734-4. Denver, CO. np.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1998a. A user guide to 

assessing proper functioning condition and the supporting science for lotic areas, TR 

1737-15. Denver, Colorado. n.p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1998b. Measuring and 

monitoring plant populations, TR-1730-1. Denver, CO. np.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2001a. A guide to managing, 

restoring, and conserving springs in the western United States, TR 1737-17. Denver, 

Colorado. n.p. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2001b. Special status species 

management, manual-6840. , Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2002a. Guidance to address environmental justice in land 

use plans and related National Environmental Policy Act documents, Instruction 

Memorandum 2002-164. Washington, D.C. n.p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2002b. National rangeland 

inventory: monitoring and evaluation report. Denver, CO. [available at www.blm.gov/

nstc/rangeland/rangelandindex.htm] 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2002c. Public land statistics 

2002. Washington, D.C. n.p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2002d. Riparian–wetland 

management, report of accomplishments for fiscal year 2001. Washington, D.C. n.p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2003. Management Information 

System. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2004a. Identifying and linking 

multiple scale vegetation components for conserving wildlife species that depend on 

Big Sagebrush habitat: a case example-Southeast Oregon, TN-417. Denver, CO. np.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 2004b. The foundations for 

managing cultural resources, manual-8100 (draft). Washington, D.C. n.p.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

R-16 October 2004

References 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Birds of conservation 

concern, 2002. Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 99 pp. 

[Online version available at http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/reports/bcc2002.pdf]

Van Tassell, L., L. A. Torell, and N. Rimbey. 2001. Grazing on public lands in the twenty-first 

century. Pages 23–33 in Current issues in rangeland resource economics. Proceedings 

of a symposium by the Western Coordinating Committee 55 (WCC-55). New Mexico 

State University Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report 737. 

Vanclay, F. 2003. Social impact assessment: International principles. International 

Association for Impact Assessment, Fargo, North Dakota. [Available at http://

www.iaia.org/publications.htm]

Vincent, D. W. 1992. The sagebrush/grasslands of the upper Rio Puerco area, New Mexico. 

Rangelands 14(5):268–271.

Walker, P. A. 2003. Reconsidering “regional” political ecologies: Toward a political ecology 

of the rural American West. Progress in Human Geography 27(1):7–24. 

Weaver, H. 1951. Observed effects of prescribed burning on perennial grasses in ponderosa 

pine. Journal of Forestry 49:267–271.

Welsh, M. M. 2002. Beyond designed capture: A reanalysis of the beginnings of public range 

management, 1928–38. Social Science History 26(2):347–391.

Westoby, M., B. Walker, and I. Noy-Meir. 1989. Opportunistic management for rangelands 

not at equilibrium. Journal of Range Management. 42(4):266–274.

Wilkinson, C. 1994. Crossing the 100th next Meridian: Land, water, and the future of the 

West. Island Press, Washington, D.C. n.p.

Wright, H. A. 1986. Effect of fire on arid and semi-arid ecosystems—North American 

continent. Pages 575–576 in Rangelands! A resource under siege. Proceedings of the 

Second International Rangeland Congress. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Wright, H. A., and A. W. Bailey. 1982. Fire ecology: United States and southern Canada. 

John Wiley & Sons, New York. 502 pp.

Wuerthner, G., and M. Matteson, editors. 2002. Welfare Ranching: The Subsidized 

Destruction of the American West. Island Press, Washington, D.C. n.p.

Young, J. A., and R. A. Evans. 1981. Demography and fire history of a western juniper stand. 

Journal of Range Management 34(6)1–505. 

Young, James A.; Allen Fay L. 1997. Cheatgrass and range science: 1930-1950. Journal of 

Range Management. 50(5): 530-535.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACEC—area of critical environmental concern 

AML—appropriate management level

AMP—Allotment Management Plan

ANPR—Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

AO—Authorized Officer

APA—Administrative Procedure Act 

ARC—Association of Rangeland Consultants 

ARPA—Archaeological Resources Protection Act

AUM—animal unit month 

BA—Biological Assessment

BCC—Birds of Conservation Concern 

BE—Biological Evaluation

BLM—Bureau of Land Management

BMP—Best Management Practice

BO—Biological Opinion

BOR—Bureau of Reclamation

CAT—U.S. Forest Service Content Analysis Team

CBD—Center for Biological Diversity

CCC—consult, cooperate, and coordinate 

CEQ—Council of Environmental Quality

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations 

CO—carbon monoxide

CRIA—Cooperative Range Improvement Agreement

CWA—Clean Water Act

DEIS—Draft Environmental Impact Statement

AA-1
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

DQA—Data Quality Act

EA—Environmental Assessment

EIS—Environmental Impact Statement 

EPA—Environmental Protection Agency

ESA—Endangered Species Act

FACA—Federal Advisory Committee Act 

FAR—Functioning-at-Risk

FEIS—Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FLPMA—Federal Land Policy and Management Act

Four Cʼs—Consultation, Cooperation, Communication, and Conservation

FR—Federal Register

FWS—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

FY— Fiscal Year

GAO—General Accounting Office

HMA—Herd Management Area

IBLA—Interior Board of Land Appeals

IC—Idaho Code

IDFG—Idaho Department of Fish and Game

IM—Instruction Memorandum

IMPLAN—Impact Analysis for Planning

LUP—Land Use Plan

MUAC—Multiple Use Advisory Councils

NAAQS—National Ambient Air Quality Standard

NASDA—National Association of State Departments of Agriculture

NASS—National Agricultural Statistics Service

NCBA—National Cattlemenʼs Beef Association

AA-2 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Acronyms and Abbreviations

NCRAC—Northwest California Resource Advisory Council

NEPA—National Environmental Policy Act

NFB—Nevada Farm Bureau

NHPA—National Historic Preservation Act 

NLCS—National Landscape Conservation System

NOA—notice of availability

NOAA—National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOI—notice of intent

NOX—oxides of nitrogen

NRC—National Research Council

NRCS—Natural Resources Conservation Service (formally the SCS)

O3—Ozone

OHA—Office of Hearing and Appeals 

OHV—Off Highway Vehicle

OMB—Office of Management and Budget

ONDA—Oregon Natural Desert Association

PFC—Proper Functioning Condition

PLC—Public Lands Council

PLF—Public Lands Foundation

PLS—Public Land Statistics

PM—particulate matter

PRIA—Public Rangelands Improvement Act

PSD—prevention of significant deterioration

RAC—Resource Advisory Council

RCA—Reserve Common Allotments

REIS—Regional Economic Information System

AA-3
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

RFA—Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

RIP—Range Improvement Permit

RMP—Resource Management Plan

RNA—Research Natural Area

ROD—Record of Decision

S&G—Standards and Guidelines 

SCS—Soil Conservation Service (now the NRCS)

SIP—State Implementation Plan

SRM—Society of Range Management 

SOX—oxides of sulphur

SWL—Sustaining Working Landscapes 

T&E—Threatened or Endangered

TGA—Taylor Grazing Act

TNC—The Nature Conservancy

TNR—temporary, nonrenewable

TR—Technical Reference

U.S.C.—United States Code

USDA—United States Department of Agriculture

USDI—United States Department of the Interior

USFS—U.S. Forest Service

USFWS—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

WGFD—Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

WSA—Wilderness Study Area

AA-4
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-1

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

Appendix A – Proposed Final Regulations

A1. Final Shown with Strike and Replace

DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION: This document shows in strike-replace format the changes being made in 2004 to BLM 

grazing regulations for BLM lands in the western continental United States. This document should not be relied on 

for legal purposes.

Title 43: Public Lands: Interior

PART 4100—GRAZING ADMINISTRATION—EXCLUSIVE OF ALASKA 

Section Contents

Subpart 4100—Grazing Administration—Exclusive of Alaska; General

§ 4100.0-1 Purpose.

§ 4100.0-2 Objectives.

§ 4100.0-3 Authority.

§ 4100.0-5 Definitions.

§ 4100.0-7 Cross reference.

§ 4100.0-8 Land use plans.

§ 4100.0-9 Information collection.

Subpart 4110—Qualifications and Preference

§ 4110.1 Mandatory qualifications.

§ 4110.1-1 Acquired lands.

§ 4110.2 Grazing preference.

§ 4110.2-1 Base property.

§ 4110.2-2 Specifying grazing preferencepermitted use.

§ 4110.2-3 Transfer of grazing preference.

§ 4110.2-4 Allotments.

§ 4110.3 Changes in grazing preferencepermitted use.

§ 4110.3-1 Increasing activepermitted use.

§ 4110.3-2 Decreasing activepermitted use.

§ 4110.3-3 Implementing changesreductions in permittedactive use.

§ 4110.4 Changes in public land acreage.

§ 4110.4-1 Additional land acreage.

§ 4110.4-2 Decrease in land acreage.

§ 4110.5 Interest of Member of Congress.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-2 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

Subpart 4120—Grazing Management

§ 4120.1 [Reserved]

§ 4120.2 Allotment management plans and resource activity plans.

§ 4120.3 Range improvements.

§ 4120.3-1 Conditions for range improvements.

§ 4120.3-2 Cooperative range improvement agreements.

§ 4120.3-3 Range improvement permits.

§ 4120.3-4 Standards, design and stipulations.

§ 4120.3-5 Assignment of range improvements.

§ 4120.3-6 Removal and compensation for loss of range improvements.

§ 4120.3-7 Contributions.

§ 4120.3-8 Range improvement fund.

§ 4120.3-9 Water rights for the purpose of livestock grazing on public lands.

§ 4120.4 Special rules.

§ 4120.5 Cooperation.

§ 4120.5-1 Cooperation in management.

§ 4120.5-2 Cooperation with Tribal, Sstate, county, and Federal agencies.

Subpart 4130—Authorizing Grazing Use

§ 4130.1 Applications.

§ 4130.1-1 Filing applications.

§ 4130.1-2 Conflicting applications.

§ 4130.2 Grazing permits or leases.

§ 4130.3 Terms and conditions.

§ 4130.3-1 Mandatory terms and conditions.

§ 4130.3-2 Other terms and conditions.

§ 4130.3-3 Modification of permits or leases.

§ 4130.4 Authorizationpproval of temporary changes in grazing use within the terms and 

conditions of permits and leases, including temporary nonuse.

§ 4130.5 Free-use grazing permits.

§ 4130.6 Other grazing authorizations.

§ 4130.6-1 Exchange-of-use grazing agreements.

§ 4130.6-2 Nonrenewable grazing permits and leases.

§ 4130.6-3 Crossing permits.

§ 4130.6-4 Special grazing permits or leases.

§ 4130.7 Ownership and identification of livestock.

§ 4130.8 Fees.

§ 4130.8-1 Payment of fees.

§ 4130.8-2 Refunds.

§ 4130.8-3 Service charge.

§ 4130.9 Pledge of permits or leases as security for loans.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-3

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

Subpart 4140—Prohibited Acts

§ 4140.1 Acts prohibited on public lands.

Subpart 4150—Unauthorized Grazing Use

§ 4150.1 Violations.

§ 4150.2 Notice and order to remove.

§ 4150.3 Settlement.

§ 4150.4 Impoundment and disposal.

§ 4150.4-1 Notice of intent to impound.

§ 4150.4-2 Impoundment.

§ 4150.4-3 Notice of public sale.

§ 4150.4-4 Redemption.

§ 4150.4-5 Sale.

Subpart 4160—Administrative Remedies

§ 4160.1 Proposed decisions.

§ 4160.2 Protests.

§ 4160.3 Final decisions.

§ 4160.4 Appeals.

Subpart 4170—Penalties

§ 4170.1 Civil penalties.

§ 4170.1-1 Penalty for violations.

§ 4170.1-2 Failure to use.

§ 4170.2 Penal provisions.

§ 4170.2-1 Penal provisions under the Taylor Grazing Act.

§ 4170.2-2 Penal provisions under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.

Subpart 4180—Fundamentals of Rangeland Health and Standards and Guidelines for

Grazing Administration

§ 4180.1 Fundamentals of rangeland health.

§ 4180.2 Standards and guidelines for grazing administration.

Subpart 4190—Effect of Wildfire Management Decisions

§ 4190.1 Effect of wildfire management decisions.

Authority: 43 U.S.C. 315, 315a-315r, 1181d, 1740. 

Source: 43 FR 29067, July 5, 1978, unless otherwise noted. 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-4 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

Subpart 4100—Grazing Administration—Exclusive of Alaska; General

§ 4100.0-1 Purpose.

The purpose is to provide uniform guidance for administration of grazing on the public lands 

exclusive of Alaska.

§ 4100.0-2 Objectives.

(a) The objectives of these regulations are to promote healthy sustainable rangeland 

ecosystems; to accelerate restoration and improvement of public rangelands to properly 

functioning conditions; to promote the orderly use, improvement and development of the 

public lands; to establish efficient and effective administration of grazing of public rangelands; 

and to provide for the sustainability of the western livestock industry and communities that are 

dependent upon productive, healthy public rangelands. 

(b) These objectives willshall be realized in a manner that is consistent with land use plans, 

multiple use, sustained yield, environmental values, economic and other objectives stated in 43 

CFR part 1720, subpart 1725; the Taylor Grazing Act of June 28, 1934, as amended (43 U.S.C. 

315, 315a–315r); section 102 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 

U.S.C. 170140) and the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 1901(b)(2)). 

§ 4100.0-3 Authority.

(a) The Taylor Grazing Act of June 28, 1934 as amended (43 U.S.C. 315, 315a through 315r);

(b) The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) as 

amended by the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.);

(c) Executive orders that transfer land acquired under the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 

July 22, 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1012), to the Secretary and authorize administration under 

the Taylor Grazing Act.

(d) Section 4 of the Oregon and &California Railroad Land Act of August 28, 1937 (43 U.S.C. 

1181(d));

(e) The Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.); and

(f) Public land orders, Executive orders, and agreements that authorize the Secretary to 

administer livestock grazing on specified lands under the Taylor Grazing Act or other authority 

as specified.

§ 4100.0-5 Definitions.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-5

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

Whenever used in this part, unless the context otherwise requires, the following definitions 

apply:

The Act means the Taylor Grazing Act of June 28, 1934, as amended (43 U.S.C. 315, 315a–

315r).

Active use means the current authorized use, including livestock grazing and conservation 

use. Active use may constitute a portion, or all, of permitted use. Active use does not include 

temporary nonuse or suspended use of forage within all or a portion of an allotment. that 

portion of the grazing preference that is:

(1) Available for livestock grazing use under a permit or lease based on livestock carrying 

capacity and resource conditions in an allotment; and

(2) Not in suspension.

Activity plan means a plan for managing a resource use or value to achieve specific objectives. 

For example, an allotment management plan is an activity plan for managing livestock grazing 

use to improve or maintain rangeland conditions. 

Actual use means where, how many, what kind or class of livestock, and how long livestock 

graze on an allotment, or on a portion or pasture of an allotment. 

Actual use report means a report of the actual livestock grazing use submitted by the permittee 

or lessee.

Affiliate means an entity or person that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control 

with, an applicant, permittee or lessee. The term “control” means having any relationship 

which gives an entity or person authority directly or indirectly to determine the manner in 

which an applicant, permittee or lessee conducts grazing operations. 

Allotment means an area of land designated and managed for grazing of livestock.

Allotment management plan (AMP) means a documented program developed as an activity 

plan, consistent with the definition at 43 U.S.C. 1702(k), that focuses on, and contains the 

necessary instructions for, the management of livestock grazing on specified public lands to 

meet resource condition, sustained yield, multiple use, economic and other objectives. 

Animal unit month (AUM) means the amount of forage necessary for the sustenance of one cow 

or its equivalent for a period of 1 month.

Annual rangelands means those designated areas in which livestock forage production is 

primarily attributable to annual plants and varies greatly from year to year. 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-6 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

Authorized officer means any person authorized by the Secretary to administer regulations in 

this part.

Base property means: (1) Land that has the capability to produce crops or forage that can 

be used to support authorized livestock for a specified period of the year, or (2) water that 

is suitable for consumption by livestock and is available and accessible, to the authorized 

livestock when the public lands are used for livestock grazing.

Cancelled or cancellation means a permanent termination of a grazing permit or grazing lease 

and grazing preference, or free-use grazing permit or other grazing authorization, in whole or 

in part.

Class of livestock means ages and/or sex groups of a kind of livestock.

Conservation use means an activity, excluding livestock grazing, on all or a portion of an 

allotment for purposes of—

(1) Protecting the land and its resources from destruction or unnecessary injury; 

(2) Improving rangeland conditions; or 

(3) Enhancing resource values, uses, or functions. 

Consultation, cooperation, and coordination means interaction for the purpose of obtaining 

advice, or exchanging opinions on issues, plans, or management actions. 

Control means being responsible for and providing care and management of base property and/

or livestock. 

District means the specific area of public lands administered by a District Manager or a Field 

Manager.

Ephemeral rangelands means areas of the Hot Desert Biome (Region) that do not consistently 

produce enough forage to sustain a livestock operation but from time to time may briefly 

produce unusual volumes of sufficient forage to accommodate livestock grazing. 

Grazing district means the specific area within which the public lands are administered under 

section 3 of the Act. Public lands outside grazing district boundaries are administered under 

section 15 of the Act.

Grazing fee year means the year, used for billing purposes, which begins on March 1, of a 

given year and ends on the last day of February of the following year.

Grazing lease means a document that authorizesing grazing use of the public lands under 

Section 15 of the Act.outside an established grazing district. A Ggrazing leases specifiesy

grazing preference and the terms and conditions under which lessees make grazing use during 

the term of the lease. all authorized use including livestock grazing, suspended use, and 

conservation use. Leases specify the total number of AUMs apportioned, the area authorized 

for grazing use, or both. 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-7

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

Grazing permit means a document that authorizesing grazing use of the public lands under 

Section 3 of the Actwithin an established grazing district. A gGrazing permits specifies grazing 

preference and the terms and conditions under which permittees make grazing use during 

the term of the permit.y all authorized use including livestock grazing, suspended use, and 

conservation use. Permits specify the total number of AUMs apportioned, the area authorized 

for grazing use, or both. 

Grazing preference or preference means the total number of animal unit months on public 

lands apportioned and attached to base property owned or controlled by a permittee, lessee, 

or an applicant for a permit or lease. Grazing preference includes active use and use held in 

suspension. Grazing preference holders have a superior or priority position against others for 

the purpose of receiving a grazing permit or lease. This priority is attached to base property 

owned or controlled by the permittee or lessee. 

Interested public means an individual, group or organization that has:

(1)(i) sSubmitted a written request to BLM the authorized officer to be provided an opportunity 

to be involved in the decisionmaking process as to a for the management of livestock grazing 

on specific grazing allotment, and

(ii) Followed up that request bys or has submittinged written comments as to the authorized 

officer regarding the management of livestock grazing on a specific allotment, or otherwise 

participated in the decisionmaking process as to a specific allotment, if BLM has provided 

them an opportunity for comment or other participation; or

(2) Submitted written comments to the authorized officer regarding the management of 

livestock grazing on a specific allotment. 

Land use plan means a resource management plan, developed under the provisions of 43 

CFR part 1600, or a management framework plan. These plans are developed through public 

participation in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C 1701 et seq.) and establish management direction for resource uses of 

public lands. 

Livestock or kind of livestock means species of domestic livestock—cattle, sheep, horses, 

burros, and goats.

Livestock carrying capacity means the maximum stocking rate possible without inducing 

damage to vegetation or related resources. It may vary from year to year on the same area due 

to fluctuating forage production.

Monitoring means the periodic observation and orderly collection of data to evaluate:

(1) Effects of management actions; and

(2) Effectiveness of actions in meeting management objectives.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-8 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

Preference means grazing preference (see definition of “grazing preference”).

Permitted use means the forage allocated by, or under the guidance of, an applicable land use 

plan for livestock grazing in an allotment under a permit or lease and is expressed in AUMs. 

Public lands means any land and interest in land outside of Alaska owned by the United States 

and administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management, 

except lands held for the benefit of Indians.

Range improvement means an authorized physical modification or treatment which is designed 

to improve production of forage; change vegetation composition; control patterns of use; 

provide water; stabilize soil and water conditions; restore, protect and improve the condition 

of rangeland ecosystems to benefit livestock, wild horses and burros, and fish and wildlife. 

The term includes, but is not limited to, structures, treatment projects, and use of mechanical 

devices or modifications achieved through mechanical means. 

Rangeland studies means any study methods accepted by the authorized officer for collecting 

data on actual use, utilization, climatic conditions, other special events, and trend to determine 

if management objectives are being met.

Secretary means the Secretary of the Interior or his authorized officer.

Service area means the area that can be properly grazed by livestock watering at a certain 

water. 

State Director means the State Director, Bureau of Land Management, or his or her authorized 

representative.

Supplemental feed means a feed which supplements the forage available from the public lands 

and is provided to improve livestock nutrition or rangeland management.

Suspension means the temporary withholding from active use, through a decision issued by the 

authorized officer or by agreement, of part or all of the grazing preference specified permitted 

use in a grazing permit or lease. 

Temporary nonuse means that portion of active use that the authorized officer authorizes not 

to be used, withholding, on an annual basis, of all or a portion of permitted livestock use in 

response to an application made by request of the permittee or lessee. 

Trend means the direction of change over time, either toward or away from desired 

management objectives. 

Unauthorized leasing and subleasing means—

(1) The lease or sublease of a Federal grazing permit or lease, associated with the lease 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-9

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

or sublease of base property, to another party without a required transfer approved by the 

authorized officer; 

(2) The lease or sublease of a Federal grazing permit or lease to another party without the 

assignment of the associated base property; 

(3) Allowing another party, other than sons and daughters of the grazing permittee or lessee 

meeting the requirements of §4130.7(f), to graze on public lands livestock that are not owned 

or controlled by the permittee or lessee; or 

(4) Allowing another party, other than sons and daughters of the grazing permittee or lessee 

meeting the requirements of §4130.7(f), to graze livestock on public lands under a pasturing 

agreement without the approval of the authorized officer. 

Utilization means the portion of forage that has been consumed by livestock, wild horses and 

burros, wildlife and insects during a specified period. The term is also used to refer to the 

pattern of such use. 

§ 4100.0-7 Cross reference.

The regulations at part 1600 of this chapter govern the development of land use plans; the 

regulations at part 1780, subpart 1784 of this chapter govern advisory committees; and the 

regulations at subparts B and E of part 4 of this title govern appeals and hearings. 

§ 4100.0-8 Land use plans.

The authorized officer shall manage livestock grazing on public lands under the principle of 

multiple use and sustained yield, and in accordance with applicable land use plans. Land use 

plans shall establish allowable resource uses (either singly or in combination), related levels of 

production or use to be maintained, areas of use, and resource condition goals and objectives 

to be obtained. The plans also set forth program constraints and general management practices 

needed to achieve management objectives. Livestock grazing activities and management 

actions approved by the authorized officer shall be in conformance with the land use plan as 

defined at 43 CFR 1601.0–5(b).

§ 4100.0-9 Information collection.

(a) The information collection requirements contained in Group 4100 have been approved by 

the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and assigned clearance 

numbers 1004–0005, 1004–0019, 1004–0020, 1004–0041, 1004–0047, 1004–0051, and 

1004–0068. The information would be is collected to enable permit the authorized officer 

to determine whether to approve an application to utilize public lands for grazing or other 

purposes. should be approved. Response is required to obtain a benefit. 

(b) Public reporting burden for the information collections are as follows: Clearance number 

1004–0005 is estimated to average 0.33 hours per response, clearance number 1004–0019 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-10 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

is estimated to average 0.33 hours per response, clearance number 1004–0020 is estimated 

to average 0.33 hours per response, clearance number 1004–0041 is estimated to average 

0.25 hours per response, clearance number 1004–0047 is estimated to average 0.25 hours per 

response, clearance number 1004–0051 is estimated to average 0.3 hours per response, and 

clearance number 1004–0068 is estimated to average 0.17 hours per response, including the 

time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining 

the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments 

regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of these collections of information, including 

suggestions for reducing the burden to the Information Collection Clearance Officer (873), 

Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC 20240, and the Office of Management and 

Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, 1004–0005, –0019, –0020, –0041, –0047, –0051, or 

–0068, Washington, DC 20503. 

Subpart 4110—Qualifications and Preference

§ 4110.1 Mandatory qualifications.

(a) Except as provided under §§4110.1–1, 4130.5, and 4130.6–3, to qualify for grazing use on 

the public lands an applicant must own or control land or water base property, and must be: 

(1) A citizen of the United States or have properly filed a valid declaration of intention to 

become a citizen or a valid petition for naturalization; or

(2) A group or association authorized to conduct business in the State in which the grazing use 

is sought, all members of which are qualified under paragraph (a) of this section; or

(3) A corporation authorized to conduct business in the State in which the grazing use is 

sought.

(b) Applicants for the renewal or issuance of new permits and leases and any affiliates must 

be determined by the authorized officer to have a satisfactory record of performance under § 

4130.1-1(b). 

(1) Renewal of permit or lease. (i) The applicant for renewal of a grazing permit or lease, and 

any affiliate, shall be deemed to have a satisfactory record of performance if the authorized 

officer determines the applicant and affiliates to be in substantial compliance with the terms 

and conditions of the existing Federal grazing permit or lease for which renewal is sought, and 

with the rules and regulations applicable to the permit or lease. 

(ii) The authorized officer may take into consideration circumstances beyond the control of 

the applicant or affiliate in determining whether the applicant and affiliates are in substantial 

compliance with permit or lease terms and conditions and applicable rules and regulations. 

(2) New permit or lease. Applicants for new permits or leases, and any affiliates, shall be 

deemed not to have a record of satisfactory performance when— 

(i) The applicant or affiliate has had any Federal grazing permit or lease cancelled for violation 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-11

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

of the permit or lease within the 36 calendar months immediately preceding the date of 

application; or 

(ii) The applicant or affiliate has had any State grazing permit or lease, for lands within the 

grazing allotment for which a Federal permit or lease is sought, cancelled for violation of the 

permit or lease within the 36 calendar months immediately preceding the date of application; or 

(iii) The applicant or affiliate is barred from holding a Federal grazing permit or lease by order 

of a court of competent jurisdiction. 

(c) In determining whether affiliation exists, the authorized officer shall consider all appropriate 

factors, including, but not limited to, common ownership, common management, identity of 

interests among family members, and contractual relationships. 

(cd) Applicants shall submit an application and any other relevant information requested by the 

authorized officer in order to determine that all qualifications have been met. 

§ 4110.1-1 Acquired lands.

Where lands have been acquired by the Bureau of Land Management through purchase, 

exchange, Act of Congress or Executive Order, and an agreement or the terms of the act or 

Executive Order provide that the Bureau of Land Management shall honor existing grazing 

permits or leases, such permits or leases are governed by the terms and conditions in effect 

at the time of acquisition by the Bureau of Land Management, and are not subject to the 

requirements of §4110.1.

§ 4110.2 Grazing preference.

§ 4110.2-1 Base property.

(a) The authorized officer shall find land or water owned or controlled by an applicant to be 

base property (see §4100.0–5) if:

(1) It is capable of serving as a base of operation for livestock use of public lands within a 

grazing district; or

(2) It is contiguous land, or, when no applicant owns or controls contiguous land, 

noncontiguous land that is capable of being used in conjunction with a livestock operation 

which would utilize public lands outside a grazing district.

(b) After appropriate consultation, cooperation, and coordination, the authorized officer 

shall specify the length of time for which land base property shall be capable of supporting 

authorized livestock during the year, relative to the multiple use management objective of the 

public lands.

(c) An applicant shall provide a legal description, or plat, of the base property and shall certify 

to the authorized officer that this base property meets the requirements under paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section. 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-12 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

(d) A permittee’s or lessee’s interest in water previously recognized as base property on 

public land shall be deemed sufficient in meeting the requirement that the applicant control 

base property. Where such waters become unusable and are replaced by newly constructed 

or reconstructed water developments that are the subject of a range improvement permit 

or cooperative range improvement agreement, the permittee’s or lessee’s interest in the 

replacement water shall be deemed sufficient in meeting the requirement that the applicant 

control base property.

(ed) If a permittee or lessee loses ownership or control of all or part of his/her base property, 

the permit or lease, to the extent it was based upon such lost property, shall terminate 

immediately without further notice from the authorized officer. However, if, prior to losing 

ownership or control of the base property, the permittee or lessee requests, in writing, that the 

permit or lease be extended to the end of the grazing season or grazing year, the termination 

date may be extended as determined by the authorized officer after consultation with the new 

owner. When a permit or lease terminates because of a loss of ownership or control of a base 

property, the grazing preference shall remain with the base property and be available through 

application and transfer procedures at 43 CFR 4110.2–3, to the new owner or person in control 

of that base property.

(fe) Applicants who own or control base property contiguous to or cornering upon public land 

outside a grazing district where such public land consists of an isolated or disconnected tract 

embracing 760 acres or less shall, for a period of 90 days after the tract has been offered for 

lease, have a preference right to lease the whole tract.

§ 4110.2-2 Specifying grazing preferencepermitted use.

(a) All grazing permits and grazing leases will specify grazing preferencePermitted use is 

granted to holders of grazing preference and shall be specified in all grazing permits and leases. 

Permitted use shall encompass all authorized use including livestock use, any suspended use, 

and conservation use, except for permits and leases for designated ephemeral rangelands,

where BLM authorizes livestock use is authorized based upon forage availability, or designated 

annual rangelands. Preference includes active use and any suspended use. Active use is 

Permitted livestock use shall be based upon the amount of forage available for livestock 

grazing as established in the land use plan, activity plan, or decision of the authorized officer 

under §4110.3–3, except, in the case of designated ephemeral or annual rangelands, a land use 

plan or activity plan may alternatively prescribe vegetation standards to be met in the use of 

such rangelands.

(b) The grazing preferencepermitted use specified is shall attached to the base property 

supporting the grazing permit or grazing lease.

(c) The animal unit months of grazing preference permitted useare attached to:

(1) The acreage of land base property on a pro rata basis, or
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-13

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

(2) Water base property on the basis of livestock forage production within the service area of 

the water.

§ 4110.2-3 Transfer of grazing preference.

(a) Transfers of grazing preference in whole or in part are subject to the following 

requirements:

(1) The transferee shall meet all qualifications and requirements of §§4110.1, 4110.2–1, and 

4110.2–2.

(2) The transfer applications under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section shall evidence 

assignment of interest and obligation in range improvements authorized on public lands 

under §4120.3 and maintained in conjunction with the transferred preference (see §4120.3–

5). The terms and conditions of the cooperative range improvement agreements and range 

improvement permits are binding on the transferee.

(3) The transferee shall accept the terms and conditions of the terminating grazing permit or 

lease (see §4130.2) with such modifications as he may request which are approved by the 

authorized officer or with such modifications as may be required by the authorized officer. 

(4) The transferee shall file an application for a grazing permit or lease to the extent of the 

transferred preference simultaneously with filing a transfer application under paragraph (b) or 

(c) of this section.

(b) If base property is sold or leased, the transferee shall within 90 days of the date of sale or 

lease file with the authorized officer a properly executed transfer application showing the base 

property and the grazing preferenceamount of permitted use being transferred, in animal unit 

months, attached to that base property.

(c) If a grazing preference is being transferred from one base property to another base property, 

the transferrer shall own or control the base property from which the grazing preference is 

being transferred and file with the authorized officer a properly completed transfer application 

for approval. NIf the applicant leases the base property, no transfer will be allowed without 

the written consent of the owner(s), and any person or entity holding an encumbrance of the 

base property from which the transfer is to be made. Such consent will not be required where 

the applicant for such transfer is a lessee without whose livestock operations the grazing 

preference would not have been established.

(d) At the date of approval of a transfer, the existing grazing permit or lease shall terminate 

automatically and without notice to the extent of the transfer.

(e) If an unqualified transferee acquires rights in base property through operation of law or 

testamentary disposition, such transfer will not affect the grazing preference or any outstanding 

grazing permit or lease, or preclude the issuance or renewal of a grazing permit or lease based 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-14 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

on such property for a period of 2 years after the transfer. However, such a transferee shall 

qualify under paragraph (a) of this section within the 2-year period or the grazing preference 

shall be subject to cancellation. The authorized officer may grant extensions of the 2-year 

period where there are delays solely attributable to probate proceedings.

(f) Transfers shall be for a period of not less than 3 years unless a shorter term is determined by 

the authorized officer to be consistent with management and resource condition objectives.

(g) Failure of either the transferee or the transferrer to comply with the regulations of this 

section may result in rejection of the transfer application or cancellation of grazing preference.

§ 4110.2-4 Allotments.

After consultation, cooperation, and coordination with the affected grazing permittees or 

lessees and, the sState having lands or responsibilityle for managing resources within the area, 

and the interested public, the authorized officer may designate and adjust grazing allotment 

boundaries. The authorized officer may combine or divide allotments, through an agreement or 

by decision, when necessary for the proper and efficient management of public rangelands.

§ 4110.3 Changes in permitted usegrazing preference.

(a) The authorized officer shall periodically review the permitted usegrazing 

preference specified in a grazing permit or lease and shall make changes in the grazing 

preferencepermitted use as needed to:

(1) Mmanage, maintain or improve rangeland productivity;, to

(2) aAssist in making progress towards restoring ecosystems to properly functioning 

conditions;, to

(3) Cconform with land use plans or activity plans;, or, to

(4) cComply with the provisions of subpart 4180 of this part.

(b) The authorized officer will support tThese changes must be supported by monitoring, 

documented field observations, ecological site inventory or other data acceptable to the 

authorized officer.

(c) Before changing grazing preference, the authorized officer will undertake the appropriate 

analysis as required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.). Under NEPA, the authorized officer will analyze and, if appropriate, document 

the relevant social, economic, and cultural effects of the proposed action.

§ 4110.3-1 Increasing permittedactive use.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-15

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

When monitoring or documented field observations show that additional forage is available 

for livestock grazing, either on a temporary or sustained yield basis, BLM may apportion 

Aadditional forage may be apportioned to qualified applicants for livestock grazing use 

consistent with multiple-use management objectives specified in the applicable land use plan.

(a) Additional forage temporarily available. When the authorized officer determines that 

additional forage is temporarily available for livestock, he may authorize its use on a 

nonrenewable basis under § 4130.6-2 in the following order: grazing use may be apportioned 

on a nonrenewable basis.

(1) To permittees or lessees who have preference for grazing use in the allotment where the 

forage is available, in proportion to their active use; and,

(2) To other qualified applicants under § 4130.1-2.

(b) Additional forage available on a sustained yield basis. When the authorized officer 

determines that additional forage is available for livestock grazing use on a sustained yield 

basis, he will apportion it in the following manner:shall

(1) Ffirst, to remove all or a part of the be apportioned in satisfaction of suspension of 

preference ded permitted use to theof permittee(s) or lessee(s) with permits or leases 

authorized to graze in the allotment in which the forage is available; and

(2) Second, if additional forage remains after ending all suspensions, the authorized officer 

will.

(c) After consultation, cooperateion, and coordinateion with the affected permittees or lessees, 

the State having lands or managing resources within the area, and the interested public, and 

additional forage on a sustained yield basis available for livestock grazing use in an allotment 

may be apportioned to permittees or lessees or other applicants, provided the permittee, lessee, 

or other applicant is found to be qualified under subpart 4110 of this part. Additional forage 

shall be apportion ited in the following orderpriority:

(i1) Permittees or lessees in proportion to their contribution or stewardship efforts which result 

in increased forage production;

(ii2) Permittee(s) or lessee(s) in proportion to the amount of their grazing preferencepermitted 

use; and

(iii3) Other qualified applicants under §4130.1–2 of this title.

§ 4110.3-2 Decreasing activepermitted use.

(a) The authorized officer Permitted use may be suspended active use in whole or in part on 

a temporary basis due to reasons specified in § 4110.3-3(b)(1),drought, fire, or other natural 

causes, or to facilitate installation, maintenance, or modification of range improvements.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-16 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

(b) When monitoring or documented field observations show grazing use or patterns of use 

are not consistent with the provisions of subpart 4180, or grazing use is otherwise causing an 

unacceptable level or pattern of utilization, or when use exceeds the livestock carrying capacity 

as determined through monitoring, ecological site inventory or other acceptable methods, 

the authorized officer willshall reduce activepermitted grazing use, or otherwise modify 

management practices, or both. To implement reductions under this paragraph, BLM will 

suspend active use.

§ 4110.3-3 Implementing changesreductions in activepermitted use.

(a) (1) After consultation, cooperation, and coordination with the affected permittee or lessee

and, the sState having lands or managing resources within the area, the authorized officer will 

implement changes in and the interested public, reductions of permitted active use shall be 

implemented through a documented agreement or by a decision. of the authorized officer. The 

authorized officer will implement changes in active use in excess of 10 percent over a 5-year 

period unless:

(i) After consultation with affected permittees or lessees, an agreement is reached to implement 

the increase or decrease in less than 5 years, or

(ii) The changes must be made before 5 years have passed in order to comply with applicable 

law.

(2) Decisions implementing § 4110.3–2 willshall be issued as proposed decisions pursuant to §

4160.1, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.

(b)(1) When the authorized officer determines that the soil, vegetation, or other resources on 

the public lands require immediate protection because of conditions such as drought, fire, flood, 

insect infestation, or when continued grazing use poses an imminent likelihood of significant 

resource damage, aAfter consultation with, or a reasonable attempt to consult with, affected 

permittees or lessees, the interested public, and the sState having lands or responsibilityle

for managing resources within the area, the authorized officer willshall close allotments or 

portions of allotments to grazing by any kind of livestock or modify authorized grazing use 

notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section when the authorized officer 

determines and documents that—

(i) The soil, vegetation, or other resources on the public lands require immediate protection 

because of conditions such as drought, fire, flood, insect infestation; or,

(ii) Continued grazing use poses an imminent likelihood of significant resource damage.

(2) Notices of closure and decisions requiring modification of authorized grazing use may be 

issued as final decisions effective upon issuance or on the date specified in the decision. Such 

decisions willshall remain in effect pending the decision on appeal unless a stay is granted by 

the Office of Hearings and Appeals grants a stay in accordance with 43 CFR 4.21§ 4.472 of 

this title.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-17

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

§ 4110.4 Changes in public land acreage.

§ 4110.4-1 Additional land acreage.

When lands outside designated allotments become available for livestock grazing under the 

administration of the Bureau of Land Management, the forage available for livestock shall be 

made available to qualified applicants at the discretion of the authorized officer. Grazing use 

shall be apportioned under §4130.1–2 of this title.

§ 4110.4-2 Decrease in land acreage.

(a) Where there is a decrease in public land acreage available for livestock grazing within an 

allotment:

(1) Grazing permits or leases may be cancelled or modified as appropriate to reflect the 

changed area of use.

(2) Grazing preferencePermitted use may be cancelled in whole or in part. Cancellations 

determined by the authorized officer to be necessary to protect the public lands will be 

apportioned by the authorized officer based upon the level of available forage and the 

magnitude of the change in public land acreage available, or as agreed to among the authorized 

users and the authorized officer.

(b) When public lands are disposed of or devoted to a public purpose which precludes livestock 

grazing, the permittees and lessees shall be given 2 years’ prior notification except in cases of 

emergency (national defense requirements in time of war, natural disasters, national emergency 

needs, etc.) before their grazing permit or grazing lease and grazing preference may be 

canceled. A permittee or lessee may unconditionally waive the 2-year prior notification. Such 

a waiver shall not prejudice the permittee’s or lessee’s right to reasonable compensation for, 

but not to exceed the fair market value of his or her interest in authorized permanent range 

improvements located on these public lands (see §4120.3–6).

§ 4110.5 Interest of Member of Congress.

Title 18 U.S.C. 431 through 433 (1970) generally prohibits a Member of or Delegate to 

Congress from entering into any contract or agreement with the United States. Title 41 U.S.C. 

22 (1970) generally provides that in every contract or agreement to be made or entered into, 

or accepted by or on behalf of the United States, there shall be inserted an express condition 

that no Member of or Delegate to Congress shall be admitted to any share or part of such 

contract or agreement, or to any benefit to arise thereupon. The provisions of these laws are 

incorporated herein by reference and apply to all permits, leases, and agreements issued under 

these regulations.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-18 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

Subpart 4120—Grazing Management

§ 4120.1 [Reserved]

§ 4120.2 Allotment management plans and resource activity plans.

Allotment management plans or other activity plans intended to serve as the functional 

equivalent of allotment management plans may be developed by permittees or lessees, 

other Federal or State resource management agencies, interested citizens, and the Bureau of 

Land Management. When such plans affecting the administration of grazing allotments are 

developed, the following provisions apply:

(a) An allotment management plan or other activity plans intended to serve as the functional 

equivalent of allotment management plans shall be prepared in careful and considered 

consultation, cooperation, and coordination with affected permittees or lessees, landowners 

involved, the resource advisory council, any State having lands or responsible for managing 

resources within the area to be covered by such a plan, and the interested public. The plan shall 

become effective upon approval by the authorized officer. The plans shall—

(1) Include terms and conditions under §§4130.3, 4130.3–1, 4130.3–2, 4130.3–3, and subpart 

4180 of this part;

(2) Prescribe the livestock grazing practices necessary to meet specific resource objectives;

(3) Specify the limits of flexibility, to be determined and granted on the basis of the operator’s 

demonstrated stewardship, within which the permittee(s) or lessee(s) may adjust operations 

without prior approval of the authorized officer; and

(4) Provide for monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of management actions in achieving 

the specific resource objectives of the plan.

(b) Private and State lands may be included in allotment management plans or other activity 

plans intended to serve as the functional equivalent of allotment management plans dealing 

with rangeland management with the consent or at the request of the parties who own or 

control those lands.

(c) The authorized officer shall provide opportunity for public participation in the planning and 

environmental analysis of proposed plans affecting the administration of grazing and shall give 

public notice concerning the availability of environmental documents prepared as a part of the 

development of such plans, prior to implementing the plans. The decision document following 

the environmental analysis will shall be issued in accordance withconsidered the proposed 

decision for the purposes of subpart § 4160.1 of this part.

(d) A requirement to conform with completed allotment management plans or other applicable 

activity plans intended to serve as the functional equivalent of allotment management plans 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-19

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

shall be incorporated into the terms and conditions of the grazing permit or lease for the 

allotment.

(e) Allotment management plans or other applicable activity plans intended to serve as the 

functional equivalent of allotment management plans may be revised or terminated by the 

authorized officer after consultation, cooperation, and coordination with the affected permittees 

or lessees, landowners involved, the resource advisory council, any State having lands or 

responsible for managing resources within the area to be covered by the plan, and the interested 

public.

§ 4120.3 Range improvements.

§ 4120.3-1 Conditions for range improvements.

(a) Range improvements shall be installed, used, maintained, and/or modified on the public 

lands, or removed from these lands, in a manner consistent with multiple-use management.

(b) Prior to installing, using, maintaining, and/or modifying range improvements on the public 

lands, permittees or lessees shall have entered into a cooperative range improvement agreement 

with the Bureau of Land Management or must have an approved range improvement permit.

(c) The authorized officer may require a permittee or lessee to maintain and/or modify range 

improvements on the public lands under §4130.3–2 of this title.

(d) The authorized officer may require a permittee or lessee to install range improvements on 

the public lands in an allotment with two or more permittees or lessees and/or to meet the terms 

and conditions of agreement.

(e) A range improvement permit or cooperative range improvement agreement does not convey 

to the permittee or cooperator any right, title, or interest in any lands or resources held by the 

United States.

(f) Proposed range improvement projects shall be reviewed in accordance with the 

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq.). The 

decision document following the environmental analysis willshall be issued in accordance with 

considered the proposed decision under subpart§ 4160.1. of this part.

§ 4120.3-2 Cooperative range improvement agreements.

(a) The Bureau of Land Management may enter into a cooperative range improvement 

agreement with a person, organization, or other government entity for the installation, 

use, maintenance, and/or modification of permanent range improvements or rangeland 

developments to achieve management or resource condition objectives. The cooperative range 

improvement agreement shall specify how the costs or labor, or both, shall be divided between 

the United States and cooperator(s).
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-20 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

(b) Subject to valid existing rights, cooperators and the United States will share title to 

permanent range improvements such as fences, wells, and pipelines where authorization is 

granted after [Insert date 30 days after publication of final rule in the FEDERAL REGISTER] 

in proportion to their contribution to on-the-ground project development and construction 

costsAugust 21, 1995 shall be in the name of the United States. The authorization for all new 

permanent water developments such as spring developments, wells, reservoirs, stock tanks, 

and pipelines willshall be through cooperative range improvement agreements. The authorized 

officer will document aA permittee’s or lessee’s interest in contributed funds, labor, and 

materials will be documented by the Bureau of Land Management to ensure proper credit for 

the purposes of §§4120.3–5 and 4120.3–6(c).

(c) The United States willshall have title to nonstructural range improvements such as seeding, 

spraying, and chaining.

(d) Range improvement work performed by a cooperator or permittee on the public lands or 

lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management does not confer the exclusive right to 

use the improvement or the land affected by the range improvement work.

§ 4120.3-3 Range improvement permits.

(a) Any permittee or lessee may apply for a range improvement permit to install, use, maintain, 

and/or modify removable range improvements that are needed to achieve management 

objectives for the allotment in which the permit or lease is held. The permittee or lessee shall 

agree to provide full funding for construction, installation, modification, or maintenance. Such 

range improvement permits are issued at the discretion of the authorized officer.

(b) The permittee or lessee may hold the title to authorized removable range improvements 

used as livestock handling facilities such as corrals, creep feeders, and loading chutes, and to 

temporary structural improvements such as troughs for hauled water.

(c) Where a permittee or lessee cannot make use of the forage available for livestock and an 

application for temporary nonuse or conservation use has been denied or the opportunity to 

make use of the available forage is requested by the authorized officer, the permittee or lessee 

shall cooperate with the temporary authorized use of forage by another operator, when it is 

authorized by the authorized officer following consultation with the preference permittee(s) 

or lessee(s).If forage available for livestock is not or will not be used by the preference 

permittee or lessee, BLM may issue nonrenewable grazing permits and leases to other qualified 

applicants to use it under §§ 4130.6-2 and 4130.4(d), or § 4110.3-1(a)(2). The term “forage 

available for livestock” does not include temporary nonuse that BLM approves for reasons of 

natural resource conservation, enhancement, or protection, or use suspended by BLM under § 

4110.3-2(b). Before issuing a nonrenewable permit or lease, BLM will consult, cooperate and 

coordinate as provided in § 4130.6-2. If BLM issues such a nonrenewable permit or lease, the 

preference permittee or lessee will cooperate with the temporary authorized use of forage by 

another operator.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-21

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

(1) A permittee or lessee shall be reasonably compensated for the use and maintenance of 

improvements and facilities by the operator who has an authorization for temporary grazing 

use.

(2) The authorized officer may mediate disputes about reasonable compensation and, 

following consultation with the interested parties, make a determination concerning the fair 

and reasonable share of operation and maintenance expenses and compensation for use of 

authorized improvements and facilities.

(3) Where a settlement cannot be reached, the authorized officer shall issue a temporary 

grazing authorization including appropriate terms and conditions and the requirement to 

compensate the preference permittee or lessee for the fair share of operation and maintenance 

as determined by the authorized officer under subpart 4160 of this part.

§ 4120.3-4 Standards, design and stipulations.

Range improvement permits and cooperative range improvement agreements shall specify the 

standards, design, construction and maintenance criteria for the range improvements and other 

additional conditions and stipulations or modifications deemed necessary by the authorized 

officer.

§ 4120.3-5 Assignment of range improvements.

The authorized officer shall not approve the transfer of a grazing preference under §4110.2–3 

of this title or approve use by the transferee of existing range improvements, unless the 

transferee has agreed to compensate the transferrer for his/her interest in the authorized 

improvements within the allotment as of the date of the transfer.

§ 4120.3-6 Removal and compensation for loss of range improvements.

(a) Range improvements shall not be removed from the public lands without authorization.

(b) The authorized officer may require permittees or lessees to remove range improvements 

which they own on the public lands if these improvements are no longer helping to achieve 

land use plan or allotment goals and objectives or if they fail to meet the criteria under 

§4120.3–4 of this title.

(c) Whenever a grazing permit or lease is cancelled in order to devote the public lands covered 

by the permit or lease to another public purpose, including disposal, the permittee or lessee 

shall receive from the United States reasonable compensation for the adjusted value of their 

interest in authorized permanent improvements placed or constructed by the permittee or 

lessee on the public lands covered by the cancelled permit or lease. The adjusted value is 

to be determined by the authorized officer. Compensation shall not exceed the fair market 

value of the terminated portion of the permittee’s or lessee’s interest therein. Where a range 

improvement is authorized by a range improvement permit, the livestock operator may elect 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-22 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

to salvage materials and perform rehabilitation measures rather than be compensated for the 

adjusted value.

(d) Permittees or lessees shall be allowed 180 days from the date of cancellation of a range 

improvement permit or cooperative range improvement agreement to salvage material owned 

by them and perform rehabilitation measures necessitated by the removal.

§ 4120.3-7 Contributions.

The authorized officer may accept contributions of labor, material, equipment, or money for 

administration, protection, and improvement of the public lands necessary to achieve the 

objectives of this part.

§ 4120.3-8 Range improvement fund.

(a) In addition to range developments accomplished through other resource management funds, 

authorized range improvements may be secured through the use of the appropriated range 

improvement fund. One-half of the available funds shall be expended in the State and district 

from which they were derived. The remaining one-half of the fund shall be allocated, on a 

priority basis, by the Secretary for on-the-ground rehabilitation, protection and improvement of 

public rangeland ecosystems.

(b) Funds appropriated for range improvements are to be used for investment in all forms 

of improvements that benefit rangeland resources including riparian area rehabilitation, 

improvement and protection, fish and wildlife habitat improvement or protection, soil and 

water resource improvement, wild horse and burro habitat management facilities, vegetation 

improvement and management, and livestock grazing management. The funds may be used 

for activities associated with on-the-ground improvements including the planning, design, 

layout, contracting, modification, maintenance for whichith the Bureau of Land Management 

is responsible, and monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of specific range improvement 

projects.

(c) During the planning of the range development or range improvement programs, the 

authorized officer shall consult the resource advisory council, affected permittees, lessees, and 

members of the interested public.

§ 4120.3-9 Water rights for the purpose of livestock grazing on public lands.

Any right that the United States acquiresd on or after August 21, 1995 to use water on public 

land for the purpose of livestock watering on public land willshall be acquired, perfected, 

maintained and administered under the substantive and procedural laws of the State within 

which such land is located. To the extent allowed by the law of the State within which the land 

is located, any such water right shall be acquired, perfected, maintained, and administered in 

the name of the United States.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-23

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

§ 4120.4 Special rules.

(a) When a State Director determines that local conditions require a special rule to achieve 

improved administration consistent with the objectives of this part, the Director may approve 

such rules. The rules shall be subject to public review and comment, as appropriate, and upon 

approval, shall become effective when published in the Federal Register as final rules. Special 

rules shall be published in a local newspaper.

(b) Where the Bureau of Land Management administers the grazing use of other Federal 

Agency lands, the terms of an appropriate Memorandum of Understanding or Cooperative 

Agreement shall apply.

§ 4120.5 Cooperation.

§ 4120.5-1 Cooperation in management.

The authorized officer shall, to the extent appropriate, cooperate with Federal, State, Indian 

Tribal and local governmental entities, institutions, organizations, corporations, associations, 

and individuals to achieve the objectives of this part.

§ 4120.5-2 Cooperation with Tribal, Sstate, county, and Federal agencies.

Insofar as the programs and responsibilities of other agencies and units of government 

involve grazing upon the public lands and other lands administered by the Bureau of Land 

Management, or the livestock which graze thereon, the Bureau of Land Management will 

cooperate, to the extent consistent with applicable laws of the United States, with the involved 

agencies and government entities. The authorized officer willshall cooperate with Tribal, 

Sstate, county, and Federal agencies in the administration of laws and regulations relating to 

livestock, livestock diseases, sanitation, and noxious weeds including—

(a) State cattle and sheep sanitary or brand boards in control of stray and unbranded livestock, 

to the extent such cooperation does not conflict with the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro 

Act of 1971 (16 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.); and

(b) County or other local weed control districts in analyzing noxious weed problems and 

developing control programs for areas of the public lands and other lands administered by the 

Bureau of Land Management; and

(c) Tribal, state, county, or local government-established grazing boards in reviewing range 

improvements and allotment management plans on public lands.

Subpart 4130—Authorizing Grazing Use

§ 4130.1 Applications.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-24 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

§ 4130.1-1 Filing applications.

(a) Applications for grazing permits or leases (active use and nonuse), free-use grazing permits 

and other grazing authorizations shall be filed with the authorized officer at the local Bureau of 

Land Management office having jurisdiction over the public lands involved.

(b) The authorized officer will determine whether applicants for the renewal of permits and 

leases or issuance of permits and leases that authorize use of new or transferred preference, and 

any affiliates, have a satisfactory record of performance. The authorized officer will not renew 

or issue a permit or lease unless the applicant and all affiliates have a satisfactory record of 

performance.

(1) Renewal of permit or lease.

(i) The authorized officer will deem the applicant for renewal of a grazing permit or lease, and 

any affiliate, to have a satisfactory record of performance if the authorized officer determines 

the applicant and affiliates to be in substantial compliance with the terms and conditions of the 

existing Federal grazing permit or lease for which renewal is sought, and with the rules and 

regulations applicable to the permit or lease.

(ii) The authorized officer may take into consideration circumstances beyond the control of 

the applicant or affiliate in determining whether the applicant and affiliates are in substantial 

compliance with permit or lease terms and conditions and applicable rules and regulations.

(2) New permit or lease or transfer of grazing preference. The authorized officer will deem 

applicants for new permits and leases or transfer of grazing preference, including permits and 

leases that arise from transfer of preference, and any affiliates, to have a record of satisfactory 

performance when --

(i) The applicant or affiliate has not had any Federal grazing permit or lease canceled, in whole 

or in part, for violation of the permit or lease within the 36 calendar months immediately 

preceding the date of application; and

(ii) The applicant or affiliate has not had any state grazing permit or lease, for lands within the 

grazing allotment for which a Federal permit or lease is sought, canceled, in whole or in part, 

for violation of the permit or lease within the 36 calendar months immediately preceding the 

date of application; and

(iii) A court of competent jurisdiction has not barred the applicant or affiliate from holding a 

Federal grazing permit or lease.

(c) In determining whether affiliation exists, the authorized officer will consider all appropriate 

factors, including, but not limited to, common ownership, common management, identity of 

interest among family members, and contractual relationships.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-25

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

§ 4130.1-2 Conflicting applications.

When more than one qualified applicant applies for livestock grazing use of the same public 

lands and/or where additional forage for livestock or additional acreage becomes available, the 

authorized officer may authorize grazing use of such land or forage on the basis of §4110.3–1 

of this title or on the basis of any of the following factors:

(a) Historical use of the public lands (see §4130.2(e));

(b) Proper use of rangeland resources;

(c) General needs of the applicant’s livestock operations;

(d) ApplicantPublic ingress or egress across privately owned or controlled land to public lands

where the grazing use is sought;

(e) Topography; 

(f) Other land use requirements unique to the situation.

(g) Demonstrated stewardship by the applicant to improve or maintain and protect the 

rangeland ecosystem; and

(h) The applicant’s and affiliate’s history of compliance with the terms and conditions of 

grazing permits and leases of the Bureau of Land Management and any other Federal or State 

agency, including any record of suspensions or cancellations of grazing use for violations of 

terms and conditions of agency grazing rules.

§ 4130.2 Grazing permits or leases.

(a) Grazing permits or leases shall be issued to qualified applicants to authorize use on the 

public lands and other BLM-administered lands under the administration of the Bureau of Land 

Management that are designated in land use plans as available for livestock grazing. through 

land use plans. Permits andor leases will shall specify the grazing preferencetypes and levels of 

use authorized, including active andlivestock grazing, suspended use. , and conservation use. 

These grazing permits and leases willshall also specify terms and conditions pursuant to §§

4130.3, 4130.3–1, and 4130.3–2.

(b) The authorized officer shall consult, cooperate and coordinate with affected permittees or 

lessees and, the sState having lands or responsibilityle for managing resources within the area, 

and the interested public beforeprior to the issuingance or renewingal of grazing permits and 

leases.

(c) Grazing permits or leases convey no right, title, or interest held by the United States in any 

lands or resources. 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-26 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

(d) The term of grazing permits or leases authorizing livestock grazing on the public lands 

and other lands under the administration of the Bureau of Land Management shall be 10 years 

unless—

(1) The land is being considered for disposal;

(2) The land will be devoted to a public purpose which precludes grazing prior to the end of 10 

years;

(3) The term of the base property lease is less than 10 years, in which case the term of the 

Federal permit or lease shall coincide with the term of the base property lease; or

(4) The authorized officer determines that a permit or lease for less than 10 years is in the best 

interest of sound land management.

(e) Permittees or lessees holding expiring grazing permits or leases shall be given first priority 

for new permits or leases if: 

(1) The lands for which the permit or lease is issued remain available for domestic livestock 

grazing; 

(2) The permittee or lessee is in compliance with the rules and regulations and the terms and 

conditions in the permit or lease; and

(3) The permittee or lessee accepts the terms and conditions to be included by the authorized 

officer in the new permit or lease.

(f) The authorized officer will not offer, grant or renew grazing permits or leases when the 

applicants, including permittees or lessees seeking renewal, refuse to accept the proposed terms 

and conditions of a permit or lease A permit or lease is not valid unless both BLM and the 

permittee or lessee have signed it.

(g) Temporary nonuse and conservation use may be approved by the authorized officer if 

such use is determined to be in conformance with the applicable land use plans, allotment 

management plan or other activity plans and the provisions of subpart 4180 of this part.

(1) Conservation use may be approved for periods of up to 10 years when, in the determination 

of the authorized officer, the proposed use will promote rangeland resource protection or 

enhancement of resource values or uses, including more rapid progress toward resource 

condition objectives; or

(2) Temporary nonuse for reasons including but not limited to financial conditions or annual 

fluctuations of livestock, may be approved on an annual basis for no more than 3 consecutive 

years. Permittees or lessees applying for temporary nonuse shall state the reasons supporting 

nonuse.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-27

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

(h) Application for nonrenewable grazing permits and leases under §§4110.3–1 and 4130.6–2 

for areas for which conservation use has been authorized will not be approved. Forage made 

available as a result of temporary nonuse may be made available to qualified applicants under 

§4130.6–2.

(gi) Permits or leases may incorporate the percentage of public land livestock use (see 

§4130.3–2(g)) or may include private land offered under exchange-of-use grazing agreements 

(see §4130.6–1).

(hj) Provisions explaining how grazing permits or authorizations may be granted for grazing 

use on state, county or private land leased by the Bureau of Land Management under “The 

Pierce Act” and located within grazing districts are explained in 43 CFR part 4600. 

§ 4130.3 Terms and conditions.

(a) Livestock grazing permits and leases shall contain terms and conditions determined by the 

authorized officer to be appropriate to achieve management and resource condition objectives 

for the public lands and other lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, and to 

ensure conformance with the provisions of subpart 4180 of this part.

(b) Upon a BLM offer of a permit or lease, the permit or lease terms and conditions may be 

protested and appealed under part 4 and subpart 4160.

(c) If any term or condition of a BLM-offered permit or lease is stayed pending appeal, BLM 

will authorize grazing use as provided in § 4160.4 with respect to the stayed term or condition.

§ 4130.3-1 Mandatory terms and conditions.

