Order Code RL32244
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Grazing Regulations and Policies:
Changes by the Bureau of Land Management
February 26, 2004
Carol Hardy Vincent
Specialist in Natural Resources
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Grazing Regulations and Policies:
Changes by the Bureau of Land Management
Summary
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is taking a two-pronged approach to
grazing reform, by proposing changes to grazing regulations and considering other
changes to grazing policies. With regard to regulations, on December 8, 2003, the
BLM proposed changes to existing rules (43 CFR Part 4100). On January 2, 2004,
the agency issued a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) that analyzes the
potential impact of the proposed changes, a slightly different alternative, and the
status quo. BLM asserts that regulatory changes are needed to increase flexibility for
grazing managers and permittees, to improve rangeland management and grazing
permit administration, to promote conservation, and to comply with court decisions.
The possibility of rules changes, and the particular changes proposed, have been
lauded by some but criticized by others. The last major revision of grazing rules,
which took effect in 1995 after a lengthy development process, was highly
controversial. BLM is currently reexamining many of the changes made at that time.

The current proposal would make many changes. The BLM and a permittee
would be able to share title to structural range improvements, such as a fence.
Permittees would be able to acquire water rights for grazing, consistent with state
law. The occasions on which BLM would be required to get input from the public
on grazing decisions would be reduced. The administrative appeals process on
grazing decisions would be modified and the extent to which grazing could continue
in the face of an appeal or stay of a decision would be delineated. The definition of
grazing preference would be broadened to include a quantitative meaning — forage
on public land — measured in Animal Unit Months. Changes would be made to the
timeframe and procedures for changing grazing management after a determination
that grazing is a significant factor in failing to achieve rangeland health standards.
The current 3-year limit on temporary nonuse of a permit would be removed, and
permittees would be able to apply for nonuse of a permit for up to one year at a time.
Conservation use grazing permits would be eliminated. BLM considered, but did not
propose, certain changes due to adverse public reaction or other considerations. For
instance, the agency did not propose rule language to support the establishment and
operation of a new type of grazing unit, called a reserve common allotment.
Public comment on the proposed rule changes and the DEIS will be accepted
until March 2, 2004. BLM expects to issue a final grazing rule and environmental
impact statement in October 2004, to become effective in December 2004.
BLM also is considering changes to its grazing policies, which the agency
believes can be carried out under existing rules. Potential policy changes, to follow
the rulemaking process, relate to: the establishment of reserve common allotments
to serve as backup forage when permittees’ regular allotments are unavailable;
conservation partnerships between the BLM and permittee whereby permittees work
to improve environmental health in return for certain benefits; voluntary allotment
restructuring to allow multiple permittees to merge allotments; and landscape habitat
improvement to promote species conservation and facilitate consultations under the
Endangered Species Act. This report will be updated as events warrant.

---

Contents
History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Current Efforts to Change Grazing Rules and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Grazing Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Share Title to Range Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Acquire Private Water Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Reduce Requirements for Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Modify the Administrative Appeals Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Broaden the Definition of Grazing Preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Remedy Rangeland Health Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Remove Limit on Permit Nonuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Eliminate Conservation Use Grazing Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Other Proposed Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Changes Not Proposed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Grazing Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Reserve Common Allotments (RCAs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Conservation Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Voluntary Allotment Restructuring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Conservation Easements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Endangered Species Act Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

---

Grazing Regulations and Policies: Changes
by the Bureau of Land Management
History

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has proposed changes to grazing
regulations (43 CFR Part 4100) and is considering related policy changes. The last
major revision of grazing regulations culminated in comprehensive changes effective
August 21, 1995. The changes were the result of a several-year process of evaluating
ideas and shaping alternatives, and occurred in the midst of a decades-long dispute
over the ownership, management, and use of federal rangelands.
The 1995 changes were highly controversial, with criticism from many ranching
interests that those new rules weakened grazing privileges and would reduce
livestock grazing on federal lands, and from environmental organizations that the
changes did not go far enough in protecting public lands. Supporters saw the changes
as improving resource and range management and broadening participation in public
land decisionmaking. Congress has considered many of the 1995 changes, as part of
legislative proposals or committee oversight, and may examine the proposed
regulatory and policy changes.
Among the changes made in 1995, many of which are being reexamined
currently by BLM, are those that:

! separated grazing preference from permitted use, so that a permittee’s1
preference for receiving a grazing permit was not tied to a specific amount of
grazing based on historic levels (described as Animal Unit Months, or AUMs);
! allowed permittees up to 3 years of nonuse of their permits;
! authorized the suspension or cancellation of a permit if a permittee is
convicted of violating certain state or federal environmental laws;
! eliminated the express requirement that a permittee be engaged in the
livestock business;
! replaced the term affected interest with interested public;
! allowed conservation use for the term of a grazing permit, thereby excluding
livestock grazing from all or a portion of an allotment;
! required title of permanent structural improvements to be held in the name of
the United States;
! required that water rights for livestock grazing be held in the name of the
United States, to the extent allowed by state law;
1The term permittee is used throughout to refer to both permittees and lessees, and permit
refers to both permits and leases.

