C.F.R. » Title 43 » CHAPTER II—BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR › SUBCHAPTER D—RANGE MANAGEMENT (4000) Group 4100—Grazing Administration › PART 4100—GRAZING ADMINISTRATION—EXCLUSIVE OF ALASKA › Subpart 4110—Qualifications and Preference

43 C.F.R. § 4110.3

Changes in grazing preference

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The authorized officer will periodically review the grazing preference specified in a grazing permit or lease and make changes in the grazing preference as needed to:

(1) Manage, maintain, or improve rangeland productivity;

(2) Assist in making progress toward restoring ecosystems to properly functioning condition;

(3) Conform with land use plans or activity plans; or

(4) Comply with the provisions of subpart 4180 of this part.

(b) The authorized officer will support these changes by monitoring, documented field observations, ecological site inventory, or other data acceptable to the authorized officer.

(c) Before changing grazing preference, the authorized officer will undertake the appropriate analysis as required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Under NEPA, the authorized officer will analyze and, if appropriate, document the relevant social, economic, and cultural effects of the proposed action.

[71 FR 39504, July 12, 2006]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1985–2013 · leading case: Pub. Lands Council v. Babbitt, 154 F.3d 1160 (10th Cir. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pub. Lands Council v. Babbitt, 154 F.3d 1160 (10th Cir. 1998). · cites it 5× “” 43 C.F.R. § 4110.3 (1994) (emphasis added).”
W. Watersheds Proj. v. Bob Abbey, 719 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2013). “It provides that grazing may be adjusted to achieve healthy vegetation goals or other rangeland standards in accordance with 43 C.”
W. Watersheds Proj. v. Kraayenbrink, 632 F.3d 472 (9th Cir. 2010). “43 C.F.R. § 4110.3 — 3(a)(1). And the BLM, under the 2006 Regulations, has two years to initiate an enforcement action.”
Pub. Lands Council v. Babbitt, 167 F.3d 1287 (10th Cir. 1999). · cites it 4× “, 43 C.F.R. § 4110.3 -l(a) (1994) (“Additional forage temporarily available for livestock grazing use .”
W. Watersheds Proj. v. Kraayenbrink, 620 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2010). “43 C.F.R. § 4110.3 ~3(a)(l). And the BLM, under the 2006 Regulations, has two years to initiate an enforcement action.”
W. Watersheds Proj. v. Kraayenbrink, 538 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (D. Idaho 2008). “2-4 ; (2) changes in active use, see 43 C.F.R. § 4110.3-3 (a); (3) emergency allotment closures, see 43 C.”
Nat. Resources Def. Council, Inc. v. Hodel, 618 F. Supp. 848 (E.D. Cal. 1985). “In particular, plaintiffs challenge the deletion of 43 C.F.R. §§ 4110.3 — 2(d)(2) and (3), and 4160.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.