Get reliable rangeland science

Typically, the US Forest Service or the BLM will conduct an Environmental Analysis, or EA for range improvement projects or issuance of term grazing permits. An EA is required by NEPA, or the National Environmental Policy Act. Its purpose is to provide a brief analysis of the environmental, economic, and social impacts of a federal action. A federal action is any decision, permit, or activity carried out by a federal agency. The purpose of an EA is to determine if a federal action has a “significant impact” and, if the action does have a significant impact, if it is possible to easily prevent or compensate for these impacts. Because grazing permits and most range improvements generally seen as having minor impacts, the NEPA process generally ends with completion of the EA. Once the EA is complete, the US Forest or BLM may issue the permit or carry out the proposed project.

In relatively rare cases, the EA will result in a finding that there are significant impacts. Examples for this may include a major change in a livestock operation in terms of numbers or type of livestock or large, complex range improvement projects such as large-scale brush removal or prescribed fire. In these cases, the NEPA process will continue to the more complex EIS stage. An EIS is similar to an EA, but much more detailed and complex. A typical EIS process can take over a year to complete—it is not unusual for a single EIS to take years to complete. If it is determined that an EIS is required for a permit or project to go ahead, the most important thing a rancher can and should do is get involved in the EIS process from the very beginning and stay involved throughout the process. The full EIS process has several critical steps where ranchers can engage and influence the process:

1. Scoping: at the very beginning of the EIS process, the US Forest Service or BLM must determine what the EIS will address. This includes what analyses will be conducted and importantly what alternative actions will be considered. The scoping process sets the stage for the rest of the EIS.2. Public Comments: There are multiple opportunities for formal public comments, included after the draft and final EIS are published for public review. By commenting on the draft and final EIS, ranchers can make sure their voices are heard in the process and that they have the right to appeal decisions in necessary. Agencies are required to respond to all public comments.

While the contents of NEPA reports are often complex and can take months or years to develop, the steps in the process of developing a NEPA document are always the same:

1. A project is proposed, for example a grazing permit renewal or a new dirt tank
   • This may be initiated by the agency, by you for a project on your allotment, or cooperatively with the agency
2. Initial evaluation to determine if the project will likely have environmental impacts
   • For common project types, there are agency policies that determine if further review is needed
3. If environmental impacts are likely, the agency prepares an Environmental Assessment
   • Most grazing permits and range improvements will require an Environmental Assessment
   • The public, including ranchers, can and should participate in the Environmental Assessment process
4. The NEPA process can now follow two different paths: A Finding of No Significant Impact and a final decision by the agency, or a more detailed Environmental Impact Statement.
   • For most grazing permit renewals and range improvements, the NEPA process ends with final decision based on the Environmental Assessment
5. If it is determined a project will have significant environmental impacts, a full Environmental Impact Statement is required. The steps in this process are detailed on the Full EIS Process page.

Overview

Public and private land managers are often experts in managing their own ranches or the adjacent public lands.  However, they may not have access to the latest science that can help them solve challenging problems. Scientists at universities and government agencies are constantly producing new information about the management of rangelands, but this information may not directly respond to the questions ranchers and other land managers have about specific problems. This disconnect can prevent improvements in management. The idea of co-production of science was developed to respond to this issue.

Co-production is a term used to describe the process of scientists and land managers working together to develop research questions and methods for studying a problem. Instead of producing information that may or may not be helpful and delivering it at the end of a research project, scientists work with land managers to decide what questions are important to ask at the outset. As a result, scientific results are directly responsive to user needs.

Co-production is a useful tool for adaptive management and collaborative conservation. In adaptive management, land managers establish a management goal and monitor progress toward this goal over time. Range scientists can assist with this process by helping to design scientifically sound monitoring programs. Over time, the results of individual adaptive management efforts can increase knowledge of the functioning of rangeland systems. In collaborative conservation, multiple types of users work together to set goals and implement conservation plans. Many collaborative conservation programs include scientists to help develop conservation goals and monitor outcomes.   Co-production also provides a model for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.

Overview

Beginning in the 1970s and 1980s, more people throughout the western U.S. began to use public lands for a variety of purposes.  Many of these new users had different ideas about what public lands are for and how they should be managed than was common in decades past. These differences have been the source of numerous conflicts between ranchers, agencies, and other public land users.

As clashes increased throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, some ranchers, agency personnel, and environmentalists began looking for ways to overcome conflicts. What they realized is that they had more interests in common than differences. By focusing on these common goals, they could improve conservation outcomes. It also allowed them to build trust so they could address more difficult problems in the future. This approach is called collaborative conservation.  An early and important example of collaborative conservation is the Malpai Borderlands Group. This group of ranchers located in the far southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico, came together to work with agencies and environmentalists to conserve rangelands and re-introduce fire into the landscape for management purposes.

