Setting Priorities for Review and Processing of Grazing Authorizations and Related Livestock Grazing Monitoring, and Incorporating Thresholds and Responses into Grazing Permits/Leases

A. Setting Priorities for Reviewing and Processing Grazing Permits

Field Offices (FOs) must give the highest priority to the work necessary to meet applicable legal requirements (e.g., court orders, compliance with the Endangered Species Act and associated regulations, etc.). FOs must then use the criteria listed below to develop a prioritization schedule for fully processing[1] active grazing allotments with high-priority resources. Sage-grouse and Bighorn Sheep habitats are the two highest priority resources based on the ongoing rangewide efforts to conserve the Greater Sage-Grouse (GRSG) and the potential long-term nature and degree of potential impact of disease on bighorn sheep populations. These and additional priority categories are identified below:

LAND HEALTH: Areas not meeting or not making significant progress toward meeting land health standards (LHS), areas where standards have never been evaluated, and areas where LHS have not been evaluated within the past 15 years should be prioritized for permit review, with attention given to grouping areas into common geographic areas or watershed scales. Areas affected by recent disturbance such as drought, fire, and nonnative invasive species should also be considered priority areas for reviewing and processing grazing permits and leases. 

SAGE-GROUSE:

• Allotments where sage-grouse populations have met a population threshold based on the best available science (e.g., neighborhood clusters as described in Coates et al 2022) or data presented by the state wildlife management agency.
• Prioritization criteria identified in applicable land use plans for GRSG and Gunnison sage-grouse. For GRSG Plans, allotments with Priority Habitat Management Areas (PHMA) are higher priority than General Habitat Management Areas where preliminary information indicates resource damage may be occurring but where that question has not yet been fully evaluated. This information can come from local, national, or external data sources.
• Areas where modifications to livestock grazing management will facilitate restoration of degraded habitats and ecosystems to achieve ecosystem resilience, defined as the capacity of ecosystems to maintain or regain their fundamental composition, structure, and function (including maintaining habitat connectivity and providing ecosystem services) when affected by disturbances such as drought, fire, and nonnative invasive species.

BIGHORN SHEEP: Areas with moderate or high risk of interaction between bighorn and domestic sheep based on risk of contact models, as outlined in land use plans, or proximity/overlap of occupied bighorn sheep range. Refer to Manual 1730 - Management of Domestic Sheep and Goats to Sustain Wild Sheep (Rel. 1-1771).

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES: Areas designated as critical habitat for threatened or endangered species or areas where recovery plans or conservation strategies from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) indicate that livestock grazing, or associated activity may impact the species. 

AREAS WITH SPECIAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGNATIONS: Areas such as National Monuments, National Conservation Areas, or Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), considering the known condition of the objects of the Monument, the purposes of the National Conservation Area, or the relevant and important values of the ACEC.   

B.  General provisions for the evaluation and processing of grazing permits with high-priority resources as defined in (A) above.

BLM FOs must, to the greatest extent practicable, complete the following steps within three years:

• Complete data collection and use the data collected to conduct LHS Assessments/Evaluations[2] consistent with the prioritization of allotments developed under Part A.
• Where lands within the allotment are not achieving or making progress toward achieving applicable land health standards, complete a causal factor determination within one year as provided by 43 C.F.R. § 6103.1.2(f). Where current grazing management practices or levels of grazing use are determined to be a significant causal factor of lands not achieving or making progress toward achieving applicable land health standards, take appropriate action before the next grazing year as provided by 43 C.F.R. § 4180.2(c).

In all cases, BLM FOs must use the data collected to conduct an environmental analysis under NEPA and any other applicable statute, prepare associated documentation, and issue a grazing decision to renew with or without modifications or decline to renew grazing permits and leases consistent with the prioritization of allotments developed under Part A. NEPA must be completed in a timely manner so data that the BLM has collected does not become outdated.

Consistent with applicable law, BLM FOs must also:

• Monitor compliance with grazing permit/lease terms and conditions.
• Monitor progress towards achieving LHS.
• Implement responses to thresholds, as provided in the permit or lease. (See Part C, below.)

C.  Analyzing and Incorporating Thresholds and Responses

When FOs fully process a grazing permit, they will develop thresholds and responses, as appropriate, through the NEPA process which will be incorporated in at least one alternative for analysis in accordance with the policy set forth below.

When a FO fully processes a grazing permit or lease, the NEPA analysis covering that permit or lease must include at least one alternative that analyzes incorporation of relevant thresholds and defined responses into the terms and conditions of the grazing permit or lease. Thresholds and responses will be developed through the NEPA process for the purposes of maintaining or moving BLM-administered lands toward achievement of LHS and any specific management objectives identified in relevant land use plans and management plans for specifically designated areas or species.

Thresholds are grazing use indicators that can be measured to ensure that current livestock grazing management allows an area to make progress toward achieving specified habitat objectives and LHS. Examples include percent utilization, bank alteration limits, drought severity utilization limits, and browse utilization limits. The responses identify what changes in livestock grazing management would occur if a threshold is exceeded. If thresholds are exceeded, the authorized officer (AO) must apply the associated responsive management action or actions. These grazing thresholds are different from GRSG population thresholds, and they should not be used interchangeably.

