Unauthorized Grazing: Actions Needed to Improve Tracking and Deterrence Efforts
Published: 2016-07-07T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: BLM, within the Department of the Interior, and the U.S. Forest Service, within the Department of Agriculture, are responsible for managing most of the nation's public rangelands. Ranchers must obtain permits or leases from the agencies to graze livestock on federal lands. Unauthorized grazing may take various forms, such as grazing more livestock than permitted or grazing without a permit.
GAO was asked to examine unauthorized grazing. This report (1) describes what is known about the frequency and extent of unauthorized grazing, and its effects, and (2) examines the agencies' efforts to detect, deter, and resolve unauthorized grazing. GAO analyzed 5 years of the most recent data available on incidents where the agencies had taken formal action on unauthorized grazing (grazing years 2010 through 2014); examined federal laws and agency regulations, policies, and practices; and interviewed by telephone or site visit officials in a nongeneralizable sample of 22 agency field offices in eight western states where most unauthorized grazing had occurred.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The frequency and extent of unauthorized grazing on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service lands are largely unknown because according to agency officials, the agencies prefer to handle most incidents informally (e.g., with a telephone call) and do not record them. The agencies' databases contained information on nearly 1,500 incidents of unauthorized grazing where formal action was taken by the agencies' range program or law enforcement staff for grazing years 2010 through 2014 (March 1 to February 28). Unauthorized grazing incidents were recorded in the agencies' databases when the agencies billed a penalty for unauthorized grazing or prepared a law enforcement report. However, agency staff told GAO that they handle most incidents informally—their preferred practice—and do not record them in databases or consistently in paper files, because, in part, they do not consider it a priority. As a result, the agencies have incomplete information on the extent of unauthorized grazing. Federal internal control standards call for clear documentation of all transactions and other significant events. Until the agencies require that all incidents of unauthorized grazing be recorded, including those incidents resolved informally, BLM and the Forest Service will not have a complete record of unauthorized grazing incidents with which to identify any potential pattern of violations.
GAO found that the agencies' preferred practice of informally resolving unauthorized grazing is not provided for under agency regulations. Specifically, the regulations do not provide the flexibility to resolve incidents informally without a written notice of violation (in the case of BLM) and without charging unauthorized grazing penalties (in the case of the Forest Service). Most agency staff told GAO that informal resolution is the most effective way to resolve non-willful unauthorized grazing (e.g., when livestock stray outside of their permitted area and graze in an unauthorized area). As discussed in federal internal control standards, program operations are effective and efficient in achieving agency objectives when they produce the intended results and minimize the waste of resources. By amending regulations to establish a procedure for the informal resolution of minor infractions, the agencies could achieve the objective of efficiently resolving such incidents with minimal conflict within its regulatory authority. Alternatively, rather than amending their existing regulations to match their practices, the agencies' could change their practices to comply with their existing regulations. In addition, BLM and the Forest Service undertake similar efforts to detect and deter unauthorized grazing, such as conducting compliance inspections and assessing penalties for unauthorized grazing, but agency staff said that such efforts have limited effectiveness. For example, most of the Forest Service staff GAO interviewed said that unauthorized grazing penalties are too low to act as an effective deterrent. Under current policy, the Forest Services' unauthorized grazing penalty formula calculated a negative number or a number less than the permitted grazing fee for grazing years 2009 through 2012. By adopting an unauthorized grazing penalty structure that is, like BLM's, based on the current price of private forage, the Forest Service's unauthorized grazing penalty can better serve as a deterrent to such grazing.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO is making six recommendations, including that the agencies take actions to record all incidents of unauthorized grazing, that they amend regulations to reflect their practices for resolving such incidents or comply with their regulations, and that the Forest Service revise its unauthorized grazing penalty structure. The agencies generally agreed with GAO's findings and recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Since the early 1900s, the federal government has required ranchers to  pay a fee for grazing their livestock on millions of acres of federal land,  primarily in western states. These ranchers must obtain permits or leases  from the responsible federal agencies to graze livestock on federal lands,  and must comply with the conditions of these permits or leases, such as  grazing their livestock in the permitted numbers and locations, to help  protect and preserve the range for multiple uses, such as sustainable  grazing. Unauthorized grazing may take several forms, such as grazing  during unauthorized times of the year, grazing more livestock than  allowed by permit, or grazing outside of permitted areas or in areas  closed to livestock. Such unauthorized grazing may be unintentional,  such as when livestock stray outside of their permitted area through a  broken fence and graze in an unauthorized area. In some cases  unauthorized grazing is intentional, such as when ranchers purposely  overstay their permitted grazing period or ranchers without permits  purposely allow their livestock onto federal lands. Several recent high- profile incidents of intentional unauthorized grazing, including  confrontations between ranchers and federal officials, have drawn  attention to the extent and effects of unauthorized grazing.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), within the Department of the  Interior, and the U.S. Forest Service, within the Department of Agriculture,  are responsible for managing most of the nation’s public rangelands.  Under the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 for BLM and, among other statutes,  the Organic Act of 1897 for the Forest Service, livestock grazing became  a regulated activity. Both agencies administer grazing programs that  allow ranchers to obtain permits, leases, or other permissions to graze  their livestock on federal lands. BLM has the larger grazing program,  administering about 17,600 grazing permits on 153 million acres in  grazing year 2015; the Forest Service administered about 6,200 grazing  permits on 102 million acres in grazing year 2015. As the administrators  of their grazing programs, the agencies are responsible for detecting and  deterring unauthorized grazing. In response to unauthorized grazing, the  agencies’ staff may impose penalties against permittees and modify or  cancel grazing permits. In addition, the agencies’ law enforcement  officers may cite permittees or nonpermittees for violations that subject  them to criminal penalties for unauthorized grazing.
In December 1990, we reported on BLM’s efforts to detect and deter  unauthorized livestock grazing on public rangelands. We found that  because many grazing areas were inspected infrequently or not at all  during the year, offenders were not likely to be detected. When offenders  were detected, BLM frequently exacted no penalties and, for the more  serious violations, seldom assessed the minimum penalties its own  regulations required. As a result, unauthorized grazing was not  adequately deterred, which could lead to degradation of public  rangelands, among other things. In our December 1990 report, we made  five recommendations to improve BLM’s ability to prevent unauthorized  grazing. BLM agreed with the recommendations and implemented one of  the five. The agency took steps toward implementing some of the others,  but did not fully implement the remaining four recommendations.
You asked us to update our December 1990 report and review BLM’s and  the Forest Service’s efforts to address unauthorized grazing. This report  (1) describes what is known about the frequency and extent of  unauthorized grazing, and its effects, and (2) examines the agencies’  efforts to detect, deter, and resolve unauthorized grazing.
To describe what is known about the frequency and extent of  unauthorized grazing, we analyzed the agencies’ unauthorized grazing  data, and to describe the effects of such grazing, we reviewed  documentation, interviewed agency officials and stakeholder group  representatives, and conducted site visits at agency field office locations.  Specifically, we collected data from BLM’s and the Forest Service’s range  management, financial, and law enforcement databases on the frequency  and extent of unauthorized grazing for grazing years 2010 through 2014,  the most recent and complete data available at the time of our review.  We assessed the data provided by the agencies based on our review of  database system documentation and discussions with agency database  stewards and found the data to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes.  We conducted in-person or telephone interviews with staff at 22 of the  218 agency field office locations in eight western states: California,  Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. We  selected the 22 offices (13 BLM and 9 Forest Service offices) from among  the agency field offices that had the highest numbers of unauthorized  grazing incidents or that had been recommended by stakeholders. Of the  22 offices, we conducted site visits at 6 offices in Nevada and Wyoming  to interview agency range management and law enforcement staff about  the agencies’ policies and practices for addressing unauthorized grazing,  as well as to review paper case files and observe the effects of  unauthorized grazing on federal lands. We conducted telephone  interviews with staff in the remaining 16 of the 22 BLM and Forest Service  field offices. Our interview results are not generalizable to all agency field  office locations and grazing lands and instead are illustrative cases of the  office locations reporting the highest number of unauthorized grazing  incidents. We also interviewed representatives from 11 stakeholder  groups, selected based on their interest in grazing issues.