---

CRS-2
! imposed a surcharge on a permittee who allows livestock not owned by the
permittee or the permittee’s children to graze on public land;
! eliminated Grazing Advisory Boards and replaced them with the broader
interest Resource Advisory Councils; and
! adopted rangeland management standards called Fundamentals of Rangeland
Health.
In issuing these changes, the Secretary of the Interior dropped the most
contentious proposal — to increase the grazing fee — due to the rancor this issue
generated.2 However, dissatisfaction with the 1995 changes among ranching interests
led to a lawsuit ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.3 The regulations,
challenged on their face, were upheld by the courts as not exceeding the authority of
the Secretary, with one exception. The courts struck down the rule pertaining to
conservation use for the term of a permit on the grounds that a grazing permit was
for grazing and the Secretary could more appropriately accomplish conservation use
through the land use planning process.
Current Efforts to Change Grazing Rules and
Policies
BLM is taking a two-pronged approach to this iteration of grazing reform on
public lands, by proposing changes to grazing regulations and considering changes
to grazing policies. Under this Sustaining Working Landscapes initiative, first
announced in March 2003, BLM seeks to create working landscapes that are both
economically productive and environmentally healthy. Changes to grazing
regulations and policies could affect more than 18,000 grazing permits on 162
million acres of BLM land. The specific regulatory proposals and policy alternatives
are discussed under separate headings below.
BLM proposed changes to its grazing regulations (68 Fed. Reg. 68451) on
December 8, 2003, and on January 2, 2004 issued a draft environmental impact
statement (DEIS) analyzing the potential impact of the proposed changes.4 The DEIS
also assesses the impacts of a slightly different alternative and of keeping the current
grazing rules. Prior to proposing the changes, BLM reviewed more than 8,000 public
comments on regulatory issues that were submitted in response to a March 3, 2003
advanced notice of proposed rulemaking.
2For more information on grazing fees, see CRS Report RS21232, Grazing Fees: An
Overview, by Carol Hardy Vincent.
3For more information on the legal challenge to the 1995 regulations on livestock grazing,
see CRS Report RS20453, Federal Grazing Regulations: Public Lands Council v. Babbitt,
by Pamela Baldwin.
4The DEIS is available at:
[https://www.eplanning.blm.gov/us_grazing/builds/build45/index.htm], visited on January
22, 2004.

---

CRS-3
BLM asserts that regulatory changes are needed to increase flexibility for
grazing managers and permittees, to improve rangeland management and permit
administration, to promote conservation, and to comply with court decisions. The
possibility of regulatory changes was welcomed by some livestock organizations and
range professionals as helping both ranchers and the range. By contrast, others have
criticized the proposed changes as removing important environmental protections.
With regard to the environmental effects of the proposed alternative, the DEIS
states (p. ES-4) that “there may be some short-term adverse effects that cannot be
avoided because of extended timeframes resulting from several components of this
proposed rulemaking.” This statement fueled concerns among environmentalists that
the proposed changes could eliminate public land protections and lead to
unsustainable grazing practices. The DEIS states that to minimize the potential for
adverse affects in the short-term, the BLM could curtail grazing where “imminent
likelihood of significant resource damage exists.” Further, the BLM asserts that the
long-term outcome of the proposed changes would be better and more sustainable
grazing decisions, and that such decisions would have long-term positive effects on
rangeland health.
In late January and early February of 2004, BLM held public meetings in the
west and in Washington, DC to gather public comments on the regulatory proposal
and DEIS. The proposal and DEIS are open for public comment through March 2,
2004. Following consideration of public comments, the BLM expects to issue a final
grazing rule and environmental impact statement in October 2004, with the final rule
taking effect in December 2004.
On March 25, 2003, BLM first announced possible grazing policy changes as
a complement to the regulatory changes being considered.5 According to BLM, the
focus is on policy changes that can be carried out under existing rules. The
distinction between policies and regulations generally is not always clear, and when
an agency must take action through formal rulemaking can be an issue.6
The agency seeks policy reforms to promote citizen stewardship of public lands,
provide flexibility to managers of livestock grazing, and increase innovative
partnerships. Currently, BLM is reviewing the advice and recommendations of its
Resource Advisory Councils on policy ideas.7 Final grazing policy changes will be
developed when the rulemaking process is “substantially completed,” according to
BLM.
5 The announcement took the form of a press release, now contained on the BLM website
at [http://www.blm.gov/nhp/news/releases/pages/2003/pr030325_grazing.htm], visited on
February 20, 2004.
6 See 5 U.S.C. §551(4).
7BLM has two dozen Resource Advisory Councils (RACs) in western states to provide the
agency advice on managing public lands. Each RAC consists of some 12-15 citizens
representing diverse interests, including ranchers, environmental groups, tribes, academia,
and state and local governments.