To determine when to select an alternative that incorporates grazing thresholds and responses into permit terms and conditions, the highest priority should be given to the categories of grazing allotments identified in Part A of this PIM.

Where an AO determines that an analysis of grazing thresholds and defined responses is not necessary or elects to select an alternative that does not include thresholds and responses, the AO will document their decision rationale explaining how the selected livestock grazing management will achieve the desired effect, and what indicators and metrics will be used to evaluate and document achievement or continued progress toward achievement of LHS and land use and management plan objectives.

At the AO’s discretion, they may select an alternative analyzed in an EA/EIS that includes thresholds and responses for an allotment that currently achieves LHS to provide additional flexibility to the permittee to meet other resource management objectives. For example, FOs may want to incorporate thresholds and responses to ensure success of vegetation treatments, invasive species control, aquatic restoration, or reduction of excessive fuel loads through collaborative efforts to meet resource goals and objectives.

D.  NEPA Considerations for Implementing Defined Management Responses

When fully processing grazing permits and leases, the FOs will complete the appropriate level of NEPA analysis on an allotment or multiple allotment basis as described in the NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1, Release 1-1710).

For alternatives that includes thresholds and responses, multiple responses should be evaluated in the NEPA document that will allow the BLM and permittees options for responding when thresholds are exceeded. The analysis should also identify the location, timing, frequency and methodologies to be used for monitoring the thresholds.

If thresholds and responses analyzed in a NEPA document are incorporated into the grazing decision and grazing permit or lease as terms and conditions, the following criteria will help guide whether a given response can be implemented immediately or will require an additional decision:

• If the response is within the existing terms and conditions of a grazing permit, the response will be implemented immediately without an additional decision. If the AO intends to implement responses to thresholds during the life of a given grazing permit or lease without issuing a new decision, the AO should make that intent clear in both the final grazing decision and supporting NEPA document.
• If the response requires a modification to the terms and conditions of a grazing permit, an additional grazing decision will need to be issued. Incorporation of thresholds and management responses into a permit that were not included as terms and conditions in a permit may be possible where:

1. The thresholds and management responses were analyzed in another alternative but not selected. The AO may issue a new proposed decision selecting the alternative that analyzed the desired thresholds and management responses. A Determination of NEPA Adequacy may be sufficient when selecting a previously analyzed alternative to satisfy the BLM’s obligations under NEPA.
2. Monitoring determines that a different management response is needed, but the response was not addressed in the NEPA analysis for the authorization. In such cases, the FOs should implement interim measures that are within the terms and conditions of the existing permit (and that were addressed in an existing NEPA analysis) to minimize impacts. The FOs must expedite further NEPA analysis to support modification of the permit and incorporation of the appropriate management response.

E.  Issuing Permits and Leases Under Section 402(c)(2) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA)

The BLM should prioritize fully processing permits and leases that have already been renewed at least once by operation of Section 402(c)(2) of FLPMA, with particular attention given to those permits and leases that are identified as higher priority based on the process outlined above in Part A. In all cases, the BLM must seek to avoid successive renewals of permits and leases by operation of Section 402(c)(2) by prioritizing fully processing such permits before a second renewal period expires. Before any successive renewal decision under operation of Section 402(c)(2) is issued, the AO must notify the relevant BLM State Director.

F.  Transparency Requirements

To make the priority and timing for processing grazing permits and leases transparent to the public, the BLM will proactively make annual prioritization schedules available to the public upon request, in the short term, and by making them available on the BLM’s public facing website once a site and process have been established. Prioritization schedules will be developed and available by October 1, 2025 initially, and March 1 annually thereafter. At a minimum, annual prioritization schedules (which may be updated more frequently than annually, as needed) will include the following:

• Field Office
• Allotment Number
• Allotment Name
• Draft Ranking
• Factors for Priority Group Assignment
• Year(s) Scheduled for Data Collection
• Year(s) Scheduled for Land Health Evaluation/Determination
• Year(s) Scheduled for NEPA analysis/Decision

G.  Consultation and Coordination

As required by Title 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 4110.3-1(c); 4110.3-3(a); 4110.3-3(b); 4120.2(c) and (e); 4130.2(b) and 4130.6-2,[3] FOs will work  with grazing permit holders, the interested public, state agencies, Tribes, and other appropriate federal agencies when gathering data to compare current conditions to land health standards and objectives; developing alternatives for NEPA analysis, particularly when considering adjustments in authorized use; and developing a monitoring plan, particularly if other parties will be collecting data to determine the effectiveness of any changes in management. FOs will continue to work with permittees, state agencies having lands or managing resources within the area, tribes, other appropriate federal agencies, and the interested public during the review and processing of grazing permits including developing thresholds and responses. In addition to the consultation and coordination with the entities required by regulation, FOs will also include relevant federal, state and local government agencies as appropriate.