(a) The authorized officer shall specify the kind and number of livestock, the period(s) of use, 

the allotment(s) to be used, and the amount of use, in animal unit months, for every grazing 

permit or lease. The authorized livestock grazing use shall not exceed the livestock carrying 

capacity of the allotment.

(b) All permits and leases shall be made subject to cancellation, suspension, or modification for 

any violation of these regulations or of any term or condition of the permit or lease.

(c) Permits and leases shall incorporate terms and conditions that ensure conformance with 

subpart 4180 of this part.

§ 4130.3-2 Other terms and conditions.

The authorized officer may specify in grazing permits or leases other terms and conditions 

which will assist in achieving management objectives, provide for proper range management 

or assist in the orderly administration of the public rangelands. These may include but are not 

limited to:
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-28 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

(a) The class of livestock that will graze on an allotment;

(b) The breed of livestock in allotments within which two or more permittees or lessees are 

authorized to graze;

(c) Authorization to use, and directions for placement of supplemental feed, including salt, for 

improved livestock and rangeland management on the public lands;

(d) A requirement that permittees or lessees operating under a grazing permit or lease submit 

within 15 days after completing their annual grazing use, or as otherwise specified in the permit 

or lease, the actual use made;

(e) The kinds of indigenous animals authorized to graze under specific terms and conditions;

(f) Provision for livestock grazing temporarily to be delayed, discontinued or modified to 

allow for the reproduction, establishment, or restoration of vigor of plants, provide for the 

improvement of riparian areas to achieve proper functioning condition or for the protection of 

other rangeland resources and values consistent with objectives of applicable land use plans, or 

to prevent compaction of wet soils, such as where delay of spring turnout is required because 

of weather conditions or lack of plant growth;

(g) The percentage of public land use determined by the proportion of livestock forage 

available on public lands within the allotment compared to the total amount available from 

both public lands and those owned or controlled by the permittee or lessee; and

(h) A statement disclosing the requirement that permittees or lessees shall provide reasonable 

administrative access across private and leased lands to the Bureau of Land Management for 

the orderly management and protection of the public lands.

§ 4130.3-3 Modification of permits or leases.

(a) Following consultation, cooperation, and coordination with the affected lessees or 

permittees and, the sState having lands or responsibilityle for managing resources within the 

area, and the interested public, the authorized officer may modify terms and conditions of the 

permit or lease when the active use or related management practices:

(1) Do are not meeting management objectives specified in:

(i) tThe land use plan,;

(ii) The pertinent allotment management plan or other activity plan;, or

(iii) An applicable decision issued under § 4160.3; management objectives, or

(2) Do is not in conformance towith the provisions of subpart 4180. of this part.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-29

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

(b) To the extent practical, the authorized officer shall provide to affected permittees or lessees, 

States having lands or responsibility for managing resources within the affected area, and the 

interested public an opportunity to review, comment and give input during the preparation of 

reports that evaluate monitoring and other data that the authorized officer are usesd as a basis 

for making decisions to increase or decrease grazing use, or otherwise to change the terms 

and conditions of a permit or lease, the authorized officer will provide the following with an 

opportunity to review and offer input:

(1) Affected permittees or lessees;

(2) States having lands or responsibility for managing resources within the affected area; and

(3) The interested public.

§ 4130.4 ApprovalAuthorization of temporary changes in grazing use within the terms and 

conditions of permits and leases, including temporary nonuse.

(a) Applications for changes in grazing use should be filed with the authorized officer before 

the billing notices for the affected grazing use have been issued. Applications for changes in 

grazing use filed after the billing notices for the affected grazing use have been issued and 

which require the issuance of a replacement or supplemental billing notice shall be subject to a 

service charge under §4130.8–3 of this title. 

(ab) The authorized officer may authorize Ctemporary changes in grazing use within the terms 

and conditions of the permit or lease. may be granted by the authorized officer.

(b) For the purposes of this subpart, “temporary changes in grazing use within the terms and 

conditions of the permit or lease” means temporary changes in livestock number, period of use, 

or both, that would:

(1) Result in temporary nonuse; or

(2) Result in forage removal that --

(i) Does not exceed the amount of active use specified in the permit or lease; and

(ii) Occurs either not earlier than 14 days before the begin date specified on the permit or lease, 

and not later than 14 days after the end date specified on the permit or lease, unless otherwise 

specified in the appropriate allotment management plan under § 4120.2(a)(3); or

(3) Result in both temporary nonuse under paragraph (b)(1) of this section and forage removal 

under paragraph (b)(2) of this section.

(c) The authorized officer will consult, cooperate and coordinate with the permittees or lessees 

regarding their applications for changes within the terms and conditions of their permit or 

lease.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-30 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

(d) Permittees and lessees must may apply if they wish –

(1) Not to use all or a part of their active use by applying for temporary nonuse under 

paragraph (e) of this section;

(2) Tto activate use forage previously authorized asin temporary nonuse; or conservation use or 

to place forage in temporary nonuse or conservation use, and may apply for the

(3) To use of forage that is temporarily available on designated ephemeral or annual ranges.

(e)(1) Temporary nonuse is authorized –

(i) Only if the authorized officer approves it in advance; and

(ii) For no longer than one year at a time.

(2) Permittees or lessees applying for temporary nonuse must state on their application the 

reasons supporting nonuse. The authorized officer may authorize nonuse to provide for:

(i) Natural resource conservation, enhancement, or protection, including more rapid progress 

toward meeting resource condition objectives or attainment of rangeland health standards; or

(ii) The business or personal needs of the permittee or lessee.

(f) Under § 4130.6-2, the authorized officer may authorize qualified applicants to graze forage 

made available as a result of temporary nonuse approved for the reasons described in paragraph 

(d)(2)(ii). The authorized officer will not authorize anyone to graze forage made available as a 

result of temporary nonuse approved under paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section.

(g) Permittees or lessees who wish to obtain temporary changes in grazing use within the 

terms and conditions of their permit or lease must file an application in writing with BLM on 

or before the date they wish the change in grazing use to begin. The authorized officer will 

assess a service charge under § 4130.8-3 to process applications for changes in grazing use that 

require the issuance of a replacement or supplemental billing notice.

§ 4130.5 Free-use grazing permits.

(a) A free-use grazing permit shall be issued to any applicant whose residence is adjacent 

to public lands within grazing districts and who needs these public lands to support those 

domestic livestock owned by the applicant whose products or work are used directly and 

exclusively by the applicant and his family. The issuance of free-use grazing permits is subject 

to §4130.1–2. These permits shall be issued on an annual basis. These permits cannot be 

transferred or assigned.

(b) The authorized officer may also authorize free use under the following circumstances:
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-31

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

(1) The primary objective of authorized grazing use or conservation use is the management of 

vegetation to meet resource objectives other than the production of livestock forage and such 

use is in conformance with the requirements of this part;

(2) The primary purpose of grazing use is for scientific research or administrative studies; or

(3) The primary purpose of grazing use is the control of noxious weeds.

§ 4130.6 Other grazing authorizations.

Exchange-of-use grazing agreements, nonrenewable grazing permits or leases, crossing 

permits, and special grazing permits or leases have no priority for renewal and cannot be 

transferred or assigned. 

§ 4130.6-1 Exchange-of-use grazing agreements.

(a) An exchange-of-use grazing agreement may be issued to an applicant who owns or controls 

lands that are unfenced and intermingled with public lands in the same allotment when use 

under such an agreement will be in harmony with the management objectives for the allotment 

and will be compatible with the existing livestock operations. The agreements shall contain 

appropriate terms and conditions required under §4130.3 that ensure the orderly administration 

of the range, including fair and equitable sharing of the operation and maintenance of range 

improvements. The term of an exchange-of-use agreement may not exceed the length of the 

term for any leased lands that are offered in exchange-of-use. 

(b) An exchange-of-use grazing agreement may be issued to authorize use of public lands to 

the extent of the livestock carrying capacity of the lands offered in exchange-of-use. No fee 

shall be charged for this grazing use.

§ 4130.6-2 Nonrenewable grazing permits and leases.

(a) Nonrenewable grazing permits or leases may be issued on an annual basis, as provided in § 

4110.3-1(a), to qualified applicants when forage is temporarily available, provided this use is 

consistent with multiple-use objectives and does not interfere with existing livestock operations 

on the public lands. The authorized officer shall consult, cooperate and coordinate with affected 

permittees or lessees, and the sState having lands or responsibilityle for managing resources 

within the area, and the interested public prior to , thebefore issuingance of nonrenewable 

grazing permits and leases.

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of § 4.21(a)(1) of this title, when BLM determines that it 

is necessary for orderly administration of the public lands, the authorized officer may make a 

decision that issues a nonrenewable grazing permit or lease, or that affects an application for 

grazing use on annual or designated ephemeral rangelands, effective immediately or on a date 

established in the decision.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-32 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

§ 4130.6-3 Crossing permits.

A crossing permit may be issued by the authorized officer to any applicant showing a need to 

cross the public land or other land under Bureau of Land Management control, or both, with 

livestock for proper and lawful purposes. A temporary use authorization for trailing livestock 

shall contain terms and conditions for the temporary grazing use that will occur as deemed 

necessary by the authorized officer to achieve the objectives of this part. 

§ 4130.6-4 Special grazing permits or leases.

Special grazing permits or leases authorizing grazing use by privately owned or controlled 

indigenous animals may be issued at the discretion of the authorized officer. This use shall 

be consistent with multiple-use objectives. These permits or leases shall be issued for a term 

deemed appropriate by the authorized officer not to exceed 10 years.

§ 4130.7 Ownership and identification of livestock.

(a) The permittee or lessee shall own or control and be responsible for the management of the 

livestock which graze the public land under a grazing permit or lease. 

(b) Authorized users shall comply with the requirements of the State in which the public lands 

are located relating to branding of livestock, breed, grade, and number of bulls, health and 

sanitation.

(c) The authorized officer may require counting and/or additional special marking or tagging of 

the authorized livestock in order to promote the orderly administration of the public lands.

(d) Except as provided in paragraph (f) of this section, where a permittee or lessee controls 

but does not own the livestock which graze the public lands, the agreement that gives the 

permittee or lessee control of the livestock by the permittee or lessee shall be filed with the 

authorized officer and approval received prior to any grazing use. The document shall describe 

the livestock and livestock numbers, identify the owner of the livestock, contain the terms for 

the care and management of the livestock, specify the duration of the agreement, and shall be 

signed by the parties to the agreement. 

(e) The brand and other identifying marks on livestock controlled, but not owned, by the 

permittee or lessee shall be filed with the authorized officer. 

(f) Livestock owned by sons and daughters of grazing permittees and lessees may graze public 

lands included within the permit or lease of their parents when all the following conditions 

exist: 

(1) The sons and daughters are participating in educational or youth programs related to animal 

husbandry, agribusiness or rangeland management, or are actively involved in the family 

ranching operation and are establishing a livestock herd with the intent of assuming part or all 

of the family ranch operation. 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-33

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

(2) The livestock owned by the sons and daughters to be grazed on public lands do not 

comprise greater than 50 percent of the total number authorized to occupy public lands under 

their parent’s permit or lease. 

(3) The brands or other markings of livestock that are owned by sons and daughters are 

recorded on the parent’s permit, lease, or grazing application. 

(4) Use by livestock owned by sons and daughters, when considered in addition to use by 

livestock owned or controlled by the permittee or lessee, does not exceed authorized livestock 

use and is consistent with other terms and conditions of the permit or lease. 

§ 4130.8 Fees.

§ 4130.8-1 Payment of fees.

(a) Grazing fees shall be established annually by the Secretary.

(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section, the calculated fee or 

grazing fee shall be equal to the $1.23 base established by the 1966 Western Livestock Grazing 

Survey multiplied by the result of the Forage Value Index (computed annually from data 

supplied by the National Agricultural Statistics Service) added to the Combined Index (Beef 

Cattle Price Index minus the Prices Paid Index) and divided by 100; as follows:

CF = Calculated Fee (grazing fee) is the estimated economic value of livestock grazing, 

defined by the Congress as fair market value (FMV) of the forage;

$1.23=The base economic value of grazing on public rangeland established by the 1966 

Western Livestock Grazing Survey;

FVI=Forage Value Index means the weighted average estimate of the annual rental charge per 

head per month for pasturing cattle on private rangelands in the 11 Western States (Montana, 

Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, 

and California) (computed by the National Agricultural Statistics Service from the June 

Enumerative Survey) divided by $3.65 and multiplied by 100;

BCPI=Beef Cattle Price Index means the weighted average annual selling price for beef 

cattle (excluding calves) in the 11 Western States (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New 

Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, and California) for November through 

October (computed by the National Agricultural Statistics Service divided by $22.04 per 

hundred weight and multiplied by 100; and

PPI=Prices Paid Index means the following selected components from the National 

Agricultural Statistics Service’s Annual National Index of Prices Paid by Farmers for Goods 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-34 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

and Services adjusted by the weights indicated in parentheses to reflect livestock production 

costs in the Western States: 1. Fuels and Energy (14.5); 2. Farm and Motor Supplies (12.0); 3. 

Autos and Trucks (4.5); 4. Tractors and Self-Propelled Machinery (4.5); 5. Other Machinery 

(12.0); 6. Building and Fencing Materials (14.5); 7. Interest (6.0); 8. Farm Wage Rates (14.0); 

9. Farm Services (18.0).

(2) Any annual increase or decrease in the grazing fee for any given year shall be limited to not 

more than plus or minus 25 percent of the previous year’s fee.

(3) The grazing fee for any year shall not be less than $1.35 per animal unit month.

(b) Fees shall be charged for livestock grazing upon or crossing the public lands and other 

lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management at a specified rate per animal unit 

month.

(c) Except as provided in §4130.5, the full fee shall be charged for each animal unit month of 

authorized grazing use. For the purposes of calculating the fee, an animal unit month is defined 

as a month’s use and occupancy of range by 1 cow, bull, steer, heifer, horse, burro, mule, 5 

sheep, or 5 goats:,

(1) Oover the age of 6 months at the time of entering the public lands or other lands 

administered by BLMthe Bureau of Land Management; 

(2)by any such Wweaned animals regardless of age; or and

(3) by such animals that will bBecomeing 12 months of age during the authorized period of 

use. 

(d) BLM will notNo charge grazing fees shall be made for animals that are less thanunder

6 months of age, at the time of entering BLM-administered public lands or other lands 

administered by the Bureau of Land Management, provided that are the natural progeny of 

animals upon which fees are paid, and , provided they will not become 12 months of age 

during the authorized period of use, nor for progeny born during that period.

(e) In calculating the billing, the authorized officer will prorate the grazing fee is prorated on 

a daily basis and will round charges are rounded to reflect the nearest whole number of animal 

unit months. 

(fd) A surcharge shall be added to the grazing fee billings for authorized grazing of livestock 

owned by persons other than the permittee or lessee except where such use is made by 

livestock owned by sons and daughters of permittees and lessees as provided in §4130.7(f). 

The surcharge shall be over and above any other fees that may be charged for using public land 

forage. Surcharges shall be paid prior to grazing use. The surcharge for authorized pasturing of 

livestock owned by persons other than the permittee or lessee will be equal to 35 percent of the 

difference between the current year’s Federal grazing fee and the prior year’s private grazing 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-35

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

land lease rate per animal unit month for the appropriate State as determined by the National 

Agricultural Statistics Service. 

(ge) Fees are due on due date specified on the grazing fee bill. Payment will be made prior to 

grazing use. Grazing use that occurs prior to payment of a bill, except where specified in an 

allotment management plan, is unauthorized and may be dealt with under subparts 4150 and 

4170 of this part. If allotment management plans provide for billing after the grazing season, 

fees will be based on actual grazing use and will be due upon issuance. Repeated delays in 

payment of actual use billings or noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the allotment 

management plan and permit or lease shall be cause to revoke provisions for after-the-grazingseason billing. 

(hf) Failure to pay the grazing bill within 15 days of the due date specified in the bill shall 

result in a late fee assessment of $25.00 or 10 percent of the grazing bill, whichever is greater, 

but not to exceed $250.00. Payment made later than 15 days after the due date, shall include 

the appropriate late fee assessment. Failure to make payment within 30 days after the due date

may be a is a violation of § 4140.1(b)(1) and mayshall result in action by the authorized officer 

under §§4150.1 and subpart 4160.1–2.

§ 4130.8-2 Refunds.

(a) Grazing fees may be refunded where applications for change in grazing use and related 

refund are filed prior to the period of use for which the refund is requested.

(b) No refunds shall be made for failure to make grazing use, except during periods of range 

depletion due to drought, fire, or other natural causes, or in case of a general spread of disease 

among the livestock that occurs during the term of a permit or lease. During these periods of 

range depletion the authorized officer may credit or refund fees in whole or in part, or postpone 

fee payment for as long as the emergency exists.

§ 4130.8-3 Service charge.

(a) A service charge may be assessed for each crossing permit, transfer of grazing preference, 

application solely for nonuse or conservation use, and each replacement or supplemental 

billing notice except for actions initiated by the authorized officer. Pursuant to Under Section 

304(a) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1734(a)), BLM 

may establish reasonable charges for various services such as application processing. BLM 

may adjust these charges periodically to account for cost changes.calculation of the Bureau 

service charge assessed shall reflect processing costs and shall be adjusted periodically as costs 

change. BLM will inform the public of any changes by publishing a nNotice of changes shall 

be published periodically in the Federal Register.

(b) The following table of service charges is applicable until changed through a Federal 

Register notice as provided in paragraph (a) of this section. Except when the action is initiated 

by BLM, the authorized officer will assess the following service charges:
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-36 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

Action Service Charge Issue crossing permit $75 Transfer grazing preference $145 Cancel and/or replace and/or supplement a grazing fee billing $50

§ 4130.9 Pledge of permits or leases as security for loans.

Grazing permits or leases that have been pledged as security for loans from lending agencies 

shall be renewed by the authorized officer under the provisions of these regulations for a period 

of not to exceed 10 years if the loan is for the purpose of furthering the permittee’s or lessee’s 

livestock operation, Provided, That the permittee or lessee has complied with the rules and 

regulations of this part and that such renewal will be in accordance with other applicable laws 

and regulations. While grazing permits or leases may be pledged as security for loans from 

lending agencies, this does not exempt these permits or leases from the provisions of these 

regulations.

Subpart 4140—Prohibited Acts

§ 4140.1 Acts prohibited on public lands.

The following acts are prohibited on public lands and other lands administered by the Bureau 

of Land Management:

(a) Grazing permittees or lessees performing the following prohibited acts may be subject to 

civil penalties under §4170.1: 

(1) Violating special terms and conditions incorporated in permits or leases; 

(2) Failing to make substantial grazing use as authorized by a permit or lease for 2 consecutive 

fee years. This does, but not includeing approved temporary nonuse, conservation use, or use 

temporarily suspended by the authorized officer. 

(3) Placing supplemental feed on these lands without authorization, or contrary to the terms 

and conditions of the permit or lease.

(4) Failing to comply with the terms, conditions, and stipulations of cooperative range 

improvement agreements or range improvement permits; 

(5) Refusing to install, maintain, modify, or remove range improvements when so directed by 

the authorized officer. 

(6) Unauthorized leasing or subleasing as defined in this part. 

(b) Persons performing the following prohibited acts related to rangelands shall be on BLMadministered lands are subject to civil and criminal penalties set forth at §§4170.1 and 4170.2: 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-37

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

(1) Allowing livestock or other privately owned or controlled animals to graze on or be driven 

across these lands:

(i) Without a permit or lease, and an annualor other grazing use authorization (see § 4130.6) 

and timely payment of grazing fees. For the purposes of this paragraph, grazing bills for which 

payment has not been received do not constitute grazing authorization. 

(ii) In violation of the terms and conditions of a permit, lease, or other grazing use 

authorization including, but not limited to, livestock in excess of the number authorized;

(iii) In an area or at a time different from that authorized; or

(iv) Failing to comply with a requirement under §4130.7(c) of this title.

(2) Installing, using, maintaining, modifying, and/or removing range improvements without 

authorization; 

(3) Cutting, burning, spraying, destroying, or removing vegetation without authorization; 

(4) Damaging or removing U.S. property without authorization; 

(5) Molesting, harassing, injuring, poisoning, or causing death of livestock authorized to graze 

on these lands and removing authorized livestock without the owner’s consent; 

(6) Littering; 

(7) Interfering with lawful uses or users including obstructing free transit through or over 

public lands by force, threat, intimidation, signs, barrier or locked gates; 

(8) Knowingly or willfully making a false statement or representation in base property 

certifications, grazing applications, range improvement permit applications, cooperative range 

improvement agreements, actual use reports and/or amendments thereto; 

(9) Failing to pay any fee required by the authorized officer pursuant to this part, or making 

payment for grazing use of public lands with insufficiently funded checks on a repeated and 

willful basis; 

(10) Failing to reclaim and repair any lands, property, or resources when required by the 

authorized officer; 

(11) Failing to reclose any gate or other entry during periods of livestock use. 

(c) (1) A grazing permittee or lessee Pperformingance of any of the prohibited acts listed in 

paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2) or (c)(3) of this section on an allotment where he is authorized to 

graze under a BLM permit or lease may be subject to civil penalties set forth at § 4170.1-1, if:
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-38 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

where public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management is involved or affected,(i) 

The permittee or lessee performs the prohibited act while engaged in activities the violation is

related to grazing use authorized by hisa permit or lease;

(ii) issued by the Bureau of Land Management, and tThe permittee or lessee has been 

convicted or otherwise found to be in violation of any of these laws or regulations by a court 

or by final determination of an agency charged with the administration of these laws or 

regulations;, and

(iii) Nno further appeals are outstanding, constitutes a prohibited act that may be subject to the 

civil penalties set forth at §4170.1–1. 

(21) Violation of Federal or State laws or regulations pertaining to the: 

(i) Placement of poisonous bait or hazardous devices designed for the destruction of wildlife; 

(ii) Application or storage of pesticides, herbicides, or other hazardous materials; 

(iii) Alteration or destruction of natural stream courses without authorization; 

(iv) Pollution of water sources; 

(v) Illegal take, destruction, or harassment, or aiding and abetting in the illegal take, destruction,

or harassment of fish and wildlife resources; and 

(vi) Illegal removal or destruction of archeological or cultural resources; 

(32) (i) Violation of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), 

Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), or any provision of part 4700 of this chapter 

concerning the protection and management of wild free-roaming horses and burros; or 

(ii3) Violation of State livestock laws or regulations relating to the branding of livestock; breed, 

grade, and number of bulls; health and sanitation requirements; and violating State, county, or 

local laws regarding the straying of livestock from permitted public land grazing areas onto areas 

that have been formally closed to open range grazing. 

Subpart 4150—Unauthorized Grazing Use

§ 4150.1 Violations.

Violation of §4140.1(b)(1) constitutes unauthorized grazing use. 

(a) The authorized officer shall determine whether a violation is nonwillful, willful, or repeated 

willful. 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-39

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

(b) Violators shall be liable in damages to the United States for the forage consumed by their 

livestock, for injury to Federal property caused by their unauthorized grazing use, and for 

expenses incurred in impoundment and disposal of their livestock, and may be subject to civil 

penalties or criminal sanction for such unlawful acts.

§ 4150.2 Notice and order to remove.

(a) Whenever it appears that a violation exists and the owner of the unauthorized livestock is 

known, written notice of unauthorized use and order to remove livestock by a specified date 

shall be served upon the alleged violator or the agent of record, or both, by certified mail or 

personal delivery. The written notice shall also allow a specified time from receipt of notice 

for the alleged violator to show that there has been no violation or to make settlement under 

§4150.3.

(b) Whenever a violation has been determined to be nonwillful and incidental, the authorized 

officer shall notify the alleged violator that the violation must be corrected, and how it can be 

settled, based upon the discretion of the authorized officer. 

(c) When neither the owner of the unauthorized livestock nor his agent is known, the 

authorized officer may proceed to impound the livestock under §4150.4.

(d) The authorized officer may temporarily close areas to grazing by specified kinds or class of 

livestock for a period not to exceed 12 months when necessary to abate unauthorized grazing 

use. Such notices of closure may be issued as final decisions effective upon issuance or on the 

date specified in the decision and shall remain in effect pending the decision on appeal unless a 

stay is granted by the Office of Hearings and Appeals in accordance with 43 CFR 4.214.472(d). 

§ 4150.3 Settlement.

Where violations are repeated willful, the authorized officer shall take action under §4170.1–

1(b) of this title. The amount due for settlement shall include the value of forage consumed as 

determined in accordance with paragraph (a), (b), or (c) of this section. Settlement for willful 

and repeated willful violations shall also include the full value for all damages to the public 

lands and other property of the United States; and all reasonable expenses incurred by the 

United States in detecting, investigating, resolving violations, and livestock impoundment 

costs.

(a) For nonwillful violations: The value of forage consumed as determined by the average 

monthly rate per AUM for pasturing livestock on privately owned land (excluding irrigated 

land) in each State as published annually by the Department of Agriculture. The authorized 

officer may approve nonmonetary settlement of unauthorized use only when the authorized 

officer determines that each of the following conditions is satisfied: 

(1) Evidence shows that the unauthorized use occurred through no fault of the livestock 

operator; 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-40 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

(2) The forage use is insignificant; 

(3) The public lands have not been damaged; and 

(4) Nonmonetary settlement is in the best interest of the United States. 

(b) For willful violations: Twice the value of forage consumed as determined in paragraph (a) 

of this section.

(c) For repeated willful violations: Three times the value of the forage consumed as determined 

in paragraph (a) of this section.

(d) Payment made under this section does not relieve the alleged violator of any criminal 

liability under Federal or State law.

(e) Violators shall not be authorized to make grazing use on the public lands administered by 

the Bureau of Land Management until any amount found to be due the United States under this 

section has been paid. The authorized officer may take action under subpart §4160–1 of this 

title to cancel or suspend grazing authorizations or to deny approval of applications for grazing 

use until such amounts have been paid. The proposed decision shall include a demand for 

payment.

(f) Upon a stay of a decision issued under paragraph (e) of this section, the authorized officer 

will allow a permittee or lessee to graze in accordance with this part 4100 pending completion 

of the administrative appeal process.

§ 4150.4 Impoundment and disposal.

Unauthorized livestock remaining on the public lands or other lands under Bureau of Land 

Management control, or both, after the date set forth in the notice and order to remove sent 

under §4150.2 may be impounded and disposed of by the authorized officer as provided herein.

§ 4150.4-1 Notice of intent to impound.

(a) A written notice of intent to impound shall be sent by certified mail or personally delivered 

to the owner or his agent, or both. The written notice shall indicate that unauthorized livestock 

on the specified public lands or other lands under Bureau of Land Management control, or 

both, may be impounded any time after 5 days from delivery of the notice. 

(b) Where the owner and his agent are unknown, or where both a known owner and his agent 

refuses to accept delivery, a notice of intent to impound shall be published in a local newspaper 

and posted at the county courthouse and a post office near the public land involved. The notice 

shall indicate that unauthorized livestock on the specified public lands or other lands under 

Bureau of Land Management control, or both, may be impounded any time after 5 days from 

publishing and posting the notice.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-41

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

§ 4150.4-2 Impoundment.

After 5 days from delivery of the notice under §4150.4–1(a) of this title or any time after 5 

days from publishing and posting the notice under §4150.4–1(b) of this title, unauthorized 

livestock may be impounded without further notice any time within the 12-month period 

following the effective date of the notice.

§ 4150.4-3 Notice of public sale.

Following the impoundment of livestock under this subpart the livestock may be disposed of 

by the authorized officer under these regulations or, if a suitable agreement is in effect, they 

may be turned over to the State for disposal. Any known owners or agents, or both, shall be 

notified in writing by certified mail or by personal delivery of the sale and the procedure by 

which the impounded livestock may be redeemed prior to the sale.

§ 4150.4-4 Redemption.

Any owner or his agent, or both, or lien-holder of record of the impounded livestock may 

redeem them under these regulations or, if a suitable agreement is in effect, in accordance with 

State law, prior to the time of sale upon settlement with the United States under §4150.3 or 

adequate showing that there has been no violation.

§ 4150.4-5 Sale.

If the livestock are not redeemed on or before the date and time fixed for their sale, they shall 

be offered at public sale to the highest bidder by the authorized officer under these regulations 

or, if a suitable agreement is in effect, by the State. If a satisfactory bid is not received, the 

livestock may be reoffered for sale, condemned and destroyed or otherwise disposed of under 

these regulations, or if a suitable agreement is in effect, in accordance with State Law.

Subpart 4160—Administrative Remedies

§ 4160.1 Proposed decisions.

(a) Proposed decisions shall be served on any affected applicant, permittee or lessee, and any 

agent and lien holder of record, who is affected by the proposed actions, terms or conditions, or 

modifications relating to applications, permits and agreements (including range improvement 

permits) or leases, by certified mail or personal delivery. Copies of proposed decisions shall 

also be sent to the interested public. 

(b) Proposed decisions shall state the reasons for the action and shall reference the pertinent 

terms, conditions and the provisions of applicable regulations. As appropriate, decisions shall 

state the alleged violations of specific terms and conditions and provisions of these regulations 

alleged to have been violated, and shall state the amount due under §§4130.8 and 4150.3 and 

the action to be taken under §4170.1. 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-42 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

(c) The authorized officer may elect not to issue a proposed decision prior to a final decision 

where the authorized officer has made a determination in accordance with § 4110.3–3(b), § 

4130.6-2(b), or § 4150.2(d), or § 4190.1(a).

(d) A biological assessment or biological evaluation prepared by BLM for purposes of an 

Endangered Species Act consultation or conference is not a decision for purposes of protest 

and appeal.

§ 4160.2 Protests.

Any applicant, permittee, lessee or other interested public may protest the proposed decision 

under §4160.1 of this title in person or in writing to the authorized officer within 15 days after 

receipt of such decision.

§ 4160.3 Final decisions.

(a) In the absence of a protest, the proposed decision will become the final decision of the 

authorized officer without further notice unless otherwise provided in the proposed decision. 

(b) Upon the timely filing of a protest, the authorized officer shall reconsider her/his proposed 

decision in light of the protestant’s statement of reasons for protest and in light of other 

information pertinent to the case. At the conclusion to her/his review of the protest, the 

authorized officer shall serve her/his final decision on the protestant or her/his agent, or both, 

and the interested public.

(c) A period of 30 days following receipt of the final decision, or 30 days after the date the 

proposed decision becomes final as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, is provided for 

filing an appeal and petition for stay of the decision pending final determination on appeal. A 

decision will not be effective during the 30-day appeal period, except as provided in paragraph 

(f) of this section. See §§4.21 and 4.470 of this title for general provisions of the appeal and 

stay processes. 

(d) When the Office of Hearings and Appeals stays a final decision of the authorized officer 

regarding an application for grazing authorization, an applicant who was granted grazing use 

in the preceding year may continue at that level of authorized grazing use during the time 

the decision is stayed, except where grazing use in the preceding year was authorized on a 

temporary basis under §4110.3–1(a). Where an applicant had no authorized grazing use during 

the previous year, or the application is for designated ephemeral or annual rangeland grazing 

use, the authorized grazing use shall be consistent with the final decision pending the Office of 

Hearings and Appeals final determination on the appeal. 

(e) When the Office of Hearings and Appeals stays a final decision of the authorized officer to 

change the authorized grazing use, the grazing use authorized to the permittee or lessee during 

the time that the decision is stayed shall not exceed the permittee’s or lessee’s authorized use in 

the last year during which any use was authorized. 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-43

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

(cf) Notwithstanding the provisions of §4.21(a) of this title pertaining to the period during 

which a final decision will not be in effect, the authorized officer may provide that the final 

decision shall be effective upon issuance or on a date established in the decision and shall 

remain in effect pending the decision on appeal unless a stay is granted by the Office of 

Hearings and Appeals when the authorized officer has made a determination in accordance 

with § 4110.3–3(b), § 4130.6-2(b), or § 4150.2(d), or § 4190.1(a). Nothing in this section shall 

affect the authority of the Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals, or the Interior Board 

of Land Appeals, or an administrative law judge to provide that the decision becomes effective 

immediately as provided in place decisions in full force and effect as provided in §§ 4.21(a)(1) 

and 4.479(c) of this title. 

§ 4160.4 Appeals.

(a) Those who wish to Any person whose interest is adversely affected by a final decision of 

the authorized officer may appeal or seek a stay of a BLM thegrazing decision for the purpose 

of a hearing before an administrative law judge bymust following the requirements set forthout

in § 4.470 et seq. of this title. TAs stated in that part, the appeal or petition for stay must be 

filed with the BLM office that issued the decision within 30 days after its receipt of the final 

decision or within 30 days after the date the proposed decision becomes final as provided in 

§4160.3(a). Appeals and petitions for a stay of the decision shall be filed at the office of the 

authorized officer. The authorized officer shall promptly transmit the appeal and petition for 

stay and the accompanying administrative record to ensure their timely arrival at the Office of 

Hearings and Appeals. 

(b) When OHA stays all or a portion of a BLM grazing decision that affects a grazing permit or 

lease, BLM will authorize grazing use as follows:

(1) When OHA stays implementation of all or part of a grazing decision that cancels or 

suspends a permit or lease, changes any terms or conditions of a permit or lease during its 

current term, or renews a permit or lease, BLM will continue to authorize grazing under the 

permit or lease, or the relevant term or condition thereof, that was in effect immediately before 

the decision was issued, subject to any relevant provisions of the stay order. This continued 

authorization is not subject to protest or appeal.

(2) When OHA stays implementation of a grazing decision that denies issuance of a permit or 

lease to a preference transferee, BLM will issue the preference applicant a permit or lease with 

terms and conditions that are the same as the terms and conditions of the most recent permit or 

lease applicable to the allotment or portion of the allotment in question, subject to any relevant 

provisions of the stay order. This temporary permit will expire upon the resolution of the 

administrative appeal. Issuance of the temporary permit is not a decision subject to protest or 

appeal.

(3) When OHA stays implementation of a grazing decision that offers a permit or lease to a 

preference transferee with terms and conditions different from terms and conditions of the most 

recent permit or lease applicable to the allotment or portion of the allotment in question, BLM 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-44 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

will issue the preference applicant a permit or lease that, with respect to any stayed term and 

condition, is the same as the terms and conditions of the most recent permit or lease applicable 

to the allotment or portion of the allotment in question, subject to any relevant provisions of 

the stay order. This temporary permit will expire upon resolution of the administrative appeal. 

Issuance of the temporary permit is not a decision subject to protest and appeal.

Subpart 4170—Penalties

§ 4170.1 Civil penalties.

§ 4170.1-1 Penalty for violations.

(a) The authorized officer may withhold issuance of a grazing permit or lease, or suspend 

the grazing use authorized under a grazing permit or lease, in whole or in part, or cancel a 

grazing permit or lease and grazing preference, or a free use grazing permit or other grazing 

authorization, in whole or in part, under subpart 4160 of this title, for violation by a permittee 

or lessee of any of the provisions of this part.

(b) The authorized officer shall suspend the grazing use authorized under a grazing permit, in 

whole or in part, or shall cancel a grazing permit or lease and grazing preference, in whole or 

in part, under subpart 4160 of this title for repeated willful violation by a permittee or lessee of 

§4140.1(b)(1) of this title. 

(c) Whenever a nonpermittee or nonlessee violates §4140.1(b) of this title and has not made 

satisfactory settlement under §4150.3 of this title the authorized officer shall refer the matter to 

proper authorities for appropriate legal action by the United States against the violator.

(d) Any person found to have violated the provisions of §4140.1(a)(6) after August 21, 1995, 

shall be required to pay twice the value of forage consumed as determined by the average 

monthly rate per AUM for pasturing livestock on privately owned land (excluding irrigated 

land) in each State as supplied annually by the National Agricultural Statistics Service, and all 

reasonable expenses incurred by the United States in detecting, investigating, and resolving 

violations. If the dollar equivalent value is not received by the authorized officer within 30 days 

of receipt of the final decision, the grazing permit or lease shall be cancelled. Such payment 

shall be in addition to any other penalties the authorized officer may impose under paragraph 

(a) of this section.

§ 4170.1-2 Failure to use.

If a permittee or lessee has, for 2 consecutive grazing fee years, failed to make substantial use 

as authorized in the lease or permit, or has failed to maintain or use water base property in 

the grazing operation, the authorized officer, after consultation, coordination, and cooperation 

with the permittee or lessee and any lienholder of record, may cancel whatever amount of 

activepermitted use the permittee or lessee has failed to use. 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-45

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

§ 4170.2 Penal provisions.

§ 4170.2-1 Penal provisions under the Taylor Grazing Act.

Under section 2 of the Act any person who willfully commits an act prohibited under 

§4140.1(b), or who willfully violates approved special rules and regulations is punishable by a 

fine of not more than $500. 

§ 4170.2-2 Penal provisions under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.

Under section 303(a) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 

et seq.), any person who knowingly and willfully commits an act prohibited under §4140.1(b) 

or who knowingly and willfully violates approved special rules and regulations may be 

brought before a designated U.S. magistrate and is punishable by a fine in accordance with the 

applicable provisions of Title 18 of the United States Code, or imprisonment for no more than 

12 months, or both. 

Subpart 4180—Fundamentals of Rangeland Health and Standards and Guidelines for Grazing 

Administration

§ 4180.1 Fundamentals of rangeland health.

Where standards and guidelines have not been established under § 4180.2(b), and the 

authorized officer determines that grazing management needs to be modified to assist in 

achieving the following conditions, tThe authorized officer willshall take appropriate action 

under subparts 4110, 4120, 4130, and 4160 of this part as soon as practicable but not later than 

the start of the next grazing year that follows BLM’s completion of relevant and applicable 

requirements of laws and regulations, and the consultation requirements of §§ 4110.3-3 and 

4130.3-3:

upon determining that existing grazing management needs to be modified to ensure that the 

following conditions exist. 

(a) Watersheds are in, or are making significant progress toward, properly functioning physical 

condition, including their upland, riparian-wetland, and aquatic components; soil and plant 

conditions support infiltration, soil moisture storage, and the release of water that are in balance 

with climate and landform and maintain or improve water quality, water quantity, and timing 

and duration of flow. 

(b) Ecological processes, including the hydrologic cycle, nutrient cycle, and energy flow, are 

maintained, or there is significant progress toward their attainment, in order to support healthy 

biotic populations and communities. 

(c) Water quality complies with State water quality standards and achieves, or is making 

significant progress toward achieving, established BLM management objectives such as 

meeting wildlife needs. 
Proposed revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands Appendix A 

Bureau of Land Management FES-04-39 Proposed Final Regulations

October 2004 A-46

(d) Habitats are, or are making significant progress toward being, restored or maintained for Federal 

threatened and endangered species, Federal pProposed or , Category 1 and 2 Federal candidate 

threatened and endangered species and other special status species. 

§ 4180.2 Standards and guidelines for grazing administration. 

(a) The Bureau of Land Management State Director, in consultation with the affected resource advisory councils 

where they exist, will identify the geographical area for which standards and guidelines are developed. Standards 

and guidelines will be developed for an entire state, or an area encompassing portions of more than 1 state, unless 

the Bureau of Land Management State Director, in consultation with the resource advisory councils, determines 

that the characteristics of an area are unique, and the rangelands within the area could not be adequately protected 

using standards and guidelines developed on a broader geographical scale. 

(b) The Bureau of Land Management State Director, in consultation with affected Bureau of Land Management 

resource advisory councils, shall develop and amend State or regional standards and guidelines. The Bureau of 

Land Management State Director will also coordinate with Indian tribes, other State and Federal land 

management agencies responsible for the management of lands and resources within the region or area under 

consideration, and the public in the development of State or regional standards and guidelines. Standards and 

guidelines developed by the Bureau of Land Management State Director must provide for conformance with the 

fundamentals of §4180.1. State or regional standards or guidelines developed by the Bureau of Land Management 

State Director may not be implemented prior to their approval by the Secretary. Standards and guidelines made 

effective under paragraph (f) of this section may be modified by the Bureau of Land Management State Director, 

with approval of the Secretary, to address local ecosystems and management practices. 

(c) )(1) If a standards assessment indicates to the authorized officer that the 

rangeland is failing to achieve standards or that management practices do 

not conform to the guidelines, then the authorized officer will use

monitoring data will be used by the authorized officer to identify the 

significant factors that contribute to failing to achieve the standards or 

to conform with the guidelines.If The authorized officer shall take appropriate action as soon as 

practicable but not later than the start of the next grazing year upon determinesing through standards assessment 

and monitoring that existing grazing management practices or levels of grazing use on public lands are significant 

factors in failing to achieve the standards and conform with the guidelines that are made effective under this 

section, the authorized officer will, in compliance with applicable laws and with the consultation requirements of 

this part, formulate, propose, and analyze appropriate action to address the failure to meet standards or to conform 

to the guidelines. 

(i) Parties will execute a documented agreement and/or the authorized officer will issue a final decision on the 

appropriate action under § 4160.3 as soon as practicable, but not later than 24 months after a determination.

(ii) BLM may extend the deadline for meeting the requirements established in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section 

when legally required processes that are the responsibility of another agency prevent completion of all legal 

obligations within the 24-month timeframe. BLM will make a decision as soon as practicable after the legal 

requirements are met.

(2) Upon executing the agreement and/or in the absence of a stay of the final decision, the authorized 

officer will implement the appropriate action as soon as practicable, but not later than the start of the 

next grazing year.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-47

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

(2) Upon executing the agreement and/or in the absence of a stay of the final decision, the 

authorized officer will implement the appropriate action as soon as practicable, but not later 

than the start of the next grazing year.

(3) The authorized officer will take appropriate action as defined in this paragraph by the 

deadlines established in paragraph (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section. Appropriate action means 

implementing actions pursuant to subparts 4110, 4120, 4130, and 4160 of this part that will 

result in significant progress toward fulfillment of the standards and significant progress toward 

conformance with the guidelines. Practices and activities subject to standards and guidelines 

include the development of grazing-related portions of activity plans, establishment of terms 

and conditions of permits, leases and other grazing authorizations, and range improvement 

activities such as vegetation manipulation, fence construction and development of water. 

(d) At a minimum, sState andor regional standards developed or revised under paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section must address the following: 

(1) Watershed function; 

(2) Nutrient cycling and energy flow; 

(3) Water quality; 

(4) Habitat for endangered, threatened, proposed, cCandidate 1 or 2, and otheror special status 

species; and 

(5) Habitat quality for native plant and animal populations and communities. 

(e) At a minimum, State or regional guidelines developed under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 

section must address the following: 

(1) Maintaining or promoting adequate amounts of vegetative ground cover, including standing 

plant material and litter, to support infiltration, maintain soil moisture storage, and stabilize 

soils; 

(2) Maintaining or promoting subsurface soil conditions that support permeability rates 

appropriate to climate and soils; 

(3) Maintaining, improving or restoring riparian-wetland functions including energy 

dissipation, sediment capture, groundwater recharge, and stream bank stability; 

(4) Maintaining or promoting stream channel morphology (e.g., gradient, width/depth ratio, 

channel roughness and sinuosity) and functions appropriate to climate and landform; 

(5) Maintaining or promoting the appropriate kinds and amounts of soil organisms, plants and 

animals to support the hydrologic cycle, nutrient cycle, and energy flow; 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-48 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

(6) Promoting the opportunity for seedling establishment of appropriate plant species when 

climatic conditions and space allow; 

(7) Maintaining, restoring or enhancing water quality to meet management objectives, such as 

meeting wildlife needs; 

(8) Restoring, maintaining or enhancing habitats to assist in the recovery of Federal threatened 

and endangered species; 

(9) Restoring, maintaining or enhancing habitats of Federal Proposed, Category 1 and 2 

Federal candidate, and other special status species to promote their conservation; 

(10) Maintaining or promoting the physical and biological conditions to sustain native 

populations and communities; 

(11) Emphasizing native species in the support of ecological function; and 

(12) Incorporating the use of non-native plant species only in those situations in which native 

species are not available in sufficient quantities or are incapable of maintaining or achieving 

properly functioning conditions and biological health.;

(f) In the event that State or regional standards and guidelines are not completed and in effect 

by February 12, 1997, and Uuntil such time as sState or regional standards and guidelines are 

developed and in effect, the following standards provided in paragraph (f)(1) of this section 

and guidelines provided in (f)(2) of this section willshall apply and will be implemented in 

accordance with paragraph (c) of this section. However, the Secretary may grant, upon referral 

by the BLM of a formal recommendation by a resource advisory council, a postponement of 

the February 12, 1997, fallback standards and guidelines implementation date, not to exceed 

the 6-month period ending August 12, 1997. In determining whether to grant a postponement, 

the Secretary will consider, among other factors, long-term rangeland health and administrative 

efficiencies. 

(1) Fallback standards. (i) Upland soils exhibit infiltration and permeability rates that are 

appropriate to soil type, climate and landform. 

(ii) Riparian-wetland areas are in properly functioning condition. 

(iii) Stream channel morphology (including but not limited to gradient, width/depth ratio, 

channel roughness and sinuosity) and functions are appropriate for the climate and landform. 

(iv) Healthy, productive and diverse populations of native species exist and are maintained. 

(2) Fallback guidelines. (i) Management practices maintain or promote adequate amounts of 

ground cover to support infiltration, maintain soil moisture storage, and stabilize soils; 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-49

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

(ii) Management practices maintain or promote soil conditions that support permeability rates 

that are appropriate to climate and soils; 

(iii) Management practices maintain or promote sufficient residual vegetation to maintain, 

improve or restore riparian-wetland functions of energy dissipation, sediment capture, 

groundwater recharge and stream bank stability; 

(iv) Management practices maintain or promote stream channel morphology (e.g., gradient, 

width/depth ratio, channel roughness and sinuosity) and functions that are appropriate to 

climate and landform; 

(v) Management practices maintain or promote the appropriate kinds and amounts of soil 

organisms, plants and animals to support the hydrologic cycle, nutrient cycle, and energy flow; 

(vi) Management practices maintain or promote the physical and biological conditions 

necessary to sustain native populations and communities; 

(vii) Desired species are being allowed to complete seed dissemination in 1 out of every 3 

years (Management actions will promote the opportunity for seedling establishment when 

climatic conditions and space allow.); 

(viii) Conservation of Federal threatened or endangered, pProposed, Category 1 and 2 

candidate, and other special status species is promoted by the restoration and maintenance of 

their habitats; 

(ix) Native species are emphasized in the support of ecological function; 

(x) Non-native plant species are used only in those situations in which native species are not 

readily available in sufficient quantities or are incapable of maintaining or achieving properly 

functioning conditions and biological health; 

(xi) Periods of rest from disturbance or livestock use during times of critical plant growth or 

regrowth are provided when needed to achieve healthy, properly functioning conditions (The 

timing and duration of use periods shall be determined by the authorized officer.); 

(xii) Continuous, season-long livestock use is allowed to occur only when it has been 

demonstrated to be consistent with achieving healthy, properly functioning ecosystems; 

(xiii) Facilities are located away from riparian-wetland areas wherever they conflict with 

achieving or maintaining riparian-wetland function; 

(xiv) The development of springs and seeps or other projects affecting water and associated 

resources shall be designed to protect the ecological functions and processes of those sites; and 

(xv) Grazing on designated ephemeral (annual and perennial) rangeland is allowed to occur 

only if reliable estimates of production have been made, an identified level of annual growth 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-50 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

or residue to remain on site at the end of the grazing season has been established, and adverse 

effects on perennial species are avoided. 

Subpart 4190—Effect of Wildfire Management Decisions

§ 4190.1 Effect of wildfire management decisions.

(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of 43 CFR 4.21(a)(1), when BLM determines that 

vegetation, soil, or other resources on the public lands are at substantial risk of wildfire due to 

drought, fuels buildup, or other reasons, or at immediate risk of erosion or other damage due to 

wildfire, BLM may make a rangeland wildfire management decision effective immediately or 

on a date established in the decision. Wildfire management includes but is not limited to: 

(1) Fuel reduction or fuel treatment such as prescribed burns and mechanical, chemical, and 

biological thinning methods (with or without removal of thinned materials); and 

(2) Projects to stabilize and rehabilitate lands affected by wildfire. 

(b) The Interior Board of Land Appeals will issue a decision on the merits of an appeal of 

a wildfire management decision under paragraph (a) of this section within the time limits 

prescribed in 43 CFR 4.416.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-51

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

A2. Final Shown without Strike and Replace

DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION: This document shows in strike-replace format the changes being made in 2004 to BLM 

grazing regulations for BLM lands in the western continental United States. This document should not be relied on 

for legal purposes.

Title 43: Public Lands: Interior

PART 4100—GRAZING ADMINISTRATION—EXCLUSIVE OF ALASKA 

Section Contents

Subpart 4100—Grazing Administration—Exclusive of Alaska; General

§ 4100.0-1 Purpose.

§ 4100.0-2 Objectives.

§ 4100.0-3 Authority.

§ 4100.0-5 Definitions.

§ 4100.0-7 Cross reference.

§ 4100.0-8 Land use plans.

§ 4100.0-9 Information collection.

Subpart 4110—Qualifications and Preference

§ 4110.1 Mandatory qualifications.

§ 4110.1-1 Acquired lands.

§ 4110.2 Grazing preference.

§ 4110.2-1 Base property.

§ 4110.2-2 Specifying grazing preference.

§ 4110.2-3 Transfer of grazing preference.

§ 4110.2-4 Allotments.

§ 4110.3 Changes in grazing preference.

§ 4110.3-1 Increasing active use.

§ 4110.3-2 Decreasing active use.

§ 4110.3-3 Implementing changes in active use.

§ 4110.4 Changes in public land acreage.

§ 4110.4-1 Additional land acreage.

§ 4110.4-2 Decrease in land acreage.

§ 4110.5 Interest of Member of Congress.

Subpart 4120—Grazing Management

§ 4120.1 [Reserved]

§ 4120.2 Allotment management plans and resource activity plans.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-52 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

§ 4120.3 Range improvements.

§ 4120.3-1 Conditions for range improvements.

§ 4120.3-2 Cooperative range improvement agreements.

§ 4120.3-3 Range improvement permits.

§ 4120.3-4 Standards, design and stipulations.

§ 4120.3-5 Assignment of range improvements.

§ 4120.3-6 Removal and compensation for loss of range improvements.

§ 4120.3-7 Contributions.

§ 4120.3-8 Range improvement fund.

§ 4120.3-9 Water rights for the purpose of livestock grazing on public lands.

§ 4120.4 Special rules.

§ 4120.5 Cooperation.

§ 4120.5-1 Cooperation in management.

§ 4120.5-2 Cooperation with Tribal, state, county, and Federal agencies.

Subpart 4130—Authorizing Grazing Use

§ 4130.1 Applications.

§ 4130.1-1 Filing applications.

§ 4130.1-2 Conflicting applications.

§ 4130.2 Grazing permits or leases.

§ 4130.3 Terms and conditions.

§ 4130.3-1 Mandatory terms and conditions.

§ 4130.3-2 Other terms and conditions.

§ 4130.3-3 Modification of permits or leases.

§ 4130.4 Authorization of temporary changes in grazing use within the terms and 

conditions of permits and leases, including temporary nonuse.

§ 4130.5 Free-use grazing permits.

§ 4130.6 Other grazing authorizations.

§ 4130.6-1 Exchange-of-use grazing agreements.

§ 4130.6-2 Nonrenewable grazing permits and leases.

§ 4130.6-3 Crossing permits.

§ 4130.6-4 Special grazing permits or leases.

§ 4130.7 Ownership and identification of livestock.

§ 4130.8 Fees.

§ 4130.8-1 Payment of fees.

§ 4130.8-2 Refunds.

§ 4130.8-3 Service charge.

§ 4130.9 Pledge of permits or leases as security for loans.

Subpart 4140—Prohibited Acts

§ 4140.1 Acts prohibited on public lands.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-53

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

Subpart 4150—Unauthorized Grazing Use

§ 4150.1 Violations.

§ 4150.2 Notice and order to remove.

§ 4150.3 Settlement.

§ 4150.4 Impoundment and disposal.

§ 4150.4-1 Notice of intent to impound.

§ 4150.4-2 Impoundment.

§ 4150.4-3 Notice of public sale.

§ 4150.4-4 Redemption.

§ 4150.4-5 Sale.

Subpart 4160—Administrative Remedies

§ 4160.1 Proposed decisions.

§ 4160.2 Protests.

§ 4160.3 Final decisions.

§ 4160.4 Appeals.

Subpart 4170—Penalties

§ 4170.1 Civil penalties.

§ 4170.1-1 Penalty for violations.

§ 4170.1-2 Failure to use.

§ 4170.2 Penal provisions.

§ 4170.2-1 Penal provisions under the Taylor Grazing Act.

§ 4170.2-2 Penal provisions under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.

Subpart 4180—Fundamentals of Rangeland Health and Standards and Guidelines for

Grazing Administration

§ 4180.1 Fundamentals of rangeland health.

§ 4180.2 Standards and guidelines for grazing administration.

Subpart 4190—Effect of Wildfire Management Decisions

§ 4190.1 Effect of wildfire management decisions.

Authority: 43 U.S.C. 315, 315a-315r, 1181d, 1740. 

Source: 43 FR 29067, July 5, 1978, unless otherwise noted. 

Subpart 4100—Grazing Administration—Exclusive of Alaska; General

§ 4100.0-1 Purpose.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-54 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

The purpose is to provide uniform guidance for administration of grazing on the public lands 

exclusive of Alaska.

§ 4100.0-2 Objectives.

(a) The objectives of these regulations are to promote healthy sustainable rangeland 

ecosystems; to accelerate restoration and improvement of public rangelands to properly 

functioning conditions; to promote the orderly use, improvement and development of the 

public lands; to establish efficient and effective administration of grazing of public rangelands; 

and to provide for the sustainability of the western livestock industry and communities that are 

dependent upon productive, healthy public rangelands. 

(b) These objectives will be realized in a manner consistent with land use plans, multiple use, 

sustained yield, environmental values, economic and other objectives stated in the Taylor 

Grazing Act of June 28, 1934, as amended (43 U.S.C. 315, 315a–315r); section 102 of the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701) and the Public Rangelands 

Improvement Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 1901(b)(2)). 

§ 4100.0-3 Authority.

(a) The Taylor Grazing Act of June 28, 1934 as amended (43 U.S.C. 315, 315a through 315r);

(b) The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) as 

amended by the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.);

(c) Executive orders that transfer land acquired under the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 

July 22, 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1012), to the Secretary and authorize administration under 

the Taylor Grazing Act.

(d) Section 4 of the Oregon and California Railroad Land Act of August 28, 1937 (43 U.S.C. 

1181d));

(e) The Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.); and

(f) Public land orders, Executive orders, and agreements that authorize the Secretary to 

administer livestock grazing on specified lands under the Taylor Grazing Act or other authority 

as specified.

§ 4100.0-5 Definitions.

Whenever used in this part, unless the context otherwise requires, the following definitions 

apply:

The Act means the Taylor Grazing Act of June 28, 1934, as amended (43 U.S.C. 315, 315a–

315r).
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-55

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

Active use means that portion of the grazing preference that is:

(1) Available for livestock grazing use under a permit or lease based on livestock carrying 

capacity and resource conditions in an allotment; and

(2) Not in suspension.

Activity plan means a plan for managing a resource use or value to achieve specific objectives. 

For example, an allotment management plan is an activity plan for managing livestock grazing 

use to improve or maintain rangeland conditions. 

Actual use means where, how many, what kind or class of livestock, and how long livestock 

graze on an allotment, or on a portion or pasture of an allotment. 

Actual use report means a report of the actual livestock grazing use submitted by the permittee 

or lessee.

Affiliate means an entity or person that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control 

with, an applicant, permittee or lessee. The term “control” means having any relationship 

which gives an entity or person authority directly or indirectly to determine the manner in 

which an applicant, permittee or lessee conducts grazing operations. 

Allotment means an area of land designated and managed for grazing of livestock.

Allotment management plan (AMP) means a documented program developed as an activity 

plan, consistent with the definition at 43 U.S.C. 1702(k), that focuses on, and contains the 

necessary instructions for, the management of livestock grazing on specified public lands to 

meet resource condition, sustained yield, multiple use, economic and other objectives. 

Animal unit month (AUM) means the amount of forage necessary for the sustenance of one cow 

or its equivalent for a period of 1 month.

Annual rangelands means those designated areas in which livestock forage production is 

primarily attributable to annual plants and varies greatly from year to year. 

Authorized officer means any person authorized by the Secretary to administer regulations in 

this part.

Base property means: (1) Land that has the capability to produce crops or forage that can 

be used to support authorized livestock for a specified period of the year, or (2) water that 

is suitable for consumption by livestock and is available and accessible, to the authorized 

livestock when the public lands are used for livestock grazing.

Cancelled or cancellation means a permanent termination of a grazing permit or grazing lease 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-56 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

and grazing preference, or free-use grazing permit or other grazing authorization, in whole or 

in part.

Class of livestock means ages and/or sex groups of a kind of livestock.

Consultation, cooperation, and coordination means interaction for the purpose of obtaining 

advice, or exchanging opinions on issues, plans, or management actions. 

Control means being responsible for and providing care and management of base property and/

or livestock. 

District means the specific area of public lands administered by a District Manager or a Field 

Manager.

Ephemeral rangelands means areas of the Hot Desert Biome (Region) that do not consistently 

produce enough forage to sustain a livestock operation but from time to time produce sufficient 

forage to accommodate livestock grazing. 

Grazing district means the specific area within which the public lands are administered under 

section 3 of the Act. Public lands outside grazing district boundaries are administered under 

section 15 of the Act.

Grazing fee year means the year, used for billing purposes, which begins on March 1, of a 

given year and ends on the last day of February of the following year.

Grazing lease means a document that authorizes grazing use of the public lands under Section 

15 of the Act. A grazing lease specifies grazing preference and the terms and conditions under 

which lessees make grazing use during the term of the lease. 

Grazing permit means a document that authorizes grazing use of the public lands under Section 

3 of the Act. A grazing permit specifies grazing preference and the terms and conditions under 

which permittees make grazing use during the term of the permit. 

Grazing preference or preference means the total number of animal unit months on public 

lands apportioned and attached to base property owned or controlled by a permittee, lessee, 

or an applicant for a permit or lease. Grazing preference includes active use and use held in 

suspension. Grazing preference holders have a superior or priority position against others for 

the purpose of receiving a grazing permit or lease. 

Interested public means an individual, group or organization that has:

(1)(i) Submitted a written request to BLM to be provided an opportunity to be involved in the 

decisionmaking process as to a specific allotment, and

(ii) Followed up that request by submitting written comments as to management of a specific 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-57

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

allotment, or otherwise participated in the decisionmaking process as to a specific allotment, if 

BLM has provided them an opportunity for comment or other participation; or

(2) Submitted written comments to the authorized officer regarding the management of 

livestock grazing on a specific allotment. 

Land use plan means a resource management plan, developed under the provisions of 43 

CFR part 1600, or a management framework plan. These plans are developed through public 

participation in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C 1701 et seq.) and establish management direction for resource uses of 

public lands. 

Livestock or kind of livestock means species of domestic livestock—cattle, sheep, horses, 

burros, and goats.

Livestock carrying capacity means the maximum stocking rate possible without inducing 

damage to vegetation or related resources. It may vary from year to year on the same area due 

to fluctuating forage production.

Monitoring means the periodic observation and orderly collection of data to evaluate:

(1) Effects of management actions; and

(2) Effectiveness of actions in meeting management objectives.

Preference means grazing preference (see definition of “grazing preference”).

Public lands means any land and interest in land outside of Alaska owned by the United States 

and administered by the Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management, 

except lands held for the benefit of Indians.

