19–006 

112TH CONGRESS REPT. 112–533 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session Part 1 

GRAZING IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2012 

JUNE 15, 2012.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Natural 

Resources, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 4234] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 4234) to amend the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 to improve the management of grazing leases and 

permits, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that 

the bill as amended do pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Grazing Improvement Act of 2012’’. 

SEC. 2. TERMS OF GRAZING PERMITS AND LEASES. 

Section 402 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 

1752) is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘ten years’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘20 years’’; and 

(2) in subsection (b)— 

(A) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of each of paragraphs (1) and (2); 

(B) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘‘; 

or’’; and 

(C) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(4) the initial environmental analysis under National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) regarding a grazing allotment, permit, or 

lease has not been completed.’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

SEC. 3. RENEWAL, TRANSFER, AND REISSUANCE OF GRAZING PERMITS AND LEASES. 

(a) AMENDMENT.—Title IV of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 

1976 (43 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘SEC. 405. RENEWAL, TRANSFER, AND REISSUANCE OF GRAZING PERMITS AND LEASES. 

‘‘(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

‘‘(1) CURRENT GRAZING MANAGEMENT.—The term ‘current grazing management’ means grazing in accordance with the terms and conditions of an existing 

permit or lease and includes any modifications that are consistent with an applicable Department of Interior resource management plan or Department of 

Agriculture land use plan. 

‘‘(2) SECRETARY CONCERNED.—The term ‘Secretary concerned’ means— 

‘‘(A) the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to National Forest System 

land; and 

‘‘(B) the Secretary of the Interior, with respect to land under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior. 

‘‘(b) RENEWAL, TRANSFER, REISSUANCE, AND PENDING PROCESSING.—A grazing 

permit or lease issued by the Secretary of the Interior, or a grazing permit issued 

by the Secretary of Agriculture regarding National Forest System land, that expires, 

is transferred, or is waived shall be renewed or reissued under, as appropriate— 

‘‘(1) section 402; 

‘‘(2) section 19 of the Act of April 24, 1950 (commonly known as the ‘GrangerThye Act’; 16 U.S.C. 580l); 

‘‘(3) title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C. 1010 et seq.); 

or 

‘‘(4) section 510 the California Desert Protection Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 

410aaa–50). 

‘‘(c) TERMS; CONDITIONS.—The terms and conditions (except the termination date) 

contained in an expired, transferred, or waived permit or lease described in subsection (b) shall continue in effect under a renewed or reissued permit or lease until 

the date on which the Secretary concerned completes the processing of the renewed 

or reissued permit or lease that is the subject of the expired, transferred, or waived 

permit or lease, in compliance with each applicable law. 

‘‘(d) CANCELLATION; SUSPENSION; MODIFICATION.—Notwithstanding subsection (c), 

a permit or lease described in subsection (b) may be cancelled, suspended, or modified in accordance with applicable law. 

‘‘(e) RENEWAL TRANSFER REISSUANCE AFTER PROCESSING.—When the Secretary 

concerned has completed the processing of the renewed or reissued permit or lease 

that is the subject of the expired, transferred, or waived permit or lease, the Secretary concerned may renew or reissue the permit or lease for a term of 20 years 

after completion of processing. 

‘‘(f) COMPLIANCE WITH NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969.—The renewal, reissuance, or transfer of a grazing permit or lease by the Secretary concerned may, at their sole discretion, be categorically excluded from the requirement 

to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement if— 

‘‘(1) the decision continues to renew, reissue, or transfer the current grazing 

management of the allotment; 

‘‘(2) monitoring of the allotment has indicated that the current grazing management has met, or has satisfactorily progressed towards meeting, objectives 

contained in the land use and resource management plan of the allotment, as 

determined by the Secretary concerned; or 

‘‘(3) the decision is consistent with the policy of the Department of the Interior or the Department of Agriculture, as appropriate, regarding extraordinary 

circumstances. 

‘‘(g) PRIORITY AND TIMING FOR COMPLETING ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES.—The Secretary concerned, in the sole discretion of the Secretary concerned, shall determine 

the priority and timing for completing each required environmental analysis regarding any grazing allotment, permit, or lease based on the environmental significance 

of the allotment, permit, or lease and available funding for that purpose. 

‘‘(h) NEPA EXEMPTIONS.—The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) shall not apply to the following: 

‘‘(1) Crossing and trailing authorizations of domestic livestock. 

‘‘(2) Transfer of grazing preference.’’. 

