Order Code RL32244
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Grazing Regulations: Changes by the
Bureau of Land Management
Updated August 24, 2005
Carol Hardy Vincent
Specialist in Natural Resources
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Grazing Regulations: 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 (43 C.F.R. Part 4100)
and considering other changes to grazing policies. On June 17, 2005, BLM issued
a final environmental impact statement (FEIS) that analyzes the potential impact of
proposed changes in the regulations, a slightly different alternative, and the status
quo. On August 9, 2005, BLM announced its intent to prepare a supplement to the
FEIS. The delay is intended to allow the agency time to address public comment
received after the closing date of March 2, 2004, primarily from the Fish and Wildlife
Service. The agency anticipates developing the supplement in the fall of 2005,
soliciting and reviewing public comment, and issuing it in final form in the spring of
2006. No deadline for the final rule has been announced.

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
could share title to structural range improvements, such as a fence. Permittees could
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 three-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.

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
Overview of Regulatory Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Proposed Changes to Grazing Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Share Title to Range Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Acquire Private Water Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Reduce Requirements for Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Modify the Administrative Appeals Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Broaden the Definition of Grazing Preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Remedy Rangeland Health Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Remove Limit on Permit Nonuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Eliminate Conservation Use Grazing Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Other Proposed Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Changes Not Proposed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Overview of Grazing Policy Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Grazing Policy Changes Under Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Reserve Common Allotments (RCAs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Conservation Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Voluntary Allotment Restructuring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Conservation Easements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Endangered Species Act Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

---

Grazing Regulations: Changes by the
Bureau of Land Management
History

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has proposed changes to grazing
regulations (43 C.F.R. 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 three 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.
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 changes would require
more monitoring than is feasible, thus possibly preventing changes. Another is that
BLM and the Forest Service (FS) are not developing joint rules, given that many
BLM and FS lands are similar and adjoining and permittees often have permits for
livestock grazing on both agencies’ lands. 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.
2For more information on grazing fees, see CRS Report RS21232, Grazing Fees: An
Overview and Current Issues, 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.

---

CRS-3
Overview of Regulatory Process
BLM proposed changes to its grazing regulations on December 8, 2003 (68 Fed.
Reg. 68451), and on January 2, 2004, issued a draft environmental impact statement
(DEIS) analyzing the potential impact of the proposed changes. The DEIS also
assessed 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.
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 has been supported 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 and opportunities for public input.
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 were open for public comment through March 2,
2004, during which time the agency received more than 18,000 comments. The BLM
considered these comments, and on June 17, 2005, issued a final environmental
impact statement (FEIS) on proposed changes and alternatives.4
The proposed revisions in the FEIS met with mixed reaction, like those in the
earlier DEIS. A number of the key proposals are discussed under “Proposed Changes
to Grazing Regulations” below. With regard to the environmental effects of the
preferred alternative, the FEIS stated (p. ES-5) that “most of the proposed regulatory
changes have little or no adverse effects on the human environment. Some short-
term adverse effects may not be avoided because of increases in timeframes
associated with several components of this proposed rulemaking.” This statement
has fueled concerns among environmentalists that the proposed changes could
eliminate public land protections and lead to unsustainable grazing practices. The
FEIS stated that to minimize the potential for adverse affects in the short-term, the
BLM could “curtail grazing if resources on the public lands require immediate
protection or if continued grazing use poses an imminent likelihood of significant
resource damage.” Further, the BLM asserts that the long-term outcome of the
proposed changes would be better and more sustainable grazing decisions, and that
the changes “would be beneficial to rangeland health.”
A particular controversy surfaced recently over assertions by two members of
the draft EIS team, a BLM hydrologist and a BLM biologist (both now retired), that
their scientific conclusions were reversed by BLM because they did not support the
new rules. Those conclusions apparently had asserted that the proposed new rules
4The FEIS, together with a fact sheet and questions and answers on the new grazing
regulations that are in development, are available at [http://www.blm.gov/grazing/], visited
August 16, 2005.