Range improvement means an authorized physical modification or treatment which is designed 

to improve production of forage; change vegetation composition; control patterns of use; 

provide water; stabilize soil and water conditions; restore, protect and improve the condition 

of rangeland ecosystems to benefit livestock, wild horses and burros, and fish and wildlife. 

The term includes, but is not limited to, structures, treatment projects, and use of mechanical 

devices or modifications achieved through mechanical means. 

Rangeland studies means any study methods accepted by the authorized officer for collecting 

data on actual use, utilization, climatic conditions, other special events, and trend to determine 

if management objectives are being met.

Secretary means the Secretary of the Interior or his authorized officer.

Service area means the area that can be properly grazed by livestock watering at a certain 

water. 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-58 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

State Director means the State Director, Bureau of Land Management, or his or her authorized 

representative.

Supplemental feed means a feed which supplements the forage available from the public lands 

and is provided to improve livestock nutrition or rangeland management.

Suspension means the withholding from active use, through a decision issued by the authorized 

officer or by agreement, of part or all of the grazing preference specified in a grazing permit or 

lease. 

Temporary nonuse means that portion of active use that the authorized officer authorizes not to 

be used, in response to an application made by the permittee or lessee. 

Trend means the direction of change over time, either toward or away from desired 

management objectives. 

Unauthorized leasing and subleasing means—

(1) The lease or sublease of a Federal grazing permit or lease, associated with the lease 

or sublease of base property, to another party without a required transfer approved by the 

authorized officer; 

(2) The lease or sublease of a Federal grazing permit or lease to another party without the 

assignment of the associated base property; 

(3) Allowing another party, other than sons and daughters of the grazing permittee or lessee 

meeting the requirements of §4130.7(f), to graze on public lands livestock that are not owned 

or controlled by the permittee or lessee; or 

(4) Allowing another party, other than sons and daughters of the grazing permittee or lessee 

meeting the requirements of §4130.7(f), to graze livestock on public lands under a pasturing 

agreement without the approval of the authorized officer. 

Utilization means the portion of forage that has been consumed by livestock, wild horses and 

burros, wildlife and insects during a specified period. The term is also used to refer to the 

pattern of such use. 

§ 4100.0-7 Cross reference.

The regulations at part 1600 of this chapter govern the development of land use plans; the 

regulations at part 1780, subpart 1784 of this chapter govern advisory committees; and the 

regulations at subparts B and E of part 4 of this title govern appeals and hearings. 

§ 4100.0-8 Land use plans.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-59

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

The authorized officer shall manage livestock grazing on public lands under the principle of 

multiple use and sustained yield, and in accordance with applicable land use plans. Land use 

plans shall establish allowable resource uses (either singly or in combination), related levels of 

production or use to be maintained, areas of use, and resource condition goals and objectives 

to be obtained. The plans also set forth program constraints and general management practices 

needed to achieve management objectives. Livestock grazing activities and management 

actions approved by the authorized officer shall be in conformance with the land use plan as 

defined at 43 CFR 1601.0–5(b).

§ 4100.0-9 Information collection.

The information collection requirements contained in Group 4100 have been approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information is collected 

to enable the authorized officer to determine whether to approve an application to utilize public 

lands for grazing or other purposes. 

Subpart 4110—Qualifications and Preference

§ 4110.1 Mandatory qualifications.

(a) Except as provided under §§4110.1–1, 4130.5, and 4130.6–3, to qualify for grazing use on 

the public lands an applicant must own or control land or water base property, and must be: 

(1) A citizen of the United States or have properly filed a valid declaration of intention to 

become a citizen or a valid petition for naturalization; or

(2) A group or association authorized to conduct business in the State in which the grazing use 

is sought, all members of which are qualified under paragraph (a) of this section; or

(3) A corporation authorized to conduct business in the State in which the grazing use is 

sought.

(b) Applicants for the renewal or issuance of new permits and leases and any affiliates must 

be determined by the authorized officer to have a satisfactory record of performance under § 

4130.1-1(b). 

(c) Applicants shall submit an application and any other relevant information requested by the 

authorized officer in order to determine that all qualifications have been met. 

§ 4110.1-1 Acquired lands.

Where lands have been acquired by the Bureau of Land Management through purchase, 

exchange, Act of Congress or Executive Order, and an agreement or the terms of the act or 

Executive Order provide that the Bureau of Land Management shall honor existing grazing 

permits or leases, such permits or leases are governed by the terms and conditions in effect 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-60 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

at the time of acquisition by the Bureau of Land Management, and are not subject to the 

requirements of §4110.1.

§ 4110.2 Grazing preference.

§ 4110.2-1 Base property.

(a) The authorized officer shall find land or water owned or controlled by an applicant to be 

base property (see §4100.0–5) if:

(1) It is capable of serving as a base of operation for livestock use of public lands within a 

grazing district; or

(2) It is contiguous land, or, when no applicant owns or controls contiguous land, 

noncontiguous land that is capable of being used in conjunction with a livestock operation 

which would utilize public lands outside a grazing district.

(b) After appropriate consultation, cooperation, and coordination, the authorized officer 

shall specify the length of time for which land base property shall be capable of supporting 

authorized livestock during the year, relative to the multiple use management objective of the 

public lands.

(c) An applicant shall provide a legal description, or plat, of the base property and shall certify 

to the authorized officer that this base property meets the requirements under paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section. 

(d) A permittee’s or lessee’s interest in water previously recognized as base property on 

public land shall be deemed sufficient in meeting the requirement that the applicant control 

base property. Where such waters become unusable and are replaced by newly constructed 

or reconstructed water developments that are the subject of a range improvement permit 

or cooperative range improvement agreement, the permittee’s or lessee’s interest in the 

replacement water shall be deemed sufficient in meeting the requirement that the applicant 

control base property.

(e) If a permittee or lessee loses ownership or control of all or part of his/her base property, the 

permit or lease, to the extent it was based upon such lost property, shall terminate immediately 

without further notice from the authorized officer. However, if, prior to losing ownership or 

control of the base property, the permittee or lessee requests, in writing, that the permit or 

lease be extended to the end of the grazing season or grazing year, the termination date may be 

extended as determined by the authorized officer after consultation with the new owner. When 

a permit or lease terminates because of a loss of ownership or control of a base property, the 

grazing preference shall remain with the base property and be available through application 

and transfer procedures at 43 CFR 4110.2–3, to the new owner or person in control of that base 

property.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-61

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

(f) Applicants who own or control base property contiguous to or cornering upon public land 

outside a grazing district where such public land consists of an isolated or disconnected tract 

embracing 760 acres or less shall, for a period of 90 days after the tract has been offered for 

lease, have a preference right to lease the whole tract.

§ 4110.2-2 Specifying grazing preference.

(a) All grazing permits and grazing leases will specify grazing preference, except for permits 

and leases for designated ephemeral rangelands, where BLM authorizes livestock use based 

upon forage availability, or designated annual rangelands. Preference includes active use and 

any suspended use. Active use is based upon the amount of forage available for livestock 

grazing as established in the land use plan, activity plan, or decision of the authorized officer 

under §4110.3–3, except, in the case of designated ephemeral or annual rangelands, a land use 

plan or activity plan may alternatively prescribe vegetation standards to be met in the use of 

such rangelands.

(b) The grazing preference specified is attached to the base property supporting the grazing 

permit or grazing lease.

(c) The animal unit months of grazing preference are attached to:

(1) The acreage of land base property on a pro rata basis, or

(2) Water base property on the basis of livestock forage production within the service area of 

the water.

§ 4110.2-3 Transfer of grazing preference.

(a) Transfers of grazing preference in whole or in part are subject to the following 

requirements:

(1) The transferee shall meet all qualifications and requirements of §§4110.1, 4110.2–1, and 

4110.2–2.

(2) The transfer applications under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section shall evidence 

assignment of interest and obligation in range improvements authorized on public lands 

under §4120.3 and maintained in conjunction with the transferred preference (see §4120.3–

5). The terms and conditions of the cooperative range improvement agreements and range 

improvement permits are binding on the transferee.

(3) The transferee shall accept the terms and conditions of the terminating grazing permit or 

lease (see §4130.2) with such modifications as he may request which are approved by the 

authorized officer or with such modifications as may be required by the authorized officer. 

(4) The transferee shall file an application for a grazing permit or lease to the extent of the 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-62 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

transferred preference simultaneously with filing a transfer application under paragraph (b) or 

(c) of this section.

(b) If base property is sold or leased, the transferee shall within 90 days of the date of sale or 

lease file with the authorized officer a properly executed transfer application showing the base 

property and the grazing preference, in animal unit months, attached to that base property.

(c) If a grazing preference is being transferred from one base property to another base property, 

the transferrer shall own or control the base property from which the grazing preference is 

being transferred and file with the authorized officer a properly completed transfer application 

for approval. No transfer will be allowed without the written consent of the owner(s), and any 

person or entity holding an encumbrance of the base property from which the transfer is to be 

made. 

(d) At the date of approval of a transfer, the existing grazing permit or lease shall terminate 

automatically and without notice to the extent of the transfer.

(e) If an unqualified transferee acquires rights in base property through operation of law or 

testamentary disposition, such transfer will not affect the grazing preference or any outstanding 

grazing permit or lease, or preclude the issuance or renewal of a grazing permit or lease based 

on such property for a period of 2 years after the transfer. However, such a transferee shall 

qualify under paragraph (a) of this section within the 2-year period or the grazing preference 

shall be subject to cancellation. The authorized officer may grant extensions of the 2-year 

period where there are delays solely attributable to probate proceedings.

(f) Transfers shall be for a period of not less than 3 years unless a shorter term is determined by 

the authorized officer to be consistent with management and resource condition objectives.

(g) Failure of either the transferee or the transferrer to comply with the regulations of this 

section may result in rejection of the transfer application or cancellation of grazing preference.

§ 4110.2-4 Allotments.

After consultation, cooperation, and coordination with the affected grazing permittees or 

lessees and the state having lands or responsible for managing resources within the area, the 

authorized officer may designate and adjust grazing allotment boundaries. The authorized 

officer may combine or divide allotments, through an agreement or by decision, when 

necessary for the proper and efficient management of public rangelands.

§ 4110.3 Changes in grazing preference.

(a) The authorized officer shall periodically review the grazing preference specified in a 

grazing permit or lease and make changes in the grazing preference as needed to:

(1) Manage, maintain or improve rangeland productivity; 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-63

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

(2) Assist in making progress towards restoring ecosystems to properly functioning conditions;

(3) Conform with land use plans or activity plans; or,

(4) Comply with the provisions of subpart 4180 of this part.

(b) The authorized officer will support these changes by monitoring, documented field 

observations, ecological site inventory or other data acceptable to the authorized officer.

(c) Before changing grazing preference, the authorized officer will undertake the appropriate 

analysis as required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.). Under NEPA, the authorized officer will analyze and, if appropriate, document 

the relevant social, economic, and cultural effects of the proposed action.

§ 4110.3-1 Increasing active use.

When monitoring or documented field observations show that additional forage is available 

for livestock grazing, either on a temporary or sustained yield basis, BLM may apportion 

additional forage to qualified applicants for livestock grazing use consistent with multiple-use 

management objectives specified in the applicable land use plan.

(a) Additional forage temporarily available. When the authorized officer determines that 

additional forage is temporarily available for livestock, he may authorize its use on a 

nonrenewable basis under § 4130.6-2 in the following order:

(1) To permittees or lessees who have preference for grazing use in the allotment where the 

forage is available, in proportion to their active use; and,

(2) To other qualified applicants under § 4130.1-2.

(b) Additional forage available on a sustained yield basis. When the authorized officer 

determines that additional forage is available for livestock use on a sustained yield basis, he 

will apportion it in the following manner:

(1) First, to remove all or a part of the suspension of preference of permittee(s) or lessee(s) 

with permits or leases in the allotment in which the forage is available; and

(2) Second, if additional forage remains after ending all suspensions, the authorized officer 

will consult, cooperate, and coordinate with the affected permittees or lessees, the State having 

lands or managing resources within the area, the interested public, and apportion it in the 

following order:

(i) Permittees or lessees in proportion to their contribution or stewardship efforts which result 

in increased forage production;
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-64 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

(ii) Permittee(s) or lessee(s) in proportion to the amount of their grazing preference; and

(iii) Other qualified applicants under §4130.1–2.

§ 4110.3-2 Decreasing active use.

(a) The authorized officer may suspend active use in whole or in part on a temporary basis 

due to reasons specified in § 4110.3-3(b)(1), or to facilitate installation, maintenance, or 

modification of range improvements.

(b) When monitoring or documented field observations show grazing use or patterns of use 

are not consistent with the provisions of subpart 4180, or grazing use is otherwise causing an 

unacceptable level or pattern of utilization, or when use exceeds the livestock carrying capacity 

as determined through monitoring, ecological site inventory or other acceptable methods, the 

authorized officer will reduce active use, otherwise modify management practices, or both. To 

implement reductions under this paragraph, BLM will suspend active use.

§ 4110.3-3 Implementing changes in active use.

(a) (1) After consultation, cooperation, and coordination with the affected permittee or lessee 

and the state having lands or managing resources within the area, the authorized officer will 

implement changes in active use through a documented agreement or by a decision. The 

authorized officer will implement changes in active use in excess of 10 percent over a 5-year 

period unless:

(i) After consultation with affected permittees or lessees, an agreement is reached to implement 

the increase or decrease in less than 5 years, or

(ii) The changes must be made before 5 years have passed in order to comply with applicable 

law.

(2) Decisions implementing § 4110.3–2 will be issued as proposed decisions pursuant to § 

4160.1, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.

(b)(1) After consultation with, or a reasonable attempt to consult with, affected permittees or 

lessees and the state having lands or responsible for managing resources within the area, the 

authorized officer will close allotments or portions of allotments to grazing by any kind of 

livestock or modify authorized grazing use notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of 

this section when the authorized officer determines and documents that—

(i) The soil, vegetation, or other resources on the public lands require immediate protection 

because of conditions such as drought, fire, flood, insect infestation; or,

(ii) Continued grazing use poses an imminent likelihood of significant resource damage.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-65

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

(2) Notices of closure and decisions requiring modification of authorized grazing use may be 

issued as final decisions effective upon issuance or on the date specified in the decision. Such 

decisions will remain in effect pending the decision on appeal unless the Office of Hearings 

and Appeals grants a stay in accordance with § 4.472 of this title.

§ 4110.4 Changes in public land acreage.

§ 4110.4-1 Additional land acreage.

When lands outside designated allotments become available for livestock grazing under the 

administration of the Bureau of Land Management, the forage available for livestock shall be 

made available to qualified applicants at the discretion of the authorized officer. Grazing use 

shall be apportioned under §4130.1–2 of this title.

§ 4110.4-2 Decrease in land acreage.

(a) Where there is a decrease in public land acreage available for livestock grazing within an 

allotment:

(1) Grazing permits or leases may be cancelled or modified as appropriate to reflect the 

changed area of use.

(2) Grazing preference may be cancelled in whole or in part. Cancellations determined by 

the authorized officer to be necessary to protect the public lands will be apportioned by the 

authorized officer based upon the level of available forage and the magnitude of the change in 

public land acreage available, or as agreed to among the authorized users and the authorized 

officer.

(b) When public lands are disposed of or devoted to a public purpose which precludes livestock 

grazing, the permittees and lessees shall be given 2 years’ prior notification except in cases of 

emergency (national defense requirements in time of war, natural disasters, national emergency 

needs, etc.) before their grazing permit or grazing lease and grazing preference may be 

canceled. A permittee or lessee may unconditionally waive the 2-year prior notification. Such 

a waiver shall not prejudice the permittee’s or lessee’s right to reasonable compensation for, 

but not to exceed the fair market value of his or her interest in authorized permanent range 

improvements located on these public lands (see §4120.3–6).

§ 4110.5 Interest of Member of Congress.

Title 18 U.S.C. 431 through 433 (1970) generally prohibits a Member of or Delegate to 

Congress from entering into any contract or agreement with the United States. Title 41 U.S.C. 

22 (1970) generally provides that in every contract or agreement to be made or entered into, 

or accepted by or on behalf of the United States, there shall be inserted an express condition 

that no Member of or Delegate to Congress shall be admitted to any share or part of such 

contract or agreement, or to any benefit to arise thereupon. The provisions of these laws are 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-66 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

incorporated herein by reference and apply to all permits, leases, and agreements issued under 

these regulations.

Subpart 4120—Grazing Management

§ 4120.1 [Reserved]

§ 4120.2 Allotment management plans and resource activity plans.

Allotment management plans or other activity plans intended to serve as the functional 

equivalent of allotment management plans may be developed by permittees or lessees, 

other Federal or State resource management agencies, interested citizens, and the Bureau of 

Land Management. When such plans affecting the administration of grazing allotments are 

developed, the following provisions apply:

(a) An allotment management plan or other activity plans intended to serve as the functional 

equivalent of allotment management plans shall be prepared in careful and considered 

consultation, cooperation, and coordination with affected permittees or lessees, landowners 

involved, the resource advisory council, any State having lands or responsible for managing 

resources within the area to be covered by such a plan, and the interested public. The plan shall 

become effective upon approval by the authorized officer. The plans shall—

(1) Include terms and conditions under §§4130.3, 4130.3–1, 4130.3–2, 4130.3–3, and subpart 

4180 of this part;

(2) Prescribe the livestock grazing practices necessary to meet specific resource objectives;

(3) Specify the limits of flexibility, to be determined and granted on the basis of the operator’s 

demonstrated stewardship, within which the permittee(s) or lessee(s) may adjust operations 

without prior approval of the authorized officer; and

(4) Provide for monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of management actions in achieving 

the specific resource objectives of the plan.

(b) Private and State lands may be included in allotment management plans or other activity 

plans intended to serve as the functional equivalent of allotment management plans dealing 

with rangeland management with the consent or at the request of the parties who own or 

control those lands.

(c) The authorized officer shall provide opportunity for public participation in the planning and 

environmental analysis of proposed plans affecting the administration of grazing and shall give 

public notice concerning the availability of environmental documents prepared as a part of the 

development of such plans, prior to implementing the plans. The decision document following 

the environmental analysis will be issued in accordance with § 4160.1.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-67

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

(d) A requirement to conform with completed allotment management plans or other applicable 

activity plans intended to serve as the functional equivalent of allotment management plans 

shall be incorporated into the terms and conditions of the grazing permit or lease for the 

allotment.

(e) Allotment management plans or other applicable activity plans intended to serve as the 

functional equivalent of allotment management plans may be revised or terminated by the 

authorized officer after consultation, cooperation, and coordination with the affected permittees 

or lessees, landowners involved, the resource advisory council, any State having lands or 

responsible for managing resources within the area to be covered by the plan, and the interested 

public.

§ 4120.3 Range improvements.

§ 4120.3-1 Conditions for range improvements.

(a) Range improvements shall be installed, used, maintained, and/or modified on the public 

lands, or removed from these lands, in a manner consistent with multiple-use management.

(b) Prior to installing, using, maintaining, and/or modifying range improvements on the public 

lands, permittees or lessees shall have entered into a cooperative range improvement agreement 

with the Bureau of Land Management or must have an approved range improvement permit.

(c) The authorized officer may require a permittee or lessee to maintain and/or modify range 

improvements on the public lands under §4130.3–2 of this title.

(d) The authorized officer may require a permittee or lessee to install range improvements on 

the public lands in an allotment with two or more permittees or lessees and/or to meet the terms 

and conditions of agreement.

(e) A range improvement permit or cooperative range improvement agreement does not convey 

to the permittee or cooperator any right, title, or interest in any lands or resources held by the 

United States.

(f) Proposed range improvement projects shall be reviewed in accordance with the 

requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq.). The 

decision document following the environmental analysis will be issued in accordance with § 

4160.1.

§ 4120.3-2 Cooperative range improvement agreements.

(a) The Bureau of Land Management may enter into a cooperative range improvement 

agreement with a person, organization, or other government entity for the installation, 

use, maintenance, and/or modification of permanent range improvements or rangeland 

developments to achieve management or resource condition objectives. The cooperative range 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-68 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

improvement agreement shall specify how the costs or labor, or both, shall be divided between 

the United States and cooperator(s).

(b) Subject to valid existing rights, cooperators and the United States will share title to 

permanent range improvements such as fences, wells, and pipelines where authorization is 

granted after [Insert date 30 days after publication of final rule in the FEDERAL REGISTER] 

in proportion to their contribution to on-the-ground project development and construction 

costs. The authorization for all new permanent water developments such as spring 

developments, wells, reservoirs, stock tanks, and pipelines will be through cooperative range 

improvement agreements. The authorized officer will document a permittee’s or lessee’s 

interest in contributed funds, labor, and materials to ensure proper credit for the purposes of 

§§4120.3–5 and 4120.3–6(c).

(c) The United States will have title to nonstructural range improvements such as seeding, 

spraying, and chaining.

(d) Range improvement work performed by a cooperator or permittee on the public lands or 

lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management does not confer the exclusive right to 

use the improvement or the land affected by the range improvement work.

§ 4120.3-3 Range improvement permits.

(a) Any permittee or lessee may apply for a range improvement permit to install, use, maintain, 

and/or modify removable range improvements that are needed to achieve management 

objectives for the allotment in which the permit or lease is held. The permittee or lessee shall 

agree to provide full funding for construction, installation, modification, or maintenance. Such 

range improvement permits are issued at the discretion of the authorized officer.

(b) The permittee or lessee may hold the title to authorized removable range improvements 

used as livestock handling facilities such as corrals, creep feeders, and loading chutes, and to 

temporary structural improvements such as troughs for hauled water.

(c) If forage available for livestock is not or will not be used by the preference permittee or 

lessee, BLM may issue nonrenewable grazing permits and leases to other qualified applicants 

to use it under §§ 4130.6-2 and 4130.4(d), or § 4110.3-1(a)(2). The term “forage available 

for livestock” does not include temporary nonuse that BLM approves for reasons of natural 

resource conservation, enhancement, or protection, or use suspended by BLM under § 

4110.3-2(b). Before issuing a nonrenewable permit or lease, BLM will consult, cooperate and 

coordinate as provided in § 4130.6-2. If BLM issues such a nonrenewable permit or lease, the 

preference permittee or lessee will cooperate with the temporary authorized use of forage by 

another operator.

(1) A permittee or lessee shall be reasonably compensated for the use and maintenance of 

improvements and facilities by the operator who has an authorization for temporary grazing 

use.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-69

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

(2) The authorized officer may mediate disputes about reasonable compensation and, 

following consultation with the interested parties, make a determination concerning the fair 

and reasonable share of operation and maintenance expenses and compensation for use of 

authorized improvements and facilities.

(3) Where a settlement cannot be reached, the authorized officer shall issue a temporary 

grazing authorization including appropriate terms and conditions and the requirement to 

compensate the preference permittee or lessee for the fair share of operation and maintenance 

as determined by the authorized officer under subpart 4160 of this part.

§ 4120.3-4 Standards, design and stipulations.

Range improvement permits and cooperative range improvement agreements shall specify the 

standards, design, construction and maintenance criteria for the range improvements and other 

additional conditions and stipulations or modifications deemed necessary by the authorized 

officer.

§ 4120.3-5 Assignment of range improvements.

The authorized officer shall not approve the transfer of a grazing preference under §4110.2–3 

of this title or approve use by the transferee of existing range improvements, unless the 

transferee has agreed to compensate the transferrer for his/her interest in the authorized 

improvements within the allotment as of the date of the transfer.

§ 4120.3-6 Removal and compensation for loss of range improvements.

(a) Range improvements shall not be removed from the public lands without authorization.

(b) The authorized officer may require permittees or lessees to remove range improvements 

which they own on the public lands if these improvements are no longer helping to achieve 

land use plan or allotment goals and objectives or if they fail to meet the criteria under 

§4120.3–4 of this title.

(c) Whenever a grazing permit or lease is cancelled in order to devote the public lands covered 

by the permit or lease to another public purpose, including disposal, the permittee or lessee 

shall receive from the United States reasonable compensation for the adjusted value of their 

interest in authorized permanent improvements placed or constructed by the permittee or 

lessee on the public lands covered by the cancelled permit or lease. The adjusted value is 

to be determined by the authorized officer. Compensation shall not exceed the fair market 

value of the terminated portion of the permittee’s or lessee’s interest therein. Where a range 

improvement is authorized by a range improvement permit, the livestock operator may elect 

to salvage materials and perform rehabilitation measures rather than be compensated for the 

adjusted value.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-70 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

(d) Permittees or lessees shall be allowed 180 days from the date of cancellation of a range 

improvement permit or cooperative range improvement agreement to salvage material owned 

by them and perform rehabilitation measures necessitated by the removal.

§ 4120.3-7 Contributions.

The authorized officer may accept contributions of labor, material, equipment, or money for 

administration, protection, and improvement of the public lands necessary to achieve the 

objectives of this part.

§ 4120.3-8 Range improvement fund.

(a) In addition to range developments accomplished through other resource management funds, 

authorized range improvements may be secured through the use of the appropriated range 

improvement fund. One-half of the available funds shall be expended in the State and district 

from which they were derived. The remaining one-half of the fund shall be allocated, on a 

priority basis, by the Secretary for on-the-ground rehabilitation, protection and improvement of 

public rangeland ecosystems.

(b) Funds appropriated for range improvements are to be used for investment in all forms 

of improvements that benefit rangeland resources including riparian area rehabilitation, 

improvement and protection, fish and wildlife habitat improvement or protection, soil and 

water resource improvement, wild horse and burro habitat management facilities, vegetation 

improvement and management, and livestock grazing management. The funds may be used 

for activities associated with on-the-ground improvements including the planning, design, 

layout, contracting, modification, maintenance for which the Bureau of Land Management is 

responsible, and monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of specific range improvement 

projects.

(c) During the planning of the range development or range improvement programs, the 

authorized officer shall consult the resource advisory council, affected permittees, lessees, and 

members of the interested public.

§ 4120.3-9 Water rights for the purpose of livestock grazing on public lands.

Any right that the United States acquires to use water on public land for the purpose of 

livestock watering on public land will be acquired, perfected, maintained and administered 

under the substantive and procedural laws of the State within which such land is located

§ 4120.4 Special rules.

(a) When a State Director determines that local conditions require a special rule to achieve 

improved administration consistent with the objectives of this part, the Director may approve 

such rules. The rules shall be subject to public review and comment, as appropriate, and upon 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-71

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

approval, shall become effective when published in the Federal Register as final rules. Special 

rules shall be published in a local newspaper.

(b) Where the Bureau of Land Management administers the grazing use of other Federal 

Agency lands, the terms of an appropriate Memorandum of Understanding or Cooperative 

Agreement shall apply.

§ 4120.5 Cooperation.

§ 4120.5-1 Cooperation in management.

The authorized officer shall, to the extent appropriate, cooperate with Federal, State, Indian 

Tribal and local governmental entities, institutions, organizations, corporations, associations, 

and individuals to achieve the objectives of this part.

§ 4120.5-2 Cooperation with Tribal, state, county, and Federal agencies.

Insofar as the programs and responsibilities of other agencies and units of government 

involve grazing upon the public lands and other lands administered by the Bureau of Land 

Management, or the livestock which graze thereon, the Bureau of Land Management will 

cooperate, to the extent consistent with applicable laws of the United States, with the involved 

agencies and government entities. The authorized officer will cooperate with Tribal, state, 

county, and Federal agencies in the administration of laws and regulations relating to livestock, 

livestock diseases, sanitation, and noxious weeds including—

(a) State cattle and sheep sanitary or brand boards in control of stray and unbranded livestock, 

to the extent such cooperation does not conflict with the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro 

Act of 1971 (16 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.);

(b) County or other local weed control districts in analyzing noxious weed problems and 

developing control programs for areas of the public lands and other lands administered by the 

Bureau of Land Management; and

(c) Tribal, state, county, or local government-established grazing boards in reviewing range 

improvements and allotment management plans on public lands.

Subpart 4130—Authorizing Grazing Use

§ 4130.1 Applications.

§ 4130.1-1 Filing applications.

(a) Applications for grazing permits or leases (active use and nonuse), free-use grazing permits 

and other grazing authorizations shall be filed with the authorized officer at the local Bureau of 

Land Management office having jurisdiction over the public lands involved.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-72 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

(b) The authorized officer will determine whether applicants for the renewal of permits and 

leases or issuance of permits and leases that authorize use of new or transferred preference, and 

any affiliates, have a satisfactory record of performance. The authorized officer will not renew 

or issue a permit or lease unless the applicant and all affiliates have a satisfactory record of 

performance.

(1) Renewal of permit or lease.

(i) The authorized officer will deem the applicant for renewal of a grazing permit or lease, and 

any affiliate, to have a satisfactory record of performance if the authorized officer determines 

the applicant and affiliates to be in substantial compliance with the terms and conditions of the 

existing Federal grazing permit or lease for which renewal is sought, and with the rules and 

regulations applicable to the permit or lease.

(ii) The authorized officer may take into consideration circumstances beyond the control of 

the applicant or affiliate in determining whether the applicant and affiliates are in substantial 

compliance with permit or lease terms and conditions and applicable rules and regulations.

(2) New permit or lease or transfer of grazing preference. The authorized officer will deem 

applicants for new permits and leases or transfer of grazing preference, including permits and 

leases that arise from transfer of preference, and any affiliates, to have a record of satisfactory 

performance when --

(i) The applicant or affiliate has not had any Federal grazing permit or lease canceled, in whole 

or in part, for violation of the permit or lease within the 36 calendar months immediately 

preceding the date of application; and

(ii) The applicant or affiliate has not had any state grazing permit or lease, for lands within the 

grazing allotment for which a Federal permit or lease is sought, canceled, in whole or in part, 

for violation of the permit or lease within the 36 calendar months immediately preceding the 

date of application; and

(iii) A court of competent jurisdiction has not barred the applicant or affiliate from holding a 

Federal grazing permit or lease.

(c) In determining whether affiliation exists, the authorized officer will consider all appropriate 

factors, including, but not limited to, common ownership, common management, identity of 

interest among family members, and contractual relationships.

§ 4130.1-2 Conflicting applications.

When more than one qualified applicant applies for livestock grazing use of the same public 

lands and/or where additional forage for livestock or additional acreage becomes available, the 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-73

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

authorized officer may authorize grazing use of such land or forage on the basis of §4110.3–1 

of this title or on the basis of any of the following factors:

(a) Historical use of the public lands (see §4130.2(e));

(b) Proper use of rangeland resources;

(c) General needs of the applicant’s livestock operations;

(d) Applicant ingress or egress across privately owned or controlled land to public lands where 

the grazing use is sought; 

(e) Topography; 

(f) Other land use requirements unique to the situation.

(g) Demonstrated stewardship by the applicant to improve or maintain and protect the 

rangeland ecosystem; and

(h) The applicant’s and affiliate’s history of compliance with the terms and conditions of 

grazing permits and leases of the Bureau of Land Management and any other Federal or State 

agency, including any record of suspensions or cancellations of grazing use for violations of 

terms and conditions of agency grazing rules.

§ 4130.2 Grazing permits or leases.

(a) Grazing permits or leases authorize use on the public lands and other BLM-administered 

lands that are designated in land use plans as available for livestock grazing. Permits and leases 

will specify the grazing preference, including active and suspended use. These grazing permits 

and leases will also specify terms and conditions pursuant to §§ 4130.3, 4130.3–1, and 4130.3–

2.

(b) The authorized officer shall consult, cooperate and coordinate with affected permittees 

or lessees and the state having lands or responsibility for managing resources within the area 

before issuing or renewing grazing permits and leases.

(c) Grazing permits or leases convey no right, title, or interest held by the United States in any 

lands or resources. 

(d) The term of grazing permits or leases authorizing livestock grazing on the public lands 

and other lands under the administration of the Bureau of Land Management shall be 10 years 

unless—

(1) The land is being considered for disposal;
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-74 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

(2) The land will be devoted to a public purpose which precludes grazing prior to the end of 10 

years;

(3) The term of the base property lease is less than 10 years, in which case the term of the 

Federal permit or lease shall coincide with the term of the base property lease; or

(4) The authorized officer determines that a permit or lease for less than 10 years is in the best 

interest of sound land management.

(e) Permittees or lessees holding expiring grazing permits or leases shall be given first priority 

for new permits or leases if: 

(1) The lands for which the permit or lease is issued remain available for domestic livestock 

grazing; 

(2) The permittee or lessee is in compliance with the rules and regulations and the terms and 

conditions in the permit or lease; and 

(3) The permittee or lessee accepts the terms and conditions to be included by the authorized 

officer in the new permit or lease.

(f) A permit or lease is not valid unless both BLM and the permittee or lessee have signed 

it.

(g) Permits or leases may incorporate the percentage of public land livestock use (see §4130.3–

2(g)) or may include private land offered under exchange-of-use grazing agreements (see 

§4130.6–1).

(h) Provisions explaining how grazing permits or authorizations may be granted for grazing use 

on state, county or private land leased by the Bureau of Land Management under “The Pierce 

Act” and located within grazing districts are explained in 43 CFR part 4600. 

§ 4130.3 Terms and conditions.

(a) Livestock grazing permits and leases shall contain terms and conditions determined by the 

authorized officer to be appropriate to achieve management and resource condition objectives 

for the public lands and other lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, and to 

ensure conformance with the provisions of subpart 4180 of this part.

(b) Upon a BLM offer of a permit or lease, the permit or lease terms and conditions may be 

protested and appealed under part 4 and subpart 4160.

(c) If any term or condition of a BLM-offered permit or lease is stayed pending appeal, BLM 

will authorize grazing use as provided in § 4160.4 with respect to the stayed term or condition.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-75

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

§ 4130.3-1 Mandatory terms and conditions.

(a) The authorized officer shall specify the kind and number of livestock, the period(s) of use, 

the allotment(s) to be used, and the amount of use, in animal unit months, for every grazing 

permit or lease. The authorized livestock grazing use shall not exceed the livestock carrying 

capacity of the allotment.

(b) All permits and leases shall be made subject to cancellation, suspension, or modification for 

any violation of these regulations or of any term or condition of the permit or lease.

(c) Permits and leases shall incorporate terms and conditions that ensure conformance with 

subpart 4180 of this part.

§ 4130.3-2 Other terms and conditions.

The authorized officer may specify in grazing permits or leases other terms and conditions 

which will assist in achieving management objectives, provide for proper range management 

or assist in the orderly administration of the public rangelands. These may include but are not 

limited to:

(a) The class of livestock that will graze on an allotment;

(b) The breed of livestock in allotments within which two or more permittees or lessees are 

authorized to graze;

(c) Authorization to use, and directions for placement of supplemental feed, including salt, for 

improved livestock and rangeland management on the public lands;

(d) A requirement that permittees or lessees operating under a grazing permit or lease submit 

within 15 days after completing their annual grazing use, or as otherwise specified in the permit 

or lease, the actual use made;

(e) The kinds of indigenous animals authorized to graze under specific terms and conditions;

(f) Provision for livestock grazing temporarily to be delayed, discontinued or modified to 

allow for the reproduction, establishment, or restoration of vigor of plants, provide for the 

improvement of riparian areas to achieve proper functioning condition or for the protection of 

other rangeland resources and values consistent with objectives of applicable land use plans, or 

to prevent compaction of wet soils, such as where delay of spring turnout is required because 

of weather conditions or lack of plant growth;

(g) The percentage of public land use determined by the proportion of livestock forage 

available on public lands within the allotment compared to the total amount available from 

both public lands and those owned or controlled by the permittee or lessee; and
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-76 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

(h) A statement disclosing the requirement that permittees or lessees shall provide reasonable 

administrative access across private and leased lands to the Bureau of Land Management for 

the orderly management and protection of the public lands.

§ 4130.3-3 Modification of permits or leases.

(a) Following consultation, cooperation, and coordination with the affected lessees or 

permittees and the state having lands or responsibility for managing resources within the area, 

the authorized officer may modify terms and conditions of the permit or lease when the active 

use or related management practices:

(1) Do not meet management objectives specified in:

(i) The land use plan;

(ii) The pertinent allotment management plan or other activity plan; or

(iii) An applicable decision issued under § 4160.3; or

(2) Do not conform to the provisions of subpart 4180.

(b) To the extent practical, during the preparation of reports that evaluate monitoring and 

other data that the authorized officer uses as a basis for making decisions to increase or 

decrease grazing use, or otherwise to change the terms and conditions of a permit or lease, the 

authorized officer will provide the following with an opportunity to review and offer input:

(1) Affected permittees or lessees;

(2) States having lands or responsibility for managing resources within the affected area; and

(3) The interested public.

§ 4130.4 Authorization of temporary changes in grazing use within the terms and conditions 

of permits and leases, including temporary nonuse.

(a) The authorized officer may authorize temporary changes in grazing use within the terms 

and conditions of the permit or lease.

(b) For the purposes of this subpart, “temporary changes in grazing use within the terms and 

conditions of the permit or lease” means temporary changes in livestock number, period of use, 

or both, that would:

(1) Result in temporary nonuse; or

(2) Result in forage removal that --
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-77

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

(i) Does not exceed the amount of active use specified in the permit or lease; and

(ii) Occurs either not earlier than 14 days before the begin date specified on the permit or lease, 

and not later than 14 days after the end date specified on the permit or lease, unless otherwise 

specified in the appropriate allotment management plan under § 4120.2(a)(3); or

(3) Result in both temporary nonuse under paragraph (b)(1) of this section and forage removal 

under paragraph (b)(2) of this section.

(c) The authorized officer will consult, cooperate and coordinate with the permittees or lessees 

regarding their applications for changes within the terms and conditions of their permit or 

lease.

(d) Permittees and lessees must apply if they wish –

(1) Not to use all or a part of their active use by applying for temporary nonuse under 

paragraph (e) of this section;

(2) To use forage previously authorized as temporary nonuse; or 

(3) To use of forage that is temporarily available on designated ephemeral or annual ranges.

(e)(1) Temporary nonuse is authorized –

(i) Only if the authorized officer approves it in advance; and

(ii) For no longer than one year at a time.

(2) Permittees or lessees applying for temporary nonuse must state on their application the 

reasons supporting nonuse. The authorized officer may authorize nonuse to provide for:

(i) Natural resource conservation, enhancement, or protection, including more rapid progress 

toward meeting resource condition objectives or attainment of rangeland health standards; or

(ii) The business or personal needs of the permittee or lessee.

(f) Under § 4130.6-2, the authorized officer may authorize qualified applicants to graze forage 

made available as a result of temporary nonuse approved for the reasons described in paragraph 

(d)(2)(ii). The authorized officer will not authorize anyone to graze forage made available as a 

result of temporary nonuse approved under paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section.

(g) Permittees or lessees who wish to obtain temporary changes in grazing use within the 

terms and conditions of their permit or lease must file an application in writing with BLM on 

or before the date they wish the change in grazing use to begin. The authorized officer will 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-78 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

assess a service charge under § 4130.8-3 to process applications for changes in grazing use that 

require the issuance of a replacement or supplemental billing notice.

§ 4130.5 Free-use grazing permits.

(a) A free-use grazing permit shall be issued to any applicant whose residence is adjacent 

to public lands within grazing districts and who needs these public lands to support those 

domestic livestock owned by the applicant whose products or work are used directly and 

exclusively by the applicant and his family. The issuance of free-use grazing permits is subject 

to §4130.1–2. These permits shall be issued on an annual basis. These permits cannot be 

transferred or assigned.

(b) The authorized officer may also authorize free use under the following circumstances:

(1) The primary objective of grazing use is the management of vegetation to meet resource 

objectives other than the production of livestock forage and such use is in conformance with 

the requirements of this part;

(2) The primary purpose of grazing use is for scientific research or administrative studies; or

(3) The primary purpose of grazing use is the control of noxious weeds.

§ 4130.6 Other grazing authorizations.

Exchange-of-use grazing agreements, nonrenewable grazing permits or leases, crossing 

permits, and special grazing permits or leases have no priority for renewal and cannot be 

transferred or assigned. 

§ 4130.6-1 Exchange-of-use grazing agreements.

(a) An exchange-of-use grazing agreement may be issued to an applicant who owns or controls 

lands that are unfenced and intermingled with public lands in the same allotment when use 

under such an agreement will be in harmony with the management objectives for the allotment 

and will be compatible with the existing livestock operations. The agreements shall contain 

appropriate terms and conditions required under §4130.3 that ensure the orderly administration 

of the range, including fair and equitable sharing of the operation and maintenance of range 

improvements. The term of an exchange-of-use agreement may not exceed the length of the 

term for any leased lands that are offered in exchange-of-use. 

(b) An exchange-of-use grazing agreement may be issued to authorize use of public lands to 

the extent of the livestock carrying capacity of the lands offered in exchange-of-use. No fee 

shall be charged for this grazing use.

§ 4130.6-2 Nonrenewable grazing permits and leases.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-79

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

(a) Nonrenewable grazing permits or leases may be issued on an annual basis, as provided in § 

4110.3-1(a), to qualified applicants when forage is temporarily available, provided this use is 

consistent with multiple-use objectives and does not interfere with existing livestock operations 

on the public lands. The authorized officer shall consult, cooperate and coordinate with affected 

permittees or lessees, and the state having lands or responsibility for managing resources 

within the area, before issuing nonrenewable grazing permits and leases.

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of § 4.21(a)(1) of this title, when BLM determines that it 

is necessary for orderly administration of the public lands, the authorized officer may make a 

decision that issues a nonrenewable grazing permit or lease, or that affects an application for 

grazing use on annual or designated ephemeral rangelands, effective immediately or on a date 

established in the decision.

§ 4130.6-3 Crossing permits.

A crossing permit may be issued by the authorized officer to any applicant showing a need to 

cross the public land or other land under Bureau of Land Management control, or both, with 

livestock for proper and lawful purposes. A temporary use authorization for trailing livestock 

shall contain terms and conditions for the temporary grazing use that will occur as deemed 

necessary by the authorized officer to achieve the objectives of this part. 

§ 4130.6-4 Special grazing permits or leases.

Special grazing permits or leases authorizing grazing use by privately owned or controlled 

indigenous animals may be issued at the discretion of the authorized officer. This use shall 

be consistent with multiple-use objectives. These permits or leases shall be issued for a term 

deemed appropriate by the authorized officer not to exceed 10 years.

§ 4130.7 Ownership and identification of livestock.

(a) The permittee or lessee shall own or control and be responsible for the management of the 

livestock which graze the public land under a grazing permit or lease. 

(b) Authorized users shall comply with the requirements of the State in which the public lands 

are located relating to branding of livestock, breed, grade, and number of bulls, health and 

sanitation.

(c) The authorized officer may require counting and/or additional special marking or tagging of 

the authorized livestock in order to promote the orderly administration of the public lands.

(d) Except as provided in paragraph (f) of this section, where a permittee or lessee controls 

but does not own the livestock which graze the public lands, the agreement that gives the 

permittee or lessee control of the livestock by the permittee or lessee shall be filed with the 

authorized officer and approval received prior to any grazing use. The document shall describe 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-80 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

the livestock and livestock numbers, identify the owner of the livestock, contain the terms for 

the care and management of the livestock, specify the duration of the agreement, and shall be 

signed by the parties to the agreement. 

(e) The brand and other identifying marks on livestock controlled, but not owned, by the 

permittee or lessee shall be filed with the authorized officer. 

(f) Livestock owned by sons and daughters of grazing permittees and lessees may graze public 

lands included within the permit or lease of their parents when all the following conditions 

exist: 

(1) The sons and daughters are participating in educational or youth programs related to animal 

husbandry, agribusiness or rangeland management, or are actively involved in the family 

ranching operation and are establishing a livestock herd with the intent of assuming part or all 

of the family ranch operation. 

(2) The livestock owned by the sons and daughters to be grazed on public lands do not 

comprise greater than 50 percent of the total number authorized to occupy public lands under 

their parent’s permit or lease. 

(3) The brands or other markings of livestock that are owned by sons and daughters are 

recorded on the parent’s permit, lease, or grazing application. 

(4) Use by livestock owned by sons and daughters, when considered in addition to use by 

livestock owned or controlled by the permittee or lessee, does not exceed authorized livestock 

use and is consistent with other terms and conditions of the permit or lease. 

§ 4130.8 Fees.

§ 4130.8-1 Payment of fees.

(a) Grazing fees shall be established annually by the Secretary.

(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section, the calculated fee or 

grazing fee shall be equal to the $1.23 base established by the 1966 Western Livestock Grazing 

Survey multiplied by the result of the Forage Value Index (computed annually from data 

supplied by the National Agricultural Statistics Service) added to the Combined Index (Beef 

Cattle Price Index minus the Prices Paid Index) and divided by 100; as follows:

CF = Calculated Fee (grazing fee) is the estimated economic value of livestock grazing, 

defined by the Congress as fair market value (FMV) of the forage;
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-81

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

$1.23=The base economic value of grazing on public rangeland established by the 1966 

Western Livestock Grazing Survey;

FVI=Forage Value Index means the weighted average estimate of the annual rental charge per 

head per month for pasturing cattle on private rangelands in the 11 Western States (Montana, 

Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, 

and California) (computed by the National Agricultural Statistics Service from the June 

Enumerative Survey) divided by $3.65 and multiplied by 100;

BCPI=Beef Cattle Price Index means the weighted average annual selling price for beef 

cattle (excluding calves) in the 11 Western States (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New 

Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, and California) for November through 

October (computed by the National Agricultural Statistics Service divided by $22.04 per 

hundred weight and multiplied by 100; and

PPI=Prices Paid Index means the following selected components from the National 

Agricultural Statistics Service’s Annual National Index of Prices Paid by Farmers for Goods 

and Services adjusted by the weights indicated in parentheses to reflect livestock production 

costs in the Western States: 1. Fuels and Energy (14.5); 2. Farm and Motor Supplies (12.0); 3. 

Autos and Trucks (4.5); 4. Tractors and Self-Propelled Machinery (4.5); 5. Other Machinery 

(12.0); 6. Building and Fencing Materials (14.5); 7. Interest (6.0); 8. Farm Wage Rates (14.0); 

9. Farm Services (18.0).

(2) Any annual increase or decrease in the grazing fee for any given year shall be limited to not 

more than plus or minus 25 percent of the previous year’s fee.

(3) The grazing fee for any year shall not be less than $1.35 per animal unit month.

(b) Fees shall be charged for livestock grazing upon or crossing the public lands and other 

lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management at a specified rate per animal unit 

month.

(c) Except as provided in §4130.5, the full fee shall be charged for each animal unit month of 

authorized grazing use. For the purposes of calculating the fee, an animal unit month is defined 

as a month’s use and occupancy of range by 1 cow, bull, steer, heifer, horse, burro, mule, 5 

sheep, or 5 goats:

(1) Over the age of 6 months at the time of entering the public lands or other lands 

administered by BLM; 

(2) Weaned regardless of age; or

(3) Becoming 12 months of age during the authorized period of use. 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-82 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

(d) BLM will not charge grazing fees for animals that are less than 6 months of age at the time 

of entering BLM-administered lands, provided that are the natural progeny of animals upon 

which fees are paid, and they will not become 12 months of age during the authorized period of 

use.

(e) In calculating the billing, the authorized officer will prorate the grazing fee on a daily basis 

and will round charges to reflect the nearest whole number of animal unit months. 

(f) A surcharge shall be added to the grazing fee billings for authorized grazing of livestock 

owned by persons other than the permittee or lessee except where such use is made by 

livestock owned by sons and daughters of permittees and lessees as provided in §4130.7(f). 

The surcharge shall be over and above any other fees that may be charged for using public land 

forage. Surcharges shall be paid prior to grazing use. The surcharge for authorized pasturing of 

livestock owned by persons other than the permittee or lessee will be equal to 35 percent of the 

difference between the current year’s Federal grazing fee and the prior year’s private grazing 

land lease rate per animal unit month for the appropriate State as determined by the National 

Agricultural Statistics Service. 

(g) Fees are due on due date specified on the grazing fee bill. Payment will be made prior to 

grazing use. Grazing use that occurs prior to payment of a bill, except where specified in an 

allotment management plan, is unauthorized and may be dealt with under subparts 4150 and 

4170 of this part. If allotment management plans provide for billing after the grazing season, 

fees will be based on actual grazing use and will be due upon issuance. Repeated delays in 

payment of actual use billings or noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the allotment 

management plan and permit or lease shall be cause to revoke provisions for after-the-grazingseason billing. 

(h) Failure to pay the grazing bill within 15 days of the due date specified in the bill shall result 

in a late fee assessment of $25.00 or 10 percent of the grazing bill, whichever is greater, but 

not to exceed $250.00. Payment made later than 15 days after the due date, shall include the 

appropriate late fee assessment. Failure to make payment within 30 days after the due date is 

a violation of § 4140.1(b)(1) and may result in action by the authorized officer under §4150.1 

and subpart 4160.

§ 4130.8-2 Refunds.

(a) Grazing fees may be refunded where applications for change in grazing use and related 

refund are filed prior to the period of use for which the refund is requested.

(b) No refunds shall be made for failure to make grazing use, except during periods of range 

depletion due to drought, fire, or other natural causes, or in case of a general spread of disease 

among the livestock that occurs during the term of a permit or lease. During these periods of 

range depletion the authorized officer may credit or refund fees in whole or in part, or postpone 

fee payment for as long as the emergency exists.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-83

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

§ 4130.8-3 Service charge.

(a) Under Section 304(a) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, BLM may 

establish reasonable charges for various services such as application processing. BLM may 

adjust these charges periodically to account for cost changes. BLM will inform the public of 

any changes by publishing a notice in the Federal Register.

(b) The following table of service charges is applicable until changed through a Federal

Register notice as provided in paragraph (a) of this section. Except when the action is initiated 

by BLM, the authorized officer will assess the following service charges:

Action Service Charge Issue crossing permit $75 Transfer grazing preference $145 Cancel and/or replace and/or supplement a grazing fee billing $50

§ 4130.9 Pledge of permits or leases as security for loans.

Grazing permits or leases that have been pledged as security for loans from lending agencies 

shall be renewed by the authorized officer under the provisions of these regulations for a period 

of not to exceed 10 years if the loan is for the purpose of furthering the permittee’s or lessee’s 

livestock operation, Provided, That the permittee or lessee has complied with the rules and 

regulations of this part and that such renewal will be in accordance with other applicable laws 

and regulations. While grazing permits or leases may be pledged as security for loans from 

lending agencies, this does not exempt these permits or leases from the provisions of these 

regulations.

Subpart 4140—Prohibited Acts

§ 4140.1 Acts prohibited on public lands.

(a) Grazing permittees or lessees performing the following prohibited acts may be subject to 

civil penalties under §4170.1: 

(1) Violating special terms and conditions incorporated in permits or leases; 

(2) Failing to make substantial grazing use as authorized by a permit or lease for 2 consecutive 

fee years. This does not include approved temporary nonuse or use temporarily suspended by 

the authorized officer. 

(3) Placing supplemental feed on these lands without authorization, or contrary to the terms 

and conditions of the permit or lease.

(4) Failing to comply with the terms, conditions, and stipulations of cooperative range 

improvement agreements or range improvement permits; 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-84 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

(5) Refusing to install, maintain, modify, or remove range improvements when so directed by 

the authorized officer. 

(6) Unauthorized leasing or subleasing as defined in this part. 

(b) Persons performing the following prohibited acts on BLM-administered lands are subject to 

civil and criminal penalties set forth at §§4170.1 and 4170.2: 

(1) Allowing livestock or other privately owned or controlled animals to graze on or be driven 

across these lands:

(i) Without a permit or lease, or other grazing use authorization (see § 4130.6) and timely 

payment of grazing fees. 

(ii) In violation of the terms and conditions of a permit, lease, or other grazing use 

authorization including, but not limited to, livestock in excess of the number authorized;

(iii) In an area or at a time different from that authorized; or

(iv) Failing to comply with a requirement under §4130.7(c) of this title.

(2) Installing, using, maintaining, modifying, and/or removing range improvements without 

authorization; 

(3) Cutting, burning, spraying, destroying, or removing vegetation without authorization; 

(4) Damaging or removing U.S. property without authorization; 

(5) Molesting, harassing, injuring, poisoning, or causing death of livestock authorized to graze 

on these lands and removing authorized livestock without the owner’s consent; 

(6) Littering; 

(7) Interfering with lawful uses or users including obstructing free transit through or over 

public lands by force, threat, intimidation, signs, barrier or locked gates; 

(8) Knowingly or willfully making a false statement or representation in base property 

certifications, grazing applications, range improvement permit applications, cooperative range 

improvement agreements, actual use reports and/or amendments thereto; 

(9) Failing to pay any fee required by the authorized officer pursuant to this part, or making 

payment for grazing use of public lands with insufficiently funded checks on a repeated and 

willful basis; 

(10) Failing to reclaim and repair any lands, property, or resources when required by the 

authorized officer; 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-85

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

(11) Failing to reclose any gate or other entry during periods of livestock use. 

(c) (1) A grazing permittee or lessee performing any of the prohibited acts listed in paragraphs 

(c)(2) or (c)(3) of this section on an allotment where he is authorized to graze under a BLM 

permit or lease may be subject to civil penalties set forth at § 4170.1-1, if:

(i) The permittee or lessee performs the prohibited act while engaged in activities related to 

grazing use authorized by his permit or lease;

(ii) The permittee or lessee has been convicted or otherwise found to be in violation of any of 

these laws or regulations by a court or by final determination of an agency charged with the 

administration of these laws or regulations; and

(iii) No further appeals are outstanding. 

(2) Violation of Federal or State laws or regulations pertaining to the: 

(i) Placement of poisonous bait or hazardous devices designed for the destruction of wildlife; 

(ii) Application or storage of pesticides, herbicides, or other hazardous materials; 

(iii) Alteration or destruction of natural stream courses without authorization; 

(iv) Pollution of water sources; 

(v) Illegal take, destruction, or harassment, or aiding and abetting in the illegal take, destruction,

or harassment of fish and wildlife resources; and 

(vi) Illegal removal or destruction of archeological or cultural resources; 

(3)(i) Violation of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), 

Endangered Specieis Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), or any provision of part 4700 of this chapter 

concerning the protection and management of wild free-roaming horses and burros; or 

(ii) Violation of State livestock laws or regulations relating to the branding of livestock; breed, 

grade, and number of bulls; health and sanitation requirements; and violating State, county, or 

local laws regarding the straying of livestock from permitted public land grazing areas onto areas 

that have been formally closed to open range grazing. 

Subpart 4150—Unauthorized Grazing Use

§ 4150.1 Violations.

Violation of §4140.1(b)(1) constitutes unauthorized grazing use. 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-86 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

(a) The authorized officer shall determine whether a violation is nonwillful, willful, or repeated 

willful. 

(b) Violators shall be liable in damages to the United States for the forage consumed by their 

livestock, for injury to Federal property caused by their unauthorized grazing use, and for 

expenses incurred in impoundment and disposal of their livestock, and may be subject to civil 

penalties or criminal sanction for such unlawful acts.

§ 4150.2 Notice and order to remove.

(a) Whenever it appears that a violation exists and the owner of the unauthorized livestock is 

known, written notice of unauthorized use and order to remove livestock by a specified date 

shall be served upon the alleged violator or the agent of record, or both, by certified mail or 

personal delivery. The written notice shall also allow a specified time from receipt of notice 

for the alleged violator to show that there has been no violation or to make settlement under 

§4150.3.

(b) Whenever a violation has been determined to be nonwillful and incidental, the authorized 

officer shall notify the alleged violator that the violation must be corrected, and how it can be 

settled, based upon the discretion of the authorized officer. 

(c) When neither the owner of the unauthorized livestock nor his agent is known, the 

authorized officer may proceed to impound the livestock under §4150.4.

(d) The authorized officer may temporarily close areas to grazing by specified kinds or class of 

livestock for a period not to exceed 12 months when necessary to abate unauthorized grazing 

use. Such notices of closure may be issued as final decisions effective upon issuance or on the 

date specified in the decision and shall remain in effect pending the decision on appeal unless a 

stay is granted by the Office of Hearings and Appeals in accordance with 43 CFR 4.472(d). 

§ 4150.3 Settlement.

Where violations are repeated willful, the authorized officer shall take action under §4170.1–

1(b) of this title. The amount due for settlement shall include the value of forage consumed as 

determined in accordance with paragraph (a), (b), or (c) of this section. Settlement for willful 

and repeated willful violations shall also include the full value for all damages to the public 

lands and other property of the United States; and all reasonable expenses incurred by the 

United States in detecting, investigating, resolving violations, and livestock impoundment 

costs.

(a) For nonwillful violations: The value of forage consumed as determined by the average 

monthly rate per AUM for pasturing livestock on privately owned land (excluding irrigated 

land) in each State as published annually by the Department of Agriculture. The authorized 

officer may approve nonmonetary settlement of unauthorized use only when the authorized 

officer determines that each of the following conditions is satisfied: 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-87

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

(1) Evidence shows that the unauthorized use occurred through no fault of the livestock 

operator; 

(2) The forage use is insignificant; 

(3) The public lands have not been damaged; and 

(4) Nonmonetary settlement is in the best interest of the United States. 

(b) For willful violations: Twice the value of forage consumed as determined in paragraph (a) 

of this section.

(c) For repeated willful violations: Three times the value of the forage consumed as determined 

in paragraph (a) of this section.

(d) Payment made under this section does not relieve the alleged violator of any criminal 

liability under Federal or State law.

(e) Violators shall not be authorized to make grazing use on the public lands administered by 

the Bureau of Land Management until any amount found to be due the United States under this 

section has been paid. The authorized officer may take action under subpart 4160 to cancel or 

suspend grazing authorizations or to deny approval of applications for grazing use until such 

amounts have been paid. The proposed decision shall include a demand for payment.

(f) Upon a stay of a decision issued under paragraph (e) of this section, the authorized officer 

will allow a permittee or lessee to graze in accordance with this part 4100 pending completion 

of the administrative appeal process.

§ 4150.4 Impoundment and disposal.

Unauthorized livestock remaining on the public lands or other lands under Bureau of Land 

Management control, or both, after the date set forth in the notice and order to remove sent 

under §4150.2 may be impounded and disposed of by the authorized officer as provided herein.

§ 4150.4-1 Notice of intent to impound.

(a) A written notice of intent to impound shall be sent by certified mail or personally delivered 

to the owner or his agent, or both. The written notice shall indicate that unauthorized livestock 

on the specified public lands or other lands under Bureau of Land Management control, or 

both, may be impounded any time after 5 days from delivery of the notice. 

(b) Where the owner and his agent are unknown, or where both a known owner and his agent 

refuses to accept delivery, a notice of intent to impound shall be published in a local newspaper 

and posted at the county courthouse and a post office near the public land involved. The notice 

shall indicate that unauthorized livestock on the specified public lands or other lands under 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-88 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

Bureau of Land Management control, or both, may be impounded any time after 5 days from 

publishing and posting the notice.

§ 4150.4-2 Impoundment.

After 5 days from delivery of the notice under §4150.4–1(a) of this title or any time after 5 

days from publishing and posting the notice under §4150.4–1(b) of this title, unauthorized 

livestock may be impounded without further notice any time within the 12-month period 

following the effective date of the notice.

§ 4150.4-3 Notice of public sale.

Following the impoundment of livestock under this subpart the livestock may be disposed of 

by the authorized officer under these regulations or, if a suitable agreement is in effect, they 

may be turned over to the State for disposal. Any known owners or agents, or both, shall be 

notified in writing by certified mail or by personal delivery of the sale and the procedure by 

which the impounded livestock may be redeemed prior to the sale.

§ 4150.4-4 Redemption.

Any owner or his agent, or both, or lien-holder of record of the impounded livestock may 

redeem them under these regulations or, if a suitable agreement is in effect, in accordance with 

State law, prior to the time of sale upon settlement with the United States under §4150.3 or 

adequate showing that there has been no violation.

