	History

On August 11, 2006, revised grazing regulations of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) took effect (43 C.F.R. Part 4100). Some of the regulations have been enjoined. Among the changes made in 1995, many of which were reexamined by BLM during the development of the 2006 regulatory changes, are those that:
separated grazing preference from permitted use , so that a permittee's 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 suspending or canceling 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; 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 . They also contended that BLM had not justified a need for regulatory and policy changes and that the changes adopted remove important environmental protections and opportunities for public comment. BLM asserted that regulatory changes were needed to increase flexibility for grazing managers and permittees, to improve BLM's relationship with ranchers, to improve rangeland management and permit administration, to promote conservation, and to comply with court decisions. The BLM considered these comments, and on June 17, 2005, issued a final environmental impact statement (FEIS) on proposed changes and alternatives. On March 31, 2006, BLM issued an addendum to the FEIS that addressed the FWS and other public comment and made relatively minor changes to its proposed rules. Modify the Administrative Appeals Process

The agency modified the administrative appeals process on grazing decisions and defined the extent to which grazing should continue in the face of an appeal or stay of a decision. They 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. Remove Limit on Permit Nonuse

The final rule removed the 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. According to BLM, the focus was on policy changes that could be carried out under existing rules. Policy changes considered included conservation partnerships, voluntary allotment restructuring, conservation easement acquisition, endangered species mitigation/landscape habitat improvement, and reserve common allotments (RCAs). BLM also examined the establishment of RCAs as a regulatory change, but did not propose rule language in this area. Conservation Partnerships

The goal of conservation partnerships between permit holders and the BLM would be to improve environmental health. Conservation Easements

Conservation easements—land use restrictions—were being considered to preserve open space. This concept was later considered as Landscape Habitat Improvement , to promote species conservation and facilitate ESA consultations. Changes to regulations became effective August 11, 2006, although some of the changes were subsequently enjoined. Among them are changes 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 agency postponed developing a final grazing rule to consider public comment received after the closing date, particularly from the Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) issued changes to grazing regulations (43 C.F.R. Part 4100) on August 11, 2006, after a three year review. Some portions of the regulations have been enjoined. The previous major revision of grazing rules, which took effect in 1995, was highly controversial. The 2006 changes addressed many of the same issues, and received mixed reviews. BLM asserted that the 2006 changes were 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. Critics contend that a need for change was not justified and that changes adopted removed important environmental protections and opportunities for public comment.
Under the 2006 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 were reduced. The administrative appeals process on grazing decisions was modified and the extent to which grazing could continue in the face of an appeal or stay of a decision was delineated. The definition of grazing preference was broadened to include a quantitative meaning—forage on public land. Changes were 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 three-year limit on temporary nonuse of a permit was removed, and permittees are able to apply for nonuse of a permit for up to one year at a time. Conservation use grazing permits were eliminated. Changes that have been enjoined relate primarily to public participation, sharing title to range improvements, and fundamentals of rangeland health. BLM also considered, but did not propose, certain changes due to adverse public reaction or other considerations.
On June 17, 2005, BLM had issued a final environmental impact statement (FEIS) analyzing the potential impact of proposed changes in the regulations, an alternative, and the status quo. On March 31, 2006, BLM published an addendum to the FEIS addressing public comment received after the closing date of March 2, 2004, primarily from the Fish and Wildlife Service. Final regulatory changes took effect August 11, 2006.
BLM also considered, but did not make, changes to its grazing policies, which the agency had believed could be carried out under existing rules. Potential changes that were examined included the establishment of reserve common allotments to serve as backup forage when permittees' regular allotments are unavailable; conservation partnerships between the BLM and permittees whereby permittees work to improve environmental health in return for certain benefits; voluntary allotment restructuring to allow multiple permittees to merge allotments; conservation easement acquisition to preserve open space; and landscape habitat improvement to promote species conservation and facilitate consultations under the Endangered Species Act.