---

CRS-4
Conflict over livestock grazing on public lands has become common. Critics
of the current reform effort assert that the 1995 regulations have not been in effect
long enough to assess their effectiveness and that the policy issues are too vague to
assess their potential effects. They also contend that BLM has not justified a need
for regulatory and policy changes. One concern is that the policy changes would
require more monitoring than is feasible, thus possibly preventing changes, and
another is that BLM and the Forest Service are not developing joint rules. There is
also some disappointment among environmentalists that the reform effort does not
encompass certain important issues such as altering grazing fees, controlling noxious
weeds, retiring grazing permits, and establishing processes for identifying lands
suitable for grazing.
Grazing Regulations
BLM asserts that some changes would be substantive while others are
clarifications, but it is not clear which potential changes BLM believes fall within
each category. This adds to the uncertainty over which proposals are intended to, and
likely to, make major changes in public lands grazing. There is disagreement as to
the extent of the environmental impact of the changes and whether that impact would
be primarily beneficial or damaging in both the short- and long-terms. There also is
a difference of opinion as to the extent to which the regulatory effort should reinstate
pre-1995 grazing provisions or substantially modify other current provisions.
Some of the key changes identified in the proposed rule are discussed below.
They involve ownership of range improvements and water rights, and opportunities
for public input and appeals. Other discussed proposals pertain to terms and
conditions of permits and rangeland health. These areas have been among the most
controversial among affected interests.
Share Title to Range Improvements. BLM proposes reestablishing a pre-
1995 rule allowing title to a structural range improvement, such as a fence, well, or
pipeline, to be shared by the BLM and a permittee (or others) if it is constructed
under a Cooperative Range Improvement Agreement. Title would be shared in
proportion to each party’s contribution to the cost of the improvement. Current
regulations require documentation of a permittee’s contributions to improvements
and compensation if a permit is cancelled or passes to another. However, some
advocate that ranchers should receive more direct compensation for improvements,
would be encouraged to undertake and maintain improvements if they get title, and
should be able to include improvements as assets to secure loans for grazing.
Opponents charge that shared title would create private rights on public land and
could hinder action to correct grazing abuses. They contend that the government
should hold title to improvements as they typically are important for other uses, such
as recreation and wildlife habitat. Still others believe that improvements for grazing
do not necessarily benefit other land uses, and thus permittees should not be
rewarded with title.

Acquire Private Water Rights. The proposed regulations would allow
permittees to acquire water rights, consistent with state law. Current rules require the
federal government to follow state procedural and substantive law regarding
livestock watering rights, but direct that title to the rights be held by the United States

---

CRS-5
to the extent state law permits. Before 1995, practices as to water rights for livestock
grazing varied and in some states could be acquired in the name of the permittee.
Express language allowing private individuals to hold water rights is supported by
some as providing an incentive for private water development on public land, and
protecting permittees from being denied water. It is opposed by others who believe
water rights should be in federal ownership to facilitate multiple uses and to preclude
private claims for compensation for water rights, and because states typically do not
allow grazing permittees on state lands to obtain water rights. Still others are
concerned that public resources will be given away at no cost.