§ 4150.4-5 Sale.

If the livestock are not redeemed on or before the date and time fixed for their sale, they shall 

be offered at public sale to the highest bidder by the authorized officer under these regulations 

or, if a suitable agreement is in effect, by the State. If a satisfactory bid is not received, the 

livestock may be reoffered for sale, condemned and destroyed or otherwise disposed of under 

these regulations, or if a suitable agreement is in effect, in accordance with State Law.

Subpart 4160—Administrative Remedies

§ 4160.1 Proposed decisions.

(a) Proposed decisions shall be served on any affected applicant, permittee or lessee, and any 

agent and lien holder of record, who is affected by the proposed actions, terms or conditions, or 

modifications relating to applications, permits and agreements (including range improvement 

permits) or leases, by certified mail or personal delivery. Copies of proposed decisions shall 

also be sent to the interested public. 

(b) Proposed decisions shall state the reasons for the action and shall reference the pertinent 

terms, conditions and the provisions of applicable regulations. As appropriate, decisions shall 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-89

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

state the alleged violations of specific terms and conditions and provisions of these regulations 

alleged to have been violated, and shall state the amount due under §§4130.8 and 4150.3 and 

the action to be taken under §4170.1. 

(c) The authorized officer may elect not to issue a proposed decision prior to a final decision 

where the authorized officer has made a determination in accordance with § 4110.3–3(b), § 

4130.6-2(b), § 4150.2(d), or § 4190.1(a).

(d) A biological assessment or biological evaluation prepared by BLM for purposes of an 

Endangered Species Act consultation or conference is not a decision for purposes of protest 

and appeal. 

§ 4160.2 Protests.

Any applicant, permittee, lessee or other interested public may protest the proposed decision 

under §4160.1 of this title in person or in writing to the authorized officer within 15 days after 

receipt of such decision.

§ 4160.3 Final decisions.

(a) In the absence of a protest, the proposed decision will become the final decision of the 

authorized officer without further notice unless otherwise provided in the proposed decision. 

(b) Upon the timely filing of a protest, the authorized officer shall reconsider her/his proposed 

decision in light of the protestant’s statement of reasons for protest and in light of other 

information pertinent to the case. At the conclusion to her/his review of the protest, the 

authorized officer shall serve her/his final decision on the protestant or her/his agent, or both, 

and the interested public.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of §4.21(a) of this title pertaining to the period during 

which a final decision will not be in effect, the authorized officer may provide that the final 

decision shall be effective upon issuance or on a date established in the decision and shall 

remain in effect pending the decision on appeal unless a stay is granted by the Office of 

Hearings and Appeals when the authorized officer has made a determination in accordance 

with § 4110.3–3(b), § 4130.6-2(b), § 4150.2(d), or § 4190.1(a). Nothing in this section shall 

affect the authority of the Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals, the Interior Board of 

Land Appeals, or an administrative law judge to provide that the decision becomes effective 

immediately as provided in §§ 4.21(a)(1) and 4.479(c) of this title. 

§ 4160.4 Appeals.

(a) Those who wish to appeal or seek a stay of a BLM grazing decision must follow the 

requirements set forth in § 4.470 et seq. of this title. The appeal or petition for stay must be 

filed with the BLM office that issued the decision within 30 days after its receipt or within 30 

days after the proposed decision becomes final as provided in §4160.3(a). 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-90 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

(b) When OHA stays all or a portion of a BLM grazing decision that affects a grazing permit or 

lease, BLM will authorize grazing use as follows:

(1) When OHA stays implementation of all or part of a grazing decision that cancels or 

suspends a permit or lease, changes any terms or conditions of a permit or lease during its 

current term, or renews a permit or lease, BLM will continue to authorize grazing under the 

permit or lease, or the relevant term or condition thereof, that was in effect immediately before 

the decision was issued, subject to any relevant provisions of the stay order. This continued 

authorization is not subject to protest or appeal.

(2) When OHA stays implementation of a grazing decision that denies issuance of a permit or 

lease to a preference transferee, BLM will issue the preference applicant a permit or lease with 

terms and conditions that are the same as the terms and conditions of the most recent permit or 

lease applicable to the allotment or portion of the allotment in question, subject to any relevant 

provisions of the stay order. This temporary permit will expire upon the resolution of the 

administrative appeal. Issuance of the temporary permit is not a decision subject to protest or 

appeal.

(3) When OHA stays implementation of a grazing decision that offers a permit or lease to a 

preference transferee with terms and conditions different from terms and conditions of the most 

recent permit or lease applicable to the allotment or portion of the allotment in question, BLM 

will issue the preference applicant a permit or lease that, with respect to any stayed term and 

condition, is the same as the terms and conditions of the most recent permit or lease applicable 

to the allotment or portion of the allotment in question, subject to any relevant provisions of 

the stay order. This temporary permit will expire upon resolution of the administrative appeal. 

Issuance of the temporary permit is not a decision subject to protest and appeal.

Subpart 4170—Penalties

§ 4170.1 Civil penalties.

§ 4170.1-1 Penalty for violations.

(a) The authorized officer may withhold issuance of a grazing permit or lease, or suspend 

the grazing use authorized under a grazing permit or lease, in whole or in part, or cancel a 

grazing permit or lease and grazing preference, or a free use grazing permit or other grazing 

authorization, in whole or in part, under subpart 4160 of this title, for violation by a permittee 

or lessee of any of the provisions of this part.

(b) The authorized officer shall suspend the grazing use authorized under a grazing permit, in 

whole or in part, or shall cancel a grazing permit or lease and grazing preference, in whole or 

in part, under subpart 4160 of this title for repeated willful violation by a permittee or lessee of 

§4140.1(b)(1) of this title. 

(c) Whenever a nonpermittee or nonlessee violates §4140.1(b) of this title and has not made 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-91

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

satisfactory settlement under §4150.3 of this title the authorized officer shall refer the matter to 

proper authorities for appropriate legal action by the United States against the violator.

(d) Any person found to have violated the provisions of §4140.1(a)(6) after August 21, 1995, 

shall be required to pay twice the value of forage consumed as determined by the average 

monthly rate per AUM for pasturing livestock on privately owned land (excluding irrigated 

land) in each State as supplied annually by the National Agricultural Statistics Service, and all 

reasonable expenses incurred by the United States in detecting, investigating, and resolving 

violations. If the dollar equivalent value is not received by the authorized officer within 30 days 

of receipt of the final decision, the grazing permit or lease shall be cancelled. Such payment 

shall be in addition to any other penalties the authorized officer may impose under paragraph 

(a) of this section.

§ 4170.1-2 Failure to use.

If a permittee or lessee has, for 2 consecutive grazing fee years, failed to make substantial use 

as authorized in the lease or permit, or has failed to maintain or use water base property in the 

grazing operation, the authorized officer, after consultation, coordination, and cooperation with 

the permittee or lessee and any lienholder of record, may cancel whatever amount of active use 

the permittee or lessee has failed to use. 

§ 4170.2 Penal provisions.

§ 4170.2-1 Penal provisions under the Taylor Grazing Act.

Under section 2 of the Act any person who willfully commits an act prohibited under 

§4140.1(b), or who willfully violates approved special rules and regulations is punishable by a 

fine of not more than $500. 

§ 4170.2-2 Penal provisions under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.

Under section 303(a) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 

et seq.), any person who knowingly and willfully commits an act prohibited under §4140.1(b) 

or who knowingly and willfully violates approved special rules and regulations may be 

brought before a designated U.S. magistrate and is punishable by a fine in accordance with the 

applicable provisions of Title 18 of the United States Code, or imprisonment for no more than 

12 months, or both. 

Subpart 4180—Fundamentals of Rangeland Health and Standards and Guidelines for Grazing 

Administration

§ 4180.1 Fundamentals of rangeland health.

Where standards and guidelines have not been established under § 4180.2(b), and the 

authorized officer determines that grazing management needs to be modified to assist in 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-92 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

achieving the following conditions, the authorized officer will take appropriate action as 

soon as practicable but not later than the start of the next grazing year that follows BLM’s 

completion of relevant and applicable requirements of laws and regulations, and the 

consultation requirements of §§ 4110.3-3 and 4130.3-3:

a) Watersheds are in, or are making significant progress toward, properly functioning physical 

condition, including their upland, riparian-wetland, and aquatic components; soil and plant 

conditions support infiltration, soil moisture storage, and the release of water that are in balance 

with climate and landform and maintain or improve water quality, water quantity, and timing 

and duration of flow. 

(b) Ecological processes, including the hydrologic cycle, nutrient cycle, and energy flow, are 

maintained, or there is significant progress toward their attainment, in order to support healthy 

biotic populations and communities. 

(c) Water quality complies with State water quality standards and achieves, or is making 

significant progress toward achieving, established BLM management objectives such as 

meeting wildlife needs. 

(d) Habitats are, or are making significant progress toward being, restored or maintained for 

Federal threatened and endangered species, Federal proposed or candidate threatened and 

endangered species and other special status species. 

§ 4180.2 Standards and guidelines for grazing administration.

(a) The Bureau of Land Management State Director, in consultation with the affected resource 

advisory councils where they exist, will identify the geographical area for which standards and 

guidelines are developed. Standards and guidelines will be developed for an entire state, or an 

area encompassing portions of more than 1 state, unless the Bureau of Land Management State 

Director, in consultation with the resource advisory councils, determines that the characteristics 

of an area are unique, and the rangelands within the area could not be adequately protected 

using standards and guidelines developed on a broader geographical scale. 

(b) The Bureau of Land Management State Director, in consultation with affected Bureau 

of Land Management resource advisory councils, shall develop and amend State or regional 

standards and guidelines. The Bureau of Land Management State Director will also coordinate 

with Indian tribes, other State and Federal land management agencies responsible for the 

management of lands and resources within the region or area under consideration, and the 

public in the development of State or regional standards and guidelines. Standards and 

guidelines developed by the Bureau of Land Management State Director must provide for 

conformance with the fundamentals of §4180.1. State or regional standards or guidelines 

developed by the Bureau of Land Management State Director may not be implemented prior to 

their approval by the Secretary. Standards and guidelines made effective under paragraph (f) of 

this section may be modified by the Bureau of Land Management State Director, with approval 

of the Secretary, to address local ecosystems and management practices. 
Proposed revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands Appendix A 

Bureau of Land Management FES-04-39 Proposed Final Regulations

October 2004 A-93

(c)(1) If a standards assessment indicates to the authorized officer that the rangeland is failing to achieve 

standards or that management practices do not conform to the guidelines, then the authorized officer will 

use monitoring data to identify the significant factors that contribute to failing to achieve the standards 

or to conform with the guidelines. If the authorized officer determines through standards assessment 

and monitoring that existing grazing management practices or levels of grazing use on public lands are 

significant factors in failing to achieve the standards and conform with the guidelines that are made 

effective under this section, the authorized officer will, in compliance with applicable laws and with the 

consultation requirements of this part, formulate, propose, and analyze appropriate action to address the 

failure to meet standards or to conform to the guidelines. 

(i) Parties will execute a documented agreement and/or the authorized officer will issue a final decision 

on the appropriate action under § 4160.3 as soon as practicable, but not later than 24 months after a 

determination. 

(ii) BLM may extend the deadline for meeting the requirements established in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this 

section when legally required processes that are the responsibility of another agency prevent completion 

of all legal obligations within the 24-month timeframe. BLM will make a decision as soon as practicable 

after the legal requirements are met. 

(2) Upon executing the agreement and/or in the absence of a stay of the final decision, the authorized 

officer will implement the appropriate action as soon as practicable, but not later than the start of the 

next grazing year. 

(3) The authorized officer will take appropriate action as defined in this paragraph by the deadlines established in 

paragraph (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section. Appropriate action means implementing actions pursuant to subparts 

4110, 4120, 4130, and 4160 that will result in significant progress toward fulfillment of the standards and 

significant progress toward conformance with the guidelines. Practices and activities subject to standards and 

guidelines include the development of grazing-related portions of activity plans, establishment of terms and 

conditions of permits, leases and other grazing authorizations, and range improvement activities such as 

vegetation manipulation, fence construction and development of water. 

(d) At a minimum, state and regional standards developed or revised under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 

section must address the following: 

(1) Watershed function; 

(2) Nutrient cycling and energy flow; 

(3) Water quality; 

(4) Habitat for endangered, threatened, proposed, candidate, and other special status species; and 

(5) Habitat quality for native plant and animal populations and communities. 

(e) At a minimum, State or regional guidelines developed under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section 

must address the following: 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-94 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

(1) Maintaining or promoting adequate amounts of vegetative ground cover, including standing 

plant material and litter, to support infiltration, maintain soil moisture storage, and stabilize 

soils; 

(2) Maintaining or promoting subsurface soil conditions that support permeability rates 

appropriate to climate and soils; 

(3) Maintaining, improving or restoring riparian-wetland functions including energy 

dissipation, sediment capture, groundwater recharge, and stream bank stability; 

(4) Maintaining or promoting stream channel morphology (e.g., gradient, width/depth ratio, 

channel roughness and sinuosity) and functions appropriate to climate and landform; 

(5) Maintaining or promoting the appropriate kinds and amounts of soil organisms, plants and 

animals to support the hydrologic cycle, nutrient cycle, and energy flow; 

(6) Promoting the opportunity for seedling establishment of appropriate plant species when 

climatic conditions and space allow; 

(7) Maintaining, restoring or enhancing water quality to meet management objectives, such as 

meeting wildlife needs; 

(8) Restoring, maintaining or enhancing habitats to assist in the recovery of Federal threatened 

and endangered species; 

(9) Restoring, maintaining or enhancing habitats of Federal Proposed, Federal candidate, and 

other special status species to promote their conservation; 

(10) Maintaining or promoting the physical and biological conditions to sustain native 

populations and communities; 

(11) Emphasizing native species in the support of ecological function; and 

(12) Incorporating the use of non-native plant species only in those situations in which native 

species are not available in sufficient quantities or are incapable of maintaining or achieving 

properly functioning conditions and biological health. 

(f) Until such time as state or regional standards and guidelines are developed and in effect, 

the following standards provided in paragraph (f)(1) of this section and guidelines provided in 

(f)(2) of this section will apply and will be implemented in accordance with paragraph (c) of 

this section. 

(1) Fallback standards. (i) Upland soils exhibit infiltration and permeability rates that are 

appropriate to soil type, climate and landform. 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 A-95

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

(ii) Riparian-wetland areas are in properly functioning condition. 

(iii) Stream channel morphology (including but not limited to gradient, width/depth ratio, 

channel roughness and sinuosity) and functions are appropriate for the climate and landform. 

(iv) Healthy, productive and diverse populations of native species exist and are maintained. 

(2) Fallback guidelines. (i) Management practices maintain or promote adequate amounts of 

ground cover to support infiltration, maintain soil moisture storage, and stabilize soils; 

(ii) Management practices maintain or promote soil conditions that support permeability rates 

that are appropriate to climate and soils; 

(iii) Management practices maintain or promote sufficient residual vegetation to maintain, 

improve or restore riparian-wetland functions of energy dissipation, sediment capture, 

groundwater recharge and stream bank stability; 

(iv) Management practices maintain or promote stream channel morphology (e.g., gradient, 

width/depth ratio, channel roughness and sinuosity) and functions that are appropriate to 

climate and landform; 

(v) Management practices maintain or promote the appropriate kinds and amounts of soil 

organisms, plants and animals to support the hydrologic cycle, nutrient cycle, and energy flow; 

(vi) Management practices maintain or promote the physical and biological conditions 

necessary to sustain native populations and communities; 

(vii) Desired species are being allowed to complete seed dissemination in 1 out of every 3 

years (Management actions will promote the opportunity for seedling establishment when 

climatic conditions and space allow.); 

(viii) Conservation of Federal threatened or endangered, proposed, candidate, and other special 

status species is promoted by the restoration and maintenance of their habitats; 

(ix) Native species are emphasized in the support of ecological function; 

(x) Non-native plant species are used only in those situations in which native species are not 

readily available in sufficient quantities or are incapable of maintaining or achieving properly 

functioning conditions and biological health; 

(xi) Periods of rest from disturbance or livestock use during times of critical plant growth or 

regrowth are provided when needed to achieve healthy, properly functioning conditions (The 

timing and duration of use periods shall be determined by the authorized officer.); 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

A-96 October 2004

Appendix A

Proposed Final Regulations

(xii) Continuous, season-long livestock use is allowed to occur only when it has been 

demonstrated to be consistent with achieving healthy, properly functioning ecosystems; 

(xiii) Facilities are located away from riparian-wetland areas wherever they conflict with 

achieving or maintaining riparian-wetland function; 

(xiv) The development of springs and seeps or other projects affecting water and associated 

resources shall be designed to protect the ecological functions and processes of those sites; and 

(xv) Grazing on designated ephemeral (annual and perennial) rangeland is allowed to occur 

only if reliable estimates of production have been made, an identified level of annual growth 

or residue to remain on site at the end of the grazing season has been established, and adverse 

effects on perennial species are avoided. 

Subpart 4190—Effect of Wildfire Management Decisions

§ 4190.1 Effect of wildfire management decisions.

(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of 43 CFR 4.21(a)(1), when BLM determines that 

vegetation, soil, or other resources on the public lands are at substantial risk of wildfire due to 

drought, fuels buildup, or other reasons, or at immediate risk of erosion or other damage due to 

wildfire, BLM may make a rangeland wildfire management decision effective immediately or 

on a date established in the decision. Wildfire management includes but is not limited to: 

(1) Fuel reduction or fuel treatment such as prescribed burns and mechanical, chemical, and 

biological thinning methods (with or without removal of thinned materials); and 

(2) Projects to stabilize and rehabilitate lands affected by wildfire. 

(b) The Interior Board of Land Appeals will issue a decision on the merits of an appeal of 

a wildfire management decision under paragraph (a) of this section within the time limits 

prescribed in 43 CFR 4.416.
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 B-1

Appendix B

Special Status Species

Appendix B. Special Status Species

This appendix, the BLMʼs most current list of special status species in the western States, 

includes species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as endangered, threatened, 

candidate, and proposed, as well as BLM-sensitive species

Although this list is the BLMʼs most up-to-date list of special status species, the list 

may change at any time according to changes in the listing by the Fish and Wildlife Service, 

more recent data from recent investigations, and further verification of a species presence on 

public lands.

Status Class Common Name Scientific Name 

FT Amphibian Frog, California Red-Legged Rana aurora draytonii 

FT Amphibian Frog, Chiricahua Leopard Rana chiricahuensis 

C Amphibian Frog, Columbia Spotted Rana luteiventris 

C Amphibian Frog, Oregon Spotted Rana pretiosa 

C Amphibian Frog, Relict Leopard Rana onca 

FE, Eme Amphibian Salamander, California Tiger Ambystoma californiense 

FE Amphibian Salamander, Desert Slender Batrachoseps aridus 

FE Amphibian Salamander, Sonora Tiger Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi 

FE Amphibian Toad, Arroyo Bufo microscaphus californicus 

C Amphibian Toad, Boreal Bufo boreas boreas 

FE Amphibian Toad, Wyoming Bufo hemiophyrs baxteri 

FE Bird Albatross, Short-Tailed Phoebastris albatrus 

FT Bird Caracara, Audubonʼs Crested Polyborus plancus audubonnii 

FE ex Bird Condor, California Gymnogyps californianus 

FE ex Bird Crane, Whooping Grus americana 

C Bird Cuckoo, Western Yellow-Billed Coccyzus americanus occidentalis 

FE Bird Curlew, Eskimo Numenius borealis 

FT Bird Eagle, Bald Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

FT Bird Eider, Spectacled Somateria fischeri 

FT Bird Eider, Stellerʼs Polystricta stelleri 

FE Bird Falcon, Northern Aplomado Falco femoralis septentrionalis 

FE Bird Flycatcher, Southwestern Willow Empidonax traillii extimus 

FT Bird Gnatcatcher, Coastal California Polioptila californica californica 

Dm Bird Goose, Aleutian Canada Branta canadensis leucopareia 

FT Bird Jay, Florida Scrub Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens 

C Bird Lark, Streaked Horned Eremophila alpestris strigata 

FT Bird Murrelet, Marbled Brachyramphus marmoratus marmoratus 

FT Bird Owl, Mexican Spotted Strix occidentalis lucida 

FT Bird Owl, Northern Spotted Strix occidentalis caurina 

FE Bird Pelican, Brown Pelecanus occidentalis 

FT Bird Plover, Piping Charadrius melodus 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

B-2 October 2004

Appendix B

Special Status Species

Status Class Common Name Scientific Name 

FT Bird Plover, Western Snowy Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus 

C Bird Prairie Chicken, Lesser Tympanuchus pallidicinctus 

FE Bird Pygmy-Owl, Cactus Ferruginous Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum 

FE Bird Rail, Yuma Clapper Rallus longirostris yumanensis 

C, BS Bird Sage-Grouse, Greater Centrocercus urophasianus 

C Bird Sage-Grouse, Gunnison Centrocercus minimus 

FE Bird Stork, Wood Mycteria americana 

FE Bird Vireo, Least Bellʼs Vireo bellii pusillus 

FE Bird Warbler, Kirtlandʼs Dendroica kirtlandii 

FE Bird Woodpecker, Red-Cockaded Picoides borealis 

FE Crustacean Amphipod, Illinois Cave Gammarus acherondytes 

P Crustacean Amphipod, Noelʼs Gammarus desperatus 

FE Crustacean Fairy Shrimp, Conservancy Branchinecta conservatio 

FE Crustacean Fairy Shrimp, Longhorn Branchinecta longiantenna 

FT Crustacean Fairy Shrimp, Vernal Pool Branchinecta lynchi 

FE Crustacean Isopod, Socorro Exosphaeroma thermophilus 

C Crustacean Pyrg, Chupadera Pyrgulopsis chupaderae 

C Crustacean Pyrg, Gila Pyrgulopsis Gilae 

FE Crustacean Pyrg, Socorro Pyrgulopsis neomexicana 

FE Crustacean Shrimp, Vernal Pool Tadpole Lepidurus packardi 

FE Fish Chub, Bonytail Gila elegans 

FE Fish Chub, Borax Lake Gila boraxobius 

P Fish Chub, Cowhead Lake Tui Gila bicolor vaccaceps 

P Fish Chub, Gila Gila intermedia 

FE Fish Chub, Humpback Gila cypha 

FT Fish Chub, Hutton Tui Gila bicolor ssp. 1 

FE Fish Chub, Mohave Tui Gila bicolor mohavensis 

FE Fish Chub, Oregon Oregonichthys crameri 

FE Fish Chub, Owens Tui Gila bicolor snyderi 

FE Fish Chub, Pahranagat Roundtail Gila robusta jordani 

FT Fish Dace, Blackside Phoxinus cumberlandensis 

FT Fish Dace, Foskett Speckled Rhinichthys osculus ssp. 

FE Fish Dace, Moapa Moapa coriacea 

FE Fish Dace, Nevada Speckled Rhinichthys osculus nevadensis 

FE Fish Darter, Okaloosa Etheostoma okaloosa 

FE Fish Gambusia, Pecos Gambusia nobilis 

FT Fish Minnow, Loach Rhinichthys cobitis 

FE Fish Minnow, Rio Grande Silvery Hybognathus amarus 

FE Fish Poolfish, Pahrump Empetrichthys latus 

FE Fish Pupfish, Ash Meadows Amargosa Cyprinodon nevadensis mionectes 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 B-3

Appendix B

Special Status Species

Status Class Common Name Scientific Name 

FE Fish Pupfish, Desert Cyprinodon macularius 

FE Fish Pupfish, Devilʼs Hole Cyprinodon diabolis 

FE Fish Pupfish, Owens Cyprinodon radiosus 

C Fish Pupfish, Pecos Cyprinodon pecosensis 

FE Fish Pupfish, Warm Springs Cyprinodon nevadensis pectoralis 

FT Fish Salmon, Fall Chinook Oncorhynchus (+salmo) tshawytscha 

FE Fish Shiner, Beautiful Cyprinella formosa 

FT Fish Shiner, Pecos Bluntnose Notropis simus pecosensis 

FT Fish Spikedace Meda fulgida 

FT Fish Spinedace, Big Spring Lepidomeda mollispinis pratensis 

FT Fish Spinedace, Little Colorado Lepidomeda vittata 

FT Fish Splittail, Sacramento Pogonichthys macrolepidotus 

FT Fish Springfish, Railroad Valley Crenichthys nevadae 

FT Fish Steelhead Oncorhynchus (=salmo) mykiss 

C Fish Steelhead, Oregon Coastal Oncorhynchus mykiss 

FT Fish Steelhead, Upper Willamette Basin Oncorhyachus mykiss 

FE Fish Stickleback, Unarmored Threespine Gasterosteus aculentus williamsonii 

FT Fish Sturgeon, Gulf Acipenser oxyrhynchus desotoi 

FE Fish Sturgeon, Pallid Scaphirhynchus albus 

FE Fish Sucker, June Chasmistes liorus 

FE Fish Sucker, Modoc Catostomus mcrops 

FE Fish Sucker, Razorback Xyrauchen texanus 

FE Fish Sucker, Shortnose Chasmistes brevirostris 

FT Fish Sucker, Warner Catostomus warnerensis 

FT Fish Trout, Bull Salvelinus confluentus 

FE Fish Trout, Gila Oncorhynchus Gilae 

FT Fish Trout, Greenback Cutthroat Oncorhynchus clarki stomias 

FT Fish Trout, Lahontan Cutthroat Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi 

FE Fish Woundfin Plagopterus argentissimus 

FE Insect Beetle, American Burying Nicrophorus americanus 

C Insect Beetle, Coral Pink Sand Dunes Cicndela limbata albissima 

FT Insect Beetle, Valley Elderberry Longhorn Desmocerus californicus dimorphus 

FT Insect Bug, Ash Meadows Naucorid Ambrysus amargosus 

FE Insect Butterfly, Fenderʼs Blue Icaricia icarioides fenderi 

FE Insect Butterfly, Karner Blue Lycaides melissa samuelis 

FT Insect Butterfly, Oregon Silverspot Speyeria zerene hippolyta 

FE Insect Butterfly, Quino Checkerspot Euphydrayas editha quino 

C Insect Butterfly, Taylorʼs Checkerspot Euphydrayas editha taylori 

FE Insect Butterfly, Uncomopahgre Fritillary Boloria improba acrocnema 

FT Insect Moth, Kern Primrose Sphinx Euproserpinus euterpe 

FE Insect Skipper, Carson Wandering Pseudocopaeodes eunus ssp. Obscurus 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

B-4 October 2004

Appendix B

Special Status Species

Status Class Common Name Scientific Name 

C Insect Skipper, Dakota Hesperia dacotae 

C Insect Skipper, Mardon Polites mardon 

FT Insect Skipper, Pawnee Montane Hesperia leonardus maontana 

FE Mammal Bat, Gray Myotis griescens 

FE Mammal Bat, Indiana Myotis sodalis 

FE Mammal Bat, Lesser Long-Nosed Leptonycteris curosoae yerbuensis 

FE Mammal Bat, Mexican Long-Nosed Leptonycteris nivalis 

FE Mammal Caribou, Woodland Rangifer tarandus caribou 

FE Mammal Deer, Columbia White-Tailed Odocoileus virginianus leucurus 

FE ex Mammal Ferret, Black-Footed Mustela nigripes 

FE Mammal Fox, San Joaquin Kit Vulpes macrotis mutica 

FE Mammal Jaguar Panthera onca 

FE Mammal Kangaroo Rat, Fresno Dipodomys heermani exilis 

FE Mammal Kangaroo Rat, Giant Dipodomys ingens 

FE Mammal Kangaroo Rat, Morro Bay Dipodomys heermani morroensis 

FE Mammal Kangaroo Rat, Stephenʼs Dipodomys stephensi 

FE Mammal Kangaroo Rat, Tipton Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides 

FT Mammal Lynx, Canada Lynx canadensis 

FE Mammal Mouse, Alabama Beach Peromyscus polionotus penninsularis 

FE Mammal Mouse, Choctawhatchee Beach Peromyscus polionotus allophrys 

FT Mammal Mouse, Prebleʼs Meadow Jumping Zapus hudsonius preblei 

FE Mammal Ocelot Felis pardalis 

C Mammal Prairie Dog, Arizona Black-Tailed Cynomys ludovicianus arizonensis 

C Mammal Prairie Dog, Black-Tailed Cynomys ludovicianus 

FT Mammal Prairie Dog, Utah Cynomys parvidens 

FE Mammal Pronghorn, Sonoran Antilocapra americana sonoriensis 

FE Mammal Rabbit, Lower Keys Marsh Sylvilagus palustris hefneri 

FE Mammal Rat, Rice Oryzomys palustris natator 

FE FT Mammal Sea-Lion, Steller Eumetopias jubatus 

FE Mammal Shrew, Buena Vista Lake Ornate Sorex ornatus relictus 

C Mammal Squirrel, Coachella Valley RoundTailed Ground Spermophilus tereticaudus chlorus 

FT Mammal Squirrel, Northern Idaho Ground Spermophilus brunneus brunneus 

C Mammal Squirrel, Southern Idaho Ground Spermophilus brunneus 

C Mammal Squirrel, Washington Ground Spermophilus washingtoni 

FE Mammal Vole, Amargosa Microtus californicus scirpensis 

FE Mammal Vole, Hualapai Mexican Microtus mexicanus hualpaiensis 

FE Mammal Whale, Blue Balaenoptera musculus 

FE Mammal Whale, Bowhead Balaena mysticetus 

FE Mammal Whale, Finback Balaenoptera physalus 

FE Mammal Whale, Humpback Megaptera novaeangliae 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 B-5

Appendix B

Special Status Species

Status Class Common Name Scientific Name 

FT Mammal Wolf, Gray Canis lupus 

FE ex Mammal Wolf, Mexican Gray Canis lupus baileyi 

FE Mollusk Clubshell, Ovate Pleurobema perovatum 

FE Mollusk Kidneyshell, Triangular Ptychobranchus greenii 

FT Mollusk Moccasinshell, Alabama Medionidus acutissimus 

FT Mollusk Mucket, Orange-Nacre Lamsilis perovalis 

FE Mollusk Mussel, Dark Pigtoe Pleurobema furvum 

FE Plant Agave, Arizona Agave arizonica 

P Plant Ambrosia, San Diego Ambrosia pumila 

FT Plant Amole, Purple Chlorogalum purpureum var. Purpureum 

FE Plant Barberry, Nevinʼs Berberis nevinii 

C Plant Beardtongue, Graham Penstemon grahamii 

FE Plant Beardtongue, Penland Penstemon penlandii 

FE Plant Bear-Poppy, Dwarf Arctomecon humilis 

FE Plant Bedstraw, San Jacinto Galium californicum ssp. Sierrae 

FE Plant Bedstraw, San Jacinto Galium californicum ssp. Sierrae 

FT Plant Birds-In-A-Nest, White Macbridea alba 

FT Plant Bladderpod, Dudley Bluffs Lesquerella congesta 

C Plant Bladderpod, Whitebluffʼs Lesquerella tuplashensis 

FE Plant Blue-Star, Kearneyʼs Amsonia kearneyana 

FE Plant Buckwheat, Clay-Loving Wild Eriogonum pelinophilum 

FE Plant Buckwheat, Gypsum Wild Eriogonum gypsophilum 

FE Plant Buckwheat, Ione Eriogonum apricum 

C Plant Buckwheat, Red Mountain Eriogonum kelloggii 

FE Plant Buckwheat, Steamboat Eriogonum ovalifolium williamsiae 

C Plant Buckwheat, Umtanum Desert Eriogonum codium 

P Plant Buckwheat, Windloving Eriogonum anemophilum 

FE Plant Buttercup, Autumn Ranunculus aestivalis 

FT Plant Butterfly Plant, Colorado Gaura neomexicana ssp. Coloradensis 

FT Plant Butterweed, Layneʼs Senecio layneae 

C Plant Cactus, Acuna Echinomastus erectocentrus var. Acunensi 

FE Plant Cactus, Arizona Hedgehog Echinocereus triglochidiatus 

FE Plant Cactus, Bakersfield Opuntia treleasei 

C Plant Cactus, Blue Diamond Cholla Opuntia whipplei var multigeniculata 

FE Plant Cactus, Brady Pincushion Pediocactus bradyi 

FT Plant Cactus, Cochise Pincushion Coryphantha robbinsorum 

C Plant Cactus, Fickeisen Hedgehog Pediocactus peeblesianus var. Fickeiseni 

FE Plant Cactus, Knowlton Pediocactus knowltonii 

FE Plant Cactus, Kuenzlerʼs Hedgehog Echinocereus fendleri var. Kuenzleri 

FT Plant Cactus, Lee Pincushion Coryphantha sneedii var. Leei 

FT Plant Cactus, Mesa Verde Sclerocactus mesae-verdae 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

B-6 October 2004

Appendix B

Special Status Species

Status Class Common Name Scientific Name 

FE Plant Cactus, Nicholʼs Turkʼs Head Echinocactus horizonthalonius var. Nicho 

FE Plant Cactus, Peebles Navajo Pediocactus peeblesianus var. Peeblesian 

FE Plant Cactus, Pima Pineapple Coryphantha scheeri var. Robustispina 

FE Plant Cactus, San Rafael Pediocactus despainii 

FT Plant Cactus, Siler Pincushion Pediocactus sileri 

FE Plant Cactus, Sneedʼs Pincushion Coryphantha sneedii var. Sneedii 

FT Plant Cactus, Uinta Basin Hookless Sclerocactus glaucus 

FT Plant Cactus, Winkler Pediocactus winkleri 

FE Plant Cactus, Wrightʼs Fishhook Sclerocactus wrightiae 

FT Plant Catchfly, Spaldingʼs Silene spaldingii 

FT Plant Centaury, Spring-Loving Centaurium namophilum 

FE Plant Checker-Mallow, Keckʼs Sidalcea keckii 

FT Plant Checker-Mallow, Nelsonʼs Sidalcea nelsoniana 

FE Plant Chorro Creek Bog Thistle Cirsium fontinale var. Obispoense 

FT Plant Clarkia, Springville Clarkia springvillensis 

FE Plant Cliff-Rose, Arizona Purshia subintegra 

FE Plant Crownscale, San Jacinto Valley Atriplex coronata var. Notatior 

FE Plant Cushenbury Oxytheca Oxytheca parishii var. Goodmaniana 

FT Plant Cycladenia, Jones Cycladenia humilis var. Jonesii 

FE Plant Daisy, Maguire Erigeron maguirei 

FT Plant Daisy, Parishʼs Erigeron parishii 

FE Plant Daisy, Willamette Erigeron decumbens var. Decumbens 

FE Plant Desert-Parsley, Bradshawʼs Lomatium bradshawii 

FT Plant Encinitis Baccharis Baccharis vanessae 

FT Plant Evening-Primrose, San Benito Camissonia benitensis 

FE ex Plant Evening-Primrose, Wolfʼs Oenothera wolfii 

FE Plant Fern, Aleutian Shield Polysticum aleuticum 

FE Plant Flannelbush, Mexican Fremontodendron mexicanum 

FE Plant Flannelbush, Pine Hill Fremontodendron californicum ssp. Decumb 

C Plant Fleabane, Basalt Erigeron basalticus 

C Plant Fleabane, Lemmon Erigeron lemmonii 

FT Plant Fleabane, Zuni Erigeron rhizomatus 

FT Plant Florida Skullcap Scutellaria floridana 

FT Plant Four-Oʼclock, Mcfarlaneʼs Mirabilis macfarlanei 

FE Plant Gilia, Monterey Gilia tenuiflora ssp. Arenaria 

FE Plant Goldfields, Contra Costa Lasthenia conjugens 

FE Plant Grass, California Orcutt Orcuttia californica 

FE Plant Grass, Hairy Orcutt Orcuttia pilosa 

FT Plant Grass, San Joaquin Valley Orcutt Orcuttia inaequalis 

FE Plant Grass, Slender Orcutt Orcuttia tenuis 

FT Plant Gumplant, Ash Meadows Grindelia fraxino-pratensis 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 B-7

Appendix B

Special Status Species

Status Class Common Name Scientific Name 

FT Plant Howellia, Water Howellia aquatilis 

FT Plant Howellʼs Spectacular Thelypody Thelypodium howellii ssp. Spectabilis 

FE Plant Howellʼs Spineflower Chorizanthe howellii 

FE Plant Jewel-Flower, California Caulanthus californicus 

FE Plant Jewel-Flower, Metcalf Canyon Streptanthus albidus ssp. Albidus 

FT Plant Kodachrome Bladderpod Lesquerella tumulosa 

FE Plant Ladiesʼ-Tresses, Canelo Hills Spiranthes delitescens 

FT Plant Ladiesʼ-Tresses, Ute Spiranthes diluvialis 

FE Plant Last Chance Townsendia Townsendia aprica 

FE Plant Layia, Beach Layia carnosa 

C Plant Lily, Siskiyou Mariposa Calochortus persistens 

C Plant Lily, Umpqua Mariposa Calochortus umpquaensis 

FE Plant Lompoc Yerba Santa Eriodictyon capitatum 

FT Plant Lupine, Kincaidʼs Lupinus sulphureus var. Kincaidii 

FE Plant Mallow, Kern Eremalche kernensis 

FT Plant Manzanita, Ione Arctostaphylos myrtifolia 

FT Plant Manzanita, Morro Arctostaphylos morroensis 

FT Plant Marcescent Dudleya Dudleya cymosa ssp. Marcescens 

FE Plant Meadowfoam, Butte County Limnanthes floccosa var. Californica 

FE Plant Mesa-Mint, Otay Pogogyne nudiuscula 

FE Plant Milk-Vetch Applegateʼs Astragalus applegatei 

FT Plant Milk-Vetch, Ash Meadows Astragalus phoenix 

FE Plant Milk-Vetch, Brauntonʼs Astragalus brauntonii 

FE Plant Milk-Vetch, Coachella Valley Astragalus lentiginosus var. Coachellae 

FE Plant Milk-Vetch, Cushenbury Astragalus albens 

FT Plant Milk-Vetch, Desert Astragalus desereticus 

FT Plant Milk-Vetch, Fish Slough Astragalus lentiginosus var. Piscinensis 

FT Plant Milk-Vetch, Piersonʼs Astragalus magdalenae var. Peirsonii 

FE Plant Milk-Vetch, Shivwitz Astragalus ampullarioides 

FT Plant Milkweed, Welshʼs Asclepias welshii 

C Plant Moonwort, Slender Botrychium lineare 

FE Plant Morning-Glory, Stebbinsʼ Calystegia stebbinsii 

FT Plant Orchid, Western Prairie Fringed Platanthera praeclara 

FT Plant Owlʼs-Clover, Fleshy Castilleja campestris ssp. Succulenta 

FE Plant Phacelia, Clay Phacelia argillacea 

C Plant Phacelia, Debeque Phacelia submutica 

FE Plant Phlox, Eureka Phlox hirsuta 

FE Plant Popcornflower, Rough Plagiobothrys hirtus 

FE Plant Poppy, Sacramento Prickly Argemone pleiacantha ssp. Pinnatisecta 

FT Plant Primrose, Maguire Primula maguirei 

FE Plant Reed-Mustard, Shrubby Schoenocrambe suffrutescens 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

B-8 October 2004

Appendix B

Special Status Species

Status Class Common Name Scientific Name 

FE Plant Rock-Cress, Mcdonalds Arabis macdonaldiana 

FT Plant Sedge, Navajo Carex specuicola 

FT Plant Spineflower, Monterey Chorizanthe pungens var. Pungens 

FE Plant Spineflower, Orcuttʼs Chorizanthe orcuttiana 

FE Plant Spineflower, Slender-Horned Dodecahema leptoceras 

FT Plant Spurge, Hooverʼs Chamaesyce hooveri 

FE Plant Stickseed, Showy Hackelia venusta 

C Plant Stonecrop, Red Mountain Sedum eastwoodiae 

FE Plant Sunburst, Hartwegʼs Golden Pseudobahia bahiifolia 

FT Plant Sunburst, San Joaquin Adobe Pseudobahia peirsonii 

FT Plant Sunflower, Pecos Helianthus paradoxus 

FT Plant Sunray, Ash Meadows Enceliopsis nudicaulis var. Corrugata 

FT Plant Tarplant, Otay Hemizonia conjugens 

FT Plant Thistle, Pitcherʼs Cirsium pitcheri 

FE Plant Tuctoria, Greeneʼs Tuctoria greenei 

FE Plant Wallflower, Menziesʼ Erysimum menziesii ssp. Eurekense 

FE Plant Water-Umbel, Huachuca Lilaeopsis schaffneriana var. Recurva 

FE Plant Wirelettuce, Malheur Stephanomeria malheurensis 

FE Plant Wooly-Threads, San Joaquin Lembertia congdonii 

C Plant Wormwood, Northern Artemisia campestris var. Wormskioldii 

C Plant Yellow Cress, Tahoe Rorippa subumbellata 

FE Reptile Lizard, Blunt-Nosed Leopard Gambelia silus 

C Reptile Lizard, Sand Dune Sceloporus arenicolus 

C Reptile Rattlesnake, Eastern Massasauga Sistrurus catenatus catenatus 

FT Reptile Rattlesnake, New Mexican RidgeNosed Crotalus willardi obscurus 

FE Reptile Sea Turtle, Leatherback Dermochelys coriacea 

FT Reptile Turtle, Flattened Musk Sternotherus depressus 

FE Snail Limpet, Banbury Springs Lanx species 

C Snail Mountainsnail, Ogden Deseret Oreohelix periphera 

C Snail Pondsnail, Bonneville Stagnicola bonnevillensis 

FE Snail Snail, Bruneau Hot Springs Pyrgulopsis bruneauensis 

P Snail Snail, Kosterʼs Tryonia Tryonia kosteri 

C Snail Snail, Pecos Assiminea Assiminea pecos 

FE Snail Springsnail, Idaho Fontelicella idahoensis 

P Snail Springsnail, Roswell Pyrgulopsis roswellensis 

BS (W in 

ID) Amphibian Frog, Wood Rana sylvatica 

BS (W in 

ID) Bird Curlew, Long Billed Numenius americanus 

BS (W in 

ID) Bird Hawk, Swainsonʼs Buteo swainsoni 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 B-9

Appendix B

Special Status Species

Status Class Common Name Scientific Name 

BS (W in 

ID) Bird Jay, Pinyon Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus 

BS (W in 

ID) Bird Nuthatch, Pygmy Sitta pygmaea 

BS (W in 

ID) Bird Owl, Boreal Aegolius funereus 

BS (W in 

ID) Bird Owl, Great Gray Strix nebulosa 

BS (W in 

ID) Bird Sapsucker, Red-Naped Sphyrapicus nuchalis 

BS (W in 

ID) Bird Sparrow, Grasshopper Ammodramus savannarum 

BS (W in 

ID) Bird Thrasher, Sage Oreoscoptes montanus 

BS (W in 

ID) Bird Woodpecker, Black Backed Picoides arcticus 

BS (W in 

ID) Mammal Bat, Western Pipistrell Pipistrellus hesperus 

BS (W in 

ID) Mammal Myotis, Long-Eared Myotis evotis 

BS (W in 

ID) Mammal Myotis, Long-Legged Myotis volans 

BS (W in 

ID) Plant Cryptantha, Silky Crytantha sericea 

BS (bto) Bird Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus 

BS (ba) Fish Trout, Westslope Cutthroat Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi 

BS Amphibian Frog, Foothill Yellow-Legged Rana boyleii 

BS Amphibian Frog, Northern Cricket Acris crepitans 

BS Amphibian Frog, Northern Leopard Rana pipiens 

BS Amphibian Frog, Plainʼs Leopard Rana blairi 

BS Amphibian Frog, San Sebastian Leopard Rana yavapaiensis 

BS Amphibian Frog, Tailed Ascaphus truei 

BS Amphibian Salamander, Coeur Dʼalene Plethodon idahoensis 

BS Amphibian Salamander, Idaho Giant Dicamptodon aterrimus 

BS Amphibian Salamander, Inyo Mountains Slender Batrachoseps campi 

BS Amphibian Salamander, Oregon Slender Batrachoseps wrighti 

BS Amphibian Salamander, Tehachapi Slender Batrachoseps stebbinsi 

BS Amphibian Salamander, Yellow-Blotched Ensatina eschscholtzi croceator 

BS Amphibian Spadefoot, Great Basin Spea intermontana 

BS Amphibian Toad, Amargosa Bufo nelsoni 

BS Amphibian Toad, Arizona Bufo microscaphus microscaphus 

BS Amphibian Toad, Canadian Bufo hemiophrys 

BS Amphibian Toad, Couchʼs Spadefoot Scaphiopus couchi 

BS Amphibian Toad, Southwestern Bufo microscaphus 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

B-10 October 2004

Appendix B

Special Status Species

Status Class Common Name Scientific Name 

BS Amphibian Toad, Western Bufo boreas 

BS Amphibian Toad, Woodhouse Bufo woodhousii 

BS Amphibian Treefrog, Canyon Hyla arenicolor 

BS Annelid Earthworm, Oregon Giant Driloleirus ( megascolides) macelfreshi 

BS Annelid Flatworm, No Common Name Kenkia rhynchida 

BS Arachnid Pseudoscorpion, Malheur Apochthonius malheuri 

BS Bird Bittern, Least Ixobrychus exilis 

BS Bird Blackbird, Tricolored Agelaius tricolor 

BS Bird Brant, Black Branta bernicla 

BS Bird Bunting, Mckayʼs Plectrophenax hyperboreus 

BS Bird Chat, Yellow-Breasted Icteria virens 

BS Bird Curlew, Bristle-Thighed Numenius tahitiensis 

BS Bird Curlew, Long Billed Numenius americanus 

BS Bird Dickcissel Spiza americana 

BS Bird Dovekie Alle alle 

BS Bird Duck, Canvasback Aythya valisineria 

BS Bird Duck, Fulvous Whistling Dendrocygna bicolor 

BS Bird Duck, Harlequin Histrionicus histrionicus 

BS Bird Duck, Harlequin Histrionicus histrionicus 

BS Bird Duck, Long-Tailed Clangula hyemalis 

BS Bird Eagle, Bald Haliaeetus leucocephalus 

BS Bird Eagle, Golden Aquila chrysaetos 

BS Bird Eider, King Somateria spectabilis 

BS Bird Falcon, American Peregrine Falco peregrinus anatum 

BS Bird Falcon, Arctic Peregrine Falco peregrinus tundrius 

BS Bird Falcon, Prairie Falco mexicanus 

BS Bird Finch, Black Rosy Leucosticte atrata 

BS Bird Flycatcher, Gray Empidonax wrightii 

BS Bird Flycatcher, Hammondʼs Empidonax hammondii 

BS Bird Flycatcher, Olive-Sided Contopus borealis 

BS Bird Flycatcher, Willow Empidonax traillii 

BS Bird Godwit, Black-Tailed Limosa limosa 

BS Bird Godwit, Marbled Limosa fedoa 

BS Bird Goldeneye, Barrowʼs Bucephala islandica 

BS Bird Goose, Dusky Canada Branta canadensis occidentalis 

BS Bird Goose, Tule White-Fronted Anser albifrons gambelli 

BS Bird Goshawk, Northern Accipter gentilis 

BS Bird Goshawk, Northern Accipiter gentilis 

BS Bird Grebe, Red-Necked Podiceps grisegena 

BS Bird Grosbeak, Blue Guiraca caerulea 

BS Bird Grouse, Columbian Sharpe-Tailed Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 B-11

Appendix B

Special Status Species

Status Class Common Name Scientific Name 

BS Bird Grouse, Columbian Sharpe-Tailed Tympanuchas phasianellus columbianus 

BS Bird Grouse, Sharp-Tailed Tympanuchus phasianellus 

BS Bird Guillemot, Black Cepphus grylle 

BS Bird Harrier, Northern Circus cyaneus 

BS Bird Hawk, Ferruginous Buteo regalis 

BS Bird Hawk, Northern Gray Buteo nitidus maximus 

BS Bird Hummingbird, Calliope Stellula calliope 

BS Bird Ibis, White-Faced Plegadis chihi 

BS Bird Knot, Red Calidris canutus 

BS Bird Loon, Common Gavia immer 

BS Bird Loon, Red-Throated Gavia stellata 

BS Bird Martin, Purple Progne subis 

BS Bird Meadowlark, Western Sturnella neglecta 

BS Bird Murrelet, Kittlizʼs Brachyramphus brevirostris 

BS Bird Nighthawk, Common Chordeiles minor 

BS Bird Osprey Pandion haliaetus 

BS Bird Owl, California Spotted Strix occidentalis occidentalis 

BS Bird Owl, Flammulated Otus flammeolus 

BS Bird Owl, Long-Eared Asio otus 

BS Bird Owl, Short-Eared Asio flammeus 

BS Bird Pelican, American White Pelecanus erthrorhynchos 

BS Bird Phainopepla Phainopepla nitens 

BS Bird Plover, Mountain Charadrius montanus 

BS Bird Quail, Mountain Oreortyx pictus 

BS Bird Rail, Yellow Coturnicops noveboracensis 

BS Bird Sage-Grouse, Greater Centrocercus urophasianus 

BS Bird Sandpiper, Buff-Breasted Tryngites subruficollis 

BS Bird Sandpiper, Upland Bartramia longicauda 

BS Bird Sapsucker, Williamsonʼs Sphyrapicus thryoideus 

BS Bird Scoter, Black Melanitta nigra 

BS Bird Scoter, Surf Melanitta perspicillata 

BS Bird Shrike, Loggerhead Lanius ludovicianus 

BS Bird Sparrow, Bairdʼs Ammodramus bairdii 

BS Bird Sparrow, Black-Throated Amphispiza bilineata 

BS Bird Sparrow, Brewerʼs Spizella breweri 

BS Bird Sparrow, Large-Billed Savannah Passerculus sandwichensis rostratus 

BS Bird Sparrow, Leconteʼs Ammodramus leconteii 

BS Bird Sparrow, Sage Amphispiza belli 

BS Bird Swan, Trumpeter Cygnus buccinator 

BS Bird Swan, Trumpeter Cygnus buccinator 

BS Bird Swift, Black Cypseloides niger 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

B-12 October 2004

Appendix B

Special Status Species

Status Class Common Name Scientific Name 

BS Bird Tern, Black Chlidonias niger 

BS Bird Tern, Caspian Sterna caspia 

BS Bird Thrasher, Bendireʼs Toxostoma bendirei 

BS Bird Thrasher, Crissal Toxostoma crissale 

BS Bird Thrasher, Le Conteʼs Toxostoma lecontei 

BS Bird Thrush, Gray-Cheeked Catharus mimimus 

BS Bird Titmouse, Juniper Baelophus griseus 

BS Bird Vireo, Bellʼs Vireo bellii 

BS Bird Vireo, Gray Vireo vicinior 

BS Bird Warbler, Blackpoll Dendroica striata 

BS Bird Warbler, Lucyʼs Vermivora luciae 

BS Bird Warbler, Townsendʼs Denroica townsendi 

BS Bird Warbler, Virginiaʼs Vermivora virginiae 

BS Bird Woodpecker, Black Backed Picoides arcticus 

BS Bird Woodpecker, Hairy Picoides villosus 

BS Bird Woodpecker, Lewisʼ Melanerpes lewis 

BS Bird Woodpecker, Three-Toed Picoides tridactylus 

BS Bird Woodpecker, White-Headed Picoides ablolarvatus 

BS Bird Yellowthroat, Common Geothlypis trichas 

BS Bryophyte Bug-On-A-Stick, Leafless Buxbaumia aphylla 

BS Bryophyte Bug-On-A-Stick, Piperʼs Buxbaumia piperi 

BS Bryophyte Moss Encalypta brevicolla var. Crumiana 

BS Bryophyte Moss Limbella fryei 

BS Crustacean Amphipod, Malheur Cave Stygobromus hubbsi 

BS Crustacean Mountainsnail, Mineral Creek Oreohelix pilsbryi 

BS Fish Burbot Lota lota 

BS Fish Char, Angayukaksurak Salvelinus anaktuvukensis 

BS Fish Char, Kigliak Salvelinus alpinus 

BS Fish Chub, Big Smoky Valley Tui Gila bicolor ssp. 

BS Fish Chub, Catlow Tui Gila bicolor ssp. 2 

BS Fish Chub, Fish Creek Springs Tui Gila bicolor isolata 

BS Fish Chub, Fish Lake Valley Tui Gila bicolor ssp. 

BS Fish Chub, Flathead Hybopsis (platygobio) gracilis 

BS Fish Chub, Hot Creek Valley Tui Gila bicolor ssp. 

BS Fish Chub, Independence Valley Tui Gila bicolor newarkensis 

BS Fish Chub, Least Iotichthys phlegethontis 

BS Fish Chub, Leatherside Gila copei 

BS Fish Chub, Newark Valley Tui Gila bicolor newarkensis 

BS Fish Chub, Oregon Lakes Tui Gila bicolor oregonensis 

BS Fish Chub, Railroad Valley Tui Gila bicolor ssp. 

BS Fish Chub, Rio Grande Gila pandora 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 B-13

Appendix B

Special Status Species

Status Class Common Name Scientific Name 

BS Fish Chub, Roundtail Gila rubusta 

BS Fish Chub, Sicklefin Macrhybopsis meeki 

BS Fish Chub, Sturgeon Macrhybopsis gelida 

BS Fish Chub, Sturgeon Machrybopsis gelida 

BS Fish Chub, Summer Basin Tui Gila bicolor ssp. 13 

BS Fish Dace, Longfin Agosia chrysogaster 

BS Fish Dace, Meadow Valley Wash Speckled Rhinichthys osculus spp. 

BS Fish Dace, Millicoma Rhinichthys cataractae spp. 1 

BS Fish Dace, Moapa Speckled Rhinichthys osculus moapae 

BS Fish Dace, Monitor Valley Speckled Rhinichthys osculus spp. 

BS Fish Dace, Northern Redbelly X Finescale Phoxinus eos x phoxinus neogaeus 

BS Fish Dace, Oasis Valley Speckled Rhinichthys osculus spp. 

BS Fish Dace, Pahranagat Speckled Rhinichthys osculus velifer 

BS Fish Dace, Pearl Margariscus margarita nachtriebi 

BS Fish Dace, Speckled Rhinichthys osculus 

BS Fish Darter, Iowa Etheostoma exile 

BS Fish Darter, Orangethroat Etheostoma spectabile 

BS Fish Gar, Shortnose Lepisosteus platostomus 

BS Fish Lamprey, Goose Lake Lampetra tridentata ssp. 1 

BS Fish Lamprey, Pacific Lampetra tridentata 

BS Fish Lamprey, Western Brook Lampetra richardsoni 

BS Fish Paddlefish Polyodon spathula 

BS Fish Pupfish, White Sands Cyprinodon tularosa 

BS Fish Roach, Red Hills Lavinia symmetricus ssp. 3 

BS Fish Salmon, Beaver Creek Chinook Onconhynchus tshawytscha 

BS Fish Salmon, Chum Oncorhynchus (+salmo) keta 

BS Fish Salmon, Clear Creek Chum Onocnhynchus keta 

BS Fish Salmon, Fall Chinook Oncorhynchus (+salmo) tshawytscha 

BS Fish Sauger Stizostedion canadense 

BS Fish Sculpin, Bear Lake Cottus extensus 

BS Fish Sculpin, Malheur Mottled Cottus bendirei 

BS Fish Sculpin, Shoshone Cottus greenei 

BS Fish Shiner, Rio Grande Notropis jemezanus 

BS Fish Steelhead, Gulkana Oncorhyachus mykiss 

BS Fish Stonecat Noturus flavus 

BS Fish Sturgeon, White Acipenser transmontanus 

BS Fish Sucker, Blue Cycleptus elongatus 

BS Fish Sucker, Bluehead Catostomus discobolus 

BS Fish Sucker, Desert Catostomus [pantosteus] clarki 

BS Fish Sucker, Flannelmouth Catostomus latipinnis 

BS Fish Sucker, Goose Lake Catostomus occidentalis lacusanserinus 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

B-14 October 2004

Appendix B

Special Status Species

Status Class Common Name Scientific Name 

BS Fish Sucker, Little Colorado Catostomus sp. 

BS Fish Sucker, Mountain Catostomas platyrhynchus 

BS Fish Sucker, Rio Grande Catostomus plebeius 

BS Fish Sucker, Sonora Catostomus insignis 

BS Fish Sucker, Wall Canyon Catostomus sp. 

BS Fish Topminnow, Plains Fundulus sciadicus 

BS Fish Trout, Bonneville Cutthroat Oncorhynchus clarki utah 

BS Fish Trout, Great Basin Redband Oncorhynchus mykiss pop. 18 

BS Fish Trout, Redband Oncorhynchus mykiss gibbsi 

BS Fish Trout, Rio Grande Cutthroat Oncorhynchus clarki virginalis 

BS Fish Trout, Westslope Cutthroat Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi 

BS Fish Trout, Yellowstone Cutthroat Oncorhynchus clarki bouvieri 

BS Fish Whitefish, Bear Lake Prosopium abyssicola 

BS Fish Whitefish, Pygmy Prosopium coulteri 

BS Insect A Caddisfly Farula constricta 

BS Insect Bee, Mojave Gyspsum Andrena balsamorhiza 

BS Insect Bee, Mojave Poppy Perdita meconis 

BS Insect Beetle, Blind Cave Leiodid Glacicavicola bathyscoides 

BS Insect Beetle, Bruneau Dunes Tiger Cicindela waynei 

BS Insect Beetle, Chiricahua Water Scavenger Cymbiodyta arizonica 

BS Insect Beetle, Ciervo Aegialian Scarab Aegialia concinna 

BS Insect Beetle, Devilʼs Hole Warm Spring 

Riffle Stenelmis calida calida 

BS Insect Beetle, Large Aegilian Scarab Aegialia magnifica 

BS Insect Beetle, Maricopa Tiger Cicindela oregona maricopa 

BS Insect Beetle, Moapa Warm Spring Riffle Stenelmis moapa 

BS Insect Beetle, Rothʼs Blind Ground Pterostichus rothi 

BS Insect Beetle, San Joaquin Dune Coelus gracilis 

BS Insect Blue, Sand Mountain Euphilotes palliscens ssp.arenamontana 

BS Insect Bug, Harney Hot Spring Shore Micracanthia fennica 

BS Insect Bug, Pahranagat Naucorid Pelociris shoshone shoshone 

BS Insect Bug, Santa Rita Mountains 

Chlorochroan Chlorochroa rita 

BS Insect Butterfly, Baking Powder Flat Blue Euphilotes bernadino minuta 

BS Insect Butterfly, Carson Valley Silverspot Speyeria nokomis carsonensis 

BS Insect Butterfly, Desert Viceroy Limenitis archippus obsoleta 

BS Insect Butterfly, Early Blue Euphilotes enoptes primavera 

BS Insect Butterfly, Fused Battoides Blue Euphilotes battoides fusimaculata 

BS Insect Butterfly, Giulaniʼs Blue Eupilotes ancilla giulanii 

BS Insect Butterfly, Great Basin Small Blue Philotiella speciiosa septentrionalis 

BS Insect Butterfly, Greyʼs Silverspot Speyeria hesperis greyi 

BS Insect Butterfly, Honey Lake Blue Euphilotes pallescens calneva 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 B-15

Appendix B

Special Status Species

Status Class Common Name Scientific Name 

BS Insect Butterfly, Insular Blue Plebejus saepiolus insulanus 

BS Insect Butterfly, Koretʼs Checkerspot Euphyrdryas editha koreti 

BS Insect Butterfly, Mattoniʼs Blue Euphilotes pallescens mattonii 

BS Insect Butterfly, Mono Checkerspot Euphyrdyas editha monoenisis 

BS Insect Butterfly, New Mexico Silverspot Speyeria nokomis nitocris 

BS Insect Butterfly, Northern Mojave Blue Euphilotes mojave virginensis 

BS Insect Butterfly, Riceʼs Blue Euphilotes pallescens ricei 

BS Insect Butterfly, Sand Mountain Blue Euphilotes pallescens arenamontana 

BS Insect Butterfly, Shieldʼs Blue Euphilotes ancilla shieldsi 

BS Insect Butterfly, Steptoe Valley Crescentspot Phyciodes pascoiensis arenacolor 

BS Insect Caddisfly, Haddockʼs Rhyacophilan Rhyacophila haddocki 

BS Insect Caddisfly, Scottʼs Apatanian Allomyia scotti 

BS Insect Checkerspot, Spring Mountain 

Acastus Chlosyne acastus robusta 

BS Insect Cricket, Arizona Giant Sand Treader Daihinibaenetes arizonensis 

BS Insect Cricket, Maryʼs Peak Ice Grylloblatta sp. Nov. 