To examine the agencies’ efforts to detect, deter, and resolve  unauthorized grazing, we analyzed federal laws to identify agency  requirements for addressing unauthorized grazing, as well as the  agencies’ regulations, policies, and practices. We qualitatively analyzed  information obtained in agency and stakeholder interviews for common  themes and patterns to describe how the agencies address unauthorized  grazing and the effectiveness of their efforts. We compared the agencies’  policies to their practices in the field, compared the policies’ objectives  with their outcomes, and assessed the internal controls for the policies  and practices. See appendix I for a more detailed description of our  objectives, scope, and methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2015 to July 2016 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The federal government manages about 640 million acres of land in the  United States, including lands in national forests, grasslands, parks,  refuges, reservoirs, and military bases and installations. Of the total  federal lands, BLM and the Forest Service manage about 450 million  acres for multiple uses, including grazing, timber harvest, recreation,  minerals, water supply and quality, and wildlife habitat. BLM’s 12 state  offices manage nearly 250 million acres in 12 western states, and the  Forest Service’s 9 regional offices manage more than 190 million acres  across the nation (see figs. 1 and 2). The majority of federal lands are  located in the western half of the country.
The federal government has managed grazing on federal lands for more  than 100 years. Following the passage of the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934,  the Department of the Interior created the Division of Grazing, later  renamed the Grazing Service, to administer provisions of the act.  Subsequently, the Grazing Service was merged with the General Land  Office to form BLM. The act was passed to stop degradation of public  lands caused by overgrazing and soil deterioration; to provide for the  orderly use, improvement, and development of public lands; and other  purposes. The act also provided for the issuance of permits and leases  for these lands and set requirements for the distribution of funds received  from grazing. The Forest Service managed grazing under its general  authorities until 1950, when Congress enacted the Granger-Thye Act,  specifically authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to issue grazing  permits on national forest lands and other lands under the department’s  administration. Additional laws affecting grazing on both BLM and  western Forest Service lands were enacted in the 1970s.
BLM’s and the Forest Service’s range grazing programs administer  livestock grazing for permittees. Agency law enforcement assists when  necessary—primarily to address grazing violations by nonpermittees that  cannot be handled administratively. To provide access to grazing, the  agencies divide their rangelands into allotments, which can vary in size  from a few acres to hundreds of thousands of acres. Because of the land  ownership patterns that occurred when the lands were settled, the  allotments can be adjacent to private lands or intermingled with private  lands. Under its authorities, BLM issues permits for grazing in allotments  within its grazing districts and leases for grazing on BLM-administered  lands outside grazing districts. To be eligible for a permit or lease on one  of BLM’s allotments, ranchers, among other things, are required to own or  control land or water, called a base property, to which preference for  obtaining a permit or lease is attached. The Forest Service, which does  not have grazing districts, uses permits to authorize grazing in its  allotments. To be eligible for a permit under Forest Service policy,  ranchers, among other things, must own base property and the livestock  to be permitted. The agencies’ permits and leases specify the number  and type of livestock allowed on the allotments, the time and duration of  use for grazing, and special conditions or use restrictions. Agency field  office staff conduct compliance inspections to help ensure that permittees  are meeting the terms and conditions of their permits or leases. The  agencies may modify permits or leases if range conditions are being  degraded or suspend or cancel them if permit conditions are violated.
With a few minor exceptions, permittees pay a grazing fee for the use of  the federal land. The grazing fee BLM and the Forest Service charge in  western states is based on a formula that was originally established by  law to prevent economic disruption and harm to the western livestock  industry, among other things. The formula expired after 7 years but  was extended indefinitely by Executive Order 12,548 and has been  incorporated into the agencies’ regulations. The fee derived from the  formula is generally lower than the fees charged by other agencies,  states, and private ranchers. In grazing year 2016, BLM charged ranchers  $2.11 per animal unit month for horses/cattle and $0.42 for sheep and  goats; the Forest Service charged the same rates per head month.  According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service, based on the  average private grazing land lease rate per animal unit month, the  commercial value of forage in western states ranged from $9 to $39 in  grazing year 2016. As we found in September 2005, the total grazing fees  generated by federal agencies amounted to less than one-sixth of the  agencies’ expenditures to manage grazing in 2004. We found that BLM  and the Forest Service use most of the grazing fee receipts for range  protection and improvements and deposit some receipts to the  Department of the Treasury’s general fund, with some receipts distributed  to states and counties. See appendix II for additional information on  grazing, permits, and fees for BLM and the Forest Service.
Unauthorized grazing includes instances in which livestock owners graze  on BLM or Forest Service allotments without a permit or lease, as well as  instances in which those with permits or leases violate the terms and  conditions of those documents, such as by grazing more livestock than  allowed by permit, grazing in areas that are closed to livestock, or grazing  during unauthorized times of the year. It may be unintentional (non-willful)  on the part of the livestock owner, such as when livestock stray through  an unlatched gate into an area where they are not permitted to graze, or  it may be intentional (willful or repeated willful) such as when a livestock  owner purposefully grazes livestock in a manner that is not allowed by a  permit or grazes livestock without obtaining a permit once or multiple  times.
Under their applicable regulations, BLM and the Forest Service may  address unauthorized grazing by charging permittees penalties for  unauthorized grazing; revising their permits; impounding livestock; or  taking action that could lead to criminal penalties, most commonly for  nonpermittees, as follows:
BLM’s grazing regulations establish three levels of unauthorized  grazing—non-willful, willful, and repeated willful—with progressively  higher penalties for each level. The regulations require that BLM  send out a written notice for every potential unauthorized grazing  incident. Under certain circumstances, BLM can approve a  nonmonetary settlement for non-willful unauthorized grazing. For  willful and repeated willful incidents, in addition to the monetary  penalties—the value of the forage consumed—the regulations specify  that the offender shall be charged for any damages to the land and  reasonable agency expenses incurred to resolve the violation, and  BLM shall suspend or cancel all or portions of the grazing permit for  repeated willful incidents. BLM may impound and dispose of livestock  if the owner is unknown or the permittee fails to remove the livestock  when ordered. BLM also has the authority to cite permittees and  nonpermittees for grazing violations that subject them to criminal  penalties.
The Forest Service’s grazing regulations require the agency, except  in certain circumstances, to determine a grazing use rate for  unauthorized grazing. The regulations define unauthorized grazing  as (1) livestock not authorized by permit to graze upon the land, (2) an  excess number of livestock grazed by permittees, or (3) permitted  livestock grazed outside the permitted grazing season or allotment.  Under the regulations, the Forest Service can cancel or suspend a  permit if the permittee does not comply with provisions and  requirements in the grazing permit or applicable regulations. The  agency can impound and dispose of unauthorized livestock or  livestock in excess of those authorized by a grazing permit if they are  not removed from the area within the periods prescribed by regulation.  The Forest Service also has the authority to cite permittees and  nonpermittees for grazing violations that subject them to criminal  penalties.