(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 is amended by adding after the item for section 404, the 

following: 

‘‘Sec. 405. Renewal, transfer, and reissuance of grazing permits and leases.’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 4234, as ordered reported, is to amend the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 to improve the 

management of grazing leases and permits. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Livestock grazing represents one of the earliest uses of federallymanaged lands and continues to represent a multiple use that is 

essential to the livestock industry, wildlife habitat, open space and 

the rural economies of many western communities. While grazing 

has historically been viewed as a ‘‘use’’ of the public lands, it has 

also come to be recognized as an important ‘‘tool’’ for the management of these lands. 

Approximately 40 percent of beef cattle in the West and half of 

the nation’s sheep spend some time on federal lands. Without public land grazing, grazing use of significant portions of state and private lands would necessarily cease, and the cattle and sheep industries would be dramatically downsized, threatening infrastructure 

and the entire market structure. Livestock grazing permit holders 

and public land agencies have been relying on appropriation bill 

riders language for over a decade. Agencies cannot complete the 

needed National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) obligations 

due to the backlog of lawsuits filed to delay permitting and to advance an environmental agenda of eliminating livestock grazing 

from public lands. 

Like the appropriations riders, H.R. 4234 allows for the utilization and issuance of permits and leases once they have expired 

until the necessary environmental analyses can be completed. The 

Grazing Improvement Act of 2012 is an essential step in restoring 

a stable business environment to the public lands grazing industry 

and retaining an important land management tool for the healthy 

stewardship of our nation’s public lands, wildlife habitat and rural 

economies in the West. 

During Full Committee consideration of the bill, the Committee 

adopted an amendment offered by Congressman Rob Bishop 

(R–UT) to make technical, conforming and a few substantive 

changes to the base bill. The amendment included several elements 

of compromise from input by the federal land management agencies. It includes a definition for ‘‘current grazing management’’ and 

allows for more agency discretion by changing ‘‘shall’’ to ‘‘may’’ in 

the issuance of permits and categorical exclusions. Instead of requiring agencies to do it, the amendment gives the agencies the option of categorically excluding from NEPA grazing permits that 

have expired but remain under management that is consistent with 

the current land management plans. To further address Administration concerns, the amendment strikes a section of the bill that 

would have applied the Administrative Procedure Act’s adjudication procedures to permittee or lessee appeals. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 4234 was introduced on March 21, 2012, by Congressman 

Raul Labrador (R–ID). The bill was referred primarily to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on 

Agriculture. Within the Committee on Natural Resources, the bill 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

was referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and 

Public Lands. On March 29, 2012, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On June 7, 2012, the Full Natural Resources Committee met to consider the bill. The Subcommittee on National 

Parks, Forests and Public Lands was discharged by unanimous 

consent. Congressman Rob Bishop (R–UT) offered amendment designated .010; the amendment was adopted by voice vote. Congressman Edward Markey offered amendment designated .121 to the 

bill; the amendment was not adopted by bipartisan a record vote 

of 18–24, as follows: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 5 here HR533P1.001
6 

The bill, as amended, was then adopted and ordered favorably 

reported to the House of Representatives by a bipartisan roll call 

vote of 27–15, as follows: 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 6 here HR533P1.002
8 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on 

Natural Resources’ oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this report. 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII 

1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of 

the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that rule provides 

that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Under clause 

3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 

section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for this bill from the 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

H.R. 4234—Grazing Improvement Act of 2012 

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 4234 would affect offsetting 

receipts (a credit against direct spending); therefore, pay-as-you-go 

procedures apply. However, CB0 estimates that any such effects 

would be minimal over the 2013–2022 period. We also estimate 

that implementing the legislation would have no significant impact 

on discretionary spending. Enacting H.R. 4234 would not affect revenues. 

H.R. 4234 would allow expired and transferred grazing permits 

to remain in effect until new permits are issued by the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) or the Forest Service. Based on information provided by the affected agencies, CBO estimates that enacting that provision would have a minimal impact on offsetting receipts each year because those agencies have the authority, under 

current law, to extend expired leases. The bill would allow BLM to 

collect offsetting receipts from transferred leases sooner than it 

would under current law; however, because the number of permits 

that would be affected each year account for less than 5 percent of 

all federal grazing permits, the budgetary impact would be minimal. In 2011, gross federal collections from grazing permits totaled 

about $20 million. 

The bill also would allow transferred permits to remain in effect 

under the terms of the original permit until that permit expires. 