BS Insect Cricket, Navajo Jerusalem Stenopelmatus navajo 

BS Insect Fritillary, Nokomis Speyeria nokomis nokomis 

BS Insect Grass Bug, American Acetropis Acetropis americana 

BS Insect Grasshopper, Idaho Pointheaded Acrolophitus punchellus 

BS Insect Lacewing, Cheese-Weed Moth Oliarces clara 

BS Insect Meesia Meesia longiseta 

BS Insect Nymph, Big Smoky Wood Cercyonis oetus alkalorum 

BS Insect Nymph, Pallid Wood Cercyonis oetus pallescens 

BS Insect Scarab, Aegialian Beetle Aegialia knighti 

BS Insect Scarab, Big Dune Aphodius Aphodius sp. 

BS Insect Scarab, Crescent Dune Aegialian Aegialia crescenta 

BS Insect Scarab, Crescent Dune Aphodius Aphodius sp. 

BS Insect Scarab, Crescent Dune Serican Serica ammomensico 

BS Insect Scarab, Guilianiʼs Dune Pseudocotalpa guilianii 

BS Insect Scarab, Hardyʼs Aegialian Aegialia hardyi 

BS Insect Scarab, Humboltd Serican Serica humboldti 

BS Insect Scarab, Sand Mountain Aphodius Aphodius sp. 

BS Insect Scarab, Sand Mountain Aphodius Aphodius 

BS Insect Scarab, Sand Mountain Serican Serica psamnobunus 

BS Insect Skipper, Ash Meadows Alkali Pseudocopaeodes eunus alinea 

BS Insect Skipper, Denio Sandhill Polites sabuleti sinemaculata 

BS Insect Skipper, Macneil Sootywing Hesperopsis gracielae 

BS Insect Skipper, Mono Basin Hesperia uncas giulianii 

BS Insect Skipper, Railroad Valley Hesperia uncas fulvapalla 

BS Insect Stonefly, Wahkeena Falls Flightless Zapada wahkeena 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

B-16 October 2004

Appendix B

Special Status Species

Status Class Common Name Scientific Name 

BS Insect Weevil, Rulienʼs Miloderes Miloderes sp. 

BS Mammal Bat, Big Brown Eptesicus fuscus 

BS Mammal Bat, Big Free-Tailed Nyctinomous macrotis 

BS Mammal Bat, Big Free-Tailed Nyctinomops macrotis 

BS Mammal Bat, Brazilian Free-Tailed Tadarida braziliensis 

BS Mammal Bat, California Leaf-Nosed Macrotus californicus 

BS Mammal Bat, Greater Western Mastiff Eumops perotis californicus 

BS Mammal Bat, Hoary Lasiurus cinerus 

BS Mammal Bat, Mexican Long-Tongued Choernycteris mexicana 

BS Mammal Bat, Pale Townsendʼs Big-Eared Plecotus townsendii pallescens 

BS Mammal Bat, Pallid Antrozous pallidus 

BS Mammal Bat, Pocketed Free-Tailed Nyctinomops femorosaccus 

BS Mammal Bat, Silver-Haired Lasionycteris noctivagans 

BS Mammal Bat, Spotted Euderma maculatum 

BS Mammal Bat, Townsendʼs Big-Eared Corynorhinus townsendii 

BS Mammal Bat, Townsendʼs Western Big-Eared Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii 

BS Mammal Bat, Underwood Mastiff Eumops underwoodi 

BS Mammal Bat, Western Red Lasiurus blossevillii 

BS Mammal Bear, Florida Black Ursus americanus floridans 

BS Mammal Chipmunk, Cliff Tamias dorsalis 

BS Mammal Chipmunk, Gray-Footed Tamias canipes 

BS Mammal Chipmunk, Uinta Tamis umbrinus 

BS Mammal Fisher Martes pennanti 

BS Mammal Fisher, Pacific Martes pennanti pacifica 

BS Mammal Fox, Kit Vulpes velox macrotis 

BS Mammal Fox, Swift Vulpes velox 

BS Mammal Gopher, Desert Pocket Geomys bursarius tularosae 

BS Mammal Gopher, Fish Spring Pocket Thomomys bottae abstrusus 

BS Mammal Gopher, Guadalupe Pocket Thomomys bottae guadalupensis 

BS Mammal Gopher, Idaho Pocket Thomomys idahoensis 

BS Mammal Gopher, San Antonio Pocket Thomomys bottae curtatus 

BS Mammal Gopher, Southern Pocket Thomomys umbrinus emotus 

BS Mammal Gopher, Wyoming Pocket Thomomys clusius 

BS Mammal Kangaroo Mouse, Dark Microdipodops megacephalus 

BS Mammal Kangaroo Mouse, Desert Valley Microdipodops megacephalus albiventer 

BS Mammal Kangaroo Mouse, Fletcher Dark Microdipodops megacephalus nasutus 

BS Mammal Kangaroo Rat, Chisel-Toothed Dipodomys microps celsus 

BS Mammal Kangaroo Rat, Desert Dipodomys deserti 

BS Mammal Kangaroo Rat, Marysville Dipodomys californicus eximius 

BS Mammal Kangaroo Rat, Merriamʼs Dipodomys merriami 

BS Mammal Kangaroo Rat, Short-Nosed Dipodomys nitratoides brevinasus 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 B-17

Appendix B

Special Status Species

Status Class Common Name Scientific Name 

BS Mammal Lemming, Northern Bog Synaptomys borealis 

BS Mammal Marten Martes americana 

BS Mammal Mole, Coast Scapanus orarius 

BS Mammal Mouse, Cactus Peromyscus torridus 

BS Mammal Mouse, Little Pocket Perognathus longimembris 

BS Mammal Mouse, Meadow Jumping Zapus hudsonius 

BS Mammal Mouse, New Mexican Jumping Zapus hudsonius luteus 

BS Mammal Mouse, Northern Rock Peromyscus nasutus 

BS Mammal Mouse, Olive-Backed Pocket Perognathus fasciatus 

BS Mammal Mouse, Rock Pocket Chaetodipus intermedius 

BS Mammal Mouse, San Joaquin Pocket Perognathus inornatus inornatus 

BS Mammal Mouse, Southern Grasshopper Onychomys torridus 

BS Mammal Mouse, Tulare Grasshopper Onychomys torridus tularensis 

BS Mammal Mouse, Yellow-Eared Pocket Perognathus xanthonotus 

BS Mammal Myotis, California Myotis californicus 

BS Mammal Myotis, Cave Myotis velifer 

BS Mammal Myotis, Fringed Myotis thysanodes 

BS Mammal Myotis, Little Brown Myotis lucifugus 

BS Mammal Myotis, Long-Eared Myotis evotis 

BS Mammal Myotis, Long-Legged Myotis volans 

BS Mammal Myotis, Yuma Myotis yumanensis 

BS Mammal Myotis, Yuma Myotis yumanensis 

BS Mammal Otter, River Lutra canadensis lataxina 

BS Mammal Pika Ochotona princes 

BS Mammal Prairie Dog, Gunnisonʼs Cynomys gunnisoni 

BS Mammal Prairie Dog, White-Tailed Cynomys leucurus 

BS Mammal Ringtail Bassariscus astutus 

BS Mammal Sheep, Desert Bighorn Ovis canadensis nelsoni 

BS Mammal Shrew, Arizona Sorex arizonae 

BS Mammal Shrew, Dwarf Sorex nanus 

BS Mammal Shrew, Merriamʼs Sorex merriami 

BS Mammal Shrew, Prebleʼs Sorex preblei 

BS Mammal Skunk, Spotted Spilogale putorius 

BS Mammal Squirrel, Ground Piaute Spermophilus mollis artemisae 

BS Mammal Squirrel, Miriamʼs Ground Spermophilus canus vigilis 

BS Mammal Squirrel, Wyoming Ground Spermophilus elegans nevadensis 

BS Mammal Vole, Ash Meadows Montane Microtus montanus nevadensis 

BS Mammal Vole, Mexican Microtus mexicanus 

BS Mammal Vole, Pahranagat Valley Montane Microtus montanus fucosus 

BS Mammal Woodrat, Stephenʼs Neotoma stepheni 

BS Mammal Woodrat, White Sands Neotoma micropus leucophaea 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

B-18 October 2004

Appendix B

Special Status Species

Status Class Common Name Scientific Name 

BS Mollusk Floater, California Anodonta californiensis 

BS Mollusk Lanx, Shortface Fisherola nuttalli 

BS Plant Adderʼs-Tongue Ophioglossum pusillum 

BS Plant Adderʼs-Tongue, Howellʼs Erythronium howellii 

BS Plant Agave, Murphey Agave murpheyi 

BS Plant Agave, Santa Cruz Striped Agave parviflora ssp parviflora 

BS Plant Agoseris, Pale Agoseris glauca 

BS Plant Agoseris, Pink Agoseris lackschewitzii 

BS Plant Allocarya, Coral Seeded Plagiobothrys figuratus ssp. Corallicarp 

BS Plant Alumroot, Duranʼs Heuchera duranii 

BS Plant Angelica, Kingʼs Angelica kingii 

BS Plant Angelica, Rough Angelica scabrida 

BS Plant Apple, Indian Peraphyllum ramosissimum 

BS Plant Arrowhead, Sanfordʼs Sagittaria sanfordii 

BS Plant Asphodel, Bog Narthecium americanum 

BS Plant Aster, Cruiseʼs Golden Chrysopsis cruiseana 

BS Plant Aster, Gormanʼs Aster gormanii 

BS Plant Aster, Huachuca Golden Heterotheca rutteri 

BS Plant Aster, Jessicaʼs Aster jessicae 

BS Plant Aster, Orcuttʼs Woody Xylorhiza orcuttii 

BS Plant Aster, Pygmy Aster pygmaeus 

BS Plant Aster, Red Rock Canyon Ionactis caelestis 

BS Plant Aster, Rush Aster junciformis 

BS Plant Aster, Rush Aster borealis 

BS Plant Aster, Wayside Aster vialis (eucephalus vialis) 

BS Plant Aster, White-Topped Aster curtus 

BS Plant Avens, Mountain Senecio moresbiensis 

BS Plant Balloonvine Cardiospermum corindum 

BS Plant Balsamroot, Big-Scale Balsamorhiza macrolepis var. Macrolepis 

BS Plant Balsamroot, Woolly Balsamorhiza hookeri var. Lanata 

BS Plant Barberry, Kofa Mt Berberis harrisoniana 

BS Plant Bartonberry Rubus bartonianus 

BS Plant Beaked-Rush, California Rhynchospora californica 

BS Plant Beardtongue, Absaroka Penstemon absarokensis 

BS Plant Beardtongue, Alamo Penstemon alamosensis 

BS Plant Beardtongue, Bashful Penstemon pudicus 

BS Plant Beardtongue, Blue-Leaf Penstemon glaucinus 

BS Plant Beardtongue, Branched Penstemon ramosus 

BS Plant Beardtongue, Cordelia Penstemon floribundus 

BS Plant Beardtongue, Degener Penstemon degeneri 

BS Plant Beardtongue, Gibbensʼ Penstemon gibbensii 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 B-19

Appendix B

Special Status Species

Status Class Common Name Scientific Name 

BS Plant Beardtongue, Harrington Penstemon harringtonii 

BS Plant Beardtongue, Lahontin Pewnstemon palmeri var. Macranthus 

BS Plant Beardtongue, Mt Trumbull Penstemon distans 

BS Plant Beardtongue, Nevada Dune Penstemon arenarius 

BS Plant Beardtongue, Pahute Mesa Penstemon pahutensis 

BS Plant Beardtongue, Rosy Two-Tone Penstemon bicolor ssp. Roseus 

BS Plant Beardtongue, Sheep Range Penstemon petiolatus 

BS Plant Beardtongue, Stemless Penstemon acaulis var. Acaulis 

BS Plant Beardtongue, Stephenʼs Penstemon stephensii 

BS Plant Beardtongue, Thread-Leaved Penstemon filiformis 

BS Plant Beardtongue, Tiehm Penstemon tiehmii 

BS Plant Beardtongue, Tracyʼs Penstemon tracyi 

BS Plant Beardtongue, Whippleʼs Penstemon whippleanus 

BS Plant Beardtongue, White-Margined Penstemon albomarginatus 

BS Plant Beardtongue, Yellow Two-Toned Penstemon bicolor ssp. Bicolor 

BS Plant Beavertail, Short-Joint Opuntia basilaris var. Brachyclada 

BS Plant Bedstraw, Hardhamʼs Galium hardhamiae 

BS Plant Bedstraw, Modoc Galium glabrescens ssp. Modocense 

BS Plant Bedstraw, San Gabriel Galium grande 

BS Plant Bedstraw, Warner Mountains Galium serpenticum ssp. Warnernse 

BS Plant Bensoniella, Oregon Bensoniella oregana 

BS Plant Birch, Gray Betula popufolia 

BS Plant Birdbeak, Tecopa Cordylanthus tecopensis 

BS Plant Birdʼs Beak, Hispid Cordylanthus mollis ssp. Hispidus 

BS Plant Birdʼs Beak, Pallid Cordylanthus tenuis ssp. Pallescens 

BS Plant Birdʼs-Beak, Point Reyes Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. Palustris 

BS Plant Biscuitroot, Wideleaf Lomatium latilobum 

BS Plant Bittercress, Constanceʼs Cardamine constancei 

BS Plant Bitterweed, Richardsonʼs Hymenoxys richardsonii 

BS Plant Bladderpod, Beautiful Lesquerella pulchella 

BS Plant Bladderpod, Calderʼs Lesquerella calderi 

BS Plant Bladderpod, Garnet Lesquerella carinata var. Languida 

BS Plant Bladderpod, Montrose Lesquerella vicina 

BS Plant Bladderpod, Prostrate Lesquerella prostrata 

BS Plant Bladderpod, Salmon Twin Physaria didymocarpa var. Lyrata 

BS Plant Bladderpod, Sidesaddle Lesquerella arenosa var. Agrillosa 

BS Plant Bladderpod, Western Lesquerella multiceps 

BS Plant Blazingstar, Tiehm Mentzelia tiehmii 

BS Plant Bluebell, Drummondʼs Mertensia drummondii 

BS Plant Bluecup, Mission Canyon Githopsis diffusa ssp. Filicaulis 

BS Plant Bluegrass, Alaska Poa hartzii alaskana 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

B-20 October 2004

Appendix B

Special Status Species

Status Class Common Name Scientific Name 

BS Plant Bluegrass, Loose-Flowered Poa laxiflora 

BS Plant Blue-Star Fugateʼs Amsonia fugatei 

BS Plant Bluestar, Peebles Amsonia peeblesii 

BS Plant Bolandra, Oregon Bolandra oregana 

BS Plant Breadroot, Paradox Pediomelum aromaticum 

BS Plant Brittlebrush, Annual Psathyrotes annua 

BS Plant Brodiaea, Indian Valley Brodiaea coronaria ssp. Rosea 

BS Plant Brodiaea, Leachʼs Triteleia hendersonii var. Leachiae 

BS Plant Broom, Round-Leaf Errazurizia rotundata 

BS Plant Buckwheat, Brandegee Wild Eriogonum brandegeei 

BS Plant Buckwheat, Calcareous Eriogonum ochrocephalum var. Calcareum 

BS Plant Buckwheat, Churchill Narrows Eriogonum diatomaceum 

BS Plant Buckwheat, Colorado Wild Eriogonum coloradense 

BS Plant Buckwheat, Crosbyʼs Eriogonum crosbyae 

BS Plant Buckwheat, Grand Eriogonum contortum 

BS Plant Buckwheat, Las Vegas Eriogonum corymbosum var. Glutinosum 

BS Plant Buckwheat, Lewis Eriogonum lewisii 

BS Plant Buckwheat, Mouse Eriogonum nudum var. Murinum 

BS Plant Buckwheat, Packardʼs Cowpie Eriogonum shockleyi var. Packardiae 

BS Plant Buckwheat, Panamint Mountains Eriogonum microthecum var. Panamintense 

BS Plant Buckwheat, Piute Eriogonum breedlovei var. Breedlovei 

BS Plant Buckwheat, San Carlos Wild Eriogonum capillare 

BS Plant Buckwheat, Sand-Loving Eriogonum nummulare var. Ammophilum 

BS Plant Buckwheat, Scarlet Eriogonum phoeniceum 

BS Plant Buckwheat, Smooth Eriogonum salsuginosum 

BS Plant Buckwheat, Sulphurflower Eriogonum umbellatum var. Glaberrimum 

BS Plant Buckwheat, Tiehm Eriogonum tiehmii 

BS Plant Buckwheat, Welshʼs Eriogonum capistratum v. Welshii 

BS Plant Buckwheat, Wild Rose Canyon Eriogonum eremicola 

BS Plant Buckwheat, Wild Single-Stemmed Eriogonum acaule 

BS Plant Buckwheat, Woodside Eriogonum tumulosum 

BS Plant Buckwheat, Yukon Wild Eriogonum flavum var. Aquilinum 

BS Plant Bugbane, Tall Cimicifuga elata 

BS Plant Bush, Gentry Indigo Dalea tentaculoides 

BS Plant Buttercup, Alaskan Glacier Beckwithia glacialis spp. Alaskana 

BS Plant Buttercup, Southern Oregon Ranunculus austrooreganus 

BS Plant Cabbage, Wild Caulanthus major var. Nevadensis 

BS Plant Cactus, Alversonʼs Foxtail Escobaria vivipara var. Alversonii 

BS Plant Cactus, Brackʼs Sclerocactus cloveriae ssp. Brackii 

BS Plant Cactus, Cushion Coryphantha vivipara 

BS Plant Cactus, Duncanʼs Cory Coryphantha duncanii 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 B-21

Appendix B

Special Status Species

Status Class Common Name Scientific Name 

BS Plant Cactus, Howeʼs Hedgehog Echinocereus engelmannii var. Howei 

BS Plant Cactus, Kaibab Pincushion Pediocactus paradinei 

BS Plant Cactus, Santa Cruz Beehive Coryphantha recurvata 

BS Plant Cactus, Simpsonʼs Hedgehog Pediocactus simpsonii var. Robustior 

BS Plant Cactus, Villardʼs Pincushion Escobaria villardii 

BS Plant Calicoflower, Harlequin Downingia insignis 

BS Plant Camas, Cusickʼs Camassia cusickii 

BS Plant Camas, Howellʼs Camassia howellii 

BS Plant Camissonia, Small Camissonia parvula 

BS Plant Candle, Minerʼs Cryptantha scoparia 

BS Plant Candle, Owl Creek Minerʼs Cryptantha subcapitata 

BS Plant Candystick Allotropa virgata 

BS Plant Candytuft, Pear-Shaped Smelowskia pyriformis 

BS Plant Catchfly, Gentian Eustoma exaltatum 

BS Plant Catchfly, Janʼs; Nachlinger Catchfly Silene nachlingerae 

BS Plant Catseye, Shackletteʼs Cryptantha shackletteana 

BS Plant Catseye, Unusual Cryptantha insolita 

BS Plant Caulostramina, Jaegerʼs Caulostramina jaegeri 

BS Plant Ceanothus, Calistoga Ceanothus divergens 

BS Plant Ceanothus, Lakeside Ceanothus cyaneus 

BS Plant Ceanothus, Mahala-Mat Ceanothus prostratus 

BS Plant Ceanothus, Monterey Ceanothus cuneatus var. Rigidus 

BS Plant Ceanothus, Rincon Ridge Ceanothus confusus 

BS Plant Chaenactis, Shasta Chaenactis suffrutescens 

BS Plant Checker-Mallow, Butte County Sidalcea robusta 

BS Plant Checker-Mallow, Dwarf Sidalcea malviflora ssp. Patula 

BS Plant Cholla, Munz Opuntia munzii 

BS Plant Cinquefoil, Stipulated Potentilla stipularis 

BS Plant Clarkia, Beaked Clarkia rostrata 

BS Plant Clarkia, Mosquinʼs Clarkia mosquinii ssp. Mosquinii 

BS Plant Clarkia, Shasta Clarkia borealis ssp. Arida 

BS Plant Claytonia, Great Basin Claytonia umbellata 

BS Plant Cleomella, Flat-Seeded Cleomella plocasperma 

BS Plant Clover, Dedeckerʼs Trifolium dedeckerae 

BS Plant Clover, Douglasʼ Trifolium douglasii 

BS Plant Clover, Frisco Trifolium friscanum 

BS Plant Clover, Mogollon Trifolium longipes var. Neurophyllum 

BS Plant Clover, Owyhee Trifolium owyheense 

BS Plant Clover, Plumed Trifolium plumosum var. Amplifolium 

BS Plant Clover, Surrant Summit Trifolium andinum var. Podocephalum 

BS Plant Clubrush, Water Scirpus subterminalis 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

B-22 October 2004

Appendix B

Special Status Species

Status Class Common Name Scientific Name 

BS Plant Collomia, Barren Valley Collomia renacta 

BS Plant Columbine, Golden Aquilegia chrysantha var. Rydbergii 

BS Plant Columbine, Laramie Aquilegia laramiensis 

BS Plant Combleaf, Desert Polyctenium fremontii var. Confertum 

BS Plant Combleaf, Williamʼs Polyctenium williamsiae 

BS Plant Coralroot, Chisos Mountains Hexalectris revoluta 

BS Plant Coralroot, Purple-Spike Hexalectris warnockii 

BS Plant Corydalis, Caseʼs Corydalis caseana var. Hastata 

BS Plant Corydalis, Cold-Water Corydalis aquae-gelidae 

BS Plant Cottongrass, Slender Eriophorum gracile 

BS Plant Crazyweed, Columbia Oxytropis campestris var. Columbiana 

BS Plant Crazyweed, Wanapum Oxytropis campestris var. Wanapum 

BS Plant Cress, Darwin Rock Arabis pulchra var. Munciensis 

BS Plant Cress, Small Rock Arabis pusilla 

BS Plant Crypantha, Unita Basin Cryptantha breviflora 

BS Plant Cryptantha, Ganderʼs Cryptantha ganderi 

BS Plant Cryptantha, Osterhout Cryptantha osterhoutii 

BS Plant Cryptantha, Rollins Cryptantha rollinsii 

BS Plant Cryptantha, Tufted Cryptantha caespitosa 

BS Plant Crypthanth, Mound Cryptantha compacta 

BS Plant Currant, Moreno San Diego Ribes canthariforme 

BS Plant Currant, Wolfʼs Ribes wolfii 

BS Plant Cypress, Piute Cupressus arizonica ssp. Nevadensis 

BS Plant Cypress, Tecate Cupressus forbesii 

BS Plant Daisy, Black Rock Townsendia smithii 

BS Plant Daisy, Blochmanʼs Leafy Erigeron blochmaniae 

BS Plant Daisy, Clifton Rock Perityle ambrosiifolia 

BS Plant Daisy, Hallʼs Erigeron aequifolius 

BS Plant Daisy, Howellʼs Erigeron howellii 

BS Plant Daisy, Kachina Erigeron kachinensis 

BS Plant Daisy, Nodding Rock Perityle cernua 

BS Plant Daisy, Panamint Enceliopsis covillei 

BS Plant Dalea, Ornate Dalea ornata 

BS Plant Deer-Fern Blechnum spicant 

BS Plant Desert-Mallow, Rusbyʼs Sphaeralcea rusbyi var. Eremicola 

BS Plant Downingia, Bacigalupiʼs Downingia bacigalupii 

BS Plant Draba, Yellowstone Draba incerta 

BS Plant Dropseed, Tall Sporobolus asper 

BS Plant Dudleya, San Luis Obispo Serpentine Dudleya abramsii ssp. Bettinae 

BS Plant Easter-Daisy, Strigose Townsendia strigosa 

BS Plant Eatonella, White Eatonella nivea 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 B-23

Appendix B

Special Status Species

Status Class Common Name Scientific Name 

BS Plant Eggvetch, Lavin Astragalus oophorus var. Lavinii 

BS Plant Estesʼ Artemisia Artemisia ludoviciana ssp. Estesii 

BS Plant Evening Primrose, Palmerʼs Camissonia palmeri 

BS Plant Evening Primrose, Winged-Seed Camissonia pterosperma 

BS Plant Evening-Primrose, Cane Spring Camissonia megalantha 

BS Plant Evening-Primrose, Pale Oenothera pallida ssp. Idahoensis 

BS Plant Fairypoppy, White Meconella oregana 

BS Plant Fawn-Lily, Tuolumne Erythronium tuolumnense 

BS Plant Feathergrass, Porter Ptilagrostis porteri 

BS Plant Felwort, Marsh Lomatogonium rotatum 

BS Plant Fern, Goldenback Pentagramma triangularis ssp. Triangular 

BS Plant Fern, Lance-Leaved Grape Botrychium lanceolatum var. Lanceolatum 

BS Plant Fescue, Rough Festuca scabrella 

BS Plant Feverfew, Ligulate Parthenium ligulatum 

BS Plant Fiddleleaf, Matted Nama densum var. Parviflorum 

BS Plant Figwort, Black-Flowered Scrophularia atrata 

BS Plant Fireweed, Oregon Epilobium oreganum 

BS Plant Fireweed, Siskiyou Epilobium siskiyouense 

BS Plant Flameflower, Pinos Altos Talinum humile 

BS Plant Flannelbush, California Fremontodendron californicum 

BS Plant Flax, Brewerʼs Dwarf Hesperolinon breweri 

BS Plant Flax, Drymaria-Like Western Hesperolinon drymarioides 

BS Plant Flax, Glandular Western Hesperolinon adenophyllum 

BS Plant Flax, Napa Western Hesperolinon serpentinum 

BS Plant Flax, Tehama County Western Hesperolinon tehamense 

BS Plant Fleabane, Broad Erigeron latus 

BS Plant Fleabane, Fish Creek Erigeron piscaticus 

BS Plant Fleabane, Muirʼs Erigeron muirii 

BS Plant Fleabane, Sheep Erigeron ovinus 

BS Plant Food, Sand Pholisma sonorae 

BS Plant Food, Scaly Sand Pholisma arenarium 

BS Plant Fritillary, Butte County Fritillaria eastwoodiae 

BS Plant Fritillary, Talus Fritillaria falcata 

BS Plant Gentian, Bristly Gentiana plurisetosa 

BS Plant Gentian, Mendocino Gentiana setigera 

BS Plant Gentian, Tufted Green Frasera paniculata 

BS Plant Gentian, Utah Gentianella tortuosa 

BS Plant Gilia, Mussentuchit Gilia tenuis 

BS Plant Gilia, Narrowstem Gilia stenothyrsa 

BS Plant Gilia, Spreading Ipomopsis polycladon 

BS Plant Glasswort, Red Salicornia rubra 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

B-24 October 2004

Appendix B

Special Status Species

Status Class Common Name Scientific Name 

BS Plant Globeberry, Texas Ibervillea tenuisecta 

BS Plant Globeberry, Tumamoc Tumamoca macdougalii 

BS Plant Golden-Aster, Shevockʼs Hairy Heterotheca shevockii 

BS Plant Goldenbush, Eastwoodʼs Ericameria fasciculata 

BS Plant Goldenbush, Pine Valley Haplopappus crispus 

BS Plant Goldenstar, San Diego Muilla clevelandii 

BS Plant Goldenweed, Palouse Haplopappus liatriformis 

BS Plant Goldfields, Coulterʼs Lasthenia glabrata ssp. Coulteri 

BS Plant Goldfields, Large-Flowered Lasthenia macrantha ssp. Prisca 

BS Plant Goldthread, Three-Leaf Coptis trifolia 

BS Plant Gooseberry, Sequoia Ribes tularense 

BS Plant Goosefoot, Sandhill Chenopodium cycloides 

BS Plant Gramma, Blue Bouteloua gracilis 

BS Plant Grapefern, Pumice Botrychium pumicola 

BS Plant Grappling Hook, Palmerʼs Harpagonella palmeri 

BS Plant Grass, Hitchcockʼs Blue-Eyed Sisyrinchium hitchcockii 

BS Plant Grass, Hitchcockʼs Blue-Eyed Sisyrinchium hitchockii 

BS Plant Grass, Pale Blue-Eyed Sisyrinchium sarmentosum 

BS Plant Grass, Pale Blue-Eyed #2 Sisyrinchium pallidum 

BS Plant Grass, Parishʼs Alkali Puccinellia parishii 

BS Plant Grass, Semaphore Pleuropogon sabinei 

BS Plant Grass, Sessile-Leaved Scurvy Cochlearia sessilifolia 

BS Plant Greasebush, Rough Dwarf Glossopetalon pungens var. Pungens 

BS Plant Greasebush, Smooth Dwarf Glossopetalon pungens var. Glabrum 

BS Plant Greenbriar, English Peak Smilax jamesii 

BS Plant Greenthread, Uinta Thelesperma pubescens 

BS Plant Grounddaisy, Charleston Townsendia jonesii var. Tumulosa 

BS Plant Groundsel, Gila Senecio quaerens 

BS Plant Gumweed, Howellʼs Grindelia howellii 

BS Plant Harebell, Castle Crags Campanula shetleri 

BS Plant Hawksbeard, Idaho Crepis bakeri ssp. Idahoensis 

BS Plant Hazardia, Orcuttʼs Hazardia orcuttii 

BS Plant Hedgehog, Simpsonʼs Pediocatus simpsonii 

BS Plant Helodium, Blandowʼs Helodium blandowii 

BS Plant Horkelia, Parryʼs Horkelia parryi 

BS Plant Horkelia, Shaggy Horkelia congesta ssp. Congesta 

BS Plant Horse-Mint, Cusickʼs Agastache cusickii 

BS Plant Howellʼs Bentgrass Agrostis howellii 

BS Plant Howellʼs Silverpuffs Microseris howellii 

BS Plant Hulsea, Inyo Hulsea vestita ssp. Inyoensis 

BS Plant Ivesia, Alkali Ivesia kingii var. Kingii 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 B-25

Appendix B

Special Status Species

Status Class Common Name Scientific Name 

BS Plant Ivesia, Ash Creek Ivesia paniculata 

BS Plant Ivesia, Castle Crags Ivesia longibracteata 

BS Plant Ivesia, Grimy Ivesia rhypara var. Rhypara 

BS Plant Ivesia, Jaegerʼs Ivesia jaegeri 

BS Plant Ivesia, Pickeringʼs Ivesia pickeringii 

BS Plant Ivesia, Pine Nut Mountains Ivesia pityocharis 

BS Plant Ivesia, Plumas Ivesia sericoleuca 

BS Plant Ivesia, Shellyʼs Ivesia rhypara var. Shellyi 

BS Plant Ivesia, Sierra Valley Ivesia aperta var. Aperta 

BS Plant Ivesia, Webberʼs Ivesia webberi 

BS Plant Jewel-Flower, Dorrʼs Cabin Streptanthus morrisonii ssp. Hirtiflorus 

BS Plant Jewel-Flower, Freedʼs Streptanthus brachiatus ssp. Hoffmanii 

BS Plant Jewel-Flower, Hoffmannʼs Streptanthus glandulosus var. Hoffmanii 

BS Plant Jewel-Flower, Kruckebergʼs Streptanthus morrisonii ssp. Kruckebergi 

BS Plant Jewel-Flower, Morrisonʼs Streptanthus morrisonii ssp. Morrisonii 

BS Plant Jewel-Flower, Mount Hamilton Streptanthus callistus 

BS Plant Jewel-Flower, Piute Mountains Streptanthus cordatus var. Piutensis 

BS Plant Jewel-Flower, Santa Barbara Caulanthus amplexicaulis var. Barbarae 

BS Plant Jewel-Flower, Socrates Mine Streptanthus brachiatus ssp. Brachiatus 

BS Plant Jewel-Flower, Three Peaks Streptanthus morrisonii ssp. Elatus 

BS Plant Kentrophyta, Bastard Astragalus tegetarioides 

BS Plant Knotweed, Modoc County Polygonum polygaloides ssp. Esotericum 

BS Plant Ladiesʼ-Tresses, Western Spiranthes porrifolia 

BS Plant Ladyʼs-Slipper, Clustered Cypripedium fasciculatum 

BS Plant Ladyʼs-Slipper, Small Yellow Cypripedium parviflorum 

BS Plant Ladyʼs-Slipper, Yellow Cypripedium alpinum 

BS Plant Laphamia, Inyo Perityle inyoensis 

BS Plant Larkia, Mariposa Clarkia biloba ssp. Australis 

BS Plant Larkspur, Kern County Delphinium purpusii 

BS Plant Larkspur, Recurved Delphinium recurvatum 

BS Plant Larkspur, Wenatchee Delphinium viridescens 

BS Plant Larkspur, White Rock Delphinium leucophaeum 

BS Plant Larkspur, Willamette Valley Delphinium oreganum 

BS Plant Layia, Colusa Layia septentrionalis 

BS Plant Layia, Jonesʼs Layia jonesii 

BS Plant Layia, Pale-Yellow Layia heterotricha 

BS Plant Legenere Legenere limosa 

BS Plant Lewisia, Cantelowʼs Lewisia cantelovii 

BS Plant Lewisia, Hecknerʼs Lewisia cotyledon var. Heckneri 

BS Plant Lewisia, Purdyʼs Lewisia cotyledon var. Purdyi 

BS Plant Lewisia, Stebbinsʼ Lewisia stebbinsii 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

B-26 October 2004

Appendix B

Special Status Species

Status Class Common Name Scientific Name 

BS Plant Lichen, Andereggʼs Reindeer Cladonia andereggii 

BS Plant Lichen, Ball-Bearing Sphaerophorus globosus 

BS Plant Lichen, Dot Physcia semipinnata 

BS Plant Lichen, Earth Catapyrenium congestum 

BS Plant Lichen, Idaho Range Xanthoparmelia idahoensis 

BS Plant Lichen, Nail Pilophorus acicularis 

BS Plant Lichen, Reindeer Cladonia luteoalba 

BS Plant Lichen, Scurfy Jelly Collema furfuraceum 

BS Plant Lichen, Short-Spored Jelly Collema curtisporum 

BS Plant Lichen, Skin Dermatocarpon lorenzianum 

BS Plant Lichen, Skin Dermatocarpon lorenzianum 

BS Plant Lichen, Transcending Reindeer Cladonia transcendens 

BS Plant Lichen, Tube Hypogymnia apinnata 

BS Plant Lichen, White-Dot Pseudocyphellaria anthraspis 

BS Plant Lichen, Worm Thamnolia vermicularis 

BS Plant Licorice-Root, Calderʼs Ligusticum calderi 

BS Plant Lily, Adobe Fritillaria pluriflora 

BS Plant Lily, Alkali Mariposa Calochortus striatus 

BS Plant Lily, Arroyo De La Cruz Mariposa Calochortus clavatus ssp. Recurvifolius 

BS Plant Lily, Blue Sand Triteleiopsis palmeri 

BS Plant Lily, Broad-Fruit Mariposa Calochortus nitidus 

BS Plant Lily, Broad-Fruit Mariposa Calochortus nitidus 

BS Plant Lily, Crinite Mariposa Calochortus coxii 

BS Plant Lily, Inyo Mariposa Calochortus excavatus 

BS Plant Lily, Peckʼs Mariposa Calochortus longebarbatus var. Peckii 

BS Plant Lily, Pleasant Valley Mariposa Calochortus clavatus var. Avius 

BS Plant Lily, San Luis Mariposa Calochortus obispoensis 

BS Plant Linanthus, Orcuttʼs Linanthus orcuttii 

BS Plant Liverwort Chiloscyphus gemmiparus 

BS Plant Liverwort Jamsoniella autumnalis var. Heterostips 

BS Plant Liverwort Sphaerocarpos hians 

BS Plant Lobelia, Kalmʼs Lobelia kalmii 

BS Plant Lobelia, Water Lobelia dortmanna 

BS Plant Locoweed, Arctic Oxytropis arctica var. Barnedyana 

BS Plant Locoweed, Kobuk Oxytropis kobukensis 

BS Plant Loeflingia, Sagebrush Loeflingia squarrosa var. Artemisiarum 

BS Plant Lomatium, Congdonʼs Lomatium congdonii 

BS Plant Lomatium, Ochoco Lomatium ochocense ssp. Nov 

BS Plant Lomatium, Owens Peak Lomatium shevockii 

BS Plant Lomatium, Suksdorfʼs Lomatium suksdorfii 

BS Plant Lotus, Red-Flowered Lotus rubriflorus 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 B-27

Appendix B

Special Status Species

Status Class Common Name Scientific Name 

BS Plant Lotus, Scrub Lotus argyraeus var multicaulis 

BS Plant Lousewort, Dwarf Pedicularis centranthera 

BS Plant Lousewort, Hairy Pedicularis hirsuta 

BS Plant Lungwort, Hallʼs Lobaria hallii 

BS Plant Lungwort, Pored Lobaria scrobiculata 

BS Plant Lungwort, Smeared Lobaria linita 

BS Plant Lupine, Anthony Peak Lupinus antoninus 

BS Plant Lupine, Holmgren Lupinus holmgrenianus 

BS Plant Lupine, Inch-High Lupinus uncialis 

BS Plant Lupine, Mono Lake Lupinus duranii 

BS Plant Lupine, Panamint Mountains Lupinus magnificus var. Magnificus 

BS Plant Lupine, Paradox Valley Lupinus crassus 

BS Plant Lupine, Quincy Lupinus dalesiae 

BS Plant Lupine, Sabineʼs Lupinus sabinianus 

BS Plant Lupine, Shaggyhair Lupinus spectabilis 

BS Plant Madia, Hallʼs Madia hallii 

BS Plant Madia, Nilesʼs Madia doris-nilesiae 

BS Plant Madia, Showy Madia radiata 

BS Plant Madia, Stebbinsʼs Madia stebbinsii 

BS Plant Malacothrix, Carmel Valley Malacothrix saxatilis var. Arachnoidea 

BS Plant Mallow, Carmel Valley Bush Malacothamnus palmeri var. Involucratus 

BS Plant Mallow, Davidsonʼs Bush Malacothamnus davidsonii 

BS Plant Manzanita, Arroyo De La Cruz Arctostaphylos cruzensis 

BS Plant Manzanita, Hookerʼs Arctostaphylos hookeri ssp. Hookeri 

BS Plant Manzanita, Klamath Arctostaphylos klamathensis 

BS Plant Manzanita, Monterey Arctostaphylos montereyensis 

BS Plant Manzanita, Otay Arctostaphylos otayensis 

BS Plant Manzanita, Sand Mesa Arctostaphylos rudis 

BS Plant Manzanita, Sandmat Arctostaphylos pumila 

BS Plant Meadowfoam, Bellingerʼs Limnanthes floccosa ssp. Bellingeriana 

BS Plant Meadowrue, Purple Thalictrum dasycarpum 

BS Plant Microseris, Detlingʼs Microseris laciniata ssp. Detlingii 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Amesʼ; Suksdorfʼs Astragalus pulsiferae var. Suksdorfii 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Aquarius Astragalus newberryi var. Aquarii 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Ash Valley Astragalus anxius 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Barren Astragalus sterilis 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Bitterroot Astragalus scaphoides 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Brandegee Astragalus brandegeei 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Challis Astragalus amblytropis 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Cliff Astragalus cremnophylax var.myriorraphis 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Clokey Astragalus aequalis 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

B-28 October 2004

Appendix B

Special Status Species

Status Class Common Name Scientific Name 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Columbia Astragalus columbianus 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Cottonʼs Astragalus australis var. Olympicus 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Cronquist Astragalus cronquistii 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Currant Astragalus uncialis 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Cushion Astragalus aretioides 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Darwin Mesa Astragalus atratus var. Mensanus 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Deaneʼs Astragalus deanei 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Debeque Astragalus debequaeus 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Debris Astragalus detritalis 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Diamond Butte Astragalus toanus var. Scidulus 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Dubois Astragalus gilviflorus var. Purpureus 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Duchesne Astragalus duchesnensis 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Ferrisʼs Astragalus tener var. Ferrisiae 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Ferron Astragalus musiniensis 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Field Astragalus agrestis 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Fisher Towerʼs Astragalus piscator 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Four-Wing Astragalus tetrapterus 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Geyer Astragalus geyeri 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Gilman Astragalus gilmanii 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Goose Creek Astragalus anserinus 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Gunnison Astragalus anisus 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Halfring Astragalus mohavensis var. Hemigyrus 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Lemhi Astragalus aquilonius 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Meadow Astragalus diversifolius 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Mokiak Astragalus mokiacensis 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Nelson Astragalus nelsonianus 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Newberryʼs Astragalus newberryi var. Castoreus 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Park Astragalus leptaleus 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Paysonʼs Astragalus paysonii 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Peckʼs Astragalus peckii 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Picabo Astragalus oniciformis 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Plains Astragalus gilviflorus 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Precocious Astragalus proimanthus 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Railhead Astragalus terminalis 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, San Rafeal Astragalus rafaelensis 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Spring Mountain Astragalus remotus 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Starveling Astragalus jejunus var. Jejunus 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Tiehmʼs Astragalus tiehmii 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Tonopah Astragalus pseudiodanthus 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Toquima Astragalus toquimanus 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Webberʼs Astragalus webberi 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 B-29

Appendix B

Special Status Species

Status Class Common Name Scientific Name 

BS Plant Milk-Vetch, Whitedʼs Astragalus sinuatus 

BS Plant Milkweed, Asclepias Asclepias eastwoodiana 

BS Plant Milkweed, Dwarf Asclepias uncialis 

BS Plant Mistmaiden, Thompson Romanzoffia thompsonii 

BS Plant Monardella, Crisp Monardella crispa 

BS Plant Monardella, Flax-Like Monardella linoides ssp. Oblonga 

BS Plant Monardella, Robison Monardella robisonii 

BS Plant Monardella, San Luis Obispo Monardella frutescens 

BS Plant Monardella, Sweet-Smelling Monardella beneolens 

BS Plant Monardella, Veiny Monardella douglasii ssp. Venosa 

BS Plant Monkeyflower, Disappearing Mimulus evanescens 

BS Plant Monkeyflower, Kaweah Mimulus norrisii 

BS Plant Monkeyflower, Membrane-Leaved Mimulus hymenophyllus 

BS Plant Monkeyflower, Pygmy Mimulus pygmaeus 

BS Plant Monkeyflower, Shevockʼs Mimulus shevockii 

BS Plant Monkeyflower, Spacious Mimulus washingtonensis (ampliatus) 

BS Plant Monkeyflower, Stalke-Leaved Mimulus patulus 

BS Plant Moonpod, Desert Selinocarpus diffusus 

BS Plant Moonpod, Goosefoot Ammocodon chenopodioides 

BS Plant Moonwort, Least Botrychium simplex 

BS Plant Moonwort, Mingan Botrychium minganense 

BS Plant Moonwort, Twin-Spiked Botrychium paradoxum 

BS Plant Moonwort; Moonwort, UpwardLobed Botrychium ascendens 

BS Plant Moss Encalypta brevicolla var. Crumiana 

BS Plant Mule Ears, El Dorado Wyethia reticulata 

BS Plant Neoparrya, Rock Loving Neoparrya lithophila 

BS Plant Onion, Tall Swamp Allium validum 

BS Plant Onion, Tolmieʼs Allium tolmiei var. Persimile 

BS Plant Onion, Two-Headed Allium anceps 

BS Plant Orchid, Chatterbox Epipactis gigantea 

BS Plant Orcytes Orcytes nevadensis 

BS Plant Orthocarpus, Shasta Orthocarpus pachystachyus 

BS Plant Oryctes, Nevada Oryctes nevadensis 

BS Plant Owl-Clover, Rosy Orthocarpus bracteosus 

BS Plant Paintbrush, Fraternal Castilleja fraterna 

BS Plant Paintbrush, Purple Alpine Castilleja rubida 

BS Plant Paintbrush, Steens Mountain Castilleja pilosa var. Steenensis 

BS Plant Paronychia, Ahartʼs Paronychia ahartii 

BS Plant Penstemon, Idaho Penstemon idahoensis 

BS Plant Penstemon, Lemhi Penstemon lemhiensis 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

B-30 October 2004

Appendix B

Special Status Species

Status Class Common Name Scientific Name 

BS Plant Penstemon, Pinyon Penstemon pinorum 

BS Plant Pepper-Grass, Borrego Valley Lepidium flavum var. Felipense 

BS Plant Peppergrass, Davisʼ Lepidium davisii 

BS Plant Pepper-Grass, Jaredʼs Lepidium jaredii ssp. Jaredii 

BS Plant Phacelia, Death Valley RoundLeaved Phacelia mustelina 

BS Plant Phacelia, Least; Dwarf Phacelia Phacelia minutissima 

BS Plant Phacelia, Mackenzieʼs Phacelia lutea var. Mackenzieorum 

BS Plant Phacelia, Malheur Yellow Phacelia lutea var. Calva 

BS Plant Phacelia, Mount Diablo Phacelia phacelioides 

BS Plant Phacelia, Nashʼs Phacelia nashiana 

BS Plant Phacelia, Nine Mile Canyon Phacelia novenmillensis 

BS Plant Phacelia, Siskiyou Phacelia leonis 

BS Plant Phacelia, Stebbinsʼ Phacelia stebbinsii 

BS Plant Phacelia, Sticky Phacelia lenta 

BS Plant Phlox, Beaver Rim Phlox pungens 

BS Plant Pincushion, Desert Chaenactis stevioides 

BS Plant Pine, Washoe Pinus washoensis 

BS Plant Pitcher-Sage, Ganderʼs Lepechinia ganderi 

BS Plant Plant, Death Valley Sandpaper Petalonyx thurberi ssp. Gilmanii 

BS Plant Plant, Dolores Skeleton Lygodesmia doloresensis 

BS Plant Plant, White-Margined Wax Glyptopleura marginata 

BS Plant Podistera, Yukon Podistera yukonensis 

BS Plant Pogogyne, Profuse-Flowered Pogogyne floribunda 

BS Plant Polemonium, Great Polemonium carneum 

BS Plant Popcornflower, Altered Andesite Plagiobothrys glomeratus 

BS Plant Poppy, Red Rock Eschscholzia minutiflora ssp. Twisselman 

BS Plant Poreleaf, Pygmy Porophyllum pygmaeum 

BS Plant Prairie Rocket, Narrow-Leaved Erysimum asperum var. Angustatum 

BS Plant Primrose, Alkali Primula alcalina 

BS Plant Primula, Cusickʼs Primula cusickiana 

BS Plant Princesplume, Malheur Stanleya confertiflora 

BS Plant Princesplume, Perennial Stanleya confertiflora 

BS Plant Purpusia, Rock Ivesia arizonica var.saxosa 

BS Plant Pussytoes, Meadows Antennaria arcuata 

BS Plant Queen-Of-The-Forest Filipendula occidentalis 

BS Plant Rabbitbrush, Guadalupe Chrysothamnus nauseosus ssp. Texensis 

BS Plant Ragwort, Few Flowered Packera pauciflora 

BS Plant Ragwort, Western Senecio hesperius 

BS Plant Raspberry, Nothwest Rubus nigerrimus 

BS Plant Rattleweed, San Diego Astragalus oocarpus 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 B-31

Appendix B

Special Status Species

Status Class Common Name Scientific Name 

BS Plant Reedgrass, Cascade Calamagrostis tweedyi 

BS Plant Ricegrass, Hendersonʼs Achnatherum hendersonii 

BS Plant Ricegrass, Small-Flowered Oryzopsis micranthum 

BS Plant Ricegrass, Wallowa Achnatherum wallowensis 

BS Plant Rock-Brake, Slender Cryptogramma stelleri 

BS Plant Rockcress, Bodie Hills Arabis bodiensis 

BS Plant Rockcress, Crandall Arabis crandallii 

BS Plant Rockcress, Elko Arabis falcifructa 

BS Plant Rockcress, Grouse Creek Arabis falcatoria 

BS Plant Rockcress, Hells Canyon Arabis hastatula 

BS Plant Rockcress, Koehlerʼs Arabis koehleri var. Koehleri 

BS Plant Rockcress, Park Arabis fernaldiana var. Fernaldiana 

BS Plant Rockcress, Sapphire Arabis fecunda 

BS Plant Rockmat, Chelan Petrophyton cinerascens 

BS Plant Rockress, Kass Draba kassii 

BS Plant Rock-Tansey Sphaeromeria capitata 

BS Plant Rosewood, Limestone Vauquelinia californica 

BS Plant Rush, Red Bluff Dwarf Juncus leiospermus var. Leiospermus 

BS Plant Rush-Lily, Purple-Flowered Hastingsia atropurpurea 

BS Plant Saltbush, Giant Four-Wing Atriplex canescens var. Gigantea 

BS Plant Sandwort, Lassics Minuartia decumbens 

BS Plant Sandwort, Nuttall Minuartia nuttallii 

BS Plant Sanicle, Tracyʼs Sanicula tracyi 

BS Plant Saw-Wort, Weber Saussurea weberi 

BS Plant Sedge, Buxbaumʼs Carex buxbaumii 

BS Plant Sedge, Canadian Single Spike Carex scirpoidea 

BS Plant Sedge, Crawʼs Carex crawei 

BS Plant Sedge, Foothill Carex tumulicola 

BS Plant Sedge, Giant Carex spissa 

BS Plant Sedge, Green Carex viridula 

BS Plant Sedge, Idaho Carex parryana ssp. Idahoa 

BS Plant Sedge, Indian Valley Carex arboriginum 

BS Plant Sedge, Livid Carex livida 

BS Plant Sedge, Low Northern Carex concinna 

BS Plant Sedge, San Luis Obispo Carex obispoensis 

BS Plant Sedge, Siskiyou Carex gigas 

BS Plant Sedge, String-Root Carex chordorrhiza 

BS Plant Sedge, Western Carex occidentalis 

BS Plant Sedge, Yellow Carex flava 

BS Plant Shootingstar, Frigid Dodecatheon austrofrigidum 

BS Plant Shoshonea Shoshonea pulvinata 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

B-32 October 2004

Appendix B

Special Status Species

Status Class Common Name Scientific Name 

BS Plant Sidalcea, Maple-Leaved Sidalcea malachroides 

BS Plant Silverberry, American Elaeagnus commutata 

BS Plant Sneezeweed, Virginia Helenium virginicum 

BS Plant Snow-Wreath, Shasta Neviusia cliftonii 

BS Plant Soaproot, Dwarf Chlorogalum pomeridianum var. Minus 

BS Plant Soaproot, Red Hills Chlorogalum grandiflorum 

BS Plant Spineflower, Brewerʼs Chorizanthe breweri 

BS Plant Spineflower, San Benito Chorizanthe biloba var. Immemora 

BS Plant Spineflower, Straight-Awned Chorizanthe rectispina 

BS Plant Spleenwort, Dalhouse Asplenium [=ceterach] dalhousiae 

BS Plant Spleenwort, Green Asplenium viride 

BS Plant Springbeauty, Ogilvie Mountains Claytonia ogilviensis 

BS Plant Spruce, White Picea glauca 

BS Plant Spurge, Flat-Seeded Chamaesyce platysperma 

BS Plant Star-Tulip, Long-Haired Calochortus longebarbatus var. Longebarb 

BS Plant Star-Tulip, Shirley Meadows Calochortus westonii 

BS Plant Stenotus, Woolly Stenotus lanuginosus 

BS Plant Stickleaf, Royal Gorge Mentzelia densa 

BS Plant Stickleaf, Smooth Mentzelia mollis 

BS Plant Stickleaf, Southwest Mentzelia argillosa 

BS Plant Stickseed, Cronquistʼs Hackelia cronquistii 

BS Plant Stickseed, Deep Creek Hackelia ibapensis 

BS Plant Stickseed, Rattlesnake Hackelia ophiobia 

BS Plant Stickseed, Rattlesnake Hackelia ophiobia 

BS Plant Stonecrop, Applegate Sedum oblanceolatum 

BS Plant Stonecrop, Bartram Graptopetalum bartramii 

BS Plant Stonecrop, Canyon Creek Sedum paradisum 

BS Plant Strawberry, Idaho Waldsteinia idahoensis 

BS Plant Streptanthus, Howellʼs Streptanthus howellii 

BS Plant Stroganowia, Tiehm Stroganowia tiehmii 

BS Plant Stylocline Stylocline filaginea 

BS Plant Sullivantia, Oregon Sullivantia oregana 

BS Plant Sumac, Kearney Rhus kearneyi ssp. Kearneyi 

BS Plant Sunflower, Fort Tejon Woolly Eriophyllum lanatum var. Hallii 

BS Plant Sunray, Silverleaf Enceliopsis argophylla 

BS Plant Swertia, Umpqua Frasera umpquaensis 

BS Plant Swordfern, Kruckebergʼs Polystichum kruckebergii 

BS Plant Tansy, Cinquefoil Sphaeromeria potentilloides 

BS Plant Tansymustard, Wyoming Descurainia torulosa 

BS Plant Tarplant, Congdonʼs Hemizonia parryi ssp. Congdonii 

BS Plant Tarplant, Tecate Hemizonia floribunda 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 B-33

Appendix B

Special Status Species

Status Class Common Name Scientific Name 

BS Plant Tauschia, Hooverʼs Tauschia hooveri 

BS Plant Tauschia, Howellʼs Tauschia howellii 

BS Plant Tetracoccus, Parryʼs Tetracoccus dioicus 

BS Plant Thelypody, Arrowleaf Thelypodium eucosmum 

BS Plant Thelypody, Northwestern Thelypody paniculatum 

BS Plant Thelypody, Wavy-Leaf Thelypodium repandum 

BS Plant Thistle, Ashland Cirsium ciliolatum 

BS Plant Thistle, Cedar Rim Cirsium aridum 

BS Plant Thistle, Compact Cobwebby Cirsium occidentale var. Compactum 

BS Plant Thistle, Hillʼs Cirsium hillii 

BS Plant Thistle, Rocky Mountain Cirsium perplexans 

BS Plant Thistle, Wrightʼs Marsh Cirsium wrightii 

BS Plant Threadstem, Rigid Nemacladus rigidus 

BS Plant Tidy-Tips, Munzʼs Layia munzii 

BS Plant Townsendia, Scapose Townsendia scapigera 

BS Plant Twayblade Liparis loeselii 

BS Plant Twayblade, Northern Listera borealis 

BS Plant Twinpod, Dornʼs Physaria dornii 

BS Plant Twinpod, Tufted Physaria condensata 

BS Plant Wallflower, Coast Erysimum ammophilum 

BS Plant Water-Starwort, The Dalles Callitriche fassettii 

BS Plant Wavewing, Greeleyʼs Cymopterus acaulis var. Greeleyorum 

BS Plant Waxflower; Jamesia, Four Petal Jamesia tetrapetala 

BS Plant Whitlow-Grass, Howellʼs Draba howellii 

BS Plant Whitlow-Grass, Oblong-Fruited Draba adamsii sensu mulligan proparte 

BS Plant Whitlow-Grass, Ogilve Mountains Draba ogilviensis 

BS Plant Whitlow-Grass, Standley Draba standleyi 

BS Plant Whitlow-Grass, Tundra Draba kananaskis 

BS Plant Whtilow-Grass, Murrayʼs Draba murrayi 

BS Plant Willow Salix reticulata spp. Glabellicarpa 

BS Plant Willow, Hoary Salix candida 

BS Plant Willow, Soft-Leaved Salix sessilifolia 

BS Plant Willow-Herb, Nevada Epilobium nevadense 

BS Plant Willow-Herb, Siskiyou Epilobium siskiyouense 

BS Plant Wire-Lettuce, Schott Stephanomeria schottii 

BS Plant Woodfern, Aravaipa Thelypteris puberula var. Sonorensis 

BS Plant Woolly-Heads, Slender Psilocarphus tenellus 

BS Plant Woolly-Sunflower, Barstow Eriophyllum mohavense 

BS Plant Wormwood, Aleutian Artemisia aleutica 

BS Plant Wormwood, Mystery Artemisia biennis var. Diffusa 

BS Plant Wormwood, Purple Artemisia globularia var. Lutea 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

B-34 October 2004

Appendix B

Special Status Species

Status Class Common Name Scientific Name 

BS Plant Wormwood, Yellow-Ball Artemisia senjavinensis 

BS Plant Yampah, Red-Rooted Perideridia erythrorhiza 

BS Plant Yellow Cress, Columbian; Cress, 

Columbia Rorippa columbiae 

BS Reptile Boa, Rosy Lichanura trivirgata 

BS Reptile Chuckwalla Sauromalus obesus 

BS Reptile Chuckwalla, Glen Canyon Sauromalus obesus multiforaminatus 

BS Reptile Chuckwalla, Western Sauromalus obesus obesus 

BS Reptile Gila Monster, Banded Heloderma suspectum cinctum 

BS Reptile Iguana, Desert Dipsosaurus dorsalis 

BS Reptile Kingsnake, California Mountain Lampropeltis zonata 

BS Reptile Kingsnake, Common Lampropeltis getula 

BS Reptile Kingsnake, Sonoran Mountain Lampropelitis pyromelana 

BS Reptile Lizard, Desert Night Xantusia vigilis vigilis 

BS Reptile Lizard, Desert Spiny Sceloporus magister 

BS Reptile Lizard, Flat-Tailed Horned Phrynosoma mcallii 

BS Reptile Lizard, Longnose Leopard Gambelia wislizenii 

BS Reptile Lizard, Mojave Black-Collared Crotaphytus bicinctores 

BS Reptile Lizard, Mojave Fringe-Toed Uma scoparia 

BS Reptile Lizard, Northern Sagebrush Sceloporus graciosus graciosus 

BS Reptile Lizard, Short-Horned Phrynosoma doublassii 

BS Reptile Lizard, Sierra Alligator Elgaria coerulea palmeri 

BS Reptile Lizard, Texas Horned Phrynosoma cornutum 

BS Reptile Lizard, Utah Night Xantusia vigilis utahensis 

BS Reptile Massasauga Sistrurus catenatus 

BS Reptile Rattlesnake, Midget Faded Crotalus viridis concolor 

BS Reptile Rattlesnake, Southwestern Speckled Crotalus mitchellii pyrrhus 

BS Reptile Sidewinder, Mojave Desert Crotalus cerastes cerastes 

BS Reptile Skink, Arizona Eumeces gilberti arizonensis 

BS Reptile Skink, Coronado Eumeces skiltonianus interparietalis 

BS Reptile Skink, Many-Lined Eumeces multivirgatus gaigeae 

BS Reptile Snake, Common Garter Thamnophis sirtalis 

BS Reptile Snake, Great Plains Rat Elaphe guttata emoryi 

BS Reptile Snake, Longnose Rhinocheilus lecontei 

BS Reptile Snake, Mexican Garter Thamnophis eques megalops 

BS Reptile Snake, Milk Lampropeltis triangulum taylori 

BS Reptile Snake, Milk Lampropeltis triangulum taylori 

BS Reptile Snake, Mojave Patch-Nosed Salvadora hexalepis mojavensis 

BS Reptile Snake, Narrowhead Garter Thamnophis rufipunctatus 

BS Reptile Snake, Sanora Lyre Trimorphodon biscutatus lambda 

BS Reptile Snake, Smooth Green Opheodrys vernalis 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 B-35

Appendix B

Special Status Species

Status Class Common Name Scientific Name 

BS Reptile Snake, Two-Striped Garter Thamnophis hammondii 

BS Reptile Snake, Utah Blind Leptotyphlops humilis utahensis 

BS Reptile Snake, Western Ground Sonora semiannulata 

BS Reptile Turtle, Northwestern Pond Clemmys marmorata marmorata 

BS Reptile Turtle, Painted Chrysemys picta 

BS Reptile Turtle, Snapping Chelydra serpentina 

BS Reptile Turtle, Spiny Softshell Trionyx spiniferus 

BS Reptile Whiptail, Plateau Striped Cnemidophorus velox 

BS Snail Disc, Cockerellʼs Striate Discus shemeki cockerelli 

BS Snail Fieldslug, Evening Deroceras hesperium 

BS Snail Jumping-Slug, Malone Hemphillia malone 

BS Snail Lanx, Rotund Lanx subrotundata 

BS Snail Lanx, Scale Lanx klamathensis 

BS Snail Lanx, Shortface Fisherola nuttalli (lymnaeidae) 

BS Snail Peaclam, Montane Pisidium ultramontanum 

BS Snail Pebblesnail, Casebeer Fluminicola sp. Nov. 