Today, there are dozens of collaborative conservation groups across the West. All collaborative conservation efforts have the same basic characteristics - groups of people from different backgrounds that have a shared interest in conservation and believe they can accomplish more by working together. Often, collaborative conservation groups will develop new approaches to overcoming management challenges.

Overview

Rangeland ecosystems are dynamic and offer new challenges requiring different management approaches.  Livestock management on public lands has always been difficult due to changing conditions over the course of a year or even across multiple years.  However, regulations often required a fixed number of livestock for each grazing allotment and allotment permittees had to follow fixed grazing schedules.  

Today, both the BLM and USFS allow for adaptive management, which is designed to allow adjustment to a livestock management plan when things do not go as expected. There are many different definitions of adaptive management and different ways it is implemented, but it always has two essential components: establishing a set of management goals and conducting regular monitoring to track progress toward meeting those goals.

On public lands grazing allotments, adaptive management is now written into Allotment Management Plans and Annual Operating Instructions. These documents set the rules permittees must follow over the life of their 10-year term grazing permit. By including adaptive management in these documents, the BLM and USFS are able to provide ranchers with more management flexibility allowing the agencies and ranchers to work together to solve problems as they come up. But this can only happen if adaptive management is written into the Allotment Management Plan. As a result, it is essential that ranchers ask that adaptive management is included for their allotment at the time of permit renewal.

Overview 

The difference between conservation and preservation missions of the federal land management agencies stretches back to their establishment in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Gifford Pinchot, the first Chief of the US Forest Service (USFS) advocated for conservation, meaning that he believed public lands could be used for recreation as well as for livestock grazing, timber harvesting, mining, hunting, and research if done responsibly. John Muir, an author and environmentalist, had a different view. He advocated for preservation of public lands, the idea that public lands should remain in their original condition and be protected from intrusive uses such as grazing, logging, and mining.  Ultimately this split resulted in the creation of the National Park Service (NPS) and, later, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to manage wildlife refuges and protect endangered species. 

The fundamental difference between the conservation missions of the USFS and BLM and the preservation missions of the NPS and FWS results in different approaches to management and different types of land uses. While USFS and BLM lands are managed for many users, including recreation and resource extraction, most of these uses are restricted on NPS and FWS managed lands. Grazing is generally restricted in national parks and wildlife refuges and recreation is more tightly controlled to prevent alteration of natural landscapes, archeological sites, and possible harm to wildlife. 

Overview 

The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) are managed to provide and sustain resources for a wide variety of users, from ranchers to loggers to recreationists. According to the Forest Service Organic Act of 1897, the primary purpose of national forests was timber production, protection of forests, and preservation of water flows. Among other uses, livestock grazing was a secondary purpose. In the 1950’s, conflict began to arise between different groups of national forest users. Congress responded by formally implementing a multiple-use mandate. The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act (MUSY) was signed in 1960. The act defined multiple-use as “the management of all the various renewable surface resources of the national forests so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the needs of American people”, and sustained-yield as “the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high level annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of the national forests without impairment of the productivity of the land”. MUSY also redefined the primary purposes of the national forest as “outdoor recreation, range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes” equally.  

Over time, Congress would reinforce the multiple use, sustained yield mandate of both the BLM and USFS through the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and National Forest Management Act, which provide additional requirements for planning to balance different uses of the land. Today, multiple use, sustained yield remains the primary management principle that guides land use decision making on BLM and USFS lands.

Overview 

State trust lands are lands that were given to western states at the time of statehood for the purpose of generating revenue. While some states immediately sold most of their trust lands to raise funds, approximately 46 million acres remain across 23 of the lower 48 states. Most remaining state trust lands are concentrated in the nine western states: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.  Many states also own additional lands that they acquired through other means, such as wildlife management areas and parks, but these lands are not governed by trust mandates.  

States are legally required to manage trust lands in perpetuity for the financial benefit of specific beneficiaries. Public schools are the designated beneficiary for majority of state trust lands, but a smaller portion of these lands also support universities, hospitals, and other public institutions.  State trust lands earn revenues from a variety of activities, including timber harvesting, grazing, mineral extraction, and recreation, but most revenue is generated through sale of trust lands for development. Revenues from sales of land and extraction of non-renewable resources are invested to provide long-term interest income for the beneficiaries. It is this trust responsibility that sets state trust lands apart from other state and federal lands. 