Based on information provided by BLM, CBO expects that, under 

that provision, the agency would receive fewer requests for new 

permits in the short term; however, because those permits would 

need to be renewed in later years, CBO estimates that implementing the provision would have no significant net effect on agencies’ workloads over the 2013–2017 period. The bill would exclude 

certain grazing lands from compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and would give agencies that administer 

grazing permits the authority to exempt new permits from NEPA 

requirements. CBO estimates that those provisions would have a 

minimal effect on discretionary spending because we expect that 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
9 

any reduction in spending on NEPA activities on those lands would 

be offset by spending to reduce the agencies’ backlog of NEPA activities on other federal grazing lands. 

H.R. 4234 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would 

not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jeff LaFave. The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

2. Section 308(a) of Congressional Budget Act. As required by 

clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 

this bill does not contain any new budget authority, spending authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or 

tax expenditures. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 4234 would affect offsetting receipts (a credit against direct spending); therefore, 

pay-as-you-go procedures apply. However, CBO estimates that any 

such effects would be minimal over the 2013–2022 period. CBO 

also estimates that implementing the legislation would have no significant impact on discretionary spending. 

3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 

clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or objective 

of this bill, as ordered reported, is to amend the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 to improve the management of 

grazing leases and permits. 

EARMARK STATEMENT

This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined under clause 9(e), 

9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the rules of the House of Representatives. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4 

This bill contains no unfunded mandates. 

PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or tribal law. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

FEDERAL LAND POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT OF 

1976 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE IV—RANGE MANAGEMENT 

* * * * * * * 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
10 

GRAZING LEASES AND PERMITS

SEC. 402. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, 

permits and leases for domestic livestock grazing on public lands 

issued by the Secretary under the Act of June 28, 1934 (48 Stat. 

1269, as amended; 43 U.S.C. 315 et. seq.) or the Act of August 28, 

1937 (50 Stat. 874, as amended; 43 U.S.C. 1181a–1181j), or by the 

Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to lands within National Forests in the sixteen contiguous Western States, shall be for a term 

of øten years¿ 20 years subject to such terms and conditions the 

Secretary concerned deems appropriate and consistent with the 

governing law, including, but not limited to, the authority of the 

Secretary concerned to cancel, suspend, or modify a grazing permit 

or lease, in whole or in part, pursuant to the terms and conditions 

thereof, or to cancel or suspend a grazing permit or lease for any 

violation of a grazing regulation or of any term or condition of such 

grazing permit or lease. 

(b) Permits or leases may be issued by the Secretary concerned 

for a period shorter than øten years¿ 20 years where the Secretary 

concerned determines that— 

(1) the land is pending disposal; øor¿ 

(2) the land will be devoted to a public purpose prior to the 

end of øten years¿ 20 years; øor¿ 

(3) it will be in the best interest of sound land management 

to specify a shorter term: Provided, That the absence from an 

allotment management plan of details the Secretary concerned 

would like to include but which are undeveloped shall not be 

the basis for establishing a term shorter than øten years¿ 20 

years: Provided further, That the absence of completed land use 

plans or court ordered environmental statements shall not be 

the sole basis for establishing a term shorter than øten years¿ 

20 years unless the Secretary determines on a case-by-case 

basis that the information to be contained in such land use 

plan or court ordered environmental impact statement is necessary to determine whether a shorter term should be established for any of the reasons set forth in items (1) through (3) 

of this subsectionø.¿; or 

(4) the initial environmental analysis under National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) regarding 

a grazing allotment, permit, or lease has not been completed. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 405. RENEWAL, TRANSFER, AND REISSUANCE OF GRAZING PERMITS AND LEASES. 

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

(1) CURRENT GRAZING MANAGEMENT.—The term ‘‘current 

grazing management’’ means grazing in accordance with the 

terms and conditions of an existing permit or lease and includes any modifications that are consistent with an applicable 

Department of Interior resource management plan or Department of Agriculture land use plan. 

(2) SECRETARY CONCERNED.—The term ‘‘Secretary concerned’’ 

means— 

(A) the Secretary of Agriculture, with respect to National 

Forest System land; and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
11 

(B) the Secretary of the Interior, with respect to land 

under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior. 

(b) RENEWAL, TRANSFER, REISSUANCE, AND PENDING PROCESSING.—A grazing permit or lease issued by the Secretary of the 

Interior, or a grazing permit issued by the Secretary of Agriculture 

regarding National Forest System land, that expires, is transferred, 

or is waived shall be renewed or reissued under, as appropriate— 

(1) section 402; 

(2) section 19 of the Act of April 24, 1950 (commonly known 

as the ‘‘Granger-Thye Act’’; 16 U.S.C. 580l); 

(3) title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C. 

1010 et seq.); or 

(4) section 510 the California Desert Protection Act of 1994 

(16 U.S.C. 410aaa–50). 