Reduce Requirements for Public Involvement. BLM proposes to reduce
the occasions on which it is required to involve the public in its decisions. For
instance, the agency would no longer be required to get input from the public
regarding designation and adjustment of grazing allotment boundaries, the issuance
or renewal of grazing permits, or modification of the terms and conditions of permits
that are not meeting management objectives or the fundamentals of rangeland health.
The agency also seeks to modify the definition of “interested public” so that only
individuals, groups, and organizations who participate in the decisionmaking process
on livestock grazing are maintained on the list of interested publics. The changes are
sought to prevent delays and facilitate timely decisions. Also, the agency asserts that
because the public already has opportunities to participate in the planning processes
and during reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),8 it views
additional consultation as redundant. The changes are criticized as restricting public
input which could lead to ill-considered decisions. The changes also are opposed
because environmental reviews under NEPA are not required for some grazing
decisions and because where required, such reviews are backlogged, and as a result
public participation under NEPA often is delayed.
Modify the Administrative Appeals Process. The agency proposes to
modify the administrative appeals process on grazing decisions and define the extent
to which grazing should continue in the face of an appeal or stay of a decision. For
instance, the proposed rule would provide that when a stay is granted on decisions
involving renewing or modifying a permit or on transferring preference, the affected
permittee usually would continue grazing under the immediately preceding grazing
authorization, unless the stay order specified otherwise. Certain decisions would be
required to be implemented, including authorizations to graze temporary forage.
Other changes would specify when the terms and conditions of permits could be
protested and appealed. The changes are sought to reconcile directives in the
Administrative Procedure Act and to provide permittees with continuity of operations
when a decision affecting their operations is appealed. The changes are opposed as
limiting the ability of the public to participate in grazing decisions and potentially
continuing damaging grazing practices.
Broaden the Definition of Grazing Preference. Another proposal would
broaden the definition of grazing preference to include a quantitative meaning —
forage on public lands, measured in AUMs — tied to a permittee’s base property of
land or water. The definition would continue to include a qualitative meaning — a
8 P.L. 91-190; 42 U.S.C. §§4321-4347.

---

CRS-6
superior or priority position to obtain a permit. The revised definition, which would
be similar to pre-1995 rule language, is intended to link forage allocations to base
property, give ranchers certainty as to the size of operations, and eliminate confusion
as to the meaning of preference. Further, preference would include both active use,
defined as use currently available on a sustained yield basis, and suspended use,
defined as use that has been allocated for livestock grazing in the past but is currently
unavailable because of insufficient forage. The new definition is opposed as
infringing on the discretion of land managers to determine the extent of grazing that
should be allowed.
Remedy Rangeland Health Problems. The proposal would amend the
timeframe and procedures for changing grazing management after a determination
that grazing practices or levels of use are significant factors in failing to achieve
rangeland health standards and guidelines on an allotment. The change would allow
a maximum of 24 months, rather than the current 12-month limit, for developing
remedial changes in grazing practices. It also would require both assessments and
monitoring of resource conditions to support agency determinations that grazing
practices are a significant factor in failing to achieve, or not making significant
progress towards, rangeland health standards. The change is advocated to provide
a sound basis for agency determinations and to give BLM more time and flexibility
in working with permittees who are not meeting the standards. It is opposed as
potentially allowing damaging practices to continue and requiring excessive
documentation even when damage is obvious. Opponents also claim that BLM lacks
funds to collect the necessary information formally.
Remove Limit on Permit Nonuse. The proposed rule would remove the
current 3-year limit on temporary nonuse of a permit by allowing permittees to apply
for nonuse of all or part of a permit for up to one year at a time, for as many years as
needed. The change is promoted as allowing for recovery of the land and providing
flexibility to ranchers who may not be able to graze for reasons including financial
hardship, drought, or overgrazing. Critics argue that the change does not address the
underlying problem — permitting grazing that exceeds the capacity of allotments.
Others are concerned that conservationists will obtain grazing permits and opt for
extended nonuse. However, unapproved nonuse for two consecutive fee years is
prohibited.
Eliminate Conservation Use Grazing Permits. Regulations allowing
BLM to issue long-term conservation use grazing permits would be eliminated to
comply with court decisions that permits should be issued for grazing and
conservation needs met through other alternatives. Advocates of conservation use
observe that the practice allows overgrazed land to be rested and that BLM should
develop a legal alternative to the current language.