BS Snail Pebblesnail, Columbia Fluminicola columbianus 

BS Snail Pebblesnail, Diminutive Fluminicola sp. Nov. 3 

BS Snail Pebblesnail, Fall Creek Fluminicola sp. Nov. 

BS Snail Pebblesnail, Flat Lepyrium showalteri 

BS Snail Pebblesnail, Keene Creek Fluminicola sp. Nov. 

BS Snail Pebblesnail, Klamath Fluminicola sp. Nov 

BS Snail Pebblesnail, Klamath Rim Fluminicola sp. Nov. 1 

BS Snail Pebblesnail, Lake Of The Woods Fluminicola sp. Nov. 

BS Snail Pebblesnail, Newrite Fluminicola sp. Nov. 11 

BS Snail Pebblesnail, Tigerlily Fluminicola sp. Nov. 

BS Snail Pebblesnail, Toothed Fluminicola sp. Nov. 

BS Snail Pyrg, Bifid Duct Pyrgulopsis peculariaris 

BS Snail Pyrg, Big Warm Spring Pyrgulopsis papillata 

BS Snail Pyrg, Carinate Duckwater Pyrgulopsis carinata 

BS Snail Pyrg, Duckwater Pyrgulopsis aloba 

BS Snail Pyrg, Elongate Cain Spring Pyrgulopsis augusta 

BS Snail Pyrg, Fly Ranch Pyrgulopsis bruesi 

BS Snail Pyrg, Humbolt Pyrgulopsis humboldtensis 

BS Snail Pyrg, Landyes Pyrgulopsis landeyi 

BS Snail Pyrg, Large-Gland Carico Pyrgulopsis basiglans 

BS Snail Pyrg, Spring Mountains Pyrgulopsis deaconi 

BS Snail Pyrg, Transverse Gland Pyrgulopsis cruciglans 

BS Snail Pyrg, Wongs Pyrgulopsis wongi 

BS Snail Snail, Hells Canyon Land Cryptomastix populi 

BS Snail Snail, Newcombʼs Littorine Algamorda subrotundata 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

B-36 October 2004

Appendix B

Special Status Species

Status Class Common Name Scientific Name 

BS Snail Snails, Hydrobiid Spring All species in genus pyrgulopsis 

BS Snail Snails, Succineid All species in family succineidae 

BS Snail Springsnail, Crooked Creek Pyrgulopsis intermedia 

BS Snail Springsnail, Harney Lake Pyrgulopsis hendersoni 

BS Snail Springsnail, Malheur Cave Oncopodura mala 

BS Snail Springsnail, Owyhee Hot Pyrgulopsis sp. N+d40ov. 

BS Snail Tryonia, Grated Tryonia clathrata 

W Bird Blackbird, Brewerʼs Euphagus cyanocephalus 

W Bird Finch, Cassinʼs Carpodacus cassinii 

W Bird Flycatcher, Cordilleran Empidonax occidentalis 

W Bird Phalaropus, Wilsonʼs Phalaropus tricolor 

W Bird Swift, Vauxʼs Chaetura vauxi 

W Fish Sculpin, Shorthead Cottus confusus 

W Fish Sculpin, Torrent Cottus rohtheus 

W Mammal Squirrel, Rock Spermophilus variegatus 

W Plant Goldenweed, Howellʼs OneFlowered Hyplopappus uniflorus var.howellii 

W Plant Milk-Vetch, Piperʼs Astragalus riparis 

W Plant Sedge, Hendersonʼs Carex hendersonii 

W Plant Willow-Herb, Swamp Epilobium palustre 

Key to species status:

ba = Bureau advisory

BS = Bureau sensitive

bto = Bureau tracking, Oregon

C = Federal candidate

eme = Federal emergency listing 

ex = Experimental population

FE = Federally endangered

FT = Federally threatened 

P = Petitioned

W = Watchlisted (Idaho only).
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

Appendix C. Summary of Scoping 

Comments

One change was made to this scoping 

summary on the basis of a comment 

received from the public. One of the letters 

received during scoping contained numerous 

comments that the BLM attributed to the 

individualʼs employer, the University of 

Wyoming. The comment letter, however, 

clearly stated that the comments were those 

of the author and did not necessarily reflect 

the views of the University. Accordingly, we 

have deleted references to the University of 

Wyoming as the source of those comments in 

this summary of scoping comments.

Introduction

As of July 2003, the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) received more than 

8,300 comments in response to the Advanced 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the 

Notice of Intent. Most of the 8,300 comments 

were form letters expressing opposition 

to the BLM making any changes to the 

existing regulations that were passed in 1995. 

We received approximately three dozen 

letters containing substantive comments 

from interest groups and state and Federal 

agencies. In many instances, the comments 

submitted by individuals and interest groups 

duplicated the comments of “like-minded” 

organizations. Some comments referenced 

the previous changes to the grazing 

regulations as either the “1994” or “1995” 

regulatory changes. They are the same. 

The BLM held four public scoping 

meetings during March 2003. Approximately 

60 people attended the Billings, Montana, 

meeting and 25 people offered testimony. 

Around 150 people attended the Reno, 

Nevada, meeting and 25 offered testimony. 

Approximately 50 people attended the 

Albuquerque, New Mexico, meeting, with 

35 individuals providing testimony, and 

approximately 30 people attended the 

Washington, D.C., meetings, where five 

persons gave testimony. 

The topics, in order of the number of 

comments received, are listed as follows:

1. Authorizing temporarily locked gates on 

public lands. 

2. Establishing Reserve Common 

Allotments. 

3. Sharing proportional title to range 

improvements. 

4. Considering the social, economic, and 

cultural factors in NEPA analysis. 

5. Acquisition of water rights. 

6. Extending authorized temporary nonuse 

from 3 to 5 years. 

7. Eliminating certain nonpermit violations. 

8. Modifying the appeal process. 

9. Considering adding a fee schedule for 

certain administrative actions. 

10. Clarify what actions the BLM will take if 

we determine rangeland health standards 

are not being met. 

C-1
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

1.0 Definitions

1.1 General comments 

regarding definitions

The Nevada Department of Agriculture 

commented at the Reno public scoping 

meetings that the BLM should not change 

its present definitions and should maintain 

the interpretations as close to the original 

meanings as they are in the Taylor Grazing 

Act. 

The State of Arizona Game and Fish 

Department asked why theBLM proposed 

changing the definitions in the regulations. 

The department said they found BLMʼs 

intent in making these regulatory changes 

unclear; however, it supported revisions 

and clarifications that would effectively and 

efficiently accomplished the goal of attaining 

healthy rangelands and support multiple use 

of public lands including, benefits to fish and 

wildlife resources.

The Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of 

the Earth, National Wildlife Federation, and 

National Resources Defense Council asked 

why the Department believes it is necessary 

to change any of the definitions that werenʻt 

changed in 1995. 

1.2 Section 4100.0-5 

Definitions

1.2.1 Active use

A consortium of environmental and 

conservation groups (Defenders of Wildlife, 

Friends of the Earth, National Wildlife 

Federation, and National Resources Defense 

Council) jointly commented that the term 

“conservation use” could have been removed 

administratively without the expense of a 

rulemaking effort. The group commented 

that it could not identify other necessary 

or warranted changes to this definition 

because the BLM was too vague about its 

intentions. Several commenters asked the 

BLM not to revoke conservation use permits.

1.2.2 Authorized use

The National Cattlemenʼs Beef 

Association (NCBA) and the Public Lands 

Council (PLC) asked the BLM to provide 

for the maximum amount of flexibility 

when considering the terms “nonuse,” 

and “reduced use” in our definition of 

“authorized use.” It asked the BLM to allow 

nonuse for 3 years for reasons other than 

resource management. After 3 years the 

group wants the BLM to consult with the 

preference holder to determine how Federal 

AUMs could be made available to qualified 

applicants who are engaged in the livestock 

business. It commented that the BLM should 

do this by issuing either a temporary permit 

or a reallocation under the criteria in the 

regulations. It also asked the BLM to clarify 

whether Federal AUMs in nonuse should be 

made available for active use after 3 years.

The consortium of environmental and 

conservation groups asked why the BLM is 

proposing to change this definition if it was 

not considered in the 1995 rulemaking. The 

groups commented that “Adopting the claims 

advanced in the PLC case is inappropriate, 

illegal, and limits BLMʼs ability to adjust 

livestock numbers and use for the benefit and 

protection of other usersʼ uses or resources of 

the public lands in accordance with the goals 

and mandates of FLPMA and PRIA.”

1.2.3 Base property

The consortium of environmental and 

conservation groups said the Department of 

Interior already addressed these issues in the 

1994 regulations and it asked why the BLM 

believes they must be changed now.

C-2 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

1.2.4 Grazing lease

The consortium of environmental and 

conservation groups commented that the 

existing definition is taken from the TGA 

and should not be changed. It commented 

that it is inappropriate to link this definition 

to a particular number of livestock and the 

BLM should link numbers to preference 

because this process can identify and reveal 

real obstacles to improved management and 

improved conditions. 

1.2.5 Grazing permit

The consortium of environmental and 

conservation groups commented that the 

BLM addressed this and other definitions 

during the 1995 Range Reform efforts and it 

asked how the BLM justifies changing them 

now, so soon after that effort. 

1.2.6 Grazing Preference or 

Preference

The NCBA and the PLC asked the BLM 

to replace the term “permitted use” with 

the term “preference” wherever it occurs in 

the existing regulations because the term 

“preference,” as used in the Taylor Grazing 

Act (TGA), was intended by Congress to 

provide a preference level of Federal AUMs 

of livestock forage to ranchers who qualified 

for grazing permits and leases. 

The NCBA and the PLC also commented 

that the term “preference” means the sum 

total of active-use AUMs and any suspended 

nonuse AUMs. They asked if the BLM is 

considering this term in this context. They 

asked if the BLM intended to continue 

recognizing that permittees and lessees 

have an incentive to improve livestock 

management practices, and to improve 

rangeland conditions where possible by 

reactivating part or all of their suspended 

nonuse.

The consortium of environmental and 

conservation groups commented that the 

term “preference” is taken directly from 

the Taylor Grazing Act and that the BLM 

should not change it. It commented that the 

definition should not be linked to a particular 

number of livestock because it interferes with 

the BLMʼs ability to manage public lands 

pursuant to PRIA and FLPMA. It further 

commented that “permitted use” is properly 

determined by a land use plan and should 

remain as an indicator of livestock numbers 

allowed on a particular allotment.

1.2.7 Monitoring

General comments: The BLM received 

few comments pertaining to the definition. 

However, it received many comments 

advising the BLM how to conduct monitoring 

and what the results of these monitoring 

efforts should be. The livestock industry 

generally believes that more thorough 

monitoring will benefit the industry and 

vindicate them from allegations that livestock 

grazing is responsible for degrading public 

lands. The environmental and conservation 

communities urge increased monitoring 

because they believe monitoring will support 

their long-held belief that livestock grazing is 

degrading public lands. 

The consortium of environmental and 

conservation groups alleges that after 1995, 

the BLM changed the way it monitors 

resource damage on public lands because 

it did not have the budget or resources 

to carry out required monitoring. The 

groups commented that this caused the 

BLM to delay remedial actions resulting 

in additional damage to public lands, and 

indefinitely stalled true environmental range 

improvements. It also commented that 

the BLMʼs return to the pre-1995 policy 

of “no data, no action” will block needed 

improvements and would be completely 

inconsistent with true stewardship.

C-3
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

The Public Lands Council and the 

National Cattlemenʼs Beef Association 

commented that data collection must be 

consistent and that the BLM should prepare 

an annual report on monitoring activities and 

make that information available.

The Oregon Natural Desert Association 

commented that monitoring is vital to 

BLMʼs success in land management 

actions. It commented that the definition 

of “monitoring” should recognize the 

importance of—and require the collection 

of—measurable, repeatable, quantitative 

information. It said the BLM relies on “driveby” narratives, not by applying professional 

scientific procedures and standards. 

The Nevada Department of Agriculture 

commented at the Reno public scoping 

meeting that the BLM must clarify how it 

will monitor results of trend studies and how 

that information will be used to increase 

AUMS on a particular allotment. 

The New Mexico Public Lands Council 

commented at the Albuquerque public 

scoping meeting that vegetation monitoring 

will ensure that long-term range conditions 

and trends are stable or improving, enhance 

the resource for future generations, provide 

positive economic returns, and stabilize the 

range livestock industry and the culture of the 

vital human resources of New Mexico.

The Oregon Cattlemenʼs Association 

commented at the Reno public scoping 

meeting that it recognizes the importance 

of long-term monitoring when it supports 

the grazing program and establishes 

sustainability. It urged the BLM to consider 

data from a study pertaining to monitoring in 

preparation by the National Cattlemenʼs Beef 

Association and the Public Lands Council; 

however, it gave no other details or specifics 

of that study.

1.2.8 Reserve Common Allotments

The BLM did not receive any comments 

pertaining to a definition of Reserve Common 

Allotments. 

See Section 4.1 for discussions of 

Reserve Common Allotments. 

2.0 Changing the 

regulations to clarify 

present requirements 

and to allow 

better rangeland 

management 

and permit 

administration

We are considering the following 

changes: 

2.1 Clarifying the permit 

renewal performance review 

requirements when grazing 

permits are pledged as 

security for loans

The Public Lands Council (PLC) and 

the National Cattlemenʼs Beef Association 

(NCBA) generally supported the BLMʼs 

proposed changes and provided extensive and 

substantial comments pertaining to all aspects 

of the BLMʼs proposed criteria. In addition, 

it submitted several additional provisions it 

wants the BLM to address in this rulemaking. 

The consortium of environmental and 

conservation groups commented that the 

C-4 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

fact that a permittee or lessee has a loan 

should not guarantee that the permittee or 

lessee has a right to an automatic renewal 

of his or her permit or lease, nor should 

it guarantee that any particular number of 

livestock can be run on the permitteeʼs or 

lesseeʼs allotment.

The Center for Biological Diversity 

(CBD) commented that permits should 

not be used as collateral for loans, because 

permits are not the legitimate property of 

the permittee. It said permits should include 

terms and conditions specifically preventing 

their use in this manner. It also commented 

that other methods, such as allowing 

competitive bidding for permits or leases, 

would remove the incorrect perception that 

permits are a property interest. The CBD 

commented that Section 4130.9 should be 

deleted because it illegally recognizes the use 

of permits and leases as collateral. 

One individual commented that the 

BLM should delete Section 4130.9 because 

grazing permits are not legal property 

interests and treating them as such skews 

real estate markets and increases pressure 

on rangelands and encourages range 

managers to serve individual interests while 

diminishing economic benefits of healthy 

rangelands not priced in any market and not 

easily considered. (The Western Watersheds 

Project submitted identical comments on this 

provision.)

An environmental group commented that 

this provision shields permittees who are 

bad stewards or who have borrowed against 

their permits in an illegal attempt to make 

livestock use the dominant use on the public 

lands. The group said the TGA, FPLMA, and 

PRIA require that public lands be managed 

for multiple uses.

2.2 Clarifying who is 

qualified for public lands 

grazing use and who will 

receive preference for a 

grazing permit or lease

The Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) commented that it supports giving 

preference to applicants who promote 

wildlife habitats, water quality, healthy 

riparian zones, and encouraging native 

vegetation because these are important 

factors and should be an integral part of 

BLMʼs criteria for issuing permits.

The Oregon Natural Desert Association 

(ONDA) commented that the present 

regulations on these issues clearly direct 

the BLM to provide detailed information 

to the public about any problems the 

BLM perceives. It commented that, when 

considering changing the regulations, the 

BLM should include the following provisions 

clarifying that persons will not qualify for a 

grazing permit if:

1. They have failed to comply with grazing 

permit terms and conditions, especially 

when: utilization levels. 

2. They repeatedly trespassed. 

3. They failed to maintain exclosures or 

other fences. 

The State of Arizona Game and Fish 

Department supports this considered change 

and believes the BLM should not change 

any of the grazing regulations that would 

diminish the requirements to maintain a 

record of satisfactory performance. 

A commenter said the courts have found 

that individuals who hold preference rights 

on BLM grazing allotments must be engaged 

C-5
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

in the “livestock business.” The commenter 

said the TGA stipulations have been so 

diluted that groups or associations can 

qualify for an allotment preference right even 

though they are not actually engaged in the 

livestock business. The commenter said the 

BLM must revise the grazing regulations so 

grazing permits are only issued to bona fide 

livestock operators and allotments are used 

for legitimate livestock grazing purposes.

Representatives of the Western 

Watersheds Project commented that this 

section does not need clarification. It wants 

the BLM to consider the following:

1. Removing livestock from areas unsuited 

for grazing. 

2. Replacing the present grazing fee formula 

with a system of competitive bidding to 

ensure compliance with the mandate in 

43 U.S.C. Section 1701(a)(9) that the 

government obtain fair market value for 

public resources. 

The Utah Farm Bureau Federation 

commented that the BLM should reinstate the 

pre-1995 definition of “grazing preference” 

because Range Reform eliminated 

permitteesʼ rights to additional forage within 

their preference amounts even when it 

became available. The Federation commented 

that the BLMʼs 1995 regulation change 

let the BLM reduce the number of AUMs 

historically held under grazing preference 

on allotments during periods of drought or 

in response to appeals for expanded wildlife 

use. The Federation commented that it is now 

exceedingly difficult for ranchers to recover 

their historical permitted grazing use after the 

cuts have been made. 

The New Mexico Wool Growers 

Association commented at the New Mexico 

public scoping meeting that it supports 

requiring a permittee to be engaged in the 

livestock business to qualify for a permit.

One commenter stated that only those 

parties legitimately engaged in the livestock 

business should be allowed a grazing 

preference. The commenter believes that the 

Secretaryʼs Four Cʼs approach on the local 

level is the correct way to provide incentive 

for proper management. He stated that when 

communities agree on a management plan 

everyone benefits. 

A commenter said the BLM should allow 

nongrazing parties to buy and hold a grazing 

permit for the conservation use or to improve 

the health of range lands or improve water 

quality.

2.3 Clarifying the provisions 

addressing grazing 

preference transfers

An environmental group commented 

that the BLM should not allow preference 

transfers and that issuance of a permit to a 

new permittee is a new permit issuance, not a 

transfer. the group commented that issuance 

of all new permits or reissuance of existing 

permits should be open to competitive 

bidding and occur only after full compliance 

with NEPA.

The CBD commented that the BLM 

should not allow transfers of grazing 

preference. It commented that issuing a 

new permit to a new permittee should 

not be considered a transfer and wanted 

permit issuances to be subject to full NEPA 

disclosure and conformance with all other 

resource protection laws prior to issuance. 

An individual commented that grazing 

preferences should not be transferred and, 

before issuing or reissuing any permit, the 

BLM must ensure full public disclosure to 

comply with NEPA, FLPMA, and any other 

C-6 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

environmental protections required by other 

law or regulation.

Great Old Broads for Wilderness 

commented that the BLM should not 

transfer preference for permits and that 

the permitting process should be open to 

competitive bidding and that issuance of 

permits to a new permittee should be through 

a new permit, not a transfer, and that permits 

should be subject to full NEPA disclosure 

and conformance with all other resource 

protection laws prior to issuing a permit.

A commenter said the BLM is incorrect 

regarding the transfer of “preference 

right” versus “transfer of the grazing 

permit” because the BLM already has the 

nondiscretionary requirement to transfer the 

preference right to qualified applicants. The 

commenter said that when the preference 

is transferred, the new permittee should be 

entitled to graze under the same terms and 

conditions as the immediately preceding term 

permit until the BLM issues a decision and, 

allowing for appropriate administrative 

appeal, changes the terms and conditions of 

the permit. 

The Western Watersheds Project 

commented that “preference” should not 

be transferred. It commented that when a 

permit is issued to a new permittee it is being 

“issued” not “transferred.” It also commented 

that the BLM must ensure a full public 

disclosure and compliance with NEPA, 

FLPMA, and any environmental protections 

required by other law or regulation before 

issuing or reissuing any permit. 

2.4 Reinstating an earlier 

provision that BLM and 

permit holder may share 

proportional title to certain 

range improvements

Generally, many commenters who 

opposed the considered changes expressed 

particular opposition to livestock operators 

sharing title to range improvements. Most of 

the commenters who supported the BLMʼs 

considered changes stated that sharing 

title to range improvements could improve 

an operatorʼs ability to secure funding to 

continue operating.

Several commenters, including The Sierra 

Club and the consortium of environmental 

and conservation groups, opposed sharing 

title to range improvements because they 

believe it would allow the BLM to confer 

private property rights to permittees operating 

on public lands. The groups commented 

that “ownership of all such developments 

and improvements must remain in the public 

domain because the permittee is only an 

individual or corporation allowed by the 

public to use public lands.”

The CBD commented that the BLM 

should not change the existing regulation 

because it said that it supported the 1995 

regulations that clarified that permittees 

do not have a property interest in Federal 

permits when they build range improvements 

on Federal land. 

The Association of Rangeland 

Consultants supported reinstating the pre1995 provision allowing BLM and the 

permit holder to share title to certain range 

improvements because they think it is an 

incentive to good land stewardship. 

The ONDA opposed changing this 

provision so soon after the 1995 revisions. It 

C-7
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

cites the TGA and other court cases which, 

it said, demonstrate specifically that a permit 

to graze on public lands does not entitle the 

permit holder to any rights on public lands. 

The Columbia River Basin InterTribal Fish Commission (a coalition of 

the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla, 

Confederated Tribes and Bands of the 

Yakama Nation, and the Nez Perce Tribe) 

opposed sharing title to range improvements 

because this provision could allow property 

rights to be established on public lands that 

could interfere with transferability of permits.

The Matador Cattle Company, Dillon, 

Montana, supports this provision and 

commented that incentives like sharing 

title provide a better way for implementing 

and maintaining range improvements than 

punitive actions.

The Forest Guardians, Animal Protection 

Institute, and Sinapu jointly submitted 

comments and cited case laws that they say 

support their opposition to sharing title to 

range improvements. 

The State of Arizona Game and Fish 

Department commented that if this provision 

is introduced, the BLM must ensure that 

wildlife and wildlife-related recreational 

interests are considered and addressed. 

The Montana Wildlife Federation 

opposed sharing proportional title to range 

improvements unless they are short term and 

the permittee intends to remove them.

The NCBA and PLC strongly urged 

the BLM to revise Subpart 4130 to read as 

follows:

“Title to structural or removable range 

improvements will be shared by the United 

States and the cooperators in proportion to 

the amount of their respective contributions 

to on-the-ground expenses of initial 

construction.” 

The NBCA and PLC said the BLM 

should amend Section 4130.3-3 Range 

improvement permits in the existing 

regulations to read:

“When the permittee or lessee agrees 

to provide full funding for construction, 

installation, modification, or maintenance of 

structural or removable range improvements, 

the permittee or lessee will hold title to 

those improvements authorized under this 

section. The permittee or lessee will control 

livestock ponds, wells, or pipelines when 

their construction is authorized under this 

section. The permittee or lessee may enter 

into an MOU with BLM to allow the use 

and maintenance of the improvements by 

activities other than livestock grazing.”

An individual commented that the 

Supreme Court approved the 1995 changes 

to the regulations. It said the BLM is trying 

to place the economic interests of a small 

number of permittees and licensees above 

public interests and above the goal of 

managing the multiple resources and values 

of public lands. It commented that the BLM 

is disregarding FLPMAʼs mandates without 

considering the relative scarcity of the values 

involved or weighing the long-term benefits 

to the public against short-term benefits to the 

permittees. (The Western Watersheds Project 

submitted duplicate comments regarding this 

provision.)

The New Mexico Farm and Livestock 

Bureau supports shared title to range 

improvements and, in particular, coownership of range improvements or 

ownership by permittees who fund their own 

improvements with no contributions by the 

government.

The Nevada Farm Bureau (NFB) 

commented at the Reno public scoping 

meeting that the NFBʼs public policy 

position encourages actions to expand 

private development and ownership of stock 

water and Federal land. It said this policy 

is important for increasing benefits for 

C-8 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

enhanced resource conditions as a result of 

maximum livestock distribution for expanded 

water development projects. It also said that 

providing ranchers with the opportunity for 

developing water resources on Federal 

lands expands the resources available for 

improving resource management.

The Western Watersheds Project 

commented that it opposes sharing title 

to range improvements because allowing 

permittees to “own” improvements may 

result in misunderstandings between 

permittees and the BLM over whether 

protective actions taken by the BLM 

constitutes a “taking” of property. It said 

these situations would involve great expense 

to the public. 

The Utah Farm Bureau Federation 

commented that farmers and ranchers who 

pay for and construct range improvements 

should have an ownership interest in them, 

and should be able to list them as an asset on 

a producerʼs balance sheet. The Federation 

commented that little of the Federal money 

that is earmarked for range improvements 

goes toward on-the-ground improvements 

and there are presently no incentives for 

cooperation. The Federation commented that 

shared title to range improvements would 

give permittees incentives to construct and 

maintain range improvements on Federal 

lands. 

The Custer Rod and Gun Club 

commented that it opposes sharing title 

to range improvements and that the 

BLM should retain ownership, thereby 

guaranteeing flexibility in the grazing 

management of the public lands.

The Conservation Roundtable of Billings 

Montana opposes this provision because 

physical improvements are permanently 

attached to the public lands and, therefore, 

ownership must be held and owned by the 

public land management agency. 

The American Farm Bureau Federation 

commented that sharing title to range 

improvement would provide co-ownership 

and permittees with the incentive to construct 

and maintain range improvements of federal 

lands. The federation commented that 

“permittees operating on the allotments 

are in a better position to maintain those 

improvements than BLM personnel with 

limited time on the ground and limited 

funding.” 

The National Association of State 

Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) 

commented that allowing permittees 

or lessees to retain ownership of their 

portion of permitted range improvements 

provides incentives for permittees or lessees 

to invest funds in the improvement of 

Federal land. The Association commented 

that permittees and lessees should be 

compensated for, or allowed to retain, 

ownership of their portions of the investment.

Animal Alliance opposes sharing title to 

range improvements because it is concerned 

that the BLM would have to bear the high 

cost of buying out the permittee or lessee 

if the BLM must remove them from their 

allotment.

The New Mexico Farm and Livestock 

Bureau commented that ranching on public 

lands is the fourth largest contributor to that 

stateʼs economy, and reinstating ownership 

of range improvements would stimulate 

sustained growth and stability for New 

Mexico by recognizing and rewarding the 

custom and culture of livestock production. 

The New Mexico Public Lands Council 

commented at the Albuquerque public 

scoping meeting that it supported sharing 

title to range improvements because the 

long-standing livestock industry is the 

fourth largest sector in New Mexico and, 

therefore, must receive incentives to 

continue the industryʼs sustained growth and 

sustainability. 

C-9
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

The Montana Farm Bureau commented 

at the Billings public scoping meeting that it 

supported sharing title to range improvements 

because it would provide incentive for range 

improvements. 

A commenter at the Billings public 

scoping meeting said he supported shared 

title to range improvements because it will 

improve public land for everyone, not just the 

permittee. 

A commenter at the Reno public scoping 

meeting said he supports shared title to range 

improvements because it provides incentive 

to operators. He commented that the pre1995 system worked and ranchers “should 

get some of that back.”

The California Farm Bureau commented 

at the Reno public scoping meeting that 

shared title to range improvements gives 

operators incentive to put “sweat equity” 

and their own dollars into improvements on 

their range so they can show a balance sheet 

to a banker when they have to justify those 

expenditures. 

The County Commissioners of 

Washington County, Utah, commented 

during the New Mexico public scoping 

meetings that range improvements need to be 

owned, at least in part, by a permittee. They 

said ranchers invest time and money in 

developing improvements that benefit 

wildlife and livestock and they support the 

provision to share title as it existed before 

rangeland reform. 

The New Mexico Wool Growers 

Association commented at the New Mexico 

public scoping meetings that it supports 

proportionally sharing title to range 

improvements and if the operator invests 

100 percent of the cost associated with an 

improvement, then the operator should 

receive title to that improvement. 

A commenter at the New Mexico public 

scoping meetings said he was concerned 

about the number of changes the BLM 

is proposing. He commented that he 

owns a ranch in the area but does not run 

livestock. The commenter said sharing title 

to improvements for the purpose of livestock 

grazing does nothing for other users of the 

land and he does not believe it is appropriate 

to reward permittees for making changes 

on public lands that are not advantageous to 

other land use purposes. 

The consortium of environmental and 

conservation groups commented that a 

provision giving operators title to range 

improvements is unjustified and will interfere 

with the BLMʼs ability to take necessary 

action to comply with FLPMAʼs mandate of 

resource protection.

The Conservation Roundtable said 

ownership of physical improvements that 

are permanently attached to the public lands 

(pipelines, wells, reservoirs, and others) 

should be retained by the land management 

agency because such improvements are 

important to multiple uses of the land. It 

also commented that policies that propose 

other alternatives should assess how private 

ownership of the improvements affects the 

ability of the agency to transfer grazing 

privileges from one permittee to another, and 

the cost and effects to the public for the use 

of those lands. 

The Northern California Resource 

Advisory Council said the “proposed 

rules” subordinate public property rights, 

benefit private interests, and violate the 

public trust doctrine.

A commenter from Montana opposed 

sharing title to range improvements on BLM 

lands because in Montana the practice limits 

the stateʼs ability to consider other applicants 

for grazing permits. The commenter said 

shared title is a burden to track and gives 

existing permit holders an advantage over 

anyone else who may apply for a grazing 

permit.

C-10 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

A commenter at the Reno public scoping 

meeting said that most of the BLMʼs 

proposed changes were unnecessary and 

had nothing to do with conservation. The 

commenter said that the BLM is proposing 

to give away private property rights and 

livestock facilities.

A commenter opposed sharing title to 

range improvements because he believes 

it is bad public policy to permit anyone 

to establish private property rights on the 

publicʼs land. The commenter said if the 

BLM implements this change it would lead 

to takings litigation and result in the BLM 

having to impose additional management 

prescriptions to protect public lands. 

A commenter said permittees should be 

expected to participate in development of 

worthwhile investments that will improve 

and health, wildlife, and livestock values and 

provide a return on their investment. The 

commenter stated that livestock operators 

shouldnʼt be expected to invest without 

reasonable assurances they will be able to 

recapture a fair return on their investment. 

A commenter said that the BLM should 

hold full title to all improvements because 

the TGA grants permittees perpetual benefit 

of their permit and improvements as long as 

they manage the resources responsibly. The 

commenter stated that permittees have 

rentersʼ rights and no more. The commenter 

said a permittee should own title to temporary 

range improvements as long as they are 

removable or portable.

2.5 Clarifying that BLM will 

follow state law with respect 

to the acquisition of water 

rights

Nevada State Senator Dean Rhodes 

supports “allowing states to return to the 

favored, traditional three-way system, as it 

existed prior to the 1995 regulation changes.” 

The Senator states that the plain language 

of the regulation and Nevadaʼs water laws 

provide for a three-way system allowing the 

BLM to obtain stock water permits in the 

name of the Federal government. 

Senator Rhodes commented that joint 

permits or permits that are issued only in 

the name of the range user are no longer 

possible in Nevada and the Federal regulation 

seems to require the BLM to acquire stock 

water rights exclusively in the name of the 

United States. He believes this approach 

precludes a range user from holding the 

water rights solely in the userʼs name, even 

if the user was fully responsible for the 

development of the water rights and putting 

the water to beneficial use. 

The Senator also commented that as 

a result of the 1995 changes made to the 

grazing regulations the Nevada Legislature is 

considering introducing legislation urging the 

Secretary to amend this specific regulation 

and remove the requirement that stock water 

rights must be acquired in the name of the 

United States. 

The Northwest California Resource 

Advisory Council recommended that the 

BLM consider that the government should 

hold water rights associated with livestock 

grazing allotments for the benefit of the 

livestock permittee and other beneficial uses . 

The Humboldt River Basin Water 

Authority, representing five Nevada counties, 

commented that the BLM need not change 

its regulations because the regulations 

clearly state the requirements and parameters 

under which “...any such water right is to 

be acquired, perfected, maintained, and 

administered in the name of the United 

States.” 

The CBD commented that the BLM 

should not change the existing regulation 

because Section 4120.3-9 already allows 

C-11
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

water rights that are acquired to be subject 

to state law where applicable. It commented 

that the regulations should be strengthened to 

require the BLM to assert and use reserved 

and other existing water rights, with priority 

given to wildlife and recovery of T&E 

species. 

The Association of Rangeland 

Consultants commented that the BLM should 

clarify and emphasize that it intends to follow 

state law with respect to the acquisition of 

water rights. 

The State of Arizona Game and Fish 

Department commented that it does not 

understand the need to change the present 

regulations and that the BLM should continue 

to file for water rights in a way that is 

compatible with multiple-use management, 

including fish and wildlife purposes. 

The ONDA commented that the BLM 

should emphasize that water rights do not 

constitute a claim for compensation if a 

permit or lease is canceled to devote lands 

to another purpose. It commented that the 

BLM must make this provision consistent 

with Hage v. United States, 51 Fed.Cl. 570

by reaffirming that permits are only a license 

to use the land, not an irrevocable right of the 

permit holder.

The Montana Wildlife Federation opposes 

BLMʼs considered changes to acquiring 

water rights because the BLM should hold all 

water rights needed for appropriate uses and 

management of public lands.

The NCBA and PLC commented that 

the BLM should revise and amend Section 

4120.3-9 Water rights to read as follows: 

“BLM will follow state water law to provide 

livestock water on Federal lands.” 

The Western Watersheds Project 

commented that the BLM should not change 

the present regulations except to require that 

any water rights acquired by the BLM on 

public lands in the course of administering 

grazing permits shall include specific water 

right protection, including compliance with 

the Clean Water Act.

The Conservation Roundtable of Billings, 

Montana, commented that the BLM should 

prohibit the construction of any range 

improvement if it enables a permittee to meet 

state law requirements for acquiring a private 

water right on public land. It commented that 

the BLM should hold, under state law, all 

water rights needed for all appropriate uses 

and management of the public lands.

The National Association of State 

Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) 

commented that the use and appropriation 

of water rights by any entity, including the 

Federal government, must be in accordance 

with state law. The Association commented 

that any proposal, either administrative or 

legislative, must not create an expressed 

or implied reservation of water rights in 

the name of the United States and that the 

Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture 

must follow state law regarding water 

ownership.

The Utah Farm Bureau Federation 

supports state control of water rights because 

it prevents encroachment by government 

agencies on private water rights and 

stock-watering rights issued to individual 

permittees when they construct water 

developments on private land. The Federation 

asked the BLM to amend the existing 

regulations to allow water rights for livestock 

grazing to be acquired in the name of the 

permittee, as was allowed before 1995. 

A commenter at the New Mexico 

public scoping meetings said, “In New 

Mexico, BLMʼs attempt to acquire water 

rights will be opposed because in that state 

water is property and according NMS 72 

Water Law—Property Rights, the Federal 

government is only permitted to have water 

as per their specific reservation related to the 

purpose of reservation.”

C-12 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

The Oregon Cattlemenʼs Association 

commented at the Reno public scoping 

meeting that it is critical for the BLM to 

follow state water law and state water 

regulations in order to maintain continuity. 

The Montana Farm Bureau commented 

at the Billings public scoping meeting that 

the BLM must clarify its intention regarding 

BLM following state law with respect to the 

acquisition of state water rights. 

The County Commissioners of 

Washington County, Utah, commented during 

the New Mexico public scoping meeting that 

any water rights should be acquired through 

the process established before 1995 under 

state water law. 

The consortium of environmental and 

conservation groups commented that the 

BLM was too vague in the ANPR and it 

doesnʼt know what types of modifications the 

BLM is considering. It said there is no need 

to change this regulation because if the BLM 

owns the water rights on the land it controls, 

then the BLM specifies how those rights are 

to be used. The consortium comments that 

if the BLM can justify changing the existing 

regulation, then the BLM must consider the 

following:

• Ensure changes will not limit the BLMʼs 

ability to manage the lands surrounding 

the water right even when it results in 

suspending or reducing grazing and the 

BLM devotes the land and water to other 

purposes. 

• When states have statutes precluding 

the BLM from holding a state water 

right, the BLM must continue to assert 

a right to acquire, possess, and maintain 

water rights on its land for appropriate 

purposes. 

• The EIS must contain a complete 

analysis of the possible environmental 

consequences of any change to the 

existing rule. 

A commenter stated that the BLM should 

adhere to the pre-1995 livestock water rights 

on public lands. 

A commenter said the BLM must not 

concede all authority over water rights 

to states because states wonʼt properly 

manage water resources. The commenter 

asserted that states would drain or degrade 

natural watersheds to support short-term 

livestock interests. This commenter also 

said he opposed provisions that “give away 

the Federal governmentʼs water rights” by 

conceding to stateʼs rights. The commenter 

states that the BLM must retain the ability 

to assert Federal water rights, which may 

be more important for public purposes such 

as fish and wildlife habitat and other public 

uses.

2.6 Examining whether BLM 

should authorize temporarily 

locked gates on public lands 

in order to protect private 

land and improve livestock 

operations

General Comments: The majority of 

comments the BLM received, from both 

supporters and opponents of other proposed 

changes, expressed opposition to BLMʼs 

consideration to allow temporarily locked 

gates on public lands. The most widely 

expressed concern was that ranchers would 

indiscriminately prevent the public from 

gaining access to public lands. Several 

commenters said this was already occurring 

on public lands in some western states. Some 

supporters of BLMʼs proposed grazing rule 

changes stated that they opposed the locked 

C-13
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

gates provision because they feared livestock 

operators would be blamed for making the 

BLM close off access to public lands. The 

BLM can authorize locked gates in specific 

instances. This provision would not change 

the present regulation, and therefore, the 

BLM has decided to remove this provision 

from consideration in the proposed rule. 

The Northwest California Resource 

Advisory Council (RAC) commented that it 

had concerns about “limiting public access 

to public lands” and it unanimously agreed 

that the BLM already has the authority to 

order emergency public land or road closures 

where necessary. 

Several commenters from Idaho stated 

that unauthorized locked gates on BLM land 

is a long-standing, significant problem in 

that state and they believe the provision will 

aggravate the situation because more access 

to more public lands will be prohibited.

The Columbia River Basin Inter-Tribal 

Fish Commission commented that it opposed 

locked gates on public lands because in it 

would interfere with access for the public 

and could restrict Tribal access to reserved 

resources on public lands. If there are 

problems with gates being left open, the 

BLM should investigate other avenues for 

addressing the problem, such as posting signs 

and imposing fines. 

The Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department opposes authorizing locked 

gates on public lands because the BLM 

must consider the publicʼs access when it is 

associated with fish and wildlife recreational 

pursuits—often a significant part of local 

economies and lifestyles. The Department 

also commented that access to public lands is 

necessary for adequately managing big game 

populations.

The Montana Wildlife Federation 

(MWF) opposes BLMʼs consideration to 

allow temporarily locked gates on public 

lands. The Federation stated this would be 

inconsistent with the BLMʼs own intentions 

to consider the effects. The Federation also 

stated that agriculture is presently second 

in economic importance to recreational 

pursuits. Loss of access for hunting and 

fishing recreationalists would negatively 

affect Montanaʼs economy. The Federation 

commented that present grazing fees are so 

low as to be considered a subsidy given to a 

few. The MWF asked the BLM to consider 

implementing competitive bidding for 

grazing leases to bring fees closer to fair 

market value. 

The NCBA and PLC do not support 

the provision to authorize locked gates on 

public lands. They believe the issue is more 

appropriately addressed in other regulations 

guiding the BLM and state and local 

governments regarding roads on public lands. 

The Forest Guardians, Animal Protection 

Institute, and Sinapu jointly submitted 

comments opposing locking gates on public 

lands because permittees merely have a 

revocable license giving them a privilege to 

graze public lands. The groups believe that 

permittees have no right to deny the public 

access to public lands. 

Idaho State Parks and Recreation 

opposed allowing locked gates on public 

lands and commented that private property 

owners already have the right to lock 

gates on their own lands and therefore the 

ability to lock gates on public lands is a 

bad idea and should not be considered in 

the proposed regulations. The department 

suggested, “Although some public land 

grazers complain that recreationalists leave 

gates open allowing animals to move into 

unauthorized areas, open gates are problems 

with many solutions.” They commented that 

the BLM could improve efforts to educate 

the public on the importance of closing 

gates. Gates that are easy to close tend to be 

used more responsibly. 

C-14 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

(IDFG) said the BLM should abandon 

this consideration because the department 

received numerous complaints and concerns 

from the public who adamantly oppose this 

provision. In 2002, IDFG conducted a survey 

of 3,000 individuals who identified access to 

public lands as one of the top five issues they 

thought IDFG should address. 

The State of Arizona Game and Fish 

Department opposes the provision to 

authorize locked gates on public lands and 

states the public should not be denied access 

to public lands unless all other methods to 

resolve this have been exhausted. 

The ONDA commented that authorizing 

locked gates on public lands would be 

inappropriate and runs counter to the entire 

concept of public lands. It cited the present 

regulations, in which they said the Secretary 

made it illegal for any person to obstruct 

free transit through or over public lands by 

force, threat, intimidation, signs, barriers, 

or locked gates. The group states they see 

no compelling reason why private property 

rights or livestock operations should possibly 

override the public interest in having access 

to public lands. 

The Sierra Club, Rocky Mountain 

Chapter, is concerned that locked gates 

will allow bad permit managers to shield 

the consequences of their practices from 

public view. It said access questions should 

be decided on the basis of a public process 

in which the most important parameters to 

be considered are critical wildlife habitat, 

watershed protection, and protecting 

recreational use for the long term. 

An individual opposed the provision to 

propose locked gates on public lands because 

it would aid permittees and not improve 

rangelands or public values. 

The Nature Conservancy commented 

that the BLM already has the authority to 

close areas temporarily to public use to 

protect public health and resources. It stated, 

“Beyond these exceptions, we believe that all 

interests should have equal access to public 

lands.” 

An environmental group commented that 

the principles of the Four Cʼs and multiple 

use require the public to have access to 

all allotments to gage the condition and 

management of the public lands. 

Great Old Broads for Wilderness 

commented that giving ranchers control 

over access to public lands and ownership of 

structures on public lands complicates range 

management and may violate a number of 

laws.

The consortium of environmental and 

conservation groups commented that it 

opposes locked gates on public lands for the 

following reasons: 

1. The prohibition against locking gates on 

public lands and blocking access to public 

lands is a statutory requirement with 

which the BLM cannot interfere. The 

BLMʼs authorization of such an action 

erodes the agencyʼs mandate under 

FLPMA to manage the public lands for 

“Multiple use and sustained yield.” 

2. The EIS must clearly define what 

constitutes “temporary” and the 

environmental and recreational 

consequences resulting from such a 

closure. 

3. If the BLM allows a permittee to block 

access to public lands, it must provide 

a mechanism to allow some publics, 

namely state or county employees and 

the BLM, to have access to those lands to 

monitor activities occurring on them. 

Water Access Association, Inc., of 

Montana opposed allowing ranchers to lock 

C-15
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

gates and said that the public wants more 

access to public lands, not less. 

The Public Lands Foundation urged the 

BLM to consider canceling a grazing permit 

if the permittee prevents the general public, 

or company holding a right-of-way permit 

to cross public lands, from obtaining lawful 

access to the public lands without written 

permission from the Field Office Manager.

The Conservation Roundtable of Billings, 

Montana, commented that the EIS should 

assess the effect on the publicʼs use of the 

land if permittees abuse their privilege to 

close public lands. The group recommends 

that the BLM cancel a grazerʼs permit if the 

grazer impedes the publicʼs lawful access to 

public lands. 

The Sierra Club commented that it 

opposes any provision that would impede or 

prevent the publicʼs access to public lands.

The Taxpayers for Common Sense 

commented that it opposes any alterations 

that would limit public access to Federal 

grazing lands or reduce the opportunity 

for public input into the oversight and 

management of these lands.

The County Commissioners of Garfield 

County, Utah, commented at the New Mexico 

public scoping meeting that they opposed 

locking gates and preventing access to public 

lands at any time. The Commissioners said 

they would consider supporting the provision 

if the permittee needed to lock a gate to take 

some kind of action beneficial to ranching 

action.

The New Mexico Wool Growers 

Association commented at the New Mexico 

public scoping meeting that it supports 

allowing temporary locked gates at certain 

times, particularly during lambing and 

calving or to enable the operator to protect 

his or her private property.

A commenter at the New Mexico public 

scoping meetings said he is concerned about 

the BLMʼs proposal to restrict public access 

to public lands. 

A commenter at the Reno public scoping 

meeting said his primary concern was the 

BLMʼs consideration to allow locked gates 

on public lands.

The Oregon Cattlemenʼs Association 

commented at the Reno public scoping 

meeting that it believes allowing the BLM to 

lock gates on public lands sends the wrong 

message to the public and creates ill will. It 

said it is not appropriate for grazers to try to 

lock out a segment of the public. 

A commenter cited “Idaho Code” (I.C. 

40-203(1)) and said this proposed provision 

might be contrary to that law as it pertains to 

public rights-of-way that include those that 

furnish public access to state and Federal 

public lands and waters. 

A commenter at the Billings public 

scoping meeting said that he supports locking 

gates to protect property on public lands 

because livestock are often killed or stolen 

during hunting season.

The Northern California Resource 

Advisory Council said the “proposed rules” 

would diminish public access and public 

enjoyment of BLM lands.

A commenter opposed locked gates 

placed on public lands by private landowners. 

By lessening access, the BLM will contribute 

to more destruction of fragile dry public 

lands in the West.

A commenter said that when ranchers 

acquire grazing rights on public lands they 

know the issues and constraints that go 

along with grazing on public lands. The 

commenter said ranchers know that the 

public has access to the land and this may 

be problematic because the landowner must 

request that the BLM or law enforcement 

deal with recreational user violations, just as 

recreational users can request that BLM law 

enforcement deal with overgrazing or other 

permittee violations.

C-16 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

A commenter said public access to public 

lands will not harm grazing operations 

because ranchers are only there as the result 

of BLMʼs balanced approach to public land 

use.

A commenter opposed limiting public 

access to public lands because, although the 

BLM may desire to protect private lands and 

livestock operations, the public pays taxes 

to own those lands and keep those lands in 

good condition. The commenter said locked 

gates equals taking away public lands and, 

even when temporary, gives added support to 

private landowners and agribusiness. 

A commenter opposed allowing locked 

gates on public lands and says ranching 

concerns routinely post “No Trespassing” 

signs on public lands and deny access to 

other public users. 

A commenter opposed locked gates on 

public lands because it would prohibit public 

access and set aside public resources for 

exclusive use.

A commenter said public access to public 

lands in Idaho is already hampered and 

stopped by illegal locks placed on gates.

A commenter said the grazing industry 

pays a pittance to graze livestock on public 

lands and that does not give it a right to 

damage watersheds and destroy the natural 

biodiversity, nor does it entitle the grazing 

industry to exclude other users from public 

lands.

A commenter opposed the provision 

and says he has been verbally abused and 

threatened by a private landowner while 

on public lands. The commenter said many 

ranchers work to improve the land; however, 

many treat their inherited leases as if they 

were private property.

A commenter said the BLM intends to 

give ranchers control of the publicʼs right 

to access public lands. The commenter said 

that property owners were responsible for 

protecting their own lands but that should not 

include blocking access to public lands. The 

commenter stated that private property 

owners are already illegally locking the 

public out of public lands in Idaho, where he 

resides.

A commenter supported temporary locked 

gates because “locking up specific areas for 

wintering big game, nesting sage-grouse, 

and other critical values are best defined 

by the local residents and should be given 

consideration. Illegal access to private land 

through BLM land is a big problem in some 

areas and BLM should retain the right, with 

local agreement to block access, only for a 

short time where this is an issue.”

A commenter opposed allowing locked 

gates on public lands and commented that by 

allowing ranchers to block access to public 

lands the BLM will be reverting to the times 

when the dominant use of the public lands 

was livestock grazing, while recreational, 

environmental, and ecological concerns were 

ignored. 

A commenter said any decision to 

limit access to public lands should be 

avoided except for specific reasons that 

have undergone public scrutiny and public 

debate. He said locking the public off of their 

public lands only benefits private livestock 

operators.

A commenter opposed allowing livestock 

owners to lock gates to public lands because 

“BLM lands belong to the public and BLMʼs 

Organic Act guarantees the publicʼs access to 

these lands the same as the ranchers who are 

renting space.”

C-17
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

2.7 Clarifying which 

nonpermit-related violations 

BLM may take into account 

in penalizing a permittee

The Sierra Club commented that permit 

violations need to have consequences 

and permittees must follow all applicable 

environmental laws, including the 

Endangered Species Act and the Clean 

Water Act. It also commented that failure to 

comply with the laws should be grounds for 

terminating a grazing permit or lease. 

The Nature Conservancy commented that 

the BLM must retain its present authority to 

cancel, suspend, or deny renewals of permits 

when permittees violate laws or regulations 

when the violation is related to grazing use.

A commenter said only permit violations 

that have been upheld by the OHA, IBLA, 

or a Federal court as a final agency action 

should be used in determining any future 

penalties against grazing permittees. 

An environmental and conservation 

group commented that the BLM should not 

change the 1995 provisions that expanded the 

list of prohibited acts. It said these include 

violations of Federal environmental, natural, 

and cultural resource laws. 

The EPA commented that the BLM 

should retain the ability to revoke a permit in 

situations where nonpermit violations, such 

as Clean Water Act violations, have resulted 

in significant adverse environmental effects. 

The Forest Guardians, Animal Protection 

Institute, and Sinapu commented that 

failure to comply with applicable Federal 

environmental laws such as the ESA should 

be grounds for terminating a grazing permit 

or at least significantly reducing permitted 

use. 

The Sierra Club, Rocky Mountain 

Chapter, commented that it would support 

the BLMʼs authority to deny permits to those 

who abuse environmental and other laws, 

whether on public land or otherwise, because 

other government entities often place similar 

conditions on contractors and the BLM 

should continue to do the same. 

The NASDA commented that it supports 

the provision to remove and reduce the 

number of violations that could result in a 

permittee losing their permit because they 

believe the 1995 grazing regulations created a 

“double jeopardy issue.”

The Utah Farm Bureau Federation 

commented that the BLM should not have 

authority to take action against a permittee 

for actions that do not violate the terms or 

conditions of his or her permit. The group 

also commented that any such violation 

should be addressed within the confines of 

the particular law or regulation that allegedly 

was violated and not by taking an action 

against a grazing permit. The Federation also 

commented that permittees should not be at 

risk of losing their permit for violation of any 

law or regulation outside of the specific scope 

of the permit. 

The Oregon Cattlemenʼs Association 

commented at the Reno scoping meeting that 

the BLM should not be allowed to take action 

against permittees for actions that do not 

violate the terms and conditions of the permit 

itself.

The Montana Farm Bureau at the Billings 

public scoping meeting commented that his 

group opposes BLMʼs taking action against 

a permittee for actions that do not violate the 

terms and conditions of the permit. 

The consortium of environmental and 

conservation groups commented that they 

strongly oppose rolling back these provisions 

because the present rule provides incentives 

for permittees to be good stewards of the 

public lands as well as of their livestock. 

C-18 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

A commenter said removing this 

provision would avoid “double jeopardy” 

issues.

A commenter supported the provision, 

stating that only violations directly related 

to the grazing permit itself should be a 

consideration for cancellation of a permit. 

A commenter said the BLM should 

strengthen the provision for determining and 

pursuing permit and nonpermit violations that 

violate environmental laws that were passed 

to protect public resources on public lands. 

The Western Watersheds Project 

commented that the only change the BLM 

should make to the present regulation is to 

amend it by deleting 43 CFR. §4140.1(a)(2).

2.8 Considering ways to 

streamline the grazing 

decision appeal process

The ONDA commented that the 

present grazing decision appeal process 

takes an inordinate amount of time, is 

largely ineffective, and does not actually 

stop an action from going forward. The 

ONDA commented that they support 

streamlining timelines and procedures. They 

are concerned that streamlining the process 

will eliminate the publicʼs ability to 

participate in appealing grazing decisions. 

The Grand Canyon Trust commented that 

although there may be legitimate reasons to 

streamline the grazing appeals process, no 

changes should be made that diminish the 

publicʼs ability to participate in, or challenge, 

the decision-making process.

The CBD commented that BLM must 

revise the regulations to provide broader 

public access to administrative remedies for 

grazing decisions. It commented that the 

BLM should also provide a simpler appeals 

process giving State Directors authority 

to suspend ongoing grazing or stay the 

proposed action if there is evidence of harm 

to resources by ongoing or planned grazing in 

the project record. 

The Sierra Club opposed streamlining the 

permitting process because it doesnʼt think 

the BLM ever denies a permittee the 

privilege to graze. It commented that the 

permitting process should remain open to 

public scrutiny and that the BLM should 

seek additional ways to involve the public in 

making determinations for public lands.

The Columbia River Basin Inter-Tribal 

Fish Commission commented that although 

the Tribal consultation and trust responsibility 

obligations are separate from the general 

publicʼs input process, Tribal concerns 

are often relayed through that same public 

input process. The Tribes are concerned that 

this provision could limit or eliminate the 

publicʼs, and their own, ability to participate 

in the management of public lands. 

The Sierra Clubʼs Rocky Mountain 

Chapter commented that the BLM is making 

worse an already cumbersome appeals 

process that neither remedies nor alleviates 

environmentally damaging agency grazing 

decisions. It asked the BLM to limit what 

it considers a nuisance of appeals; saying it 

would be better for the agency to improve 

opportunities for public participation in the 

decision-making process. 

The Western Watersheds Project 

commented that the BLM should allow 

broader public involvement and make 

it easier for the public to obtain an 

administrative remedy for unsound grazing 

decisions. It commented that the rules should 

provide a simpler appeals process to the 

appropriate BLM State Director who should 

have express authority to suspend grazing use 

or stay a proposed action if the administrative 

record shows that ongoing grazing has 

harmed or is harming the resources, or if such 

C-19
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

harm is likely to occur if the proposed action 

goes forward. 

The Forest Guardians, Animal Protection 

Institute, and Sinapu jointly submitted 

comments that generally supported the 

BLMʼs efforts to ease a bureaucratic 

process. But they are concerned that this 

could limit the publicʼs ability to participate 

in grazing administration and policy 

decisions. It also commented that the BLM 

should strive to increase the public access to 

administrative remedies such as suspension 

of ongoing grazing if evidence exists of harm 

to natural resources from grazing. 

The Sky Island Alliance recommended 

that the BLM allow broader public access to 

administrative remedies for grazing decisions 

and asked the BLM to consider providing a 

simpler appeals process for State Directors 

with authority to suspend ongoing grazing or 

stay the proposed action if evidence of harm 

exists. 

A commenter at the New Mexico public 

scoping meetings said he is concerned about 

BLMʼs proposal to streamline the appeals 

process because he thinks the BLM will 

continue to restrict engagement of broad 

public interest in issues regarding public 

lands. He commented that it is inappropriate 

to reduce the number of people who are 

allowed to appeal rulings. 

The Matador Cattle Company, Dillon, 

Montana, supports the provision to streamline 

the appeals process and recommends that the 

BLM require appellants to post a bond when 

they appeal a decision. 

The consortium of environmental and 

conservation groups commented that the 

BLM is attempting to restrict the right of 

their organization, their members, and other 

members of the public from participating 

in appeals affecting their use, enjoyment, 

or organizational interests in the public 

lands. It commented that such restrictions 

are inconsistent with FLPMA and are 

inconsistent with the Secretaryʼs “Four Cʼs.”

A commenter said they opposed 

streamlining the grazing appeal process 

because it took years and much effort to 

develop a process that is highly effective, 

efficient, and enjoys a high degree of 

accuracy. The commenter also said 

that streamlining the grazing appeals 

process would give the petitioner a more 

advantageous position and give the BLM 

less management ability to work for common 

ground in grazing decision appeals.

A commenter supported the provision and 

the importance of the Secretaryʼs “Four Cʼs.” 

The commenter said the BLM should look 

to local collaborative groups to provide the 

main voice for directing management goals 

on BLM lands within their communities. 

A commenter said this provision would 

remove the general publicʼs ability to 

participate in decisions on public lands. The 

commenter also said the provision would 

hamper the publicʼs ability to participate 

and comment on BLM grazing decisions for 

public lands. 

A commenter said the proposed revision 

could make the grazing appeals process a 

“private club” and that the appeals process 

and grazing decisions are “the publicʼs 

business.” 

2.9 Extending the time that 

BLM may approve nonuse 

of forage from 3 to 5 years 

for resource improvement, 

business, or personal needs

In general, most commenters supported 

allowing the BLM the flexibility to authorize 

temporary nonuse for longer than 3 years. 

Many commenters, however, misunderstood 

C-20 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

that the BLM is seeking to authorize 

temporary nonuse when the permittee or 

lessee requests it for personal or business 

reasons or for resource protection or 

rehabilitation, not for BLM-initiated actions. 

The Sierra Club commented that nonuse 

of grazing permits for recovery purposes 

should be determined by the accomplishment 

of range health or conservation goals. 

It recommended that the BLM consider 

recovery periods of 5 to 20 years when 

necessary; when the land has recovered, the 

BLM should reduce the number of AUMs to 

keep those lands in a healthy condition.

The CBD commented that the BLM must 

have the authority to grant nonuse for the 

entire 10 years of a permit or longer or until 

resource conditions have fully recovered, 

without needing to make land use plan 

amendments.

The consortium of environmental and 

conservation groups commented that Section 

4180 Fundamentals of Rangeland Health 

and Standards and Guidelines for Grazing 

Administration should be amended because 

the BLM has had 8 years since Rangeland 

Reform but has not assessed thousands of 

allotments to determine if standards are 

being met or guidelines followed. The BLM 

is adding another layer of delay by failing 

to require prompt corrective action. It 

commented that, at most, a 6-month grazing 

period might be appropriate in certain limited 

situations. 