---

CRS-4
could harm water quality and wildlife, including endangered species. A BLM official
is reported to have called the changes to the views of the two scientists a part of the
standard editing and review process.5 Further, a statement by the BLM contended
that the EIS team found their work to be “seriously lacking in the quality expected
from each contributor to the environmental impact analysis.” The statement alleged
that the conclusions of the two team members were “based on personal opinion and
unsubstantiated assertions rather than sound environmental analysis. As a result, the
work submitted by the two former BLM employees was rewritten.”6
BLM initially intended to publish a final grazing rule in the Federal Register in
mid-July, with an effective date in mid-August. However, on August 9, 2005, BLM
announced its intent to prepare a supplement to the FEIS. BLM currently anticipates
issuing a draft supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) in the fall of
2005, soliciting and reviewing public comment, and issuing a final SEIS in the spring
of 2006. No deadline for a final grazing rule has been announced.

The delay is intended to allow the agency to address public comment received
after the comment period ended on March 2, 2004, primarily the views of the Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS), according to BLM. In a 16-page draft comment
submitted to BLM, the FWS asserted that the proposed changes would
“fundamentally change the way BLM lands are managed temporally, spatially, and
philosophically. These changes could have profound impacts on wildlife resources.”7
The FWS expressed overall concern that the proposed revisions would make grazing
a priority over other land uses, which could be detrimental to fish and wildlife
habitats and populations, for instance, management of sage-grouse habitat. The
agency further contended that the proposed changes could “constrain biologists and
range conservationists from recommending and implementing management changes
based on their best professional judgment in response to conditions that may
compromise the long-term health and sustainability of rangeland resources.”8
While supporting some of the proposed changes, the FWS identified a number
of areas of particular concern. They included potential effects of administrative
inconsistencies between BLM and the Forest Service on their management of fish
and wildlife resources across boundaries;9 diminished requirements for public
5Julie Cart, “Land Study on Grazing Denounced; Two Retired Specialists Say Interior
Excised their Warnings on the Effects on Wildlife and Water,” Los Angeles Times, June 18,
2005, sec. A, p. 1.
6U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Statement of the Bureau of
Land Management re: Los Angeles Times Article of June 18, 2005, unpublished draft
received from BLM, Aug. 12, 2005.
7U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Comments on (1) Proposed Rule
for Grazing Administration-Exclusive of Alaska (EC03/0049), and (2) Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for the Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands
(EC04/0003), unpublished draft received from BLM, Aug. 12, 2005, p. 12.
8Ibid., p. 1.
9A goal of the 1995 regulatory reform was to increase consistency BLM and FS grazing
(continued...)

---

CRS-5
consultation on site-specific actions, which have the greatest potential for impacts to
fish and wildlife; a phase-in of decreases (or increases) in livestock use that are
greater than 10%, which may not be immediate enough to prevent irreversible harm
to vegetation and wildlife; including an amount of forage in the definition of grazing
preference, which may not account for other range attributes;10 allowing shared title
to range improvements, which could make it more difficult to reallocate land use,
such as to provide quality habitat for wildlife; requiring monitoring of rangeland
standards, which has not been achievable due to BLM funding and staffing
limitations; and sharing of water rights, as water is the most important resource for
fish and wildlife.
Proposed Changes to 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 continues to be
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 remains 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 FEIS 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.
9(...continued)
administration, perhaps reducing administrative costs. The FWS expressed concern that the
current regulatory reform effort, in pertaining exclusively to BLM, could lead to
inconsistencies between the BLM and the Forest Service in several areas.
10Under current BLM regulations, grazing preference is defined as having a superior or
priority position against others for the purpose of receiving a grazing permit. The FWS
expressed opposition to adding a quantity of forage to that definition without consideration
of other features of range resources that are not quantifiable in terms of forage, such as
species diversity and soil condition.

---

CRS-6
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
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 management of a specific allotment are maintained on the list of interested
publics. Supporters maintain that the changes will prevent delays and facilitate
timely decisions. Also, the agency views additional consultation as redundant,
because the public already has opportunities to participate during the planning
processes, reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),11 and the
development of reports used by BLM as a basis for increasing or decreasing grazing
use and changing the terms of use (under 43 C.F.R. 4130.3-3(b)). The changes are
criticized as restricting public input which could lead to ill-considered decisions.
They are further opposed because decisions at the planning level are too general and
broad to allow specific evaluation and comment. Still others contend that
environmental reviews under NEPA are not required for some grazing decisions and
where required 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 appeals to
11 P.L. 91-190; 42 U.S.C. §§4321-4347.