Other Proposed Changes. Other proposed changes include:
! phasing in grazing increases or decreases of more than 10% over a 5-year
period (with exceptions);
! restricting BLM to taking action against a permittee convicted of breaking
laws while engaged in grazing only if the violation occurred on the permittee’s
allotment;

---

CRS-7
! emphasizing that reviews under NEPA will consider the social, economic, and
cultural impacts of proposed changes in grazing preference, in addition to the
ecological impacts;
! increasing administrative fees for livestock crossing permits, billings, and
preference transfers;
! clarifying that a biological assessment or evaluation by BLM under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA)9 is not an agency decision and is thus not
subject to protests and appeals, and that BLM must allow permittees and the
interested public to comment on biological evaluations and assessments used
as a basis to change grazing use;
! specifying that BLM will cooperate with state, local, and county grazing
boards in reviewing range improvements and allotment management plans on
public lands;
! eliminating language providing that permits disclose the requirement that
permittees provide reasonable administrative access to the BLM across private
and leased lands;
! stating that the temporary changes that BLM can make within the terms and
conditions of permits involve the number of livestock and period of use; and
! requiring BLM to document observations supporting a reduction in grazing
intensity, and providing that reductions will be made through temporary
suspensions of active use rather than through permanent reductions
Changes Not Proposed. BLM considered but did not propose many other
changes to grazing regulations, according to the proposed rule and DEIS. For
instance, the agency considered adopting rule language to support establishing and
operating a new type of grazing unit, called a reserve common allotment (RCA), but
did not do so because of negative public reaction to the idea. However, the BLM
continues to consider the issue of forage reserves as part of its consideration of policy
changes. (See below.)
The agency also considered allowing permit holders to temporarily lock gates
on public lands, for instance to protect private property by preventing cattle from
leaving grazing allotments and to minimize disturbances during lambing and calving
seasons. The idea was opposed as preventing access by other land users, such as
hunters and recreationists; giving a special privilege to permittees; and being
currently prohibited by law.
BLM also did not propose altering the existing provisions under which a grazing
fee surcharge is placed on permittees who allow livestock neither they nor their
children own to graze on public land. The current surcharge provision was
incorporated in 1995 to address concerns regarding the potential for a permittee to
make a substantial profit when subleasing grazing privileges. BLM asserts that the
current surcharge provision is equitable and that it does not want to address fee-
related issues as part of the current reform effort.
9 P.L. 93-205; 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1540.

---

CRS-8
Grazing Policy
On March 25, 2003, BLM issued a press release announcing that policy changes
under consideration include reserve common allotments (RCAs), conservation
partnerships, voluntary allotment restructuring, conservation easement acquisition,
and ESA mitigation.10 BLM also examined the establishment of RCAs as a
regulatory change, but did not propose rule language in this area. Some have asserted
that other policy options under consideration might necessitate the adoption of new
rules, which would require opportunities for public comment.

BLM solicited public feedback on the policy options under consideration
through a series of public workshops. While some support for policy changes was
expressed, many members of the public asserted that available information was
inadequate to assess the policy changes, raised concerns about the outlined options,
or viewed the initial schedule for considering policy and rules changes as too short.
In response, BLM announced that it had extended the timeframe for developing
policy changes, but did not issue a schedule for completing actions. The agency also
developed and published on its website more detailed information on RCAs,
conservation partnerships, and voluntary allotment restructuring. It noted that
conservation easements were no longer being pursued as a major policy tool, and that
the concept of ESA mitigation had evolved to the broader notion of landscape
habitat improvement.
Reserve Common Allotments (RCAs). RCAs would serve as livestock
forage for permittees while their normal allotments undergo rest or improvements,
and might be used for unplanned needs, such as drought, fire, or flood. The BLM
asserts that existing regulations allow the creation of RCAs but with impediments.
RCAs are supported as encouraging improvements (such as a prescribed burn) and
recovery from heavy grazing, and necessary in emergencies so that ranchers won’t
have to reduce herd size or sell out for lack of forage. Conservationists are
concerned that this approach does not address what they view as the fundamental
issue — overstocking or grazing unsuitable lands — and that RCAs will benefit
ranchers who mismanaged their allotments. Livestock groups fear a reduction in
grazing and loss of water rights through nonuse, coercion to participate, and use of
RCAs as a subterfuge for conservation use. Key issues for both supporters and critics
include how much land, and which lands, will become part of RCAs (e.g., vacant
allotments, areas of nonuse); what will trigger their use; their term; how many
permittees will be allowed to graze simultaneously; and how forage will be allocated.

Conservation Partnerships. The goal of conservation partnerships between
permit holders and the BLM would be to improve environmental health. A permittee
could enter into a performance-based contract with BLM to undertake projects to:
restore stream banks, wetlands, and riparian areas; enhance water quantity and
quality; improve wildlife or fisheries habitat; and support the recovery of threatened
and endangered species, among other actions. In return, the permittee could receive
10 For more information on policy options, see the BLM website at:
[http://www.blm.gov/nhp/efoia/wo/fy03/im2003-214ch1.htm] and
[http://www.blm.gov/nhp/efoia/wo/fy03/im2003-214.htm], visited on August 27, 2003.