In our December 1990 report on unauthorized grazing on BLM lands, we  found that BLM had no systematic method for detecting unauthorized  grazing, and when offenses were detected, penalties were rarely  assessed. We made five recommendations to improve the effectiveness  of the BLM’S unauthorized grazing detection and deterrence efforts:
Develop an unauthorized grazing detection strategy that will  (1) establish detection as a workload measure and a reportable  accomplishment for which managers are held accountable, (2) use  visits to randomly selected allotments to provide systematic  compliance coverage, and (3) target additional follow-up visits for  those livestock operators who have a history of repeated violations.
Either (1) ensure that penalties are assessed for all non-willful  unauthorized grazing violations as provided for in BLM regulations or  (2) amend BLM regulations to establish a procedure for the informal  resolution of non-willful unauthorized grazing violations at the local  level.
Require that all unauthorized grazing incidents—including those now  handled informally—be documented and made part of the permanent  unauthorized grazing file.
Ensure that field staff impose the penalties required under BLM  regulations for willful and repeated willful unauthorized grazing.
Develop a management information system to provide timely, reliable,  and adequate information on such things as (1) the number of  compliance visits conducted, (2) the number and level of violations  identified, and (3) how each violation is resolved, including those  resolved informally.
BLM agreed with the recommendations and implemented one of the five  by developing an unauthorized grazing detection strategy. The agency  took steps toward implementing some of the others, but did not fully  implement the remaining four recommendations.
section_title: The Frequency and Extent of Unauthorized Grazing on Agency Lands Are Largely Unknown, and Its Effects May Include Rangeland Degradation
paragraphs: The frequency and extent of unauthorized grazing on BLM and Forest  Service lands are largely unknown because according to agency officials  the agencies prefer to handle most incidents informally and do not record  them. The agencies’ databases contained information on nearly  1,500 incidents of unauthorized grazing where formal action was taken  by the agencies’ range program or law enforcement field staff for grazing  years 2010 through 2014. Unauthorized grazing incidents were recorded  in the range management databases when a penalty for unauthorized  grazing was billed to a permittee by program staff and in the law  enforcement databases when a formal report or notice was entered by  a law enforcement officer. However, agency field staff told us that most  incidents they identify are handled informally—their preferred practice— and are not recorded in their databases or consistently recorded in paper  files. Agency field staff told us that unauthorized grazing can severely  degrade the range under certain conditions, such as drought, and also  told us of other effects, such as creating conflicts between the agencies’  staff, ranchers, and other stakeholders.
subsections: section_title: Agency Databases Identified Nearly 1,500 Incidents of Unauthorized Grazing Where Formal Action Was Taken from 2010 to 2014
paragraphs: The agencies’ databases identified nearly 1,500 incidents of unauthorized  grazing where formal action was taken by range program staff or by  agency law enforcement officers for grazing years 2010 through 2014;  BLM data identified a total of 859 incidents, and Forest Service data  identified 618 incidents (see table 1).
The agencies’ grazing program field staff generally handle unauthorized  grazing by permittees through their administrative process, and law  enforcement officers primarily handle unauthorized grazing by those  without permits through warnings or criminal citations. Each agency has  separate range management and law enforcement databases. For  example, unauthorized grazing is recorded in BLM’s range management  database when a formal action is taken to send a bill to a permittee for  penalties—and in some cases charges for damage to the land or to  recoup the administrative expenses of the agency—for incidents of  unauthorized grazing. In some cases, BLM may include penalties for  more than one incident of unauthorized grazing in one bill. The Forest  Service’s range management database contains incidents where a formal  action was taken to send a bill for penalties for unauthorized grazing  incidents. The law enforcement databases of both agencies contain  incidents where formal documentation, such as an incident report (record  of observation), warning notice, or violation notice was prepared by a law  enforcement officer and entered into the database. See appendix III for  detailed information on the extent and frequency of unauthorized grazing  formally reported in the agencies’ databases.
section_title: Agencies Report Handling Most Unauthorized Grazing Incidents Informally and Do Not Record Them in Their Databases
paragraphs: The full extent and frequency of unauthorized grazing is unknown  because most unauthorized grazing incidents identified by the agencies’  range program field staff are handled informally and are not recorded in  their databases, according to agency officials. We found that these  incidents were inconsistently documented in their paper files. The  databases do not include incidents that are informally resolved with  telephone calls or by visits from the agency program staff to the  permittees asking them to remove their livestock from areas where they  are not permitted. Staff we interviewed from all 22 BLM and Forest  Service field offices told us they prefer such informal resolutions,  particularly for incidents that appear to be non-willful and involve a few  head of livestock with no resource damage. Agency staff said that these  types of incidents account for the majority of unauthorized grazing they  encounter. According to these field staff, the informal resolution allows  them to resolve the problem quickly and remain focused on higher-priority  activities, such as preparing environmental analyses, while maintaining  collaborative and cooperative relations with permittees, who field staff  said are largely compliant with their permits.
Agency field staff from both agencies told us that they maintain paper files  for permittees that may contain notes on informally resolved unauthorized  grazing incidents that are not included in the databases, or may record a  telephone call to a permittee in their telephone log. However, they said  that such information is not consistently recorded in the permittee files, in  part because they do not consider recording such information a priority.  As a result, the agencies do not have complete information on  unauthorized grazing and therefore may not have the documentation  needed to deal with any instances of repeat offenders appropriately.  Federal internal control standards call for agencies to clearly document  all transactions and other significant events in a manner that allows the  documentation to be readily available for examination. This provides a  means to retain organizational knowledge and mitigate the risk of having  that knowledge limited to a few personnel, as well as a means to  communicate that knowledge as needed to external parties, such as  external auditors. Until the agencies require that all incidents of  unauthorized grazing be recorded, including those incidents resolved  informally, BLM and the Forest Service will not have a complete record  of unauthorized grazing incidents for tracking patterns of any potential  repeat offenders.
section_title: Unauthorized Grazing May Degrade Rangelands under Certain Conditions and Can Cause Conflicts between the Agencies, Ranchers, and Stakeholders, among Other Effects
paragraphs: Unauthorized grazing may create various effects, such as severely  degrading rangelands under certain conditions. Joint BLM/Forest Service  riparian area management guidance states that compliance monitoring of  grazing is critical because just a few weeks of unauthorized grazing can  set back years of progress in restoring riparian areas—such as the  narrow bands of green adjoining rivers, streams, or springs. Agency field  staff we interviewed from 17 out of the 22 offices told us that under  certain circumstances, unauthorized grazing can be more damaging than  permitted grazing, such as when livestock are allowed into closed riparian  areas during times of low precipitation or drought or graze in pastures  earlier than permitted in the spring when grass is first sprouting.  Stakeholders told us that the loss of native grass through unauthorized  overgrazing may allow invasive species such as cheatgrass to grow,  creating a potential fire hazard, or may result in a loss of habitat for  threatened species such as sage grouse. During our field visits, we  observed locations where unauthorized grazing had resulted in severely  damaged natural springs, overgrazed meadows, and trampled  streambeds. Agency field staff provided photographs showing  unauthorized grazing in protected habitat areas and the effects of  overgrazing from unauthorized use (see figs. 3, 4, and 5).
