1 and 2). The Frequency and Extent of Unauthorized Grazing on Agency Lands Are Largely Unknown, and Its Effects May Include Rangeland Degradation

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. Agency Databases Identified Nearly 1,500 Incidents of Unauthorized Grazing Where Formal Action Was Taken from 2010 to 2014

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). Agencies Report Handling Most Unauthorized Grazing Incidents Informally and Do Not Record Them in Their Databases

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. 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. 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. 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. Agencies’ Efforts to Detect, Deter, and Resolve Unauthorized Grazing Have Shortcomings That Limit Their Effectiveness

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. Penalties for Unauthorized Grazing

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. 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. 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. 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. BLM and Forest Service Regulations Do Not Provide Flexibility for the Agencies’ Preferred Practice of Informal Resolution for Unauthorized Grazing

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. 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. Alternatively, rather than amending their existing  regulations to match their practices, the agencies could change their  practices to comply with their existing regulations. 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. 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. 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. Appendix II: Grazing Information for the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service

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.
Why GAO Did This Study

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.

What GAO Found

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.

What GAO Recommends

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.