---

CRS-9
management flexibility, increased livestock grazing, and stewardship grants to pay
for investments in conservation practices. Advocates note that these arrangements
would give permittees credit for improvements they have been making, encourage
and reward good stewardship, and enhance the role of permittees in managing
grazing allotments. Opponents contend that private property rights could be
impaired, the amount of available funding is unclear, the extent of resource
improvement is uncertain, permittees might receive benefits for little or no resource
improvement, and partnerships may not be entirely voluntary. Differences of opinion
exist as to a role for third parties, rewards for permittees, and dealing with
intermingled private land.
Voluntary Allotment Restructuring. Voluntary allotment restructuring
would allow two or more grazing permittees to merge allotments. One or more of
the permittees would not graze temporarily, while the others grazed over the entire
area, to achieve lighter grazing. Such restructuring is supported as improving range
conditions while maintaining the economic viability of permittees. Concerns include
that restructuring would reduce grazing and can already occur informally, operator
to operator. Issues involve when restructuring would be used and whether and how
to compensate ranchers who give up grazing privileges.
Conservation Easements. Conservation easements — land use restrictions
— were being considered to preserve open space. Under this arrangement, BLM
would place conservation easements on its land identified for disposal. Permittees
would similarly restrict development on their private land in exchange for acquiring
the BLM lands with the easements. These easements were advocated as benefitting
the land, land managers, and permittees. However, BLM subsequently asserted that
because they are limited in their ability to use conservation easements, such
easements are not currently a major policy option. Easements have been opposed as
reducing land values, limiting the management discretion of private landowners, not
necessarily providing a public benefit, and encumbering land disposal.
Endangered Species Act Mitigation. BLM viewed the policy options
listed above as providing opportunities to mitigate the effects of livestock grazing on
species listed under the Endangered Species Act. Mitigation banks also were
contemplated to preserve or create habitat for listed species in exchange for
mitigation credits. Such credits could be sold to other land users to offset the impacts
of development on listed species. This idea raised concerns among livestock groups
that grazing would be subordinated to conservation and private property rights could
be weakened, and among environmentalists that permittees would be compensated
for something the BLM already is obligated to protect. This concept is now being
considered as Landscape Habitat Improvement, to promote species conservation and
facilitate ESA consultations. Habitat management would be pursued on a landscape
basis, perhaps involving lands under various ownerships, which presumes a larger
geographic area than a grazing allotment. Grazing permittees could form
partnerships to promote species conservation and maintain or improve habitat while
continuing to graze public lands.

---

CRS-10
Conclusion
Nearly a year has passed since BLM notified the public of its consideration of
changes to both grazing regulations and policies under its Sustaining Working
Landscapes initiative. During this time, evaluations of possible regulatory and policy
changes have been proceeding on separate tracks, and have met with mixed reaction.

Many of the key regulatory changes proposed on December 8, 2003, deal with
provisions that took effect in 1995, during the last major revision of grazing rules.
Among them are proposals to allow shared title to range improvements, allow private
acquisition of water rights, reduce requirements for public involvement, broaden the
definition of grazing preference, change the timeframe and procedures for remedying
rangeland health problems, remove the limit on permit nonuse, and eliminate
conservation use grazing permits. The revisiting of issues dealt with less than a
decade ago, together with other proposed changes, has been generally supported by
livestock organizations and some range professionals who see benefits both to the
range and those grazing on public land. By contrast, many environmental
organizations and other range experts oppose the changes on the grounds that a need
for change has not been demonstrated and the particular proposals could harm the
environment. Such differences of opinion over livestock grazing has become
common.
Public comment on the proposed regulatory changes, together with the DEIS
assessing their impact, will be accepted until March 2, 2004. After an evaluation of
the comments, the BLM anticipates issuing a final grazing rule in October 2004 that
would take effect in December 2004.
Public feedback on possible policy changes already has shaped the proposals
under examination as well as extended the expected timeframe for considering
changes. Key policy issues under current consideration relate to RCAs, conservation
partnerships, voluntary allotment restructuring, and landscape habitat improvement.
Public reaction to policy changes could become more contentious once details of the
changes are developed and announced to the public.

Currently BLM is reviewing input from its Resource Advisory Councils on
policy options. No timeframe for issuing policy changes has been announced, but
BLM expects to develop final policy changes after the completion of the rulemaking
process.

---