43 C.F.R. § 4130.2

Grazing permits or leases

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

(a) Grazing permits and leases authorize use on the public lands and other BLM-administered lands that are designated in land use plans as available for livestock grazing. Permits and leases will specify the grazing preference, including active and suspended use. These grazing permits and leases will also specify terms and conditions pursuant to §§ 4130.3, 4130.3-1, and 4130.3-2.

(b) The authorized officer will consult, cooperate, and coordinate with affected permittees and lessees, and the state having lands or responsibility for managing resources within the area, before issuing or renewing grazing permits and leases.

(d) The term of grazing permits or leases authorizing livestock grazing on the public lands and other lands under the administration of the Bureau of Land Management shall be 10 years unless—

(1) The land is being considered for disposal;

(2) The land will be devoted to a public purpose which precludes grazing prior to the end of 10 years;

(3) The term of the base property lease is less than 10 years, in which case the term of the Federal permit or lease shall coincide with the term of the base property lease; or

(4) The authorized officer determines that a permit or lease for less than 10 years is in the best interest of sound land management.

(e) Permittees or lessees holding expiring grazing permits or leases shall be given first priority for new permits or leases if:

(1) The lands for which the permit or lease is issued remain available for domestic livestock grazing;

(2) The permittee or lessee is in compliance with the rules and regulations and the terms and conditions in the permit or lease; and

(3) The permittee or lessee accepts the terms and conditions to be included by the authorized officer in the new permit or lease.

(f) A permit or lease is not valid unless both BLM and the permittee or lessee have signed it.

(g) Permits or leases may incorporate the percentage of public land livestock use (see § 4130.3-2(g)) or may include private land offered under exchange-of-use grazing agreements (see § 4130.6-1).

(h) Provisions explaining how grazing permits or authorizations may be granted for grazing use on state, county or private land leased by the Bureau of Land Management under “The Pierce Act” and located within grazing districts are explained in 43 CFR part 4600.

[43 FR 29067, July 5, 1978, as amended at 47 FR 41711, Sept. 21, 1982; 49 FR 6453, Feb. 21, 1984; 49 FR 12704, Mar. 30, 1984; 53 FR 10234, Mar. 29, 1988; 53 FR 22326, June 15, 1988; 60 FR 9965, Feb. 22, 1995; 61 FR 29031, June 7, 1996; 61 FR 4227, Feb. 5, 1996; 71 FR 39506, July 12, 2006]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases, 1985–2019 · leading case: Pub. Lands Council v. Babbitt, 529 U.S. 728 (2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Pub. Lands Council v. Babbitt, 529 U.S. 728 (2000). · cites it 4× “See 43 CFR §§ 4130.2 (a), 4130.2(g) (1998). New regulations allowing issuance of permits for conservation use were held unlawful by the Court of Appeals, see 167 F.”

Forest Guardians v. Wells, 4 P.3d 1054 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “" 43 C.F.R. § 4130.2 (a) (1995). The effect of the regulation was that a grazing permit could be issued to an individual or group that would not graze livestock for the entire duration of a permit.”

W. Watersheds Proj. v. Kraayenbrink, 538 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (D. Idaho 2008). “3 — 3(h); (4) issuance or renewal of individual permits or leases, see 43 C.F.R. § 4130.2 (b); and (5) issuance of temporary nonrenewable grazing permits and leases, see 43 C.”

Mendieta v. State, Div. of State Lands, 941 P.2d 582 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “43 C.F.R. § 4130.2 (e). Apparently, in practice, that means that the permits or leases rarely were cancelled.”

Nat. Resources Def. Council, Inc. v. Hodel, 618 F. Supp. 848 (E.D. Cal. 1985). “The following sections were eliminated by defendants from the regulations in 1984: (1) 43 C.F.R. § 4130.2 (d)(3) (1983): “Grazing permits or leases shall be modified, suspended, or can-celled as required by land use planning decisions” (emphasis supplied); (2) 43 C.”

Pub. Lands Council v. Babbitt, 154 F.3d 1160 (10th Cir. 1998). “43 C.F.R. § 4100.0-5 (1995) (emphasis added).”

Pub. Lands Council v. United States Dep't of the Interior Sec'y, 929 F. Supp. 1436 (D. Wyo. 1996). “43 C.F.R. § 4130.2 (g). Reasons justifying temporary non-use of a grazing permit include financial hardship and annual livestock fluctuation.”

Pub. Lands Council v. Babbitt, 167 F.3d 1287 (10th Cir. 1999). “43 C.F.R. § 4100.0-5 (1995) (emphasis added).”

Lazaro v. State, 941 P.2d 582 (Or. Ct. App. 1997). “43 CFR § 4130.2 (e). Apparently, in practice, that means that the permits or leases rarely were cancelled.”

Oregon Nat. Desert Ass'n v. Carolyn Freeborn, 458 F. App'x 605 (9th Cir. 2011). “See 43 C.F.R. § 4130.2 (a). If BLM violated NEPA when it made the March 2010 decisions (that reaffirmed the reissuance of the grazing permits in the July 2005 decisions), the district court could end such authorization and thereby halt any grazing through enjoining the *607…”

W. Watersheds Proj. v. Bernhardt (D. Or. 2019). “It is also sufficiently serious to eliminate HRI’s right to first priority for a new permit pursuant to 43 C.F.R. § 4130.2 (e)(2).” AR 3012. OHA determined that HRI did not have a sufficient likelihood of success on appeal, considering whether HRI “raised questions going to the…”

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.