Agency staff and stakeholders told us that unauthorized grazing can  strain relationships and cause conflicts among various groups. Various  stakeholders, such as range protection advocates and others, told us  that they often observe unauthorized livestock grazing on the agencies’  allotments in the course of their resource monitoring or other activities  and notify agency field staff. They are frustrated when it appears that the  agencies do not take action. Agency staff we interviewed from 15 out of  the 22 field offices told us that they are not always able to confirm and  take action on such reporting because it is not timely or lacks specificity,  and many staff said that following up to confirm such reports takes them  away from higher-priority responsibilities. Agency staff also told us that  permittees get frustrated if they do not take prompt action to stop  unauthorized grazing by others, such as nonpermittees, which can also  lead to conflicts among ranchers, for example, if a nonpermittee’s stray  livestock consume the forage on a permittee’s allotment through  unauthorized grazing. According to a wild horse advocate we interviewed,  the advocate had experienced threats from ranchers engaged in  unauthorized grazing on the range while the advocate was working with  BLM to protect and manage the horses.
Agency field staff and stakeholders told us there are only a small number  of confrontational ranchers who do not recognize the agencies’ authority  to manage the range and engage in willful unauthorized grazing, but they  are concerned that the problem will grow. Agency field staff we  interviewed from 5 out of the 22 field offices told us that high-profile cases  of intentional unauthorized grazing and related antigovernment protests  can affect agency decision making regarding enforcement, and staff at  4 out of the 22 field offices told us that not taking enforcement action on  violators is likely to encourage more unauthorized grazing. For example,  staff at one Forest Service office in Oregon told us that they were  prepared to suspend a rancher’s permit for repeated unauthorized  grazing violations but decided not to because of the standoff by  antigovernment activists at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Agency  staff we interviewed from 6 of the 22 field offices told us that lack of  support from higher-level managers for strong enforcement action does  not incentivize field staff to act on unauthorized grazing and, in some  cases, lowers staff morale. The leaders of two stakeholder groups,  Western Watersheds Project and Public Employees for Environmental  Responsibility, jointly wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Interior in 2015  to express concern about the lack of effective range management of BLM  lands in Nevada because of what they characterized as higher-level  pressure on local managers to accept ranchers’ demands when settling  unauthorized grazing incidents; agency staff from three of the local offices  we spoke with shared this concern. BLM responded to the stakeholders’  letter on behalf of the Secretary, stating that the agency is committed to  collaborating with permittees to resolve problems that reflect the interests  of affected communities while also ensuring that public lands are  managed and conserved for the future.
Agency field staff we interviewed from 14 out of the 22 offices told us they  generally do not have safety concerns while performing their duties, or did  not mention any such concerns, even with the potential for confrontational  tactics by some ranchers. BLM and Forest Service law enforcement  officials told us that the overall trend for assaults and threats to agency  staff had been down in recent years, but they do not track assaults and  threats specifically related to grazing incidents. However, BLM field staff  in Southern Nevada were directed by the state office not to visit grazing  allotments after an armed standoff with a rancher over the agency’s  impoundment of his cattle for unauthorized grazing. At one BLM field  office we visited in Northern Nevada, there was a protest site established  across the street in response to the office’s efforts to enforce  unauthorized grazing regulations (see fig. 6). Field staff told us that as a  result of a statewide BLM assessment, the office upgraded its security to  include video cameras, card key locks, and entrance barricades.
Finally, unauthorized grazing that is not detected or not formally acted on  when identified cannot be billed penalties for unauthorized grazing,  resulting in forgone revenues. The agencies track penalties for  unauthorized grazing billed and collected but do not track those forgone.  Based on information from the agencies’ databases, BLM and the Forest  Service collected nearly $450,000 for unauthorized grazing in grazing  years 2010 through 2014. BLM collected about $426,000 and has a  balance due of about $8,000 for unauthorized grazing during that time  frame. The Forest Service collected about $24,000 and reported no  balance due for the same time frame.
section_title: Agencies’ Efforts to Detect, Deter, and Resolve Unauthorized Grazing Have Shortcomings That Limit Their Effectiveness
paragraphs: BLM and the Forest Service undertake similar efforts to detect and deter  unauthorized grazing, such as conducting compliance inspections on  grazing allotments and charging penalties for unauthorized grazing, but  agency field staff told us that such efforts have limited effectiveness for  various reasons. While it is the preferred practice of agency field staff to  resolve incidental unauthorized grazing informally, BLM and Forest  Service regulations do not provide agency staff with the flexibility to  resolve incidents informally with no written notice of violation and no  penalty for unauthorized grazing charged.
subsections: section_title: BLM and the Forest Service Have Similar Detection and Deterrence Efforts, but Effectiveness Is Limited for Various Reasons
paragraphs: BLM and the Forest Service have undertaken a number of similar efforts  to detect and deter unauthorized grazing. These include conducting  compliance inspections, charging penalties for unauthorized grazing,  issuing willful and repeated willful violations, modifying permits, and  issuing criminal citations. However, BLM and Forest Service field staff  we spoke with said that these efforts can have limited effectiveness in  practice for various reasons, such as field staff being unavailable to  conduct compliance inspections because of other priorities or the penalty  for unauthorized grazing being lower than the current commercial value  of forage.
subsections: section_title: Compliance Inspections
paragraphs: Field staff from both agencies told us that conducting compliance  inspections is one of their more effective efforts for detecting and  deterring unauthorized grazing. Specifically, staff we interviewed from  16 of the 22 agency offices said that compliance inspections are always  or usually effective in detecting unauthorized grazing, and staff from  13 of the 22 said that such inspections are always or usually an effective  deterrent. However, field office staff we spoke with told us that they have  a limited number of knowledgeable staff—in part because of significant  staff turnover, including transfers and retirements—administering vast  acres of rangeland, and growing workloads that require multitasking and  spending significant time in the office. In addition, grazing allotments are  often in remote locations that can take hours to access by vehicle,  horseback, or hiking. As a result, they said that compliance inspections  are not a top priority and some allotments are seldom visited, which may  diminish inspections’ deterrent effect. The number of field range staff  available to conduct compliance inspections declined for both agencies  from 2010 to 2014—from 1,829 to 1,795 for BLM and from 443 to 399 for  the Forest Service. On average, each BLM range staff member is  responsible for approximately 85,000 acres, and each Forest Service  range staff member is responsible for approximately 255,000 acres.  At one BLM field office in Utah, field staff told us that 2 range staff are  responsible for 2 million acres and that competing work priorities often  keep these staff in the office rather than out in the field. Many field staff  said they focus inspections on areas with a history of compliance issues  but that some unauthorized grazing likely goes undetected.
section_title: Penalties for Unauthorized Grazing
paragraphs: Agency field staff—primarily those from the Forest Service—told us that  penalties for unauthorized grazing are too low under current agency  policy to act as an effective deterrent. Field staff we interviewed from  6 out of the 9 Forest Service offices and 4 out of the 13 BLM offices said  that penalties for unauthorized grazing are rarely or never an effective  deterrent. As a result, some told us that there are permittees who view  the penalties for unauthorized grazing as a cost of doing business  because paying the penalties is cheaper than seeking forage elsewhere.  For example, Forest Service staff at one field location told us that they are  reluctant to send a bill for penalties for unauthorized grazing because it  shows how low the penalty is and may encourage additional unauthorized  grazing.