(c) TERMS; CONDITIONS.—The terms and conditions (except the 

termination date) contained in an expired, transferred, or waived 

permit or lease described in subsection (b) shall continue in effect 

under a renewed or reissued permit or lease until the date on which 

the Secretary concerned completes the processing of the renewed or 

reissued permit or lease that is the subject of the expired, transferred, or waived permit or lease, in compliance with each applicable law. 

(d) CANCELLATION; SUSPENSION; MODIFICATION.—Notwithstanding subsection (c), a permit or lease described in subsection (b) 

may be cancelled, suspended, or modified in accordance with applicable law. 

(e) RENEWAL TRANSFER REISSUANCE AFTER PROCESSING.—When 

the Secretary concerned has completed the processing of the renewed 

or reissued permit or lease that is the subject of the expired, transferred, or waived permit or lease, the Secretary concerned may 

renew or reissue the permit or lease for a term of 20 years after completion of processing. 

(f) COMPLIANCE WITH NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF

1969.—The renewal, reissuance, or transfer of a grazing permit or 

lease by the Secretary concerned may, at their sole discretion, be categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement if— 

(1) the decision continues to renew, reissue, or transfer the 

current grazing management of the allotment; 

(2) monitoring of the allotment has indicated that the current 

grazing management has met, or has satisfactorily progressed 

towards meeting, objectives contained in the land use and resource management plan of the allotment, as determined by the 

Secretary concerned; or 

(3) the decision is consistent with the policy of the Department of the Interior or the Department of Agriculture, as appropriate, regarding extraordinary circumstances. 

(g) PRIORITY AND TIMING FOR COMPLETING ENVIRONMENTAL

ANALYSES.—The Secretary concerned, in the sole discretion of the 

Secretary concerned, shall determine the priority and timing for 

completing each required environmental analysis regarding any 

grazing allotment, permit, or lease based on the environmental significance of the allotment, permit, or lease and available funding for 

that purpose. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
12 

(h) NEPA EXEMPTIONS.—The National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) shall not apply to the following: 

(1) Crossing and trailing authorizations of domestic livestock. 

(2) Transfer of grazing preference. 

* * * * * * * 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(13) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

H.R. 4234 seeks to make wholesale changes to public land grazing law without addressing the cost of grazing to the American taxpayers. As reported from the Committee, the legislation makes two 

major changes in federal grazing policy. First, the legislation doubles the term of grazing permits from ten years to twenty years. 

Second, H.R. 4234 provides sweeping exemptions from environmental review of new and renewed grazing permits. 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is responsible for managing over 18,000 grazing permits on over 160 million acres of public lands in the West. The Forest Service manages over 7000 permits for over 94 million acres of gazing lands. In 1999 the BLM experienced a spike in grazing permit renewals which they were unable to process before the permits expired. This backlog has continued today, with more than 4,200 permits pending review. For more 

than ten years, Congress has included language in annual spending bills providing BLM with the ability to renew expiring grazing 

permits under existing terms and conditions even if the environmental analysis work is not complete. Typically, grazing permit renewals require an environmental analysis through the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process to ensure that livestock 

is not negatively impacting forests, grasslands, and streams. 

No one denies the need to address the permit renewal backlog. 

However, H.R. 4234 goes well beyond dealing with the backlog and 

instead rubber stamps all gazing permits without a meaningful 

analysis of the impact to our forests, grasslands, and waters. The 

bill makes no meaningful reforms to the fee structure and cost of 

grazing to the U.S. taxpayer. Currently, public land grazers pay 

$1.35 per month to graze a cow and calf, a horse, or five sheep or 

goats. This is less than $15 per year, the average cost of one large 

bag of dog food. Meanwhile, states are charging upwards of $12 per 

month which totals nearly $150 per year. The GAO and others 

have estimated that the below-market gazing fee costs the United 

States taxpayer more than $100 million a year. 

During Committee consideration of the legislation, Ranking 

Member Markey offered an amendment to address the grazing fee 

issue. The Markey amendment reflected the Obama Administration’s Fiscal Year 2013 proposal to create a pilot program that 

would charge a mere $1 dollar administrative fee for each grazing 

permit. This modest administrative fee would generate $6.5 million 

a year. While rejected by the Committee, the amendment did receive bipartisan support. 

H.R. 4234 goes too far in making fundamental changes in gazing 

practices and falls short of address the cost of grazing to the America taxpayer. It should be rejected. 

EDWARD J. MARKEY. 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
14 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 17 here HR533P1.003
15 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 18 here HR533P1.004