The Forest Guardians, Animal Protection 

Institute, and Sinapu supported extending 

nonuse for conservation purposes and 

commented that the timeframe should be 

extended beyond 5 years if necessary and 

should be tied to reestablishing rangeland 

health, rather than a standard number of 

years. 

The Association of Rangeland 

Consultants commented that it approved 

extending the time period that the BLM may 

approve nonuse of forage from 3 to 5 years 

in the interest of conservation and good land 

stewardship. 

The ONDA commented that a period of 

nonuse for recovery of damaged rangelands 

should be tied to actual recovery rather than 

across-the-board number of years; that is, 

the period of nonuse should be determined 

by accomplishment of range health or 

conservation goals and should be tied directly 

to standards relevant to ecosystem health 

and recovery. It also stated that if an area 

has been returned to health, AUMS should 

be reduced so those public lands will remain 

healthy. 

The State of Arizona Game and Fish 

Department commented that the BLMʼs 

performance reviews must clearly state that 

failures to meet standards and guidelines 

for rangeland health or failing to achieve 

management objectives would result in the 

following BLM actions:

• A permit might not being renewed, 

• Authorized use may be decreased, or 

• The allotment may be reclassified. 

The Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department supported expanding nonuse 

to 5 years to allow regeneration of native 

rangeland and habitat conditions because 5 

years would allow the BLM more flexibility 

to achieve multiple-use benefits, and would 

be useful when used in connection with 

Reserve Common Allotments.

The State of Arizona Game and Fish 

Department supported the BLMʼs provision 

to extend the current period for nonuse 

of forage for resource improvement 

because these actions take longer in the 

arid Southwest than other parts of the 

country. The Department also commented 

that the BLM should consider approving 

C-21
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

nonuse of forage “until stated objectives 

are met” which, they said, may be more 

appropriate to a specific time period in some 

parts of the country. 

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

supported extending the nonuse time period 

from 3 to 5 years and said they would support 

a longer period for nonuse—as long as 10 

years when necessary. 

The Owyhee Cattlemenʼsʼ Association 

asked the BLM to clarify what effects this 

provision may have on state water rights 

where beneficial use must be made. 

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) 

commented that the provision is good for 

resource improvement purposes because of 

the present drought conditions throughout 

the West. They believe the present 3 years is 

insufficient to allow for range improvement 

following prescribed fire, wildfire, drought, 

or other range improvement treatment.

The Sierra Club, Rocky Mountain 

Chapter, recommended that the BLM allow 

a longer resting period when it is necessary 

and commented that recovery times should be 

based on the landscape in question. 

The Utah Farm Bureau Federation 

commented that the provision is necessary 

because Utah is now entering its 5th year 

of drought and extending the period of 

nonuse from 3 to 5 years will provide greater 

flexibility for producers to protect and 

enhance forage resources. 

The Matador Cattle Company, Dillon, 

Montana, commented that it generally 

supports the provision but stated that after 3 

years the ground “should be disturbed to 

maintain health and vigor and desirable 

plants.” 

The New Mexico Farm and Livestock 

Bureau commented that it supported the 

BLMʼs provision to extend nonuse from 3 to 

5 years because it provides greater flexibility 

to producers and to the forage resource. 

The bureau commented that this would 

provide the BLM and the permittee or lessee 

greater flexibility to address situations that 

required the nonuse in the first place. The 

bureau also commented that it does not want 

this provision to become a substitute for 

“conservation nonuse.” 

The New Mexico Farm and Livestock 

Bureau stated concerns about potential 

conflicts between New Mexico State water 

law and the BLMʼs provision. The bureau 

said that, according to New Mexico water 

rights, nonuse of water for more than 3 years 

jeopardizes the holderʼs water rights. The 

bureau also stated that it would oppose the 5-

year extension unless this issue is addressed. 

The Western Watersheds Project 

commented that the BLM should be 

authorized to grant nonuse for 10 years 

or until resource conditions have fully 

recovered. It said that the BLM should 

not have to develop an amendment to 

the applicable resource management 

plan because FLPMA, or RMPs, and the 

rangeland health regulations do not allow 

grazing that causes or perpetuates unhealthy 

rangeland conditions. It also commented that 

the BLMʼs Planning Regulations should be 

revised to allow allotment cancellations and 

retirements by the BLM.

The Montana Farm Bureau at the Billings 

public scoping meeting, said it supported 

extending the time period for nonuse from 

3 to 5 years but the proposed rule should be 

drafted so that this provision will only apply 

to people engaged in the livestock business as 

required by the TGA. 

An individual at the Reno public scoping 

meeting commented that temporary nonuse 

from 3 to 5 years is acceptable, but cautioned 

that this was not enough time to significantly 

improve range health in the arid West. 

The County Commissioners, Garfield 

County, Utah, commented at the New Mexico 

public scoping meetings that the BLM should 

consider making this provision applicable 

C-22 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

only to those who are engaged in the 

livestock business as mandated by the TGA.

Southwest Resource Consultants, LLC, 

commented at the New Mexico public 

scoping meetings that extension of the 5-

year period should be considered on a caseby-case basis because recovery often takes 

longer than 3 years. 

The consortium of environmental 

and conservation groups commented that 

rangelands cannot be restored in 3 years and 

will not be solved by extending the time limit 

to 5 years because the real problem on BLM 

lands is that the permitted use exceeds actual 

use and grazing capacity. It commented 

that long-term voluntary nonuse is used 

improperly and that the BLM should reduce 

or suspend the permitted use and bring 

permittees and lessees into conformance with 

the BLMʼs legal obligations. 

A commenter supported the extension 

of temporary nonuse to 5 years and said the 

BLM should not be limited to 5 years. She 

said BLM should consider approving 

nonuse for as long as necessary to rest and 

rehabilitate the resource. 

A commenter said extending permitted 

nonuse from 3 to 5 years because 2 additional 

years of nonuse provides better habitat for 

wildlife and could lead to more appreciable 

utilization by other groups, especially 

hunters, presently the largest user group on 

public lands.

3.0 Considering 

amendments related 

to changes in 

permitted use

3.1 Creating provisions 

reemphasizing consideration 

of social, economic, and 

cultural effects, in addition 

to the ecological effects, of 

Federal actions to ensure 

compliance with NEPA

The Sierra Club, Rocky Mountain 

Chapter, commented that the BLM and other 

Federal agencies often neglect public lands 

by placing too much emphasis on keeping 

local economies alive just because they 

exist. It commented that the BLMʼs social 

analysis must clearly state the costs to the 

public for continuing nonsustainable grazing 

operations and the costs and benefits of 

continuing grazing on public lands. 

The Grand Canyon Trust commented 

that the ecological impacts of grazing are 

well documented and that the BLM should 

give these impacts its greatest attention. It 

commented that the NEPA exists to protect 

the environment and the Act is intended 

to ensure that environmental information 

is available to public officials and citizens 

before decisions are made and actions are 

taken in accordance with the best available 

scientific information. It also suggested that 

if the BLM wishes to place greater weight 

on the consideration of social and economic 

factors in the permitting process, the BLM 

C-23
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

should require rigorous economic analysis 

including disclosing the true economic 

costs of public lands grazing to American 

taxpayers. 

The Forest Guardians, Animal Protection 

Institute, and Sinapu commented that they 

opposed the BLMʼs provision to consider 

the social, economic, and cultural effects 

of Federal actions along with ecological 

considerations. The groups stated that 

NEPA does not justify protecting social or 

economic customs of ranchers at the expense 

of environmental degradation of public 

lands. The groups commented that although 

NEPA provides for consideration of historic, 

cultural, economic, social, and health effects 

of proposed actions, its primary goal is to 

require agencies to consider environmental 

consequences of their decisions to protect 

the environment. The groups asserted that 

any other application violates the intent of 

Congress in its creation of NEPA. 

The CBD opposed any change to the 

present regulations regarding NEPA analysis.

The State of Arizona Game and Fish 

Department commented that social, 

economic, and cultural elements should be 

considered in NEPA analysis but the BLM 

should not reduce the evaluation or resolution 

of ecological impacts. 

The Association of Rangeland 

Consultants supported any provisions 

that reemphasize effects on local social, 

economic, and cultural interests, while 

considering the ecological effects of Federal 

actions. It commented that this best serves 

the interests of conservation and good land 

stewardship. 

The County Commissioners of 

Washington County, Utah, commented 

during the New Mexico public scoping 

meeting that NEPA requires that effects 

on social, economic, and cultural interests 

be considered in an EA or EIS. Their 

representative commented that livestock 

forms a vital basis for his countyʼs rich 

cultural heritage and that this heritage 

should be considered in NEPA analysis and 

preserved.

The Utah Farm Bureau Federation 

commented that NEPA requires the BLM 

to consider economic and social effects 

in environmental impact statements and 

environmental analysis. The Federation stated 

that livestock grazing forms a vital basis for 

the rich cultural heritage of the West and 

asked the BLM to consider this heritage in 

any NEPA analysis and to preserve it.

The Humboldt River Basin Water 

Authority, representing five Nevada counties, 

commented that the BLM should consider 

the fiscal effects on local governments 

before implementing any proposed grazing 

administration regulations or any alternative 

regulations. 

The Nevada State Grazing Board, 

District N-3, commented that environmental 

organizations routinely use the ESA litigation 

to remove livestock from public lands, 

and the BLM should consider a provision 

requiring cooperative planning among 

affected interests at the allotment level, 

including the permittee, and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service if special status species are 

involved. 

ONDA commented that NEPA is 

the basic national charter for protecting 

the environment and the Actʼs first and 

foremost purpose is to ensure fully informed 

decision making and to provide for public 

participation in environmental analysis 

and decision making. It also commented 

that NEPA neither requires nor justifies 

perpetuating environmentally damaging 

land use practices to protect the social 

and economic customs of a minority of 

subsidized public land users. 

The Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department supported the BLMʼs provision 

to consider the social, economic, and 

C-24 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

cultural effects from Federal actions 

especially if those effects might influence 

decisions associated with fish and wildlife 

recreation. The department commented 

that it is particularly concerned about the 

effects these rule changes might have on local 

economies and on recreational hunting.

The Sierra Club commented that 

commercial livestock grazing causes 

deterioration of the public lands, and is 

neither ecologically nor economically 

viable. It asked the BLM to consider the 

following issues when addressing effects of 

grazing on public lands: 

1. Focus on the ecological effects of 

grazing. 

2. Vigorously follow NEPA and emphasize 

sound biological and ecological science. 

3. Consider social and economic factors 

only when biological and ecological 

effects are neutral. 

4. Look at the long-term effects of grazing. 

The Nature Conservancy commented that 

considerations of social, economic, cultural, 

and ecological effects are required in all 

documents prepared under NEPA, and stated 

that the BLM does not need to duplicate 

those requirements in the grazing regulations. 

An environmental group commented that 

it opposed the BLM making any changes to 

the existing regulations. It opposed allowing 

social, cultural, and economic review to 

take precedence over environmental review 

because the NEPA process can assist 

managers in making decisions on the basis of 

understanding environmental consequences 

of decisions. It also commented that the BLM 

should take appropriate actions to protect, 

restore, and enhance the environment.

NASDA commented that as long as a 

“term grazing permit” is consistent with a 

land use plan that was developed within the 

provisions of NEPA, the permit should not 

be considered a major Federal undertaking 

requiring additional study or assessment 

under NEPA.

The Animal Alliance commented that it 

opposed any proposed changes that focus 

on the effects of the BLMʼs decisions on 

the social, economic, and cultural aspects of 

NEPA because such a change would place 

a rancherʼs social and economic concerns 

above environmental protection. 

The New Mexico Farm and Livestock 

Bureau commented at the New Mexico 

public scoping meetings that social, 

economic, and cultural considerations must 

be conducted at the local community level. It 

said the BLM presently considers these 

issues only on a state and national level and 

not within the actual communities that are 

affected.

The Western Watersheds Project 

commented that no changes should be made 

to this provision because NEPA concerns for 

the human environment are clear, as are the 

BLMʼs own implementing rules and those 

of the CEQ. It said that reemphasizing these 

human impacts subverts NEPAʼs concern for 

ecological effects. It stated that giving such 

effects more emphasis in BLMʼs Planning 

Regulations increases the likelihood that the 

BLM will continue to place the economic 

and purported way of life interests of 

grazing permittees above public interests—

specifically multiple-use resources and values 

for which the public lands are to be managed. 

Southwest Resource Consultants, LLC, 

commented at the New Mexico public 

scoping meeting that the BLM must make 

social, economic, and cultural observations 

and considerations on the local level, in small 

communities.

C-25
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

The consortium of environmental and 

conservation groups commented that the 

BLM should not include this provision in 

the proposed rule because the BLM already 

gives precedence to the social, economic, 

and cultural interests of ranchers over 

environmental considerations. The groups 

also commented that “seeking to protect the 

custom and culture of the western cowboy or 

to insulate the public land livestock industry 

from economic impacts is inconsistent with 

the resource protection mandates of FLPMA 

and NEPA.” 

A commenter said that the BLMʼs NEPA 

analysis of potential impacts to social, 

economic, and cultural elements must 

include the financial losses incurred by the 

below-market payments that operators make 

to the Treasury during the life of grazing 

leases. The commenter stated that the BLM 

is giving subsidies to ranchers as a result 

of below-market fees and these should be 

considered as an offset to potential or real 

social, economic, and cultural effects on 

grazing permittees.

A commenter supported the BLMʼs 

considerations because public land is best 

managed with local input and goals, and the 

effects on local social, economic, and cultural 

interests should be major considerations for 

NEPA compliance. 

A commenter opposed the provision 

because the BLM is ignoring the 

environmental considerations of NEPA in 

favor of the social, economic, and cultural 

needs of a small special interest group. 

She said NEPA reviews should focus on 

environmental effects because the integrity of 

environmental review must be retained and 

other values—specifically economic, social, 

and cultural, should be considered at the 

decision-making stage.

3.2 Requiring a permittee 

or lessee to apply to renew a 

permit or lease

One commenter stated that when the 

permittee follows “the plan,” and monitoring 

verifies that fact, a permit should be renewed 

automatically.

A commenter said that BLM Field 

Managers could show bias when considering 

applications for permit renewals and that 

requiring an operator to renew a permit can 

cause undue hardship and create excessive 

paper work for BLM staff. The commenter 

stated that the BLM should consider 

renewing permits based on an operatorʼs past 

performance. 

A commenter said that when the BLM 

determines a permittee must reapply for a 

grazing permit or lease, it should recognize 

the requirements at 5 U.S.C. Sec. 558(c) 

and the BLM must inform the permittee of 

the process for reapplication so the permittee 

can take full and timely advantage of the 

requirements detailed in the Administrative 

Procedure Act.

The CBD commented that the BLM 

should not allow automatic renewals of 

leases or permits because applications should 

be issued through competitive bidding to 

qualified stockowners. 

The Western Watersheds Project 

commented that the BLM should never allow 

increased livestock use of public lands and, 

therefore, 43 CFR §4110.3-1, should be 

deleted.

C-26 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

3.3 Determining what criteria 

BLM will consider before 

approving increases in 

permitted use

The State of Arizona Game and Fish 

Department commented that the BLM should 

consider changing its criteria for approving 

increases in permitted use. The department 

asked that such approvals be based on the 

best available scientific monitoring data and 

any increases should be approved only when 

forage and other habitat objectives have been 

met. The department also commented that the 

present rule seems to allow only increases, 

and it wants the BLM to also consider 

decreases in permitted use when necessary. 

A commenter recommended that 

permittees be allowed to increase production 

on their allotment by 25 percent or more 

if they exercise “wise management.” They 

also commented that such increases could be 

allowed in normal precipitation years. 

The CBD commented that the BLM 

should delete §4110.3-1 because it should 

never approve increased grazing use. It said 

that scientific studies and agency reports 

show that the arid West has been chronically 

overgrazed by livestock and is no longer 

suited for grazing use.

3.4 Considering whether to 

amend the provision stating 

when BLM will implement 

action that changes grazing 

management

The ONDA commented that the present 

grazing Standards and Guidelines must be 

retained because it actually demonstrates 

whether permittees and lessees are meeting, 

not meeting, or significantly progressing 

toward meeting, land health standards. 

The Association of Rangeland 

Consultants said the BLM must clarify how 

to implement actions to change grazing 

management if it determines that land health 

standards are not being met. The Association 

commented that the present provision limits 

the amount of time the BLM has to develop 

thoughtful solutions incorporating improved 

timing and sequence of grazing treatments.

The Public Lands Foundation 

commented that ownership of all permanent 

improvements placed on public lands must 

be held by the land managing agency. It 

commented that a “recent Supreme Court 

ruling” upholds BLMʼs authority to take 

title improvements even when they are made 

cooperatively with a permittee.

The Northwest California Resource 

Advisory Council (RAC) asked if the BLM 

intends to change the land health standards 

and livestock grazing guidelines developed 

by the RAC. This RAC wanted the EIS to 

clearly identify any portion of the land health 

standards and livestock grazing guidelines 

that would be affected by any regulation 

change.

The State of Arizona Game and Fish 

Department commented that any changes to 

this regulation must emphasize the need to 

complete evaluations and determinations to 

meet multiple-use objectives and rangeland 

health standards as identified in the present 

regulations.

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

commented that in some areas of Idaho the 

land is not recovering sufficiently and the 

slow pace of improvements in rangeland 

health and fish and wildlife habitat could 

contribute to listing more species under the 

ESA. 

The EPA commented that it supported the 

BLMʼs authority to amend permits whenever 

C-27
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

the BLM determines the permittee is not 

meeting or progressing toward meeting land 

health.

The Nature Conservancy commented 

that this provision would affect the 

BLMʼs attempts to restore and rehabilitate 

rangelands. It said it supported granting 

a reasonable time for permittees to make 

adjustments to their allotment management, 

but it stated that livestock operators must still 

meet rangeland health standards. 

The Forest Guardians, Animal Protection 

Institute, and Sinapu commented that 

they opposed this change and said that the 

BLM must establish timeframes to ensure 

that assessments are actually completed 

in conjunction with NEPA analysis at the 

time of permit renewals. The groups also 

commented that permits must not be renewed 

if standards are being continually violated. 

The Nevada Department of Agriculture 

commented that 1 year is adequate 

time to achieve range improvements or 

change livestock distribution and show 

improvements. The department, however, 

said it doubts that the BLM can respond 

to new rangeland improvements within a 

year and get through all necessary review 

processes, analysis, and agricultural 

clearances. 

The Western Watersheds Project 

commented that if the BLM determined that 

a permittee has misrepresented compliance 

within the terms and conditions of his or 

her permit or lease, the BLM should institute 

an automatic 25 percent reduction in season 

of use and numbers of livestock by the 

following season of use. 

C-28 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

4.0 Considering 

adding new 

provisions to the 

regulations

4.1 Establishing and 

administering a new concept 

called Reserve Common 

Allotments

General Comments: Second to the 

“locked gates” provision, this issue received 

the most attention and comments. Opponents 

expressed concern that Reserve Common 

Allotment (RCAs) would encourage 

and reward poor range stewardship by 

allowing operators to beat down the lands in 

their lease or allotment and then simply move 

to another area of public land and overgraze 

that one too. Many livestock operators 

and industry representatives commented 

that they were concerned that ranchers 

might be removed from their allotments 

to create an RCA, especially if they have 

worked hard to keep their allotments in 

good condition. Several stated that they 

tentatively support the concept of RCAs, but 

they expected the BLM to clearly explain 

how RCAs will be created and managed in 

the proposed rule. Some commenters stated 

that they had extensive knowledge about the 

availability of forage within their respective 

districts and that they were unaware of any 

area, not presently being grazed, where there 

was enough forage to create and sustain an 

RCA. 

The Columbia River Basin Inter-Tribal 

Fish Commission commented that RCAs 

could provide incentives for permittees to 

rest their allotments, but those RCAs must 

be held to a higher ecological standard 

than other grazing allotments. The Tribes 

commented that healthy range standards 

should be exceeded, necessary improvements 

made, and stocking levels decreased on 

RCAs. The Tribes cited examples in the 

Columbia Interior Basin, where PACFISH 

and INFISH plans require higher standards 

over much of the public land. 

Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife 

commented that the BLM should place 

allotments and forage in reserve as Reserve 

Common Allotments, or consider voluntary 

allotment restructuring to increase the 

numbers of wildlife on BLM lands.

The CBD believes RCAs are unnecessary 

because the BLM already has authority 

to move ranchers to any allotments that 

are in personal preference nonuse. It also 

commented that the existing regulations 

already provide “alarmingly” broad latitude 

for all sorts of grazing use through temporary 

permits, ephemeral use, crossing permits, 

special permits under 4130, and subleasing.

The Grand Canyon Trust commented 

that the BLM should not adopt rules that 

assume there are ungrazed allotments 

available for use as RCAs and that do not 

provide a mechanism for creating reserve 

allotments. Mr. Hedden also commented that 

allotments that are presently managed for 

uses other than for livestock grazing—for 

example, environmental restoration or 

recreation—should not be used as RCAs. 

The New Mexico Farm and Livestock 

Bureau expressed the following concerns 

about RCAs:

• RCAs could result in reduced livestock 

numbers resulting in loss to the stateʼs 

economic base. 

• The BLM must clarify how RCAs will 

be used to restore rangeland to optimum 

C-29
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

health, including how they are used in 

response to emergencies and natural 

disasters such as fire and drought. 

• New Mexico State water law prohibits 

extended periods of nonuse without 

forfeiture of water rights. 

• Who holds the water rights on RCAs? 

• Will the BLM force permittees off their 

allotments to create RCAs? 

A commenter supported the concept of 

RCAs but is concerned about abuse by “antilivestock grazing” BLM employees. The 

commenter said the BLMʼs unstated goal is 

to reducing livestock on public lands, and 

voluntary programs such as RCAs must 

consider maintenance of a viable ranch 

operation for the permittee.

The Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department commented that RCAs could 

allow flexibility in distributing livestock, 

support needed range management projects, 

and provide adequate posttreatment rest 

from grazing. The department commented 

that broad-scale implementation of reserve 

common allotments is a critical and necessary 

element for creating a successful grazing 

management program. 

A spokesperson from the Western 

Watersheds Project opposes RCAs because 

he states no lands that are presently suitable 

for grazing are ungrazed, although the vast 

majority of lands are unsuited to that use. He 

commented that implementing this proposal 

would depend on the following:

1. Increasing grazing on lands already 

grazed and likely degraded by that use. 

2. Using pastures being rested from grazing 

that is contrary to the objectives of the 

government management plan. 

3. Allowing grazing on tracts of presently 

ungrazed public lands. 

The Western Watersheds Project also 

commented that the unavoidable effects 

of RCAs would be further ecological 

degradation of public lands and prolonging 

an unsustainable land use that is contrary to 

the mandates and policies of FLPMA and 

PRIA. 

The State of Arizona Game and Fish 

Department supports the concept of RCAs 

with the following provisions:

• RCAs should support multiple-use 

objectives. 

• RCAs should be available to permittees 

who are cooperating in range restoration 

efforts, including resting their allotments. 

• Permitted use levels and seasons of 

use on RCAs should be consistent with 

the maintenance of healthy rangeland 

conditions and wildlife habitat. 

• Terms and conditions for using RCAs 

should be clearly defined. 

• The BLM should institute requirements 

on permittees to implement a rest–

rotation system to qualify as eligible to 

use and RCA 

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

commented that it supported the concept 

of RCAs because the new provision could 

encourage voluntary relinquishment of 

permits to establish RCAs. The department 

asked the BLM to reduce the number of 

AUMs and spread the remaining number 

across a larger area. 

The NBCA and the PLC commented that 

they support the concept as long as the BLM 

and the operator agree that range conditions 

C-30 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

warrant such an action. The groups said they 

are concerned RCAs could result in a loss of 

preference AUMs on public lands and asked 

the BLM to consider the following criteria to 

establish an RCA:

• Allotments for RCAs should be 

designated for a limited time. 

• No more than 10 percent of AUMs within 

a district should be in use as RCAs at any 

one time. 

• All decisions regarding allocations of 

RCA should involve permittees and 

grazing boards chartered by state or local 

governments. 

• RCAs would be used to support and 

maintain the level and integrity of the 

grazing programs on the allotments 

within the area. 

• The BLM should consider creating RCAs 

from other Federal lands not presently 

used for livestock grazing. 

• Permittees should have priority to use 

RCAs that are located within the grazing 

district they presently use. 

• The preference holders controlling the 

base properties must voluntarily offer 

their allotments for use as RCAs. 

• RCAs must be attached to base property. 

The EPA commented that RCAs could 

aid in the recovery of vegetation and reduce 

soil compaction from intense grazing on 

allotments. The EPA also recommended that 

the BLM confine grazing to areas that are 

capable of sustaining grazing and eliminate 

grazing in areas that are significantly 

degraded or do not have the adequate amount 

of resources to support grazing. 

The Utah Farm Bureau Federation 

commented that RCAs are reminiscent of 

past Federal actions that resulted in grazing 

being prohibited in Dinosaur National 

Monument in Utah. The Federation wants 

RCAs to be developed from vacant or 

unused allotments. It commented that it 

would support the provision if it provides 

flexibility to both the BLM and the 

livestock producer. The Federation said it 

would oppose taking existing permits from 

operators to create an RCA and said the BLM 

must develop a fair and equitable process for 

allocating forage under this new program.

The Nevada State Grazing Board, 

District N-3, commented that it supports 

the development of RCAs but is concerned 

that administration changes could affect 

how the program is managed. The Board 

asked the BLM to ensure that forage used 

by someone other than the permittee is 

truly available. The Board urged the BLM 

to consider agreements with other land 

managing agencies (USFS, BOR) where 

lands are now grazed and could be used 

during times of drought or periods of needed 

rest. 

The Sierra Club, Rocky Mountain 

Chapter, commented that although RCAs 

might benefit overgrazed or damaged 

rangelands, they wonʼt fix the basic problem 

that the BLM allows grazing on lands that are 

not suitable for grazing. 

The Forest Guardians, Animal Protection 

Institute, and Sinapu commented that they 

oppose developing RCAs because they 

wonʼt end overstocking and overgrazing on 

lands that are unsuitable for grazing. The 

groups commented that they are concerned 

that creating RCAs could create a “sacrifice 

zone” by damaging grazing lands that are 

in relatively better condition. The groups 

commented that the BLM should reduce 

stocking rates on degraded allotments and not 

subject vacant allotments to the same uses 

C-31
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

that degraded them in the first place. 

The ONDA commented that it opposes 

RCAs because they will create public land 

grazing commons for federally permittees 

and recreate a long-recognized problem 

in public land management known as “the 

tragedy of the commons.” It commented 

that an abundance of public land grasses 

has encouraged continued overstocking and 

overuse and there will always be severely 

damaged allotments struggling to recover. It 

asked the BLM to encourage ranchers to 

purchase and develop their own private land 

grass banks and to avail themselves of market 

system opportunities for their business needs 

like any other business in America. 

The consortium of environmental and 

conservation groups commented that it is 

inappropriate for the BLM to create RCAs 

from allotments donated to the BLM for the 

purpose of long-term rest because it may 

limit future donations. It said potential donors 

might not want to donate their allotments if 

it cannot be assured that the BLMʼs goal is 

long-term rest of those allotments. It wants 

the BLM to “buy out” allotments to create 

RCAs because grazing costs the taxpayers 

significantly, would not reduce administration 

costs, and would not increase resource 

protection on public lands. It also commented 

that the BLM should address the following 

issues in the proposed rule:

• How do the regulations limit 

implementation of this concept? 

• How will the BLM choose allotments? 

• Are there suitable allotments presently in 

reserve? 

• How will the BLM account for the loss 

of benefits these allocations will have to 

other uses? 

• What are the BLMʼs criteria for 

establishing allotments? 

• How will the BLM manage these 

allotments to prevent resource 

degradation? 

The Nature Conservancy commented 

that it supported the concept of RCAs 

for restoration purposes and cited similar 

concepts called “grass banking” that it said 

are used by private landowners to restore 

large landscapes. 

The American Farm Bureau Federation 

commented that it supported the concept 

of an RCA because such a program could 

provide flexibility for the BLM and 

permittees. The Federation asked the BLM 

to include the following four issues in any 

proposed rulemaking:

• RCAs should be created from vacant 

allotments, not by removing permittees 

from their existing allotments. 

• RCAs could be created from lands that 

are not being utilized by a permittee. 

• The BLM must have the full consent of 

the permittees and must compensate them 

for the use of their allotments as RCAs. 

• The BLM must devise a fair and equitable 

process for allocating forage under the 

reserve common allotment program. 

• The BLM should also consider if more 

than one permittee at a time could use an 

RCA. 

The Public Lands Foundation commented 

that it supports the concept of RCAs 

and asked the BLM to observe similar 

programs administered by the Department 

of Agriculture, the Farm Service Agencyʼs 

Conservation Reserve Program, and the 

C-32 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

Grassland Reserve Program for their 

effectiveness.

The Conservation Roundtable of Billings, 

Montana, commented that it supports the 

concept of RCAs, and asked the BLM to 

implement safeguards to ensure that Reserve 

Common Allotments do not become grazing 

commons that the TGA is supposed to 

prevent.

The Animal Alliance commented that 

it opposed developing reserve common 

allotments because the BLM will allow 

permittees or lessees to move livestock 

onto areas that were previously allocated 

exclusively to wildlife. 

The consortium of environmental and 

conservation groups and the Sierra Club 

commented that RCAs would not be a benefit 

particularly during droughts. 

The County Commissioners of Garfield 

County, Utah, commented at the New Mexico 

public scoping meeting that the BLM should 

not create RCAs by removing a permittee 

from an existing allotment. 

The Federal Lands Committee and the 

New Mexico Cattle Growers commented 

at the New Mexico public scoping meeting 

that they are concerned about the BLM 

developing RCAs.

The Oregon Cattlemenʼs Association 

commented at the Reno public scoping 

meeting that RCAs could do a lot of good 

for the industry because they would relieve 

hardships on the small family businesses that 

make up the industry. It is concerned that 

RCAs will be taken from active permits at 

the expense of the operators trying to make 

a living. It asked BLM to consider acquiring 

these allotments through attrition or buyout 

rather than what is presently practiced, or 

through some other way that doesnʼt displace 

an operator. 

A commenter at the Reno public scoping 

meeting said the BLM should consider 

allowing grazing on lands that are already 

held in reserve for other purposes. The 

commenter said the Sheldon and Hart 

Mountain Antelope Ranges are already 

reserved and the BLM should consider using 

those and similar areas as RCAs.

A commenter at the Reno public scoping 

meetings said he supported RCAs and also 

asked the BLM to consider developing areas 

such as the Sheldon and Hart Refuges as 

RCAs. 

The California Farm Bureau commented 

at the Reno public scoping meeting that he 

supports RCAs because they could allow 

a permittee to take on long-term range 

improvement projects and accomplish these 

goals, as well as provide forage in emergency 

situations.

A commenter at the Reno scoping 

meeting that he supports RCAs if they are 

established by retiring permits and if they are 

to be grazed during times of harsh conditions, 

as in the case of fire. 

The New Mexico Wool Growers 

Association commented at the New Mexico 

public scoping meetings that the BLM should 

develop RCAs from vacant and retired 

allotments. 

A commenter asked whether a 

permittee who was unable to use his or her 

allotment because it was degraded would 

have his or her permit revised or revoked, or 

would he or she instead be moved to an RCA.

A commenter supported the concept of 

RCAs as long as the BLM only uses vacant 

allotments or buys out allotments from 

willing sellers for that specific purpose.

A commenter asked how the BLM could 

create “extra” acres for an RCA when most of 

the public lands are already in a chronically 

overused situation.

A commenter said RCAs would not 

remedy the problem of overstocking or 

overgrazing public lands with insufficient 

forage and is concerned that this provision 

may create a new set of lands sacrificed to 

C-33
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

replace already degraded lands. 

4.2 Adding a fee schedule for 

preference transfers, crossing 

permits, applications for 

nonuse, and replacement or 

supplemental billing under 

existing service charge 

authority

Many commenters who opposed the 

changes the BLM is considering strongly 

urged the BLM to consider raising grazing 

fees to reflect “fair market value” for grazing 

livestock on public lands. 

A commenter asked the BLM to 

determine a grazing fee based on the market 

value of the available forage and land 

available and whether multiple-use of public 

lands is practiced. The commenter says as a 

landowner he believes BLM grazing fees are 

so low they should be considered donations.

A commenter wants the BLM to 

implement a fee schedule for all appropriate 

and adequate administrative costs for 

applications and transfers because those who 

graze livestock on public lands should pay 

an additional amount beyond administrative 

costs for all incidental and indirect costs as 

well as other unanticipated costs. 

The Idaho Cattle Association commented 

at the Reno public scoping meeting that the 

administrative fees the BLM is considering 

are inappropriate because ranchers spend 

more time and money on their allotments 

and improvements than BLM spends to 

regulate grazing activities. The commenter 

states that planting and fire suppression, 

fence maintenance, weed control, and ESA 

activities protecting water developments, 

would continue even if there were no grazing 

and that the public would still demand 

these values be maintained. He commented 

that fees must be kept minimal otherwise 

permittees, who are usually cash poor, would 

seek to avoid the fees that would lead to less 

effective range management.

The Western Watersheds Project 

commented that if the BLM were receiving 

fair market value for grazing privileges, 

and if FLPMAʼs fee formula werenʼt out 

of date, this rule would not be necessary. It 

recommended that the BLM initiate an 

analysis of increasing the grazing fee to 

actual market rates through a bidding process 

and minimal acceptable rates that are equal 

to the average cost per AUM of private land 

grazing leases in each western state. 

General comments on issues not 

addressed in the ANPR and NOI. 

The Northwest California Resource 

Advisory Council (NCRAC) commented that 

they were disappointed the Department did 

not consult with RACs prior to the public 

release of the proposed changes in grazing 

regulations and that the criteria appears 

to be from the “top down” and therefore 

seems contrary to the Secretaryʼs “Four Cʼs” 

philosophy and commitment to communitybased decision making.

The NCRAC raised the following general 

concerns:

• The proposed changes do not serve 

conservation. They are coercive in nature 

rather than being collaborative.” 

• The proposed changes will make it 

more difficult to hold grazing permittees 

accountable for the health of the 

rangeland they graze. 

• The proposed rule will diminish the value 

of the public natural resource for future 

generations. 

• The proposed rules represent favoritism 

C-34 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

for one interest group to the detriment of 

the general public and other stakeholders. 

• Present grazing rules have been 

adjudicated and found in compliance 

with the TGA and other laws. These new 

rules will set off a new round of costly 

litigation. 

A commenter said: “I do not like to see 

public lands and campgrounds full of cattle 

droppings.” 

A commenter stated that the BLMʼs 

present permit renewal process allows antigrazing factions to interrupt, without just 

cause, the normal process of renewing a 

permit. The commenter said that BLMʼs 

management plan goals must be based on 

meeting certain standards and guidelines and 

improving the health of the public lands for 

multiple use. 

An environmental group commented 

that the BLM should modify existing 

regulations so that cancellations by the BLM 

are considered automatic revisions to the 

applicable land or resource management 

plans. It stated that the BLM should have 

authority to grant nonuse, until resource 

conditions have fully recovered, without a 

requirement to complete a RMPA. 

The Nature Conservancy commented 

that, although it manages ranching properties 

in 11 western states, it canʼt comment 

on the considered changes until it knows 

the specifics of any changes the BLM is 

considering. It commented that it opposes 

any changes that would restrict organizations 

with multiple interests, such as the Nature 

Conservancy, from qualifying for a grazing 

permit or lease.

The Public Lands Foundation commented 

that the BLM has not allowed enough 

time for the 1995 regulatory changes to be 

effective before considering making these 

additional changes to the grazing rule. The 

PLF commented that the 1995 effort was a 

huge and costly undertaking and asked why 

the BLM was creating a new grazing policy 

so soon. It stated that it had followed BLMʼs 

implementation of the 1995 rules and was 

unaware of any major problems that would 

necessitate changing the existing rules. 

The Public Lands Foundation also 

commented on the full-force-and-effect 

provision, stating that the land manager must 

have the authority to make needed changes 

in grazing use immediately or before the next 

grazing season to protect and enhance the 

resource.

The Grand Canyon Trust commented 

that the goal of the proposed regulations 

should be to protect and restore the health of 

public lands and not just perpetuate livestock 

grazing on public lands. It said the 1995 

regulations were subjected to a thorough 

environmental impact analysis and were 

determined to be necessary and appropriate 

for protecting public rangelands. 

The Nevada Department of Agriculture 

“sincerely recommends reverting all grazing 

regulations to that which existed before 

Secretary Babbitt. The department said that 

most of what Secretary Babbitt implemented 

caused problems, increased litigation for 

the agency and permittees, and increased 

workloads on agency staff and permittees 

for meaningless regulatory and NEPA 

compliance that provided little or no positive 

effects on the natural resources, livestock 

industry, or any other public multiple use.”

The Nevada Department of Agriculture 

also asked the BLM to allow only trained 

BLM employees to be tasked with 

environmental monitoring and not contract 

out this task. The department is concerned 

that this consideration will weaken or 

diminish the importance of monitoring the 

condition of rangeland health. 

The Conservation Roundtable of 

C-35
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

Billings Montana asked why the BLM was 

drafting new grazing regulations so soon 

after the huge effort undertaken in 1995. It 

commented that the proposed changes will 

result in the “old system of private control 

by the privileged over the general publicʼs 

enjoyment of healthy functioning public 

lands.” It asked the BLM to clarify the 

following elements of the Secretaryʼs Four 

Cʼs concept in the EIS:

• With whom is the BLM consulting? 

• What is the consultation about? 

• What does BLM mean by “communitybased conservation?” 

• What is the role of the general 

taxpaying public in “community-based 

conservation?” 

• Does conservation mean restoration of 

[public lands] to functioning condition 

and their multiple uses? 

The consortium of environmental and 

conservation groups commented that the 

BLM must provide definitions for the 

following new definitions used in BLMʼs 

Press Release, and include them in any 

proposed regulations:

• Sustainable rangelands 

• Sustainable ranching 

• Working landscapes 

• Citizen-based stewardship 

• Conservation partners 

The Sierra Club and the consortium of 

environmental and conservation groups want 

the BLM to add the following provisions to 

any proposed changes to the regulations: 

1. Ensure that standards and guides are 

uniform, consistent, and rigorously 

applied on all BLM-administered lands. 

2. Ensure that range health standards are 

being met. If not, the BLM should 

strengthen and enforce existing criteria. 

3. Initiate performance-based contracts. The 

BLM has not adequately and consistently 

held permit holders accountable and 

generally renews permits on allotments 

that do not meet rangeland health 

standards and guidelines. 

4. Develop new performance-based 

contracts with strong enforcement 

provisions that include consequences for 

failing to meet these requirements. 

5. Establish performance-based incentives. 

There must be consequences for not 

achieving agreed-on conservation goals. 

6. Do not allow stocking increases. When 

an area has recovered, AUMs should be 

adjusted downward to maintain the health 

of the land. 

7. “Conservation partnerships” are a 

misnomer if the BLMʼs goal is simply 

to increase forage production and not to 

restore declining rangelands. 

The Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife 

commented that the BLM must consider 

the following issues in any proposed rule 

changes:

1. Adopt a rule that protects ranchersʼ 

existing rights and allows a free 

marketplace to solve conflicts between 

C-36 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

wildlife and livestock. This can allow 

the BLM to meet the public demand 

for increased wildlife populations and 

increased recreation. 

2. Allow allotments and forage or AUMs 

to be reallocated on a permanent basis 

for wildlife when a permittee voluntarily 

relinquishes the grazing preference back 

to the BLM. 

3. Do not change the present regulations 

allowing for nontraditional individuals 

and corporations that own base property 

to hold grazing permits. 

4. Allow permittees to choose to have their 

AUMs dedicated either to livestock or 

game herds. 

5. Allow for nonuse and predisposition 

toward reallocation between the time a 

willing seller and buyer transaction is 

completed and the LUP is amended. 

The Association of Rangeland 

Consultants (ARC) echoed the comments 

submitted by the PLC asking the BLM 

to consider addressing “exchange-of-use 

grazing agreements,” citing an earlier 

provision in the grazing regulations that 

allowed outside allotment lands to be offered 

in return for equivalent reduction of the 

ownerʼs grazing bill. It commented that in 

an exchange, the outside lands were then 

controlled by the BLM, which could bill 

the neighboring permittee for the capacity 

of those lands, thus allowing a permittee to 

benefit from his lands outside his allotment, 

and enable the neighboring permittee to pay 

for and add the capacity of those lands to his 

or her authorization. It also commented that 

this trade arrangement was eliminated when 

the words “in the same allotment” were 

inserted in 1995.

The ARC asked the BLM to consider 

reinstating “suspended-use” because the 

BLM interprets this definition as authorizing 

the elimination of all suspended-use from the 

records at the time of permit renewal based 

on a full allotment evaluation. It commented 

that this is an unjustified elimination of the 

base property qualifications that remains on 

the books in a suspended status. 

ARC also commented that the BLM 

must address the “infamous ʻFʼ clause” 

in 43 CFR 4130.2(f). They asserted this 

paragraph denies “due process and allows 

the BLM manager to determine terms and 

conditions capriciously and arbitrarily with 

no recourse.” It said that due process and 

the right of protect should be reinstated in 

keeping with the regulatory tradition of 

fairness. 

A commenter from the Montana Farm 

Bureau at the Billings public scoping meeting 

said that the BLM must clarify its provision 

pertaining to grazing preference transfers 

because when those transfers donʼt affect 

the environment, but are limited to paper 

changes, they should not be “subject to the 

need for documentation.” 

The California Farm Bureau commented 

at the Reno public scoping meeting that the 

BLM should consider expanding monitoring 

efforts to vacant and retired allotments in 

order to observe long-term trends when 

cattle are removed because this can provide 

credible evidence that the land is improving 

instead of relying on speculation.

The Idaho Cattle Association commented 

at the Reno public scoping meeting that 

“the BLM should consider performancebased stewardship contracts to demonstrate 

the validity of local information and input 

on how to manage range resources. If 

experience determines this is not a successful 

undertaking, however, it should not reflect 

badly on the operator. Ranch science is 

C-37
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

an inexact science and good faith efforts 

should be considered.” It also said the BLM 

should consider fuel load and fire effects 

when considering what criteria should be 

used when an operator requests increased 

permitted use, and said decreasing livestock 

numbers on public lands contributes to 

increased wildfires.

A commenter at the Reno public scoping 

meeting said that the BLMʼs definitions of 

citizen-based and community-based decision 

making seems to exclude the rest of the 

public from the rule-making process. She 

believes this means that decisions will be 

made between the BLM and the permittee 

and not include the public. 

The New Mexico Cattle Growers 

Association and the Public Lands Council of 

New Mexico commented that BLM should 

reinstate Section 4 permits and reinstate 

district grazing advisory boards. 

The State of Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department (WGFD) commented that 

it supports an adequate and meaningful 

grazing monitoring program and that BLMʼs 

present monitoring methods, consistencies 

in evaluation of monitoring results, and 

application of monitoring results into future 

grazing management are key items in support 

of a successful and defendable grazing 

management program. 

A commenter at the New Mexico public 

scoping meetings said that she is concerned 

with the effects of oil and gas development 

on her grazing allotments because the BLM 

considers improvements made by oil and 

gas developers belong to the developers, and 

that oil and gas developers own their leases 

for as long as they continue to produce. The 

commenter said ranchers do not own their 

improvements and their leases expire after 10 

years and the BLM should to treat ranchers 

equally with oil and gas developers. 

The New Mexico Wool Growers 

Association commented at the New Mexico 

public scoping meeting that the BLM 

needs to adhere to its present management 

objectives on wild horses because although 

there are too many on the public lands, 

ranchers are being asked to reduce their 

AUMs. The BLM should reopen the WHBA 

to address this issue. 

The Sierra Club commented that the 

BLM should be looking for ways to reward 

ranchers who accomplish 100 percent 

compliance for standards and guidelines for 

rangeland health. It said the BLM must take 

action against any permittees who fail to 

achieve compliance. 

A commenter supported communitybased conservation and citizen-centered 

stewardship because local residents have the 

greatest incentive and desire for conservation 

of the lands that surround where they 

live. The commenter wants the Secretary 

to give precedence to the comments of 

those who live in public land states who 

are most qualified to resolve problems. 

This commenter also wants the BLM to 

improve its business practices through local 

collaboration and seeking agreement within 

the communities and counties that have 

generated solid plans to enhance land health 

and sustainability. The person commented 

that the same practices should be given 

ample opportunity to succeed through more 

simplified business practices, and land 

health and wildlife populations are enhanced 

by proper grazing that is compatible with 

controlled recreation and proper planning. 

Several commenters asked the BLM to 

address the following issues in the proposed 

rule:

• How to deal with noxious weed 

infestation. 

• How to deal with the aftereffects of 

catastrophic wildfires on public lands. 

• Increasing the listing of T&E species. 

C-38 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

• Implement a program to voluntarily buy 

out grazing permits. 

• Raise the present grazing fees to reflect 

market-based economics. 

A commenter said court orders were the 

only means to justify a change to the existing 

regulations. The commenter also stated that 

the BLM should provide complete details 

and take full public comment, not just from 

industry representatives, before changes are 

made in the grazing regulations.

A commenter recommended that the 

BLM develop an incentive system, such as 

reducing grazing fees, to reward livestock 

operators for “doing a good job.” 

The American Farm Bureau Federation 

commented that BLM should consider 

the following issues in its draft proposed 

regulation changes:

1. The BLM should consider ways to further 

streamline procedures if certain actions 

are identified as CXs in the burdensome 

NEPA processes. They cited an example 

of permit transfers when a base property 

changes ownership or control and 

there are no deviations to the terms or 

conditions for the duration of the existing 

permit. They state that these actions 

have little or no environmental effects 

and there is no reason that these actions 

should be subject to NEPA. 

2. Required Endangered Species Act Section 

7 consultations can cause livestock 

permittees major problems and permittees 

should be included in these consultations 

with the USFWS instead of having their 

livelihoods affected in closed-door policy 

decisions. 

3. The BLM should eliminate the subleasing 

surcharge imposed by the 1995 

regulations. 

The Taxpayers for Common Sense 

commented that fees the BLM charges for 

livestock grazing on public lands constitute 

an inappropriate expense for taxpayers 

and do little to encourage an individualʼs 

stewardship of grazing lands. 

The NCBA and PLC recognize the 

Secretaryʼs authority to apply a surcharge. 

The groups believe that adding a surcharge 

creates an unnecessary workload to the 

BLMʼs administration of permits and leases. 

They also commented that the surcharge 

creates an unfair financial and bureaucratic 

burden and prevents many young ranchers 

from being able to participate in Federal 

land grazing operations. They believe that 

elimination of the surcharge will help the 

BLMʼs directive to develop grazing policies 

that encourage family ranches to stay on 

the land and continue to contribute to local 

economies. 

A commenter asked the BLM to change 

the regulations at Section 4130.7(a) to read as 

follows:

a) The permittee or lessee shall own 

and be responsible for the management of 

livestock that graze the public land under a 

grazing permit or lease. 

The ONDA commented that the BLM 

did not mention permit retirements or 

relinquishment that, the group claims, are 

of considerable interest to conservationists, 

permittees, and BLM staff. The ONDA does 

not agree with the Solicitorʼs opinion that 

a “chiefly valuable” determination must 

be made before the BLM makes a land 

use decision allowing for the retirement 

of a grazing permit. It commented that if 

DOI intends to act in accordance with the 

Solicitorʼs memorandum, the chiefly valuable 

determination must occur on each and every 

acre of land within the land use planning 

area every time the BLM develops or revises 

C-39
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

a resource management plan. It said that if 

the BLM adopts this policy, it could balance 

competing resource values to ensure that 

public lands are managed in a manner that 

best meets the needs of the American people.

The NCBA and PLC want the BLM to 

remove the term “interested public” from the 

grazing regulations because this broad level 

of public participation is more appropriate 

to the planning process, where decisions 

regarding resource allocations are made. 

The NCBA and PLC want the BLM 

to incorporate “affected interest” as it 

was before 1995, to mean a party who 

has established in writing that it may be 

materially and economically affected by an 

agency decision. They believe that permit 

administration involving the contractual 

relation between the grazing permittee 

and the BLM should involve only other 

permittees within the same allotment as 

affected interests. 

The NCBA and PLC want the BLM to 

limit the definition of “interested public” 

to mean a person or organization that has 

submitted a written request to the BLM to 

be provided an opportunity to be involved 

in the Land Use Plan for a BLM Field 

Area and whom BLM has determined to 

be an “interested public.” The groups want 

applicants to provide information to the BLM 

demonstrating how their participation in the 

LUP development process would provide 

information or expertise that would otherwise 

not be available to the BLM.

The NCBA and PLC also want the BLM 

to amend Section 4120.2 paragraphs (a) 

and (c) to consider changing the definition 

of the term “allotment” to reinstate the 

phrase “Boards were established” that was 

removed in the 1995 changes. The groups 

commented that this change is justified by 

the requirement still contained in Section 8 of 

the PRIA whereby the Secretary is required 

to consult, cooperate, and coordinate with 

land owners involved in any boards created 

by states having lands or responsibilities for 

managing lands within an area to be covered 

by an allotment management plan. The PLC 

justifies this amendment because it believes 

that when Grazing Boards were eliminated, 

the BLM and livestock grazers lost an 

important tool for resolving conflicts and 

cooperating in resource stewardship.

The New Mexico Farm and Livestock 

Bureau commented that the BLM should 

remove “interested public” from the 

regulations because the 1995 regulations 

allowed anyone to participate in consultations 

between the BLM and a permittee or lessee 

regarding grazing management. 

The New Mexico Farm and Livestock 

Bureau wants the BLM to eliminate the “full 

force and effect” provision. 

Section 4120.5-1 paragraph (c) [It is 

probably intended to reference Section 

5120.5-2]

The PLC wants the BLM to add a 

paragraph (c) to Section 4120.5-1 as follows:

“BLM will participate with state, 

local, or county officials who 

establish grazing boards under their 

jurisdiction and, if requested, provide 

periodic opportunities for members 

of these grazing boards to review 

and provide comments to BLM on 

range improvement and allotment 

management plan programs within 

their area of jurisdiction.”

The NCBA and PLC asked the BLM to 

amend the conversion ratio for sheep from 

5:1 to 7:1 when billing for AUMs. They 

comment that the 5:1 ratio for sheep is 

based on data collected in Utah between 

1949 and 1967. By 1991, and later in 1995, 

new standards were published that showed 

a higher ratio for sheep AUMs would be 

C-40 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

appropriate. 

The NCBA and PLC commented that 

their review of BLMʼs grazing decisions over 

the past 10 years shows little actual data from 

“state of the art” rangeland studies. They 

also believe the IBLA has incorrectly applied 

the burden of proof to the appellant instead 

of the BLM which, they assert, is required 

by the Administrative Procedure Act. They 

comment that when decisions are not 

suspended, the permittee or lessee could be 

put out of business while the BLM is pending 

a final disposition. 

The NCBA and PLC comment that the 

BLM should revise the language at Section 

4160.3, Full Force and Effect Decisions & 

Petitions for Stay of Decisions, to read as 

follows: 

“When a permittee or lessee generates a 

timely appeal in response to a BLM decision, 

that decision will not be effective pending a 

final agency decision following a hearing on 

the record. While the appeal is pending the 

terms and conditions of the existing or prior 

permit will be in effect.” 

The NCBA and PLC comment that the 

BLM should add the following language to 

Section 4160, Hearings and Appeals:

“If BLM can show sufficient 

justification to determine that the 

authorized grazing use is contributing 

to irreparable resource damage, 

BLM will consult with the permittee 

or lessee, and the state having 

responsibility over those lands and 

other land owners. BLM may then 

declare and emergency and place the 

decision in effect before the hearing 

or final administrative decision. The 

decision should be effective for the 

30-day period provided for filing an 

appeal.

Situations that justify declaring an 

emergency would include the following 

considerations:

(i) Relative harm to the parties if 

the decision is effective pending an 

appeal

(ii) The likelihood of BLM’s success 

on the merits

(iii) The likelihood of immediate and 

irreparable harm if the decision is not 

effective pending appeal

(iv) Does the public interest 

favor placing the decision in effect 

pending appeal?” 

Section 4130.1-1, Filing applications. 

The NCBA and PLC asked the BLM to 

amend this section, which it refers to as 

“Authorizing Grazing Use” to read as 

follows:

“A positive response from a permittee 

or lessee to BLM’s offer of an annual 

grazing license in the last year of a 

multiyear term permit or lease period 

to continue the livestock grazing 

program on an allotment or lease 

past the term of the present permit or 

lease shall be considered by the BLM 

as an application to renew a term 

grazing permit or lease. If a permittee 

or lessee desires to appeal any of the 

terms and conditions in a permit or 

lease renewal offered to him or her 

by the BLM, the action of an appeal 

shall be considered an application for 

renewal and the permit or lease shall 

be extended under the existing terms 

and conditions until such time as a 

final action is adjudicated.”

Section 4130.6-1, Exchange of Use. 

The NCBA and PLC want the BLM to insert 

C-41
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

the following language into §4130.6-1:

“BLM will calculate the total 

allotment/lease livestock carrying 

capacity, the total number of livestock 

carrying capacity AUMs of lands 

offered for exchange of use as 

determined by a rangeland survey 

conducted by person qualified as 

professional rangeland managers.” 

They also ask that the phrase “ . . . in 

the same allotment” be removed from 

the existing regulations in this same 

section. 

Section 4130.1-2, Conflicting 

Applications. The NCBA and PLC asked that 

the BLM remove the following language in 

paragraph (d) of Section 4130.1-2:

“Public ingress or egress across 

privately owned or controlled land 

to public land should be removed as 

consideration in allocating AUM.” 

The NCBA and PLC commented that 

the preceding existing language constitutes 

“blackmail” because it allocates Federal 

forage to applicants for that forage. The 

group commented that it is irrelevant whether 

a person will now or in the future grant 

public access to private lands because it is 

related to whether or not that person is the 

best steward of Federal forage. 

Section 4180, Fundamentals of 

Rangeland Health and Standards and 

Guidelines for Grazing Administration. The 

NCBA and PLC asked the BLM to amend 

this section by transferring the entire Section 

4180 to BLMʼs Planning Regulations and 

transferring authority to the BLM. They 

commented that Section 4180 directs the 

BLM to conduct multiple-use planning 

exercises at the watershed level and is 

intended to guide the BLM in conducting onthe-ground livestock management activities, 

but the regulations do not provide those 

management directives. They also want the 

BLM to rewrite the Planning regulations.

The NCBA and PLC asked the BLM 

to address monitoring by renaming Section 

4180.2 “Monitoring” and developing 

language to develop a scientifically based 

short- and long-term field-level monitoring 

program in consultation with and with 

participation from permittees and lessees.

The Western Watersheds Program 

commented that it knows of hundreds of 

grazing allotments that are failing the most 

minimal of environmental health measures 

because of grazing on BLM-administered 

lands. 

A commenter said the BLM should 

remove requirements in paragraph (b) of 

4180.1 because there are no field methods 

presently available to determine energy flow 

and nutrient cycling, and the BLM canʼt 

make an accurate determination based on 

these functions. 

The County Commissioners of Chaves 

County in Roswell, New Mexico, asked the 

BLM to reverse the present Full Force and 

Effect provisions to the pre-1995 standards 

that allowed the permittee to exhaust all 

appeals before removing livestock from the 

allotment because the present regulations do 

not recognize due process, including a full 

disclosure of the facts related to the decision, 

equal representation, and the rights of the 

accused to be assumed innocent until proven 

guilty. 

A commenter said the BLM should 

replace “interested public” with “affected 

interest” wherever it appears in the 

regulations. He stated that local BLM 

employeesʼ workloads are horrendous 

because the BLM is asking people with 

radical agendas against multiple use 

to participate in the everyday BLM 

C-42 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

activities. He stated that this detracts from the 

BLMʼs ability to manage the resources.

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

(IDFG) commented that designing grazing 

regulations that make it easier for permittees 

to voluntarily opt for nonuse or relinquish 

a permit will allow the BLM to spread 

remaining livestock over a larger area and 

reduce the number of animals grazing an 

allotment, thereby allowing the range to be 

rested or rehabilitated. The IDFG commented 

that this would benefit permittees, improve 

rangeland health, and improve fish and 

wildlife habitats.

The NCBA and PLC commented that the 

BLM should continue periodic evaluations 

of rangeland resources on existing locations 

in a way that ensures continuity over 

time, and the BLM should ensure that all 

monitoring data collected on BLM lands is 

made available in allotment files to use in 

evaluating trends in resource conditions over 

time. 

The Public Lands Foundation commented 

that the key to BLMʼs successful rangeland 

management should be in their capacity 

to monitor changes in vegetation and soil 

conditions and make appropriate adjustments 

in use.

A commenter at the Reno scoping 

meetings said that the BLM needed to 

address noxious weeds, catastrophic 

wildfires, and improve basic monitoring. The 

commenter said the BLM is only considering 

protecting 10 percent to 15 percent of 

permittees who are either poor managers or 

unsuccessful at trying to make a living on 

public rangelands that are not suitable for 

livestock grazing. The commenter wants the 

BLM to develop incentives so that permittees 

who successfully manage grazing to meet 

land health objectives pay less. Permittees 

who fail to meet these objectives will pay 

more in the short term and lose their permits 

in the long term. The commenter said that the 

BLM needed to institute a voluntary buyout 

program for permittees who canʼt make a 

living on marginal rangeland. 

The consortium of environmental 

and conservation groups commented 

that reverting to the pre-1995 policies is 

illegal because it prevents the BLM from 

fulfilling its obligations under FLPMA and 

is inconsistent with the agencyʼs stated 

goal of conservation. It commented that the 

BLM should only restrict monitoring if the 

allotment is in nonuse or until the BLM can 

meet its monitoring objectives. 

It recommended that the BLM reinstate 

Grazing Boards and provide them with these 

reports so they can be subjected to peer 

review. It also asked the BLM to require 

periodic reports, in consultation with the 

permittee, to determine whether the data from 

monitoring and field observations show that 

resource management objectives are being 

met. 

The NCBA and PLC asked that the 

BLM develop a new policy, in consultation 

with livestock operators and land grant 

institutions, to consider how best to address 

resource management objectives for 

wildlife and T&E species, and effects from 

recreational users at the allotment level. It 

believes these objectives are important for 

short- and long-term monitoring programs 

that are founded in present and historical 

quantitative vegetative data having the 

technical ability to determine if resource 

objectives are being met.

The Animal Alliance opposed altering the 

administrative appeals process if it would be 

more difficult to sue than what is presently 

required by the Federal rules. It commented 

that the proposed rule would narrow the 

definition of “legally cognizable interests” 

and, in effect, reduce the publicʼs ability to 

appeal grazing administration and policy 

C-43
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

decisions. 

Great Old Broads for Wilderness 

commented that BLMʼs fee formula should 

reflect present market rates for non-Federal 

grazing lands because the present grazing 

fee is 10 times less than the open market 

rate. It said this is a dereliction of duty by the 

agency. 

The South Dakota Department of Game, 

Fish, and Parks commented that the BLM 

should expand its management objectives 

to include all its lands and consider 

monitoring as a means to assess the effects 

of management actions. The department 

also commented that if the BLM cannot 

adequately manage small tracts of public 

land, it should consider land exchanges as a 

way of creating larger and easier to manage 

allotments. The department commented that 

increased monitoring by the BLM could 

identify at-risk lands and prevent them 

from degrading to a state where they need 

extensive restoration.