We found that for grazing years 2008 through 2014, the Forest Service  penalty for unauthorized grazing was $2.51 or less per head month,  which was substantially less than BLM’s penalty for unauthorized grazing.  The Forest Service calculates this penalty using the same formula that it  and BLM use each year to calculate the permitted grazing fee. The  formula for the permitted fee has a preset base value of $1.23 and other  input values, such as the prices of private forage and beef cattle, which  can vary annually. To calculate its penalty for unauthorized grazing using  this formula, the Forest Service applies a higher preset base value of  $3.80 rather than $1.23. (For more detailed information on the formula  and calculation, see app. II.) For grazing years 2009 through 2012, the  Forest Service’s unauthorized grazing penalty formula calculation would  have resulted in a negative number or a number lower than the permitted  grazing fee. To address this situation, a Forest Service official told us that  the agency decided to hold the penalty for unauthorized grazing at  $2.24 per head month until the formula calculation resulted in a higher  penalty. In contrast, as shown in table 2, the BLM penalty for non-willful  unauthorized grazing—based on commercial forage rates in each state— ranged from $8 to $33.50 per animal unit month for grazing years 2008  through 2014, and BLM doubled the penalty for willful incidents and  tripled it for repeated willful incidents. In addition, with higher-level  offensives (willful and repeated willful), BLM regulations require  unauthorized grazing bills to also include “all reasonable expenses  incurred by the United States in detecting, investigating, resolving  violations, and livestock impoundment costs.”
Compared to BLM’s penalties, the Forest Service penalty for  unauthorized grazing is less likely to be a deterrent for unauthorized  grazing, and the differing penalty structures result in inconsistency  between the two federal agencies. As we noted in March 2003,  penalties generally should be designed in such a way as to serve as  a deterrent for unauthorized activities. Forest Service regulations  incorporate Office of Management and Budget guidance, which directs  that a fair market value be obtained for all services and resources  provided to the public through establishment of a system of reasonable  fee charges. By adopting a penalty structure for unauthorized grazing  use that is, similar to BLM’s, based on the current commercial value of  forage (a fair market value), the Forest Service’s penalty for unauthorized  grazing can better serve as a deterrent to such grazing and be consistent  with BLM’s penalty.
The Forest Service recognized that its formula for calculating its penalty  for unauthorized grazing was problematic in grazing year 2009 when the  formula produced a negative value. A Forest Service official told us that  the agency is considering options for revising the penalty as part of its  ongoing update of grazing guidance, but the update has not been  completed because of higher priorities. The Forest Service does not  have a time frame for when the penalty for unauthorized grazing will be  revised, according to agency officials. Until the Forest Service revises its  penalty for unauthorized grazing to reflect current forage rates, similar to  BLM’s, the penalty has limited value as a deterrent to unauthorized  grazing.
section_title: Willful and Repeated Willful Violations
paragraphs: BLM field staff generally told us that willful and repeated willful  unauthorized grazing incidents are rare; most unauthorized grazing is  incidental and non-willful. However, staff we interviewed from 3 of the 13  BLM field offices who had encountered willful and repeated willful  unauthorized grazing incidents said that such violations are difficult to  support because staff must prove that the unauthorized grazing was the  fault of the livestock owner and show that a record of prior willful  violations existed for repeat offenses, per agency regulations and policy.  As mentioned previously, because BLM staff generally prefer informal  resolution for most incidents of unauthorized grazing, there may not be a  paper trail documenting repeated incidents. In some offices this was  exacerbated by staff turnover. Specifically, field staff we interviewed from  7 of the 22 offices told us that institutional knowledge is lost when staff  depart who are familiar with the extent and circumstances of unauthorized  grazing that was resolved informally. As a result, BLM staff told us that  they generally only pursue willful or repeated willful violations for the most  egregious, long-term cases of unauthorized grazing.
Agency regulations also direct BLM staff to collect reasonable agency  expenses for resolving willful and repeated willful incidents, but field staff  told us that they have discretion in determining what is reasonable and  therefore may not charge violators for agency expenses. For example,  field staff said that they may agree to waive the expenses if they were  insignificant or to make it less likely that the permittee will appeal the  decision. Our review of willful and repeated willful unauthorized grazing  incidents in BLM’s grazing program database from grazing years 2010  through 2014 found that the administrative expenses were billed to  violators in 98 out of 164, or 60 percent, of such incidents. We reviewed  the paper file documentation for BLM’s 24 willful and 3 repeated willful  unauthorized grazing cases in grazing year 2014, and found that in most  cases field staff had documented how they determined the appropriate  penalties and expenses to bill.
section_title: Permit Modifications
paragraphs: Agency staff and cattlemen’s association representatives told us that the  agencies’ policies for modifying permits, such as reducing the number  of permitted livestock for an allotment or suspending or canceling the  permits, are likely to be the greatest deterrent to unauthorized grazing, in  part because they directly affect the permittees’ livelihoods. Field staff we  interviewed from 18 of the 22 offices said that permit modifications are  always or usually an effective deterrent. In practice, field staff from 19 of  the 22 said that they generally view this as a last resort penalty and  seldom modify, suspend, or cancel permits for unauthorized grazing in  part because the warning is usually sufficient to obtain compliance. In  one example, Forest Service staff at an office in Nevada said they had  canceled only one permit, for a permittee with a particularly long record  of persistent unauthorized grazing. Staff said that a warning about the  potential for permit action is generally enough to achieve immediate  compliance in almost all detected unauthorized grazing cases involving  permittees.
section_title: Citations
paragraphs: According to agency field staff, misdemeanor criminal citations are  primarily issued to nonpermittees for unauthorized grazing and can be an  effective deterrent. However, law enforcement officers and program staff  we interviewed from 5 out of the 22 offices told us that federal attorneys  may choose not to prosecute citations or the courts may lower the  penalties, which may diminish the effectiveness of this deterrent. For  example, a Forest Service law enforcement officer in Utah said that circuit  courts typically lower penalties to a couple hundred dollars or less, which  is below the cost of buying forage elsewhere. Furthermore, law  enforcement officers and program staff we interviewed from 7 out of the  22 offices told us that when on patrol the officers are generally focused on  higher priorities, such as public safety. In addition, staff from 7 of the  22 offices we interviewed said that the officers usually do not have  knowledge of permit conditions and therefore do not know when livestock  should or should not be in a certain location.
section_title: BLM and Forest Service Regulations Do Not Provide Flexibility for the Agencies’ Preferred Practice of Informal Resolution for Unauthorized Grazing
paragraphs: BLM and Forest Service regulations do not provide field staff of both  agencies with the flexibility to follow their preferred practice of informally  resolving unauthorized grazing incidents with no written notice of violation  and no penalty for unauthorized grazing. We recommended in 1990 that  BLM either ensure that all penalties are assessed for non-willful  unauthorized grazing, as provided for in its regulations, or amend its  regulations to establish a procedure for informal resolution. The agency  amended its regulations to add the option for the nonmonetary resolution  of certain non-willful incidents, but the amendment did not remove the  requirement for a written notice of violation. Forest Service regulations  do not specifically require a written notice of violation but require that a  penalty be determined; nonmonetary resolution is not an option. As a  result, informal resolution with no written notice and no penalty—the  preferred practice for field staff in dealing with unauthorized grazing—is  not allowed for under either agency’s regulations.