---

CRS-7
decisions involving renewing, modifying, suspending, or canceling a permit or on
transferring preference, the affected permittee usually would continue grazing under
the immediately preceding grazing authorization. Certain decisions would be
required to be implemented immediately and not be eligible for a stay, including
authorizations to graze temporary forage. The changes are sought to provide
permittees with continuity of operations when a decision affecting their operations
is appealed. They are opposed by some as limiting the ability of the public to
participate in grazing decisions, reducing the flexibility of land managers to take
certain actions based on what is best for resource conditions, 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 AUMs12 — tied to a permittee’s base property
of land or water. The definition would continue to include a qualitative meaning —
a 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 for livestock grazing based on livestock
carrying capacity and resource conditions, and suspended use, which is use that has
been allocated for livestock grazing in the past but is currently unavailable. 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 require both
assessments and monitoring of resource conditions to support agency determinations
that grazing practices or levels of use are significant factors in failing to achieve
rangeland health standards or conform with guidelines on an allotment. It would
amend the timeframe and procedures for changing grazing management after a
determination that grazing practices or levels are significant factors in failing to
achieve standards or conform with guidelines. The change would allow a maximum
of 24 months, rather than the current 12-month limit, for developing remedial
changes in grazing practices. However, BLM could extend the deadline if
responsibilities of another agency prevent completion within 24 months. Further, a
change would phase in grazing increases or decreases of more than 10% over a
five-year period, unless the changes must be made sooner under law (e.g., the
Endangered Species Act (ESA)13) or the permittee agrees to a shorter period. BLM
maintains that these changes will provide a sound basis for agency determinations
and give the agency more time and flexibility in working with permittees who are not
meeting the standards. They are opposed as potentially allowing damaging practices
to continue and requiring excessive documentation even when damage is obvious.
Opponents also claim that BLM lacks staff and funds to collect the necessary
information formally.
12An AUM is defined as the amount of forage necessary for the sustenance of one cow or
its equivalent for a period of one month.
13 P.L. 93-205; 16 U.S.C. §§1531-1540.

---

CRS-8
Remove Limit on Permit Nonuse. The proposed rule would remove the
current three-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, temporary nonuse is allowed only if
authorized by BLM and for no longer than one year at a time.
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 should be met through 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
! 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;
! 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;
! providing that a biological assessment or evaluation by BLM under the ESA
is not an agency decision for purposes of protests and appeals;
! specifying that BLM will cooperate with state, tribal, local, and county grazing
boards in reviewing range improvements and allotment management plans on
public 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 that
would result in temporary nonuse and/or forage removal; 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 has not proposed many other
changes to grazing regulations, according to the proposed rule and FEIS. 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 under “Grazing Policy Changes Under Consideration” for a
discussion of reserve common allotments.) 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

---

CRS-9
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.
Overview of Grazing Policy Process
On March 25, 2003, BLM first announced possible grazing policy changes as
a complement to the regulatory changes being considered.14 According to BLM, the
focus is on policy changes that can be carried out under existing rules. The
distinction between policies and regulations is not always clear, and when an agency
must take action through formal rulemaking can be an issue.15
The agency seeks policy reforms to promote citizen stewardship of public lands,
provide flexibility to managers of livestock grazing, and increase innovative
partnerships. BLM has reviewed the advice and recommendations of its Resource
Advisory Councils on policy ideas.16 Final grazing policy changes will be addressed
when the rulemaking process is “substantially completed,” according to BLM.
Grazing Policy Changes Under Consideration
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.17 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.

14 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
August 23, 2005.
15 See 5 U.S.C. §551(4).
16BLM 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.
17 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 23, 2005.

---

CRS-10
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 streambanks, 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
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

---

CRS-11
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 ESA. 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.
Conclusion
More than two years have 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 contained in the FEIS 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, modify the
administrative appeals process, 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 a decade ago, together with other proposed changes,

---

CRS-12
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.
Public comment on the proposed regulatory changes, together with the DEIS
assessing their impact, was accepted through March 2, 2004. BLM evaluated the
comments over many months, before publishing an FEIS on June 17, 2005. BLM
postponed developing a final grazing rule to consider public comment allegedly
received after the closing date, particularly from the Fish and Wildlife Service. The
BLM is preparing a supplement to the FEIS, expected in final form in the spring of
2006. No date for the final grazing rule has been announced.

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 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.

BLM has reviewed input from its Resource Advisory Councils on policy
options. No timeframe for issuing policy changes has been announced. BLM
expects to focus on final policy changes after the completion of the rulemaking
process.

---