Overview 

In 1872, Yellowstone became the first national park.  Protected for its unique natural beauty, it was only the first of what would eventually become a system of 419 national parks and historic sites managed by the NPS. The NPS is different from the USFS and BLM in that its mission is not multiple use. Rather, the NPS is tasked with keeping land under its management “unimpaired for future generations.” This means that the NPS has an explicit preservation mission, in contrast to the conservation and sustainability missions of the USFS and BLM. As a result, most resource development activities, including livestock grazing, are not allowed in national parks except under exceptional circumstances. 

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is also different from the USFS and BLM. Its mission is to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. This mission is achieved through the acquisition and management of wildlife refuges and enforcement of the provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. Many of the earliest refuges were human-made wetlands to replace natural wetlands lost to agriculture. These wetlands provided habitat for imperiled migrating waterfowl. Today, there are 567 national wildlife refuges across the country and 2,531 species (Animals, invertebrates, and plants) listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Although, livestock grazing is generally excluded from national wildlife refuges to protect wildlife habitat, some FWS locations that still have grazing and agriculture (Loomis 2002). There are also cooperative agriculture opportunities that are announced for participation by local landowners (see https://www.fws.gov/refuges/get-involved/landowners/cooperative-agriculture.html and https://www.fws.gov/policy/620fw2.html). Because of the way the law was written to establish the FWS reserve system, other extractive things could occur there, such as drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Or another example, a new executive rollback that allows hunting of predators on both refuges and national parks https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/2020/05/hunting-in-national-preserves-and-wildlife-refuges-in-alaska/.  

The Endangered Species Act applies to all lands and makes harming a threatened or endangered species on public or private land illegal. As a result, the ESA is one of the most important laws ranchers and other public lands users are likely to encounter. However, the FWS has policy mechanisms and economic incentives that aid private landowners and public lands users (e.g. grazing) to help avoid an illegal taking of an endangered species (see Outside Resources - Working Together for further information). The process of collaborative conservation strategies is one tool the FWS uses to prevent listing at risk species such as the greater sage grouse. 

NPS land map: https://nationalmap.gov/small_scale/printable/images/pdf/fedlands/NPS_1.pdf  

USFWS land map: https://nationalmap.gov/small_scale/printable/images/pdf/fedlands/FWS_1.pdf  

Overview

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM)and the U.S.Forest Service (USFS) have similar missions. Both agencies are required to manage public lands according to multiple use, sustained yield mandates. However, BLM manages much less forest land and much more rangeland than the US Forest Service. Unlike the US Forest Service, the BLM manages essentially no land in the eastern U.S. This is because BLM managed lands were created from “surplus” public lands that the federal government had not designated as National Forests or given to homesteaders. As a result, BLM land is commonly used by ranchers to support livestock operations in the western U.S. The U.S.Forest Service manages millions of acres of land in both the eastern and western U.S. While in its early years, the primary mission of the U.S.Forest Service was sustainable management of the nation’s timber reserves, it also regulated grazing. In fact, the U.S.Forest Service has been issuing grazing permits on national forests since 1906, nearly 30 years longer than the BLM.

In 1891, Congress passed the Forest Reserve Act, which established the first forest reserves on public lands. These Forest Reserves would eventually become what we call National Forests today. In 1905, Congress transferred the Forest Reserves into the Department of Agriculture, establishing U.S. Forest Service and in 1907, forest reserves were renamed National Forests. In the late 1800s and early 1900s millions of acres of forest and rangeland were designated as National Forests, nearly all in the western United States. Unlike other types of public lands, National Forests lands were generally unavailable for homesteading and conversion into private property. The purpose of the National Forests was to secure sustainable supply of timber for the growing U.S., as well as provide for other uses such as grazing. Mining, livestock grazing, hunting, and timber harvesting, and recreation are all allowed in National Forests. The USFS is mandated by law to allow this full range of uses on National Forests, while also sustaining natural resources for future generations.

The BLM has existed in different forms since 1934, when the Taylor Grazing Act was signed into law. The Taylor Grazing Act created grazing districts to improve the management of ranching on public lands and ended homesteading on western public lands. Initially, these grazing districts were managed by the U.S. Grazing Service. The Grazing Service had the responsibility of improving range conditions, authorizing grazing permits, and collecting grazing fees. In 1946 the BLM was established through the merger of the General Land Office and the Grazing Service. 

Today, the BLM manages nearly 250 million acres of public land, mostly in the western US. Mining, livestock grazing, hunting, recreation, and timber harvesting are allowed in BLM Public Lands. The BLM is mandated by law to allow this full range of uses on BLM lands, while also sustaining natural resources for future generations.