While not provided for under the regulations, most agency field staff told  us that informal resolution is the most effective way to achieve the  objective of quickly resolving non-willful unauthorized grazing with  minimal conflict, and is the most efficient use of their time given multiple  higher-priority responsibilities. As discussed in federal internal control  standards, program operations are effective and efficient in achieving  agency objectives when they produce the intended results and minimize  the waste of resources. Management is responsible for designing the  policies and procedures to fit an entity’s circumstances and building them  in as an integral part of the entity’s operations. BLM and Forest Service  officials stated that handling incidental unauthorized grazing informally is  necessary and effective because they have limited staff and permittees  tend to be largely compliant. However, the agencies have not established  in regulations procedures for such informal resolution or alternatively  taken steps to ensure that staff comply with existing regulations as  written. By amending the regulations to establish procedures for the  informal resolution of violations of the grazing regulations at the local  level, agency management could achieve the objective of quickly  resolving incidental unauthorized grazing with minimal conflict, in a  manner consistent with its regulations and with the most efficient use of  the agency’s resources. Alternatively, rather than amending their existing  regulations to match their practices, the agencies could change their  practices to comply with their existing regulations. BLM officials told us  that the agency has faced challenges in revising its grazing regulations,  including the incorporation of our 1990 recommendations; the most recent  revision was enjoined by the court from implementation in 2006 after it  was challenged by interest groups. The Code of Federal Regulations  currently contains the enjoined regulations; agency officials plan to  replace these regulations with the regulations that were in effect prior to  the court’s action but have not set a date for completing the process.
Furthermore, BLM has not updated its Unauthorized Grazing Use  Handbook since 1987—in part because of the enjoined regulations— and it contains guidance that differs in some cases from the existing  regulations. For example, the handbook does not reference the option  of nonmonetary settlement for certain non-willful unauthorized grazing  incidents that is contained in the regulations. In addition, the handbook  description of penalties differs from that in the regulations for willful  violations—the regulations state that the rate is twice the value of forage  consumed, while the handbook states that the rate is three times the  value of forage consumed. Furthermore, the regulations state that the  value of damages to public lands shall be included in settlement for willful  and repeated willful violations, and the handbook states generally that the  value of damages “must be charged,” without specifying which violations  must incur the charge. As a result, staff using the handbook may not be  consistently following the regulations. Federal internal control standards  call for agency management to periodically review policies, procedures,  and related control activities for continued relevance and effectiveness in  achieving the entity’s objectives or addressing related risks. Without  revising the agency’s grazing guidance to make it consistent with the  grazing regulations, BLM does not have reasonable assurance that its  staff consistently apply the grazing regulations.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: BLM and the Forest Service face the daunting task of effectively  managing grazing on millions of acres of remote rangeland with a limited  number of field staff who have multiple responsibilities and competing  priorities. Given the large number of acres and permits managed under  the agencies’ programs, the number of unauthorized grazing incidents  that are formally reported is relatively small, and the reportedly larger  number of incidents that are resolved informally and not recorded in any  database or consistently recorded in paper case files are most often  considered by agency field staff to be incidental and quickly remedied  with minimal impact on range resources. By amending the regulations to  establish procedures for the informal resolution of non-willful violations of  the grazing regulations at the local level, agency management could  achieve the objective of quickly resolving incidental unauthorized grazing  with minimal conflict, in a manner consistent with its regulations and with  the most efficient use of the agency’s resources. Alternatively, rather than  amending their existing regulations to match their practices, the agencies  could change their practices to comply with their existing regulations.  While it may be reasonable for the agencies to handle incidental  unauthorized grazing informally, given their limited staff and a largely  compliant pool of permittees, it is important that each agency’s practices  accurately reflect its grazing regulations to ensure clarity and consistency  in application for staff and permittees.
Furthermore, without recording the incidents of unauthorized grazing that  are informally resolved, neither agency has complete information on the  extent and frequency of unauthorized grazing for tracking patterns of any  potential repeat offenders. In addition, until BLM revises its grazing  guidance to make it consistent with the grazing regulations, the agency  does not have reasonable assurance that its staff consistently apply the  regulations. Finally, until the Forest Service revises its unauthorized  grazing penalty structure to reflect the current value of forage, similar to  BLM, the deterrent effect of the penalty will be limited, and some ranchers  will continue to view the penalty as a cost of doing business.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To improve the effectiveness of BLM’s efforts to track and deter  unauthorized grazing, we recommend that the Secretary of the Interior  direct the Director of BLM to take the following three actions: amend the regulations on unauthorized grazing use—43 C.F.R.
Subpart 4150 (2005)—to establish a procedure for the informal  resolution of violations at the local level, or follow the existing  regulations by sending a notice of unauthorized use for each potential  violation as provided by 43 C.F.R. § 4150.2(a) (2005);  record all incidents of unauthorized grazing, including those resolved  informally; and  revise the agency’s Unauthorized Grazing Use Handbook to make it  consistent with 43 C.F.R. pt. 4100 (2005).
To improve the effectiveness of the Forest Service’s efforts to track and  deter unauthorized grazing, we recommend that the Secretary of  Agriculture direct the Chief of the Forest Service to take the following  three actions: amend the regulations on range management—36 C.F.R. pt. 222—to  provide for nonmonetary settlement when the unauthorized or excess  grazing is non-willful and incidental, or follow the existing regulations  by determining and charging a grazing use penalty for all  unauthorized and excess use when it is identified as provided by  36 C.F.R. § 222.50(a) and (h);  record all incidents of unauthorized grazing, including those resolved  informally; and adopt an unauthorized grazing penalty structure that is based, similar  to BLM’s, on the current commercial value of forage.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior with a draft  of this report for their review and comment. In its written comments,  reproduced in appendix IV, the Forest Service generally concurred with  our findings and recommendations. In its comments, the Forest Service  stated that it has taken preliminary steps toward updating its guidance to  field units, including guidance for unauthorized grazing penalties similar  to BLM’s. In its written comments reproduced in appendix V, the  Department of the Interior generally concurred with our findings and  recommendations. In its comments, the Department of the Interior stated  that it will revise its guidance to better describe procedures for following  existing regulations, to provide procedures for documenting and recording  all unauthorized grazing incidents, and will ensure that its guidance is  consistent with its regulations. The Department of the Interior also  provided technical comments that were incorporated, as appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate  congressional committees, the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior,  and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no  charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov. Contact points for  our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found  on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in  appendix VI.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Our objectives were to (1) describe what is known about the frequency  and extent of unauthorized grazing, and its effects, and (2) examine the  Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service’s  efforts to detect, deter, and resolve unauthorized grazing.
To describe the frequency and extent of unauthorized grazing, we  analyzed the agencies’ unauthorized grazing data, and to describe the  effects of such grazing, we reviewed documentation, interviewed agency  officials and stakeholder group representatives, and conducted site visits  at agency field office locations. We collected data from BLM’s and the  Forest Service’s range management, financial, and law enforcement  databases on the frequency and extent of unauthorized grazing for  grazing years 2010 through 2014, the most recent and complete data  available at the time of our review. We also collected information on  grazing acres, usage, and permits, which came from different years  depending on what was the most recently available at the time of our  request. For BLM, we obtained range management data from its  Rangeland Administration System; financial data on unauthorized grazing  bills from its Collection and Billing System; and law enforcement data  from its Incident Management, Analysis, and Reporting System. For the  Forest Service, we obtained range management and billing data from its  INFRA system and law enforcement data from its Law Enforcement and  Investigations Management Attainment Reporting System. We assessed  the data provided by the agencies based on our review of database  system documentation and discussions with agency database stewards  and found the data to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes.
We conducted in-person and telephone interviews with staff in 22 of the  218 agency field office locations in eight western states where most such  grazing had occurred. We selected the 22 offices from among the agency  field offices that had the highest numbers of unauthorized grazing  incidents or that had been recommended by stakeholders. From the  22 selected offices, we conducted site visits to 6 offices located in  Nevada and Wyoming to interview agency range management and law  enforcement staff about the extent of unauthorized grazing and the  agencies’ policies and practices for addressing it, as well as to review  paper case files and observe the effects of unauthorized grazing on  federal lands. We also conducted telephone interviews with staff in 16 of  the 22 BLM and Forest Service field locations in California, Colorado,  Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, and Utah. Our interview results are  not generalizable to all agency field office locations and grazing lands and  instead are illustrative cases of the office locations reporting the highest  numbers of unauthorized grazing incidents. Tables 3 and 4 provide more  information about the agency field office locations where we conducted  interviews.
