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 4150—Unauthorized Grazing Use

43 C.F.R. § 4150.3

Settlement

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

Where violations are repeated willful, the authorized officer shall take action under § 4170.1-1(b) of this title. The amount due for settlement shall include the value of forage consumed as determined in accordance with paragraph (a), (b), or (c) of this section. Settlement for willful and repeated willful violations shall also include the full value for all damages to the public lands and other property of the United States; and all reasonable expenses incurred by the United States in detecting, investigating, resolving violations, and livestock impoundment costs.

(a) For nonwillful violations: The value of forage consumed as determined by the average monthly rate per AUM for pasturing livestock on privately owned land (excluding irrigated land) in each State as published annually by the Department of Agriculture. The authorized officer may approve nonmonetary settlement of unauthorized use only when the authorized officer determines that each of the following conditions is satisfied:

(1) Evidence shows that the unauthorized use occurred through no fault of the livestock operator;

(2) The forage use is insignificant;

(3) The public lands have not been damaged; and

(4) Nonmonetary settlement is in the best interest of the United States.

(b) For willful violations: Twice the value of forage consumed as determined in paragraph (a) of this section.

(c) For repeated willful violations: Three times the value of the forage consumed as determined in paragraph (a) of this section.

(d) Payment made under this section does not relieve the alleged violator of any criminal liability under Federal or State law.

(e) Violators shall not be authorized to make grazing use on the public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management until any amount found to be due the United States under this section has been paid. The authorized officer may take action under subpart 4160 of this part to cancel or suspend grazing authorizations or to deny approval of applications for grazing use until such amounts have been paid.

(f) Upon a stay of a decision issued under paragraph (e) of this section, the authorized officer will allow a permittee or lessee to graze in accordance with this part 4100 pending completion of the administrative appeal process.

[49 FR 6454, Feb. 21, 1984, as amended at 53 FR 10235, Mar. 29, 1988; 60 FR 9968, Feb. 22, 1995; 61 FR 4227, Feb. 5, 1996; 71 FR 39508, July 12, 2006]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1984–2019 · leading case: Robbins v. United States Bureau of Land Mgmt., 438 F.3d 1074 (10th Cir. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Robbins v. United States Bureau of Land Mgmt., 438 F.3d 1074 (10th Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “Citing this concern, Robbins refused to agree to a settlement under 43 C.F.R. § 4150.3 , which would have required designating the noticed trespasses as nonwillful, willful, or repeated willful.”
United States v. Est. of E. Wayne Hage, 810 F.3d 712 (9th Cir. 2016). “During the contempt hearings, the judge stated:' “I don’t like and never have liked the BLM’s or Forest Service’s arrogant presumption that they could assess to people for [animal unit months], for trespass, their own travel costs, office costs, sitting in their big chair…”
United States v. Est. of E. Wayne Hage (9th Cir. 2019). · cites it 6× “It then multiplied that figure by the BLM’s rate for repeated willful unauthorized grazing under 43 C.F.R. § 4150.3 (c). The fees owed to BLM for the period between November 2004 and June 2011 amounted to $555,040.”
Holland Livestock Ranch v. United States, 588 F. Supp. 943 (D. Nev. 1984). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff claims that the trespasses “were settled for all purposes____” However, the Bureau’s District Manager chose to consider the settlement as “full payment of the monetary damages” for which plaintiff was liable under 43 C.F.R. § 4150.3 . He then proceeded to cancel…”
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.