The CBD commented that the BLM 

should delete Section 4130.8 from the 

regulations because the fee fails to track 

market rates for livestock. It commented that 

the BLMʼs fees are 10 times less than the 

average westwide market rental of unirrigated 

rangeland and that the BLMʼs present fee 

formula should be eliminated and replaced 

with a competitive bidding process. 

A commenter said “drive-by” monitoring 

and monitoring only when a permittee or 

lessee is renewing a permit or lease are 

not sufficient. The commenter said grazing 

practices should be adjusted annually to 

ensure that the land is improving in condition 

and health. The commenter said that if the 

BLM does not have adequate resources to 

properly monitor an allotment, that allotment 

should not be used until adequate funds and 

resources are available to manage it. The 

commenter said the BLM should conduct an 

economic analysis of what constitutes a wellfunded range conservation effort and use the 

information to inform Congress of the cost 

and effect of neglecting the public land. 

An environmental group commented 

that the BLM should have authority to grant 

nonuse for an entire 10 years or longer 

if the resource needs that much time to 

recover and that the BLM should be able 

to do this without having to make land or 

resource management plan amendments. 

The group also commented that the BLM 

should consider allotment cancellations to be 

automatic revisions to the applicable land or 

resource management plan. 

The CBD commented that the BLM 

should prohibit any ephemeral grazing on 

public lands. 

A member of the Northern California 

Resource Advisory Council commented that 

the BLM must conduct effective monitoring 

to ensure that the goals of the management 

plan are being met. 

The Sky Island Alliance commented that 

grazing permits and leases should be open to 

competitive bidding as follows:

Bids are for the fee paid per AUM of 

actual forage for that period of the permit or 

lease.

• Reserve price on permits should be no 

less that 50 percent of the present average 

of private market rental rates for that state 

according to the National Agricultural 

Statistics Service. 

• The highest bid from a qualified 

stockowner establishes the fair market 

value for that permit. 

• Incumbent permittees should be offered 

first option to renew at highest bid. 

• If an incumbent declines, the bidding 

process is reopened until a willing 

C-44 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

permittee is identified. 

• No qualifying bids received would result 

in allotment cancellation and closure to 

grazing. 

5.0 General 

comments on issues 

not addressed in the 

ANPR and NOI

The Northwest California Resource 

Advisory Council (NCRAC) commented 

that it was disappointed the Department did 

not consult with the RACs before the public 

release of the proposed changes in grazing 

regulations and that the criteria seems to 

be from the “top down” and, therefore, 

seems contrary to the Secretaryʼs “Four Cʼs” 

philosophy and commitment to communitybased decision making.

The NCRAC raised the following general 

concerns:

• The proposed changes do not serve 

conservation. They are coercive in nature 

rather than being collaborative. 

• The proposed changes will make it 

more difficult to hold grazing permittees 

accountable for the health of the 

rangeland they graze. 

• The proposed rule will diminish the value 

of the public natural resource for future 

generations. 

• The proposed rules represent favoritism 

for one interest group to the detriment of 

the general public and other stakeholders. 

• Current grazing rules have been 

adjudicated and found in compliance 

with the TGA and other laws. These new 

rules will set off a new round of costly 

litigation. 

A commenter said, “I do not like to see 

public lands and campgrounds full of cattle 

droppings.” 

A commenter stated that the BLMʼs 

present permit renewal process allows 

antigrazing factions to interrupt, without 

just cause, the normal process of renewing 

a permit. The commenter said that BLMʼs 

management plan goals must be based on 

meeting certain standards and guidelines and 

improving the health of the public lands for 

multiple uses. 

An environmental group commented 

that the BLM should modify existing 

regulations so that cancellations by the BLM 

are considered automatic revisions to the 

applicable land or resource management 

plans. It stated that the BLM should have 

authority to grant nonuse, until resource 

conditions have fully recovered, without a 

requirement to complete a RMPA. 

The Nature Conservancy commented 

that, although it manages ranching properties 

in 11 western states, it canʼt comment on the 

considered changes until the specifics of any 

changes the BLM is considering are made 

known. The Conservancy commented that 

it opposes any changes that would restrict 

organizations with multiple interests, such as 

theirs, from qualifying for a grazing permit or 

lease.

The Public Lands Foundation commented 

that the BLM has not allowed enough 

time for the 1995 regulatory changes to be 

effective before considering making these 

additional changes to the grazing rule. The 

PLF commented that the 1995 effort was a 

huge and costly undertaking and asked why 

the BLM was creating a new grazing policy 

so soon. The PLF stated it had followed the 

BLMʼs implementation of the 1995 rules 

C-45
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

and was unaware of any major problems that 

would necessitate changing the existing rules. 

The Public Lands Foundation also 

commented on the full-force-and-effect 

provision, stating that the land manager must 

have the authority to make needed changes 

in grazing use immediately or before the next 

grazing season to protect and enhance the 

resource.

The Grand Canyon Trust commented 

that the goal of the proposed regulations 

should be to protect and restore the health 

of public lands and not just perpetuate 

livestock grazing on public lands. It said 

the 1995 regulations were subjected to a 

thorough environmental impact analysis and 

were deemed necessary and appropriate for 

protecting public rangelands. 

The Nevada Department of Agriculture 

“sincerely recommends reverting all grazing 

regulations to that which existed before 

Secretary Babbitt.” The department said that 

“most of what Secretary Babbitt implemented 

caused problems, increased litigation for 

the agency and permittees, and increased 

workloads on agency staff and permittees 

for meaningless regulatory and NEPA 

compliance that provide little or no positive 

effects on the natural resources, livestock 

industry, or any other public multiple use.”

The Nevada Department of Agriculture 

also asked the BLM to allow only trained 

BLM employees to perform environmental 

monitoring and to not contract out this 

task. The department is concerned that this 

consideration will weaken or diminish the 

importance of monitoring the condition of 

rangeland health. 

The Conservation Roundtable of Billings, 

Montana, asked why the BLM is drafting 

new grazing regulations so soon after the 

huge effort undertaken in 1995. It commented 

that the proposed changes would result in 

the “old system of private control by the 

privileged over the general publics enjoyment 

of healthy functioning public lands.” It asked 

the BLM to clarify the following elements of 

the Secretaryʼs Four Cʼs concept in the EIS:

• With whom is the BLM consulting? 

• What is the consultation about? 

• What does the BLM mean by 

“community-based conservation?” 

• What is the role of the general 

taxpaying public in “community-based 

conservation?” 

• Does conservation mean restoration of 

[public lands] to functioning condition 

and their multiple uses? 

The consortium of environmental and 

conservation groups commented that the 

BLM must provide definitions for the 

following new definitions used in BLMʼs 

Press Release, and include them in any 

proposed regulations:

• Sustainable rangelands 

• Sustainable ranching 

• Working landscapes 

• Citizen-based stewardship 

• Conservation partners 

The Sierra Club and the consortium of 

environmental and conservation groups want 

the BLM to add the following provisions to 

any proposed changes to the regulations: 

Section 4130.1-1, Filing applications. 

The NCBA and PLC asked the BLM to 

amend this section, which it refers to as 

“Authorizing Grazing Use” to read as 

follows:

“A positive response from a permittee 

or lessee to BLM’s offer of an annual 

C-46 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

grazing license in the last year of a 

multiyear term permit or lease period 

to continue the livestock grazing 

program on an allotment or lease 

past the term of the current permit or 

lease shall be considered by the BLM 

as an application to renew a term 

grazing permit or lease. If a permittee 

or lessee desires to appeal any of the 

terms and conditions in a permit or 

lease renewal offered to him or her 

by the BLM, the action of an appeal 

shall be considered an application for 

renewal and the permit or lease shall 

be extended under the existing terms 

and conditions until such time as a 

final action is adjudicated.”

Section 4130.6-1, Exchange of Use. The 

NCBA and PLC want the BLM to insert the 

following language into §4130.6-1:

“BLM will calculate the total 

allotment/lease livestock carrying 

capacity, the total number of livestock 

carrying capacity AUMs of lands 

offered for exchange of use as 

determined by a rangeland survey 

conducted by person qualified as 

professional rangeland managers.” 

They also ask that the phrase “ . . . in 

the same allotment” be removed from 

the existing regulations in this same 

section. 

Section 4130.1-2, Conflicting 

Applications. The NCBA and PLC asked that 

the BLM remove the following language in 

paragraph (d) of Section 4130.1-2:

“Public ingress or egress across 

privately owned or controlled land 

to public land should be removed as 

consideration in allocating AUM.” 

The NCBA and PLC commented that 

the above existing language constitutes 

“blackmail” because it allocates Federal 

forage to applicants for that forage. The 

group commented that it is irrelevant whether 

a person will now or in the future grant 

public access to private lands because it is 

related to whether or not that person is the 

best steward of Federal forage. 

Section 4180, Fundamentals of 

Rangeland Health and Standards and 

Guidelines for Grazing Administration. 

The NCBA and PLC asked the BLM to 

amend this section by transferring the entire 

Section 4180 to BLMʼs Planning Regulations 

and transferring authority to the BLM. They 

commented that Section 4180 directs the 

BLM to conduct multiple-use planning 

exercises at the watershed level and is 

intended to guide the BLM in conducting onthe-ground livestock management activities 

but the regulations do not provide those 

management directives. They also want the 

BLM to rewrite the Planning regulations.

The NCBA and PLC asked the BLM 

to address monitoring by renaming Section 

4180.2 “Monitoring” and developing 

language to develop a scientifically based 

short- and long- term field-level monitoring 

program in consultation with and with 

participation from permittees and lessees.

The Western Watersheds Program 

commented that it knows of hundreds of 

grazing allotments that are failing the most 

minimal of environmental health measures 

because of grazing on BLM-administered 

lands. 

A commenter said the BLM should 

remove requirements in paragraph (b) of 

§4180.1 because there are no field methods 

presently available to determine energy flow 

and nutrient cycling and the BLM canʼt make 

an accurate determination based on these 

C-47
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

functions. 

The County Commissioners of Chaves 

County in Roswell, New Mexico, asked the 

BLM to reverse the present Full Force and 

Effect provisions to the pre-1995 standards 

that allowed the permittee to exhaust all 

appeals before removing livestock from the 

allotment because the present regulations do 

not recognize due process, including a full 

disclosure of the facts related to the decision, 

equal representation, and the rights of the 

accused to be assumed innocent until proven 

guilty. 

A commenter said the BLM should 

replace “interested public” with “affected 

interest” wherever it appears in the 

regulations. He stated that local BLM 

employeesʼ workloads are horrendous 

because the BLM is asking people 

with radical agendas against multipleuse to participate in the everyday BLM 

activities. He stated that this detracts from 

BLMʼs ability to manage the resources.

The Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

(IDFG) commented that designing grazing 

regulations that make it easier for permittees 

to voluntarily opt for nonuse or relinquish 

a permit will allow the BLM to spread 

remaining livestock over a larger area and 

reduce the number of animals grazing an 

allotment, thereby allowing the range to be 

rested or rehabilitated. The IDFG commented 

that this would benefit permittees, improve 

rangeland health, and improve fish and 

wildlife habitats.

The NCBA and PLC commented that the 

BLM should continue periodic evaluations 

of rangeland resources on existing locations 

in a way that ensures continuity over 

time and the BLM should ensure that all 

monitoring data collected on BLM lands is 

made available in allotment files to use in 

evaluating trends in resource conditions over 

time. 

The Public Lands Foundation commented 

that the BLMʼs key to successful rangeland 

management should be in its capacity to 

monitor changes in vegetation and soil 

conditions and make appropriate adjustments 

in use.

A commenter at the Reno scoping 

meetings said the BLM needed to address 

noxious weeds, catastrophic wildfires, and 

improve basic monitoring. The commenter 

said the BLM is only considering protecting 

10 percent to 15 percent of permittees who 

are either poor managers or unsuccessful 

at trying to make a living on public 

rangelands that are not suitable for livestock 

grazing. The commenter wants the BLM to 

develop incentives so that permittees who 

successfully manage grazing to meet land 

health objectives pay less. Permittees who 

fail to meet these objectives will pay more 

in the short term and lose their permits 

in the long term. The commenter said the 

BLM needed to institute a voluntary buyout 

program for permittees who canʼt make a 

living on marginal rangeland. 

The consortium of environmental 

and conservation groups commented 

that reverting to the pre-1995 policies is 

illegal because it prevents the BLM from 

fulfilling its obligations under FLPMA and 

is inconsistent with the agencyʼs stated 

goal of conservation. It commented that the 

BLM should restrict monitoring only if the 

allotment is in nonuse or until the BLM can 

meet its monitoring objectives. 

It recommended that the BLM reinstate 

Grazing Boards and provide them with these 

reports so they can be subjected to peer 

review. It also asked the BLM to require 

periodic reports, in consultation with the 

permittee, to determine whether the data from 

monitoring and field observations show that 

resource management objectives are being 

met. 

C-48 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix C

Summary of Scoping Comments

The NCBA and PLC asked that the BLM 

develop a new policy, in consultation 

with livestock operators and land grant 

institutions, to consider how best to address 

resource management objectives for wildlife 

and T&E species and the effects from 

recreational users at the allotment level. It 

believes these objectives are important for 

short- and long-term monitoring programs 

that are founded in present and historical 

quantitative vegetative data having the 

technical ability to determine if resource 

objectives are being met.

The Animal Alliance opposed altering the 

administrative appeals process if it would be 

more difficult to sue than what is presently 

required by the Federal rules. It commented 

that the proposed rule would narrow the 

definition of “legally cognizable interests” 

and, in effect, reduce the publicʼs ability to 

appeal grazing administration and policy 

decisions. 

Great Old Broads for Wilderness 

commented that the BLMʼs fee formula 

should reflect present market rates for nonFederal grazing lands because the present 

grazing fee is 10 times less than the open 

market rate. It said this is a dereliction of 

duty by the agency. 

The South Dakota Department of Game, 

Fish, and Parks commented that the BLM 

should expand its management objectives to 

include all its lands and consider monitoring 

as a means for assessing the effects of 

management actions. The department 

also commented that if the BLM cannot 

adequately manage small tracts of public 

land, it should consider land exchanges as a 

way of creating larger and easier to manage 

allotments. The department commented that 

increased monitoring by the BLM could 

identify at-risk lands and prevent them 

from degrading to a state where they need 

extensive restoration.

The CBD commented that the BLM 

should delete Section 4130.8 from the 

regulations because the fee fails to track 

market rates for livestock. It commented that 

the BLMʼs fees are 10 times less than the 

average westwide market rental of unirrigated 

rangeland, and the BLMʼs present fee 

formula should be eliminated and replaced 

with a competitive bidding process. 

A commenter said “drive-by” monitoring 

and monitoring only when a permittee or 

lessee is renewing a permit or lease are 

not sufficient. The commenter said grazing 

practices should be adjusted annually to 

ensure that the land is improving in condition 

and health. The commenter said that if the 

BLM does not have adequate resources to 

properly monitor an allotment, that allotment 

should not be used until adequate funds and 

resources are available to manage it. The 

commenter said the BLM should conduct an 

economic analysis of what constitutes a wellfunded range conservation effort and use the 

information to inform Congress of the cost 

and effect of neglecting the public land. 

An environmental group commented 

that the BLM should have authority to grant 

nonuse for an entire 10 years or longer 

if the resource needs that much time to 

recover, and that the BLM should be able 

to do this without having to make land or 

resource management plan amendments. 

The group also commented that the BLM 

should consider allotment cancellations to be 

automatic revisions to the applicable land or 

resource management plan. 

The CBD commented that the BLM 

C-49
should prohibit any ephemeral grazing on 

public lands. 

A member of the Northern California 

Resource Advisory Council commented that 

the BLM must conduct effective monitoring 

to ensure that the goals of the management 

plan are being met. 

The Sky Island Alliance commented that 

grazing permits and leases should be open to 

competitive bidding as follows:

• Bids are for the fee paid per AUM of 

actual forage for that period of the permit 

or lease. 

• Reserve price on permits should be no 

less that 50 percent of the present average 

of private market rental rates for that state 

according to the National Agricultural 

Statistics Service. 

• The highest bid from a qualified 

stockowner establishes the fair market 

value for that permit. 

• Incumbent permittees are offered first 

option to renew at highest bid. 

• If an incumbent declines, the bidding 

process is reopened until a willing 

permittee is identified. 

• No qualifying bids received results in 

allotment cancellation and closure to 

grazing. 
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 D-1

Appendix D

Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Appendix D. Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking

There was no change in Appendix D from the draft EIS to this final EIS. This Appendix is 

incorporated by reference into the final EIS.

The Advance Notice of the Proposed Rulemaking, as it appeared in the Federal Register, can be 

found by clicking on the following link: 

http://www.blm.gov/nhp/news/regulatory/ANPR_4100/4100-ANPR.html

Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 E-1

Appendix E

Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS

Appendix E. Notice of Intent to Prepare an 

EIS

There was no change in Appendix E from the draft EIS to this final EIS. This Appendix is 

incorporated by reference into the final EIS.

The on-line version of the Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS can be found at: 

http://www.blm.gov:80/nhp/news/regulatory/ANPR_4100/4100-ANPR.html

Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix F

Social Impact Assessment Methods

Appendix F. Social Impact Assessment 

Methods

As part of the Social Impact Assessment 

concerning proposed amendments to BLM 

grazing regulations, focus groups were 

conducted with selected constituents in the 

West. The purpose of the focus groups was to 

• Review the proposed changes to grazing 

regulations; 

• Assess whether the proposed changes 

could create potential positive or negative 

social effects on the respondents, their 

communities, and people who utilize 

BLM lands in similar ways; 

• Identify the distribution of any positive or 

negative social effects from the proposed 

changes. 

To capture potential regional differences 

in effects, three sets of focus groups were 

conducted. One set each occurred in Salmon, 

Idaho; Ontario, Oregon; and Albuquerque, 

New Mexico. These regions were chosen 

because they presented three differing 

types of ranching and levels of dependence 

on BLM grazing allotments. Salmon is 

characterized by high-mountain grazing 

with reliance on both BLM and Forest 

Service allotments during spring and summer 

grazing. Ontario captured a mix of desert and 

mountain allotments with varying degrees of 

dependence on BLM allotments of differing 

durations and seasons. Finally, Albuquerque 

provided access to a mix of desert types 

experiencing multiple years of severe drought 

and with some year-long grazing permits on 

BLM land.

Each set of focus groups included 

one group each of grazing permittees, 

recreational user groups, and environmental 

and conservation groups. Participants were 

recruited on the basis of their involvement 

with BLM grazing decisions in the past 

or positions they hold in groups that were 

involved. This produced a mix of permittees 

with various-sized operations; recreationists 

with a wide variety of interests including 

hiking, off-highway vehicle use, and 

equestrian events; and conservation and 

environmental groups ranging from Trout 

Unlimited to active pressure groups such as 

the Western Watersheds Project.

Social effects were assessed according 

to standard categories of impact variables 

consisting of population changes, community 

and institutional structures, political and 

social resources, individual and family 

changes, and community resources 

(Interorganizational Committee 1994). After 

the focus groups were finished, effects of 

any size or nature fell into the following 

categories:

• Community and Institutional Structures—

changes to group and individual relations 

with the BLM, changes to basis for 

community economic and social stability; 

• Individual and Family Changes—changes 

in attitudes toward and perceptions of 

the policies, perceived changes to family 

economic situations, changes to local 

social networks, changes in how groups 

frame their relation to the resource; 

• Community Resources—perceived risk to 

and changes in participantsʼ environment. 

Some of these effects were larger than 

others. Other effects fell completely on one 

of the three groups. Many of these effects are 

F-1
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004

Appendix F

Social Impact Assessment Methods

what Vanclay (2003) categorizes as changes 

to “fears and aspirations” of themselves 

and the groups they represent. The effects 

were then evaluated as direct effects if they 

were related directly to the proposed action. 

Indirect effects occur as a result of the change 

brought on by the direct effect. Cumulative 

effects occur over time as changes 

accumulate from the proposed action and all 

other changes. Each effect was then evaluated 

for regional differences found in the focus 

groups. Finally, the likelihood that each effect 

might occur was judged to be good, potential, 

or unknown. Social effects from the proposed 

changes to grazing regulation were then 

incorporated into the effects sections.

F-2
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 I-1

Index

Index to Chapters 1-5

B

biological assessments/biological evaluations, 1-7, 1-13, 1-14, 1-15, 1-16, 1-17, 1-22, 1-23, 

2-5, 2-6, 2-7, 2-8, 2-11, 2-12, 2-18, 2-20, 2-30, 2-39, 2-48, 2-49, 3-57, 4-9, 4-14, 4-30, 4-32, 

4-45, 4-47, 4-52, 5-38, 

5-97, 5-113, 5-114, 5-129

C

conservation use, 1-8, 1-13, 1-14, 1-16, 1-17, 1-18, 1-19, 2-5, 2-13, 2-15, 2-22, 2-23, 3-13, 

3-16, 4-10, 4-12, 4-27, 4-48, 4-52, 5-31, 5-43, 5-55, 5-72, 5-73, 5-75, 5-87, 5-88, 5-91, 5-99

cultural, 1-13, 1-14, 2-5, 2-9, 2-17, 2-19, 2-31, 3-7, 3-28, 3-32, 3-40, 3-49, 3-56, 3-60, 3-62, 

3-63, 3-64, 3-65, 3-66, 3-82, 4-5, 4-6, 4-9, 4-11, 4-19, 4-20, 4-24, 4-30, 4-41, 4-42, 4-48, 4-50, 

4-51, 4-56, 4-58, 4-59, 5-7, 5-9, 5-10, 5-14, 5-17, 5-18, 5-22, 5-25, 5-35, 5-45, 5-48, 5-49, 

5-50, 5-51, 5-85, 5-127, 5-138, 5-144

E

economic, 1-9, 1-13, 1-14, 1-28, 2-5, 2-9, 2-19, 2-36, 3-7, 3-28, 3-40, 3-44, 3-66, 3-67, 3-68, 

3-69, 3-71, 3-73, 3-74, 3-75, 3-76, 3-77, 3-78, 3-79, 3-80, 3-81, 3-82, 3-84, 4-5, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 

4-9, 4-10, 4-11, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-23, 4-45, 4-48, 4-49, 4-50, 4-51, 4-59, 5-8, 5-9, 5-10, 5-11, 

5-12, 5-13, 5-15, 5-18, 5-24, 5-25, 5-35, 5-36, 5-41, 5-42, 5-45, 5-48, 5-49, 5-50, 5-51, 5-61, 

5-65, 5-80, 5-81, 5-87, 5-97, 5-98, 5-100, 5-104, 5-133, 5-135, 5-141

F

Federal Land Policy and Management Act/FLPMA, 1-8, 1-9, 1-10, 1-15, 1-22, 1-28, 2-7, 

2-15, 2-20, 2-23, 2-33, 3-12, 3-40, 3-63, 5-21, 5-22, 5-26, 5-29, 5-45, 5-46, 5-48, 5-67, 5-73, 

5-74, 5-76, 5-80, 5-88, 5-89, 5-90, 5-92, 5-94, 5-95, 5-98, 5-99, 5-100, 5-101, 5-102, 5-107, 

5-108, 5-110, 5-112, 5-114, 5-126

G

grazing boards/grazing advisory boards, 1-6, 1-9, 1-10, 1-13, 1-15, 2-6, 2-7, 2-11, 2-20, 

2-33, 2-34, 4-9, 4-10, 4-11, 4-25, 4-31, 4-45, 4-47, 4-51, 5-67, 5-68, 5-69, 5-70, 5-71, 5-66

guidelines, 1-7, 1-9, 1-12, 1-17, 1-18, 1-24, 2-6 ,2-8, 2-9, 2-12, 2-13, 2-21, 2-22, 2-31, 2-32, 

2-37, 3-13, 3-19, 4-7, 4-12, 4-14, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-24, 4-26, 4-31, 4-33, 4-34, 

4-35, 4-37, 4-44, 4-54, 4-62, 5-21, 5-30, 5-36, 5-47, 5-62, 5-75, 5-76, 5-78, 5-79, 5-80, 5-81, 

5-82, 5-83, 5-85, 5-86, 5-87, 5-93, 5-97, 5-113, 

5-115, 5-120, 5-121, 5-143, 5-145
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

I-2 October 2004

Index 

I

interested public, 1-6, 1-12, 1-14, 1-16, 1-19, 1-20, 1-29, 2-5, 2-6, 2-7, 2-11, 2-12, 2-13, 2-14, 

2-20, 2-24, 2-25, 2-35, 2-36, 3-13, 3-15, 3-16, 3-18, 3-57, 4-12, 4-13, 4-15, 4-16, 4-19, 4-23, 

4-27, 4-28, 4-33, 4-43, 4-47, 4-52, 5-18, 5-20, 5-21, 5-24, 5-27, 5-39, 5-43, 5-45, 5-53, 5-58, 

5-71, 5-78, 5-87, 5-93, 5-94, 5-95, 5-96, 5-97, 5-98, 5-99, 5-106, 5-113, 5-123

M

monitoring, 1-17, 1-24, 2-8, 2-11, 2-14, 2-21, 2-31, 2-35, 3-12, 3-13, 3-19, 3-27, 3-40, 3-43, 

4-7, 4-8, 4-9, 4-12, 4-15, 4-18, 4-23, 4-25, 4-26, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-37, 4-40, 

4-41, 4-42, 4-44, 4-47, 4-51, 4-52, 4-53, 4-54, 4-55, 4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-59, 4-62, 5-20, 5-21, 

5-22, 5-24, 5-26, 5-27, 5-32, 5-34, 5-37, 5-39, 5-42, 4-43, 5-44, 5-47, 5-48, 5-51, 5-54, 5-55, 

5-56, 5-57, 5-58, 5-71, 5-74, 5-77, 5-78, 5-79, 5-80, 5-81, 5-82, 5-84, 5-85, 5-90, 5-91, 5-92, 

5-93, 5-94, 5-95, 5-97, 5-113, 5-118, 5-120, 5-121, 5-126, 5-135, 5-140, 5-141

N

nonuse, 1-8, 1-10, 1-12, 1-13, 1-16, 1-17, 2-5, 2-6, 2-8, 2-12, 2-13, 2-15, 2-20, 2-21, 2-26, 

2-31, 3-16, 3-68, 4-10, 4-11, 4-15, 4-18, 4-21, 4-25, 4-26, 4-31, 4-33, 4-35, 4-36, 4-38, 4-39, 

4-42, 4-48, 4-50, 4-51, 5-53, 5-54, 5-55, 5-56, 5-58, 5-59, 5-60

P

phase-in, 1-6, 1-14, 2-19, 2-31, 2-32, 3-19, 3-31, 3-32, 4-18, 4-20, 4-24, 4-25, 4-33, 4-35, 

4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-50, 4-51, 4-52, 4-53, 4-54, 4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-59, 5-22, 5-32, 

5-62

prohibited acts, 1-9, 1-14, 1-21, 1-24, 2-5, 2-15, 2-16, 2-17, 2-29, 2-31, 3-17, 3-18, 4-14, 

4-29, 4-50, 4-52, 4-53, 4-54, 4-55, 4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-60, 5-124, 5-125, 5-126, 5-127

Public Rangelands Improvement Act/PRIA, 1-5, 1-7, 1-8, 3-12, 5-22, 5-23, 5-26, 5-44, 5-45, 

5-48, 5-88, 5-100

R

range improvements, 1-8, 1-15, 2-10, 2-11, 2-16, 2-19, 2-20, 2-22, 2-34, 3-14, 3-15, 4-6, 

4-11, 4-20, 4-25, 4-31, 4-42, 4-44, 5-18, 5-23, 5-24, 5-27, 5-28, 5-38, 5-39, 5-57, 5-62, 5-63, 

5-64, 5-65, 5-66, 5-69, 5-70, 5-71, 5-99, 5-103, 5-109, 5-120, 5-135, 5-141
Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands

Bureau of Land Management FES 04-39

October 2004 I-3

Index

S

satisfactory performance, 1-6, 1-20, 1-21, 2-14, 2-15, 2-25, 2-26, 4-12, 4-28, 4-48, 5-106, 

5-114

service charges, 1-21, 2-8, 2-27, 2-28, 4-5, 4-13, 4-14, 4-21, 4-28, 4-29, 4-41, 4-44, 5-108, 

5-109

standards/rangeland health standards, 1-7, 1-9, 1-12, 1-17, 1-18, 1-24, 2-6, 2-8, 2-12, 2-13, 

2-21, 2-22, 2-31, 2-32, 2-37, 3-8, 3-9, 3-12, 3-19, 3-40, 3-42, 4-7, 4-12, 4-14, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 

4-18, 4-19, 4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 4-27, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-40, 4-42, 

4-43, 4-44, 4-49, 4-50, 4-51, 4-52, 4-53, 4-54, 4-55, 4-59, 4-62, 5-18, 5-21, 5-22, 5-24, 5-28, 

5-29, 5-30, 5-31, 5-32, 5-33, 5-34, 5-35, 5-36, 5-42, 5-47, 5-51, 5-58, 5-61, 5-62, 5-70, 5-74, 

5-75, 5-76, 5-77, 5-78, 5-79, 5-80, 5-81, 5-82, 5-83, 5-84, 5-85, 5-86, 5-87, 5-88, 5-90, 5-93, 

5-95, 5-97, 5-99, 5-110, 5-113, 5-115, 5-119, 5-120, 5-121, 5-130, 5-143, 5-144, 5-145

stay/stays/stayed, 1-14, 1-22, 2-6, 2-7, 2-18, 2-22, 2-30, 2-35, 2-36, 3-18, 3-70, 3-76, 4-14, 

4-29, 4-30, 4-52, 5-18, 5-33, 5-60, 5-79, 5-116, 5-117, 5-128, 5-130, 5-131, 5-132, 5-134

T

Taylor Grazing Act/TGA, 1-6, 1-8, 1-10, 1-18, 1-22, 2-15, 3-11, 3-12, 3-29, 4-27, 5-22, 5-24, 

5-25, 5-26, 5-44, 5-46, 5-63, 5-66, 5-70, 5-71, 5-73, 5-88, 5-90, 5-92, 5-94, 5-100, 5-104, 

5-105, 5-112, 5-115, 5-129, 5-134, 5-135, 5-141, 5-143, 5-144

W

water rights, 1-7, 1-9, 1-10, 1-14, 1-20, 2-5, 2-8, 2-14, 2-25, 2-32, 3-7, 3-40, 3-42, 4-13, 

4-028, 4-32, 4-36, 4-49, 4-50, 4-52, 5-12, 5-14, 5-32, 5-60, 5-92, 5-102, 5-103, 5-104, 5-115, 

5-121, 5-135, 5-141

weeds, 1-15, 2-11, 3-43, 4-11, 4-16, 4-52, 4-54, 4-55, 4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 5-14, 5-34, 5-69, 5-71, 

5-116, 5-127

Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands 

Bureau of Land Management - FES 04-39 

REVISIONS and ERRATA 

June 17, 2005 

NOTE: THIS REVISION AND ERRATA SHEET, DATED JUNE 17, 2005, SUPERSEDES

ALL PREVIOUS ERRATA SHEETS. 

Publication Month 

The date of printing for the EIS is “October, 2004.” Add “released 

June, 2005,” wherever the printing date appears in the document,

including the cover, title page and on the “footer” of each page of the

entire document. 

Due to delay in final clearance, the EIS was not cleared for release

until June, 2005. 

Abstract 

Item 2, Second paragraph: The last sentence of this paragraph refers to

a “modified” alternative (alternative 3). Change to “modified action”

alternative (alternative 3). 

Table of Contents 

Section 2.1, page v: The title of this section is listed as

“Alternative One: No Change in Regulations (No Action).” While it is 

true that the No Action alternative does consist of the current 

regulations with no changes, the correct name of this alternative is

“Alternative One: No Action.” 

Appendix A1 and A2, page vi: Insert “Proposed” before “Final.” 

Executive Summary 

Section entitled Proposed Action and Alternatives, page ES-2, first

paragraph: Insert the following sentence at the end of this paragraph —

“The BLM’s preferred alternative is the Proposed Action Alternative,

alternative 2.” 

Page ES-2, right column, fifth full bullet: Delete this bullet and in

its place insert — “Provide that a standards assessment will be used by

the authorized officer to assess whether rangeland is failing to

achieve standards or that management practices do not conform to the

guidelines and require standards assessment and monitoring of resource

conditions to support BLM determinations of whether existing grazing

management practices or levels of grazing use on public lands are

significant factors in failing to achieve standards or conform with

guidelines.” 

Page 1 of 12 – REVISIONS AND ERRATA - Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the

Public Lands - Bureau of Land Management - FES 04-39 
Page ES-4 and Table ES-1, page ES-14: The description of “temporary

changes within the terms and conditions of permits and leases” does

not, but should, include that temporary changes within the terms and

conditions of permits and leases also may mean temporary changes in

livestock number, period-of-use, or both as specified in an allotment

management plan under § 4120.2(a)(3). 

Page ES-4, right column, paragraph describing the “Modified Action

Alternative,” first sentence: Add the word “Action” between the words 

“Modified” and “Alternative.” 

Section titled Effects of the Proposed Alternative, Page ES-5, left

column: Change this section title to — “Effects of the Proposed Action

Alternative.” 

Table ES-1 and Table 2.5 

The column heading for the right hand column is labeled “Modified

Alternative 3.” Change this column label to “Modified Action

Alternative 3.” 

The heading for the column located second from the left is “No

Action/No Change Alternative 1.” Delete the words “/No Change” from

this heading. 

Table ES-1, Page ES-9, “Proposed Action” Column, “Basis for Rangeland

Health Determinations” Row: Insert the following sentence at the

beginning of this paragraph — “A standards assessment will be used by

the authorized officer to assess whether rangeland is failing to

achieve standards or that management practices do not conform to the

guidelines.” 

Chapter 1 

Section 1.0, page 1-7, right column: Add the following bullet under

“Other Changes” —

“ 

o Section 1.2.2.7 — Add the following paragraphs to the end of this

section: 

‘Language had been added to the preferred alternative to make

this process a two-step process instead of a combined process of

standards assessments and a determination of whether livestock 

grazing management practices or levels of grazing use are a

significant factor in failing to achieve standards or that

management practices do not conform to the guidelines. Instead,

a standards assessment will be used by the authorized officer to

assess whether rangeland is failing to achieve standards or that

management practices do not conform to the guidelines.

Determinations that existing grazing management practices or

levels of grazing use are significant factors in failing to

achieve standards and conform with guidelines would be based on

standards assessment and monitoring. 

Page 2 of 12 – REVISIONS AND ERRATA - Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the

Public Lands - Bureau of Land Management - FES 04-39 
This minor change is a procedural step made for administrative

ease and will not affect the quality of the environment in a

significant manner not already considered. As such, there is no

need to supplement the existing analysis. This change merely

provides that as a first step assessments will be used to assess

whether rangeland is failing to achieve standards or that

management practices do not conform to the guidelines. The next 

step, determination of whether existing grazing management

practices or levels of grazing use are significant factors in

failing to achieve standards and conform with guidelines, would

be based on standards assessment and monitoring as described in

the proposed action. As a result, any impacts of making this

relatively minor change for administrative ease falls within the

range of analysis presented in the draft and final EIS.’” 

Section 1.4, page 1-26, right column, first full sentence: Replace the

word “significant” with “major.” 

Chapter 2 

Section 2.0 - Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives, page

2-5, left column, third paragraph: Add the following sentence to the

end of this paragraph — “The Proposed Action, alternative two, is the

BLM’s preferred alternative.” 

Section 2.0, page 2-8, left column, first full paragraph: Add before 

the first sentence — “Added that a standards assessment will be used by

the authorized officer to assess whether rangeland is failing to

achieve standards or that management practices do not conform to the

guidelines.” 

Section 2.2.7, page 2-21, right column, third sentence: Delete this

sentence and in its place insert — “Under the proposed regulations in

§4180.2, a two-step process would be used to ensure progress towards

standards achievement and conformance with guidelines. First, a

standards assessment will be used by the authorized officer to assess

whether rangeland is failing to achieve standards or that management

practices do not conform to the guidelines. If an assessment indicates 

a failure to achieve standards or that management practices do not

conform to guidelines, then BLM will use existing or new monitoring

data to determine whether existing grazing management practices or

levels of grazing use are significant factors in failing to achieve

standards and conform with guidelines.” 

Section 2.2.14, page 2-26, right column, first full paragraph, second

sentence: Within this sentence, delete “...1. Result in temporary nonuse

of all or part of the allotment; or ...” and in its place insert “...1.

Result in temporary nonuse; or ...”. 

Section 2.2.14, page 2-26 and Table 2.5, page 2-45: The description of

“temporary changes within the terms and conditions of permits and

leases” does not, but should, include that temporary changes within the

terms and conditions of permits and leases also may mean temporary

changes in livestock number, period-of-use, or both as specified in an

allotment management plan under § 4120.2(a)(3). 

Page 3 of 12 – REVISIONS AND ERRATA - Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the

Public Lands - Bureau of Land Management - FES 04-39 
Section 2.1.17, page 2-30: This section duplicates Section 2.1.17 on

page 2-18, rather than being an original Section 2.2.17, as was

intended. Delete the duplicate Section 2.1.17 on page 2-30, including

the 3 paragraphs that follow the section heading, and in its place

insert — 

“Section 2.2.17: As a result of concerns raised during the

review of the draft EIS, we made changes in the proposed action

related to grazing use when a stay has been granted. 

A. Effect on grazing use when a decision to authorize use on a

temporary and nonrenewable basis or on ephemeral or annual

rangeland has been stayed. 

The proposed action would be changed by amending section 4130.6-2

to allow the BLM to make a decision issuing a nonrenewable

grazing permit or lease or a decision affecting an application

for grazing use on annual or designated ephemeral rangelands

effective immediately or on a date established in the decision.

The proposed action would remove language from existing section

4160.3(d) on final decisions that described the effect of an

administrative stay on decisions related to designated ephemeral

or annual rangelands and temporary nonrenewable grazing. The

ability to issue nonrenewable grazing permits and leases as full

force and effect decisions under final rule section 4130.6-2(b)

would largely eliminate the need for any special stay provisions

for such decisions. The proposed action will allow time-sensitive

decisions to authorize forage use to be immediately put into

practice, without being delayed up to 75 days as could happen

under current appeal and stay request time periods. If that

decision is appealed and a stay is granted, the decision would be

inoperative and, depending on the provisions of the stay order,

the livestock may have to be removed from the allotment. These

changes should improve administrative efficiency and

effectiveness by allowing faster responses to time-sensitive

requests and clarify compliance with legal requirements. 

B. Effect on grazing use when a decision affecting grazing

permits or leases is stayed. 

Although the present regulations address what actions would be

taken by BLM when a stay is granted on a BLM decision to modify

or renew a permit or lease, they do not address actions that

would be taken when a stay is granted on an appeal of a decision

on a permit or lease application submitted in conjunction with a

preference transfer. 

The proposed action in §4160.4 provides that if OHA stays a BLM

decision that changes the terms and conditions of a permit or

lease during its current term, or offers a preference transferee

a permit or lease with terms and conditions that are different

from that of the previous permittee or lessee, or renews a permit

or lease, then the immediately preceding authorization and any

terms and conditions therein would not expire, and grazing would

continue under the immediately preceding authorization, subject 

Page 4 of 12 – REVISIONS AND ERRATA - Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the

Public Lands - Bureau of Land Management - FES 04-39 
to the provisions of the stay order and provisions of other

applicable law, pending resolution of the appeal. 

In addition, some procedural requirements from Subpart 4160 would

be removed and replaced with a cross-reference to the regulations

governing the Office of Hearings and Appeals in 43 CFR Part 4.

Many of the procedural requirements set forth in existing §4160.4

are restatements of the requirements found in §4.470 et seq. for 

appealing a grazing decision, and it is not necessary to restate

them in the grazing regulations in Subpart 4100.” 

Table 2-5, page 2-40, “Proposed Action” Column, “Basis for Rangeland

Health Determinations” Row: Insert the following sentence at the

beginning of this paragraph — “A standards assessment will be used by

the authorized officer to assess whether rangeland is failing to

achieve standards or that management practices do not conform to the

guidelines.” 

Chapter 5 

Section 5.4.4, page 5-30, left column: Delete the first five full 

sentences in this column and in their place insert – “Such an

alternative was considered in the EIS for Rangeland Reform ’94 and the

anticipated effects on many livestock operators who are dependent on

public rangelands for their livelihood were displayed in that document.

The changes to the regulations adopted here were never intended to be

either a comprehensive restructuring of the grazing program or a

replacement of the 1995 grazing regulations. We do not believe that a 

broad “conservation alternative” which makes major changes to the

livestock grazing program falls within a reasonable range of

alternatives that meet the purpose and need of the action under

consideration in the current EIS. Measures to protect sage grouse and

their habitat are appropriately considered in the Bureau’s sage grouse

conservation measures, and at the land use plan and/or permit issuance

levels. We addressed the sage grouse conservation strategy generally

in Chapter 1 and Chapter 4 of the EIS.” 

Section 5.4.4, page 5-30, right column: Delete the seventh full 

sentence in this column and in its place insert — “The changes are

driven by specific issues and concerns that BLM has recognized, either

based on our own experience or from input by stakeholders.” 

Section 5.4.5, page 5-34, left column: Insert the following sentence

before the first full sentence on this page — “The use of monitoring

information to support determinations is necessary only for those

allotments where assessment indicates to BLM that the rangeland is

failing to achieve standards or management practices do not conform

with guidelines, and the extended phase-in period will be invoked only

when conditions require changes of greater than 10 percent.” 

Section 5.4.5, page 5-34, left column, second full response: Delete 

this response and in its place insert - “As of the end of 2002, we had

completed evaluations on 7,437 allotments. We determined approximately

16 percent of those allotments not to be meeting land health standards

because of livestock grazing management. We conclude from this that 

generally most public rangelands are not in decline, or at least not to 

Page 5 of 12 – REVISIONS AND ERRATA - Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the

Public Lands - Bureau of Land Management - FES 04-39 
levels that we deem to have failed to achieve the standards and conform 

with the guidelines. To the extent that more than 16 percent of

allotments may have so failed, we have found that grazing is not a

significant cause. We have begun actions to address the problems we

identified. The changes made in this rule will improve our ability to

implement effective corrective measures – requiring new or existing

monitoring data to support determinations that grazing use is

implicated in not meeting standards or conforming with guidelines and

taking time to engage knowledgeable and affected parties will improve

the likelihood of an effective solution, and participation by the

affected operator in determining the solution will increase his

likelihood of complying with the corrective measures. Furthermore, we

believe the rule will result in more collaboration and cooperation with

permittees and lessees in addressing problems. We believe that we have 

adequate measures in place in the grazing regulations to deal with

emergency situations such as drought and fires, or where continued

grazing use poses an imminent likelihood of significant resource damage

(section 4110.3.3(b)). The long term goal of this final rule is to

reverse declines in western rangeland health, in those areas where

there are declines, through improved consultation and cooperation with

ranchers, and interested state and local authorities, as well as the

interested public, in devising means to restore degraded areas and

maintain currently healthy areas.” 

Section 5.4.5, page 5-35, right column: Add the following paragraph to

the end of the first response — “Finally, these changes are based on

our experience implementing the regulations adopted in 1995. The 

changes here do not significantly alter those provisions adopted in

1995 that were examined in the accompanying EIS for that rule. As 

discussed in that EIS, the changes adopted at that time were expected

to improve rangeland health, including habitat for sage grouse. The 

timing and phase-in provisions adopted here are not expected to have

significant effects on the improvements in rangeland health derived

from the 1995 regulatory changes.” 

Section 5.4.5, page 5-36, left column: Add the following sentences

after the fourth full sentence in this column — “Finally, as stated

above, these changes are based on our experience implementing the

regulations adopted in 1995. The changes here do not significantly

alter those provisions adopted in 1995 that were examined in the

accompanying EIS for that rule. The provisions adopted here are not

expected to have significant effects on the improvements in rangeland

health derived from the 1995 regulatory changes.” 

Section 5.4.7, page 5-51, left column, first full response, second

sentence: Replace “assure” with “ensure.” 

Section 5.4.8, page 5-55, right column, first full bullet, first

sentence: Delete this sentence and in its place insert - “When BLM

suspends preference, it must do so by decision or by agreement.” 

Section 5.4.8, page 5-58, left column, second full response, second

sentence: Delete this sentence and in its place insert — “The

regulations, at section 4110.3-3, already allow BLM to act more quickly

to avoid significant resource damage by closing all or portions of an

allotment in the circumstances described in the comment.” 

Page 6 of 12 – REVISIONS AND ERRATA - Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the

Public Lands - Bureau of Land Management - FES 04-39 
Section 5.4.8, page 5-58, right column, second response, second and

third sentence: Delete these two sentences and in their place insert —

“BLM implements changes in active use by agreement or grazing decision.

In the case of agreement, the grazing operator is free to conduct

whatever consultation they believe needed with their lien holder, in

accordance with the requirements of their lien holder. In the case of a

grazing decision, the grazing operator may conduct whatever

consultation they need to with their lien holder, and our regulations

provide for sending such decisions to any lien holder of record.” 

Section 5.4.8, page 5-59, left column, second full paragraph, first

sentence: Replace “Pargraphs” with “Paragraphs.” 

Section 5.4.11, page 5-70, left column, first full sentence: Delete 

this sentence and in its place insert — “The boards will provide

expertise in reviewing range improvements and allotment management

plans on public lands, but BLM will retain its independent

decisionmaking role.” 

Section 5.4.12, page 5-74, left column, first full comment, second

sentence: Replace “basis” with “business.” 

Section 5.4.14, page 5-78, left column, first response, fourth and

fifth sentences: Delete these sentences and in their place insert —

“The final rule requires that monitoring data be used to identify

significant contributing factors and support determinations regarding

same only on those allotments that standards assessment indicates are

failing to meet standards or conform to guidelines. This will ensure 

that subsequent corrective action is focused on remedying the factors

that monitoring has verified are contributing to not achieving

standards or not conforming with applicable guidelines.” 

Section 5.4.14, page 5-78, right column, first full response, first

sentence: Delete this sentence and in its place insert — “Once a

standards assessment indicates that the rangeland is failing to achieve

standards or that management practices do not conform to guidelines,

the level of new monitoring, if any, needed to determine what are the

significant contributing factors in failing to achieve standards or

conform to guidelines will vary depending on such variables as how

obvious the causes are for not meeting standards, the quantity and

quality of existing relevant monitoring data, presence of threatened or

endangered species, conflicts between uses, and other criteria.” 

Section 5.4.14, page 5-79, right column, first response: Add the 

following sentences at the end of this response — “The final rule does

add a provision to section 4180.2(c) that limits the monitoring

requirement to those cases where a standards assessment indicates that

the rangeland is failing to achieve standards or that management

practices do not conform to guidelines. In such cases, we will use new

or existing monitoring data to identify and support a determination

regarding the significant factors that contribute to the failure to

achieve standards.” 

Section 5.4.14, page 5-79, right column, second response: Delete the 

first four sentences and in their place insert — “The final rule only

requires monitoring to determine causation in cases where assessment 

Page 7 of 12 – REVISIONS AND ERRATA - Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the

Public Lands - Bureau of Land Management - FES 04-39 
indicates that rangelands are failing to achieve the standards or

conform to the guidelines. For the most part, BLM has been focusing

its monitoring efforts on those allotments where there are concerns or

problems. We believe that this requirement is reasonable and necessary

to ensure that we have adequate data to formulate and analyze an

appropriate action where we find that existing grazing management

practices or levels of grazing use on public lands are significant

factors in failing to achieve the standards and conform with the

guidelines. Further, as we have stated, determinations that are

supported by monitoring will make for better, more defensible

decisions, especially when we need to change grazing practices on

allotments.” 

Section 5.4.14, page 5-80, left column, first full paragraph: Delete 

the second sentence and in its place insert — “While this requirement

may increase the on-going data collection workload in the grazing

program, we expect to continue to monitor in those areas we believe to

be at risk, in degraded condition, or in downward trend and in danger

of losing capability, within our funding allocation without needing

additional funding. Further, the change in the final rule limiting the

monitoring requirement to cases where standards assessments indicate

rangeland failure to achieve standards or management failure to conform

with guidelines should reduce the workload and budgetary effects of the

final rule.” 

Section 5.4.14, page 5-81, left column, first full response: Add the

following sentence to the end of this response — “When revising policy,

manuals, and other guidance, BLM reviews all available technical

materials, and will review the Catlin and Stevens articles before the

next revision.” 

Section 5.4.18, page 5-92, right column, first response: Delete the 

first paragraph of this response and in its place insert — “BLM has no

authority to give priority to buffalo ranchers when issuing grazing

permits or leases. The TGA requires that when issuing grazing permits,

the Secretary must give preference to landowners engaged in the

livestock business, bona fide occupants or settlers, or owners of water

or water rights, as may be necessary to permit the proper use of lands,

water, or water rights owned, occupied, or leased by them. (Grazing

permits authorize grazing use on lands within grazing districts

established under Section 1 of the Act.) The Act also requires that

when issuing grazing leases, the Secretary must give preference to

owners, homesteaders, lessees, or other lawful occupants of lands

contiguous to the public lands available for lease, to the extent

necessary to permit proper use of such contiguous lands, with certain

exceptions. (Grazing leases authorize grazing on public lands outside

grazing districts.) Therefore, under the TGA, the kind of animal an

applicant for a permit or lease wishes to graze on public lands has no

bearing on whether the applicant has or will be granted preference for

a grazing permit or lease. BLM may issue permits to graze privately

owned or controlled buffalo under the regulations that provide for

“Special Grazing Permits or Leases” for indigenous animals (section

4130.6-4), so long as the use is consistent with multiple use

objectives expressed in land use plans. 

Section 5.4.18, page 5-94, left column, third sentence: Replace

“FLMPA” with “FLPMA.” 

Page 8 of 12 – REVISIONS AND ERRATA - Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the

Public Lands - Bureau of Land Management - FES 04-39 
Section 5.4.20, page 5-100, left column, first response: Insert the

following after the second sentence — “BLM believes we have sufficient

guidance to consider the issue of so-called ‘grazing retirement,’ and

so does not need a regulatory provision to address this topic.” 

Section 5.4.20, page 5-100: In the left column, delete the last

paragraph (which continues in the upper right column)and replace with

the following - “While the later M-Opinion supersedes the 2001

Solicitor’s memorandum, it agrees that land use planning is an

appropriate process for considering retirement of grazing, and that

whenever the Secretary retires public lands from grazing, she must

determine that such lands are no longer ‘chiefly valuable for grazing

and raising forage crops,’ within the meaning of Section 1 of the TGA,

43 U.S.C. 315. In addition, the M-Opinion concludes that a decision to

cease livestock grazing is not permanent. See Memorandum to the 

Secretary from the Solicitor, M-37008 (October 4, 2002). The M-Opinion

was later clarified in a memorandum stating that whenever the Secretary

considers retiring grazing permits in a grazing district she must

determine whether such lands remain chiefly valuable for grazing if any

such retirement may ultimately result in the modification of the

district’s boundaries. See Memorandum to the Assistant Secretary for

Policy, Management and Budget, Assistant Secretary for Land and

Minerals Management, and the Director of BLM from the Solicitor (May

13, 2003).” 

Section 5.4.20, page 5-100, right column, first full paragraph: Delete

this paragraph. 

Section 5.4.21, page 5-103, right column, last sentence beginning with

“Ownership...” : Delete this sentence. 

Section 5.4.22, page 5-108: The response in the right column states

that the service charge for canceling and replacing, or supplementing a

grazing fee billing is $75. The charge for these services will be $50.

This response also implies that it is BLM standard practice to issue

annual grazing fee billings in March. This is not the case in all 

areas. It is BLM typical practice to issue grazing fee billings 30 days

before the first grazing begin date shown on the permit or lease. Also

typically, to ensure accurate billing, each year BLM provides the

grazing operator a “courtesy grazing application” approximately 60 days

before the first begin date shown on their permit or lease. This 

application lists the grazing use that will be authorized (upon their

timely payment of grazing fees) by the permit or lease that year and

invites application for changes in this use as may be needed or desired

by the operator. If the operator wishes to avoid the service charge,

this application must be returned before BLM issues the corresponding

grazing fee billing. Grazing begin dates can occur throughout the year. 

Section 5.4.22, page 5-110, left column, first full response: Delete 

the first two sentences of this response and in their place insert —

“The changes made provide consistent direction on what constitutes a

satisfactory record of performance.” 

Section 5.4.26, page 5-121, right column, first full sentence: Delete 

this sentence and in its place insert — “Terms and conditions of these 

Page 9 of 12 – REVISIONS AND ERRATA - Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the

Public Lands - Bureau of Land Management - FES 04-39 
permits and leases must ensure conformance with subpart 4180 of the

grazing regulations.” 

Section 5.4.28, page 5-127: There are two references to the “Bald 

Eagle Protection Act.” Change these to read “Bald and Golden Eagle

Protection Act.” 

Section 5.4.29, page 5-129, right column, second full paragraph: Delete

this paragraph and in its place insert — “These regulations at 50 CFR

make clear that a BA or BE is an intermediate step that BLM will take

in assessing its obligations under the ESA, and thus is not subject to

appeal. A BA or BE does not grant or deny a permit application, modify

a permit or lease, or assess trespass damages, which are examples of

BLM decisions that are subject to appeal.” 

Section 5.4.29, page 5-129, right column, last paragraph, sentence that

begins on page 5-129 and ends on page 5-130: Delete this sentence and 

in its place insert — “The rule at section 4160.1(d) prospectively

supersedes the decision of IBLA in Blake v. BLM, 145 IBLA 154 (1998),

aff’d, 156 IBLA 280 (2002), which held that the protest and appeal

provisions of 43 CFR subpart 4160 apply to a proposed change in a

permit or lease evaluated in a BA or BE.” 

Section 5.4.29, page 5-130, left column, first full paragraph: Delete

this paragraph and in its place insert — “As explained in the preamble

to the proposed rule at 68 FR 68464, a BA or BE is a tool that FWS and

NOAA Fisheries use to decide whether to initiate formal consultation 

under Section 7 of the ESA. Formal consultation results in a BO 

prepared by FWS. TGA Section 9 hearings are administered through OHA,

a body that has been delegated authority regarding public land use

decisions, but has not been delegated authority over FWS actions. See 

Secretarial Memorandum of January 8, 1993 (Secretary Lujan);

Secretarial Memorandum of April 20, 1993 (Secretary Babbitt). The ESA 

does not require or authorize the creation of an administrative appeal

procedure for biological opinions, and instead authorizes direct suit

in a Federal court. 16 U.S.C. 1540(g). Issuance of a BO is also a 

final agency action that can be challenged in Federal court under the

APA. Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 178 (1997). Thus, direct legal

remedies are already in place and OHA has not been delegated

administrative review authority over FWS BOs.” 

Section 5.4.29, page 5-130, left column, second full paragraph, first

sentence: Delete this sentence and in its place insert — “OHA can

review BLM grazing decisions that implement alternatives and conditions

described in a FWS BO, but that review is limited to the merits of the

BLM decision and can not extend to the validity of the BO findings or

the FWS procedures used to produce the opinion. This final rule does 

nothing to change this longstanding policy, which is summarized in

Secretary Lujan’s memorandum as follows:” 

Section 5.4.29, page 5-131, right column, first paragraph, last

sentence: Delete this sentence. 

Section 5.4.30, page 5-131, right column, third paragraph: Add the 

following sentences to the end of this paragraph – “BLM believes it is

important to actively manage the use of the rangelands and not

automatically halt grazing when a stay of a decision is issued. This 

Page 10 of 12 – REVISIONS AND ERRATA - Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the

Public Lands - Bureau of Land Management - FES 04-39 
approach recognizes the continuing nature of grazing operations that

are authorized through permits and leases as contemplated in Section

558(c) of the APA.” 

Section 5.4.30, page 5-132, right column, first paragraph, second

sentence: Delete this sentence and in its place insert — “With the

intention of simplifying these provisions, and improving administrative

efficiency, we are revising the regulations proposed at section

4160.4(b) to address the following kinds of BLM grazing decisions: 

• Those that cancel or suspend a permit or lease, those that renew

a permit or lease, and those that modify terms and conditions of

a permit or lease during its current term; and 

• Those that deny a permit or lease to a preference transferee, or

offer a preference transferee a permit or lease with terms and

conditions that differ from those in the previous permit or

lease.” 

Section 5.4.30, page 5-132, right column, second paragraph: After this 

paragraph, insert the following paragraph — “So, although the grazing

decision appealed is stayed, grazing can continue at the previous

levels of use. This ensures that the decision appealed is rendered

inoperative for exhaustion purposes under 5 U.S.C. 704 and the status

quo prior to issuance of the decision appealed remains in effect. In 

the instance of an appeal and stay preventing implementation of a new

grazing authorization, the fact that a permittee may still be

authorized to graze at some level is not a function of the stayed

decision being implemented. It is worth noting that the APA provides at

5 U.S.C. 558(c) that existing authorizations remain in effect until an

agency makes a final decision on a new authorization. It is worth

noting that the APA provides at 5 U.S.C. 558(c) that existing

authorizations remain in effect until an agency makes a final decision

on a new authorization. BLM is making these changes to balance the

exhaustion of administrative remedies under the APA and our 

responsibilities under FLPMA and TGA to 

• manage lands for multiple use and sustained yield 

• regulate the occupancy and use of the rangelands, 

• safeguard grazing privileges, 

• preserve the public rangelands from destruction or

unnecessary injury and provide for the orderly use,

improvement, and development of the range. 

Section 5.4.30, page 5-132, right column, last paragraph, first

sentence: Replace the word “proposed” with “final.” 

Section 5.4.30, page 5-134, right column, first response: Add the 

following sentence at the end of this response — “For further

discussion of administrative exhaustion and judicial review, see the

proposed rule at 68 FR 68465.” 

Appendix A 

Paragraph 4120.3-2(b), pages A-20 and A-68 indicates that a date should

be inserted in this paragraph that is “60 days” after the final rule is

published in the Federal Register. Change this to read “30 days” after

the final rule is published in the Federal Register. 

Page 11 of 12 – REVISIONS AND ERRATA - Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the

Public Lands - Bureau of Land Management - FES 04-39 
Paragraph 4130.1-2(d), pages A-25 and A-73: This paragraph was not

changed as shown on these pages. This paragraph continues to read —

“(d) Public ingress or egress across privately owned or controlled land

to public land.” 

Paragraph 4130.2(f), pages A-26 and A-74: Delete the word “the” before 

“BLM.” 

Paragraph 4130.8-3 (a), pages A-35 and A-83: Capitalize the word

“section” to be “Section.” 

Paragraph 4140.1(c)(3)(ii), pages A-38 and A-85: Change the word

“stray” to “straying.” 

Paragraph 4140.1(c)(2)(v), pages A-38 and A-85: Add a comma after 

both instances of the word “destruction.” 

Paragraph 4180.2(c)(1), pages A-46 and A-93: Add the following

sentence at the beginning of this paragraph: “If a standards assessment

indicates to the authorized officer that the rangeland is failing to

achieve standards or that management practices do not conform to the

guidelines, then monitoring will be used by the authorized officer to

identify the significant factors that contribute to failing to achieve

the standards or to conform with the guidelines.” 

References 

Page R-15: The title to BLM Technical Note 417 is not correct. The 

actual title for Technical Note 417 is “Assessing Big Sagebrush at

Multiple Spatial Scales: An Example in Southeast Oregon.” 

Page 12 of 12 – REVISIONS AND ERRATA - Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the

Public Lands - Bureau of Land Management - FES 04-39