To obtain the views of interested stakeholders, we conducted interviews  with representatives of 11 stakeholder groups, including telephone  interviews with cattlemen’s association representatives in California,  Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Oregon. We also conducted  telephone interviews with representatives of other stakeholders, including  Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Forest Service  Employees for Environmental Ethics, Western Watersheds Project,  Wildlands Defense, and others, such as a wild horse advocate. We  selected these groups based on information provided by agency officials  or other stakeholder groups involved in grazing issues; in one case, we  spoke with a stakeholder who contacted us after learning of our review.  We qualitatively analyzed agency and stakeholder interviews for common  themes and patterns to describe how the agencies address unauthorized  grazing and the effectiveness of these policies and practices. We coded  interviews using qualitative data analysis software that allows  organization and analysis of information from a variety of sources. Our  coding process involved one independent coder putting information into  initial categories and a second independent coder verifying that initial  work. The coders discussed and resolved any discrepancies in coding.
To examine the agencies’ efforts to detect, deter, and resolve  unauthorized grazing, we analyzed federal laws to identify agency  requirements for addressing such grazing as well as the agencies’  regulations, policies, and practices. We qualitatively analyzed information  obtained in agency and stakeholder interviews for common themes and  patterns to describe how the agencies address unauthorized grazing and  the effectiveness of their efforts. We compared the agencies’ policies to  their practices in the field, compared the policies’ objectives with their  outcomes, and assessed the internal controls for the policies and  practices. We also compared the agencies’ policies and practices to our  recommendations in our December 1990 report to evaluate whether  those recommendations have made or could make improvements in the  detection and deterrence of unauthorized grazing.
We conducted this performance audit from May 2015 to July 2016 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Grazing Information for the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service
paragraphs: This appendix provides detailed information on grazing permits, leases,  fees, and penalties on lands managed by the Bureau of Land  Management (BLM), within the Department of the Interior, and the  U.S. Forest Service, within the Department of Agriculture. Specifically,  the information includes acres available for grazing on lands the agencies  manage, the animal unit months (AUM) approved for grazing, and the  AUMs billed for BLM and the Forest Service; BLM and Forest Service  permits and leases by size; and information on BLM and Forest Service  grazing fees for permitted grazing and penalties for unauthorized grazing.  The agencies are in two different departments and their grazing programs  are covered by different laws and regulations. Therefore, the agencies  maintain their own databases and, in some cases, track different data  elements. As a result, consistent information was not always available  from the two agencies, and in some cases the information provided was  from different years depending on what was the most recently available at  the time of our request.
subsections: section_title: Acres and AUMs of Grazing
paragraphs: This section provides an overview of the most recent information  available at the time of our review on grazing that occurred on BLM and  Forest Service lands. The acres of BLM and Forest Service land available  for grazing each year can change, depending on the results of  environmental assessments conducted on grazing allotments, and the  amount of grazing that is allowed each year can change, depending on  annual assessments of forage and range conditions. Both agencies  measure the number of acres of their lands available for grazing by  allotment each year, but the two agencies use different terms to measure  the amount of grazing. BLM calls this amount active or authorized, and  the Forest Service calls this amount permitted. Similarly, BLM refers to  the amount of grazing that it bills for annually—which can vary from the  amount it authorizes because of range or climate conditions—as billed,  and the Forest Service refers to this amount of grazing as authorized.
We use “AUMs approved” to refer to the amounts of grazing authorized  by BLM and permitted by the Forest Service and “AUMs billed” to refer to  the amount of grazing for which BLM billed ranchers and the amount of  grazing authorized each year on Forest Service lands. Table 5 shows the  acres and AUMs approved as of January 2016 and AUMs grazed for  BLM’s field offices in fiscal year 2014, the most recent year available.
Table 6 shows the acres of grazing available, approved AUMs, and billed  AUMs in grazing year 2015 for Forest Service administrative offices and  grasslands. The data on acres include acres in active and vacant  allotments but not in allotments that have been closed that are not  available for grazing. The data on AUMs include data that the Forest  Service calls head months. Unlike BLM, the Forest Service uses two  methods to tally the amount of grazing that occurs—AUMs and head  months. The agency uses AUM to refer to the amount of forage  consumed by different types of livestock, while it uses the term head  months to refer to the number of livestock (head) that are grazed and that  are subject to billing. We used the Forest Service head month data  because they are equivalent to the BLM’s data on billed AUMs, but we  used AUM to simplify the comparison with BLM’s grazing data.
section_title: Permits and Leases by Size
paragraphs: Because the number of AUMs per permit or lease can vary greatly, the  number of AUMs controlled by permittees or lessees also varies greatly.  Tables 7 through 9 show the number of BLM and Forest Service permits  and leases, and AUMs, by permit size. Multiple permits or leases may be  contained on a single allotment, just as one permit or lease may span  multiple allotments. In addition, several ranchers may share one permit  or lease, just as one rancher may possess multiple permits or leases;  therefore, the number of permits and leases does not necessarily  correlate to the total number of ranchers. Table 7 shows the size of BLM  permits and leases, using approved AUMs as of December 2015. The  data do not include permits and leases with less than two AUMs.
Table 8 shows Forest Service permits for cattle for regions with lands in  western states (regions 1 through 6). The data do not include horses or  other livestock and do not include permits with fewer than two AUMs of  grazing for cattle.
Forest Service sheep permits are shown in table 9. For the purposes of  conversion, five sheep equal one AUM. In addition to the sheep, an  insignificant number of horses are included in the data because, in some  cases, permittees may keep a horse for herding the sheep.
section_title: Calculation of Grazing Fees and Unauthorized Grazing Penalties for BLM’s and the Forest Service’s Western States
paragraphs: Historically, BLM and Forest Service permitted grazing fees were  established to achieve different objectives—to recover administrative  expenses or to reflect livestock prices, respectively—but the agencies  began using the same approach to setting fees in 1969. Over the years,  the agencies, as well as outside entities, have conducted numerous  studies attempting to establish a permitted grazing fee that meets the  objectives of multiple parties. As of March 2016, the permitted grazing fee  for BLM and the Forest Service in 16 western states is based on a  formula which incorporates factors that take into account ranchers’ ability  to pay and was established in 1978 based on studies conducted in the  1960s and 1970s.
In 2016, the permitted grazing fee for lands managed by BLM and the  Forest Service in 16 western states was $2.11 per AUM—or the amount  of forage needed to sustain a cow and her calf for 30 days. This  permitted grazing fee is set annually according to a formula established  in the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 and extended  indefinitely by Executive Order 12,548 that has been incorporated into  the agencies’ regulations. The formula is as follows:  Fee = $1.23 x (FVI +BCPI – PPI)/100  where $1.23 = the base value, or the difference between the costs of  conducting ranching business on private lands, including any grazing fees  charged, and public lands, not including grazing fees. The costs were  computed in a 1966 study that included 10,000 ranching businesses in  the western states.
FVI = Forage Value Index, or the weighted average estimate of the  annual rental charge per head per month for pasturing cattle on private  rangelands in 11 western states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho,  Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and  Wyoming) divided by $3.65 per head month (the private grazing land  lease rate for the base period of 1964-68) and multiplied by 100.
BCPI = Beef Cattle Price Index, or the weighted average annual selling  price for beef cattle (excluding calves) in the 11 western states divided by  $22.04 per hundredweight (the beef cattle price per hundred pounds for  the base period of 1964-68) and multiplied by 100.
PPI = Prices Paid Index, for selected components from the Department of  Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Service’s Index of Prices Paid  by Farmers for Goods and Services, adjusted by different weights (in  parentheses) to reflect livestock production costs in the western states  [fuels and energy (14.5), farm and motor supplies (12.0), autos and trucks  (4.5), tractors and self-propelled machinery (4.5), other machinery (12.0),  building and fencing materials (14.5), interest (6.0), farm wage rates  (14.0), and farm services (cash rent) (18.0)].
The Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 limited the annual  increase or decrease in the resulting fee to 25 percent. It also established  the fee formula for a 7-year trial period and required that the effects of the  fee be evaluated at the end of that period. Although the permitted grazing  fee formula under the act expired in 1986, the use of the fee formula was  extended indefinitely by Executive Order 12,548 and incorporated into the  agencies’ regulations. The executive order requires the Secretaries of the  Interior and Agriculture to establish permitted grazing fees according to  the act’s formula, including the 25 percent limit on increases or decreases  in the fee. In addition, the order established that the permitted grazing fee  should not be lower than $1.35 per AUM.
To calculate its penalty for unauthorized grazing, the Forest Service uses  the same formula as for the permitted fee but replaces the base value of  $1.23 with a higher base value of $3.80. In addition, the Forest Service  does not apply the 25 percent limit on the annual increase or decrease  in the penalty and does not set a lower limit on the penalty as with the  permitted fee formula (see table 10). In contrast, BLM bases its penalties  for unauthorized on the state by state commercial value of forage.  According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service, based on the  average private grazing land lease rate per AUM, the state-by-state  commercial value of forage in western states ranged from $9 to $39 in  grazing year 2016.
section_title: Appendix III: Detailed Information on the Extent and Frequency of Unauthorized Grazing
paragraphs: This appendix provides detailed information on the extent and frequency  of unauthorized grazing incidents and charges recorded in the Bureau of  Land Management’s (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service’s range  management and law enforcement databases, for grazing years 2010  through 2014. BLM, within the Department of the Interior, and the U.S.  Forest Service, within the Department of Agriculture, are in two different  departments and their grazing programs are covered by different laws  and regulations. Therefore, the agencies maintain their own databases  and, in some cases, track different data elements. As a result, consistent  information was not always available from the two agencies.
subsections: section_title: BLM Range Program Data
paragraphs: BLM’s range management database contained records of 433  unauthorized grazing incidents that occurred in grazing years 2010  through 2014 and were settled and billed by December 28, 2015 (the date  the data were queried) (see table 11). Incidents not billed by December  28, 2015, are not included, nor are incidents that were resolved  nonmonetarily. The number of incidents ranged from 76 in Idaho to 5 in  Arizona.
The bills identified for the 433 incidents in BLM’s range management  database included 466 charges for different types of unauthorized  grazing; non-willful (unintentional), willful (intentional), and repeated  willful, each of which is charged at a different rate (see table 12). The total  charges (466) exceeds the total number of incidents settled and billed  (433) because each bill can include charges for more than one type of  unauthorized grazing and for more than 1 grazing year. Non-willful  unauthorized grazing was the most common type in grazing years 2010  through 2014, accounting for 299—or 64 percent—of the charges  recorded; willful unauthorized grazing was 31 percent of the total, and  repeated willful was 5 percent.
BLM’s unauthorized grazing bills included charges for unauthorized  grazing penalties; administrative charges for costs of the agency’s  response; and other charges, fees, and interest. As of March 1, 2015,  BLM had billed about $441,000 for unauthorized grazing charges in  grazing years 2010 through 2014 (see table 13). BLM had collected about  $426,000 of the amount; after adjustments, about $8,000 of the charges  remained due.
BLM’s range management database contained records of nearly  53,000 grazing compliance inspections performed by agency field staff  during grazing years 2010 through 2014 (see table 14). Of the nearly  53,000 inspections, about 1,500—or 3 percent—identified possible  noncompliance. Possible noncompliance means noncompliance was  suspected but not yet confirmed by the individual completing the  compliance inspection and was identified for further investigation.  Therefore some inspections recorded as a finding of possible  noncompliance, upon further investigation, may not have resulted in  a finding of a violation.
section_title: BLM Law Enforcement Data
paragraphs: BLM’s law enforcement database contained records of 426 incidents  where formal documentation, such as an incident report (record of  observation), warning notice, or violation notice, was prepared by a law  enforcement officer and entered into the database in grazing years 2010  through 2014 (see table 15). The number of incidents ranges from 71 in  Wyoming to 17 in Arizona and Utah. From grazing years 2010 through  2014, the year with the most incidents recorded in the law enforcement  database was 2013; 123 incidents were recorded, or nearly 30 percent of  the 426 total incidents. According to agency officials, some of the data  may include incidents that were miscoded as grazing related when  entered into the law enforcement database, and a small proportion of the  incidents include violations of grazing permits other than unauthorized  grazing, such as supplementing the existing forage with additional  livestock feed.
section_title: Forest Service Range Program Data
paragraphs: The Forest Service’s range management database contained records of  190 unauthorized grazing incidents in grazing years 2010 through 2014  (see table 16). The number of incidents is based on the number of bills  issued and also includes some unauthorized grazing incidents confirmed  by Forest Service field offices as having occurred where no bill was  issued. Additional incidents may have occurred that were not billed and  were not entered in the Forest Service database. The number of incidents  ranged from 65 in the Southwestern Region to 2 in the Southern Region.
The 190 incidents identified primarily by bills in the Forest Service’s range  management database included charges for different types of  unauthorized grazing incidents, excess use (by a permittee), and  unauthorized use (by a nonpermittee) (see table 17). Excess use by  permittees was the most common incident type in grazing years 2010  through 2014, accounting for 173—or 91 percent—of the incidents  recorded; unauthorized use was 9 percent of the total.
The Forest Service’s unauthorized grazing bills included charges for  excess use and unauthorized use. The Forest Service collected a total of  about $24,000 from these charges in grazing years 2010 through 2014;  nearly $18,000 from excess use by permittees, and about $6,000 from  unauthorized use by nonpermittees (see table 18). The amount collected  includes credits used by livestock owners to pay excess or unauthorized  use charges.
section_title: Forest Service Law Enforcement Data
paragraphs: The Forest Service’s law enforcement database contained records of  428 incidents where formal documentation, such as an incident report  (record of observation), warning notice, or violation notice, was prepared  by a law enforcement officer and entered into the database in grazing  years 2010 through 2014 (see table 19). The number of incidents ranges  from 102 in the Intermountain Region to 24 in the Pacific Northwest and  Eastern Regions.
From grazing years 2010 through 2014, the year with the most  unauthorized grazing incidents recorded in the Forest Service’s law  enforcement database was 2013; 100 incidents were recorded, or about  23 percent of the 428 total incidents (see table 20).
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Agriculture
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the Department of the Interior
section_title: Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Jeffery D. Malcolm (Assistant  Director), Brad C. Dobbins, Karen (Jack) Granberg, and Katherine M.  Killebrew made key contributions to this report. Important contributions  were also made by Kevin S. Bray, Martin (Greg) Campbell, Elizabeth  Martinez, Alana R. Miller, and Cynthia M. Saunders.