What to know
about your
Forest Service
Grazing Permit
Brian Gregg Sheldon[1]
Falen Law Offices, LLC
The U.S. Forest Service has managed
livestock grazing on its portion of the public lands for over a century. Despite this long history, the agency’s
actual guidelines for day-to-day management of a public lands’ livestock
operation remain somewhat obscure to the average person. The process for acquiring, transferring, and
appealing permits and permit-related decisions may seem a bit mystifying --
particularly for an operator who is more familiar with the system used by the
Bureau of Land Management. This article
aims to give a short overview of the practical operation of the Forest
Service’s grazing management authority, along with some lessons garnered from
experience.
Anatomy
of a Grazing Permit. Every Forest Service grazing permit is based
on a standard form. It will state: the
permittee’s contact information; a description of the range being grazed (e.g.,
a map of relevant public and private land); the number, kind, and class of
livestock being grazed; the period of use for grazing; and the grazing
allotment(s) with which the permit will be associated. Typically, grazing permits are issued for
terms of ten years and may be renewed thereafter, albeit with the potential for
new and potentially adverse terms.
Significantly, the permit will also
contain language stating that the permit may be cancelled or suspended, in
whole or in part, for failure to abide by the terms and conditions of the
permit and/or for failure to abide by any applicable laws, regulations, or
instructions of the Forest Service. This
includes penalties for making false statements to the agency, and for violating
environmental or wildlife laws.
Relatedly, operators should take care that some activity authorized by a
state permit of some sort (e.g., a hunting license) does not interfere with
federal laws and regulations such as the Endangered
Species Act. For example, while it
may be perfectly legal to obtain a license to trap coyotes that are harming
your livestock, the traps you set for the coyotes could inadvertently trap and
injure a wolf (or some other listed species). Even though your trap was
otherwise lawful and any impact to the wolf was accidental, you could still
face legal penalties for violating the Endangered
Species Act, including adverse consequences to your grazing permit.
Obtaining
a Grazing Permit. To apply for a term grazing permit from the
Forest Service, a would-be permittee must meet a number of qualifications. Of primary concern here is the requirement
that a permittee own both the livestock to be grazed and the “base property” associated with a specific federal grazing
allotment. While simple in concept, this
qualification requirement can present a headache for a permittee because it
prevents leasing livestock or land or dividing ownership of same between
different persons and/or corporate entities -- a notable difference from the
Bureau of Land Management’s permits.
Moreover, if a permittee disposes of all or a portion of the land or
livestock in question, the permit may be subject to cancellation.
Furthermore, every operator should be
aware of the requirement to “validate” a grazing permit. Validation consists of a Forest Service
employee personally verifying that the permittee has turned out at least 90% of
the livestock designated in the permit on the relevant allotment. The validation process need only occur once. While validation may sound like a formality,
it is nonetheless a crucial one – failure to validate one’s permit renders it
subject to cancellation. Moreover,
failure to validate a permit precludes an operator from transferring the
permit, as described below.
Transferring
a Grazing Permit. Transferring a Forest Service permit can be
difficult because the transfer process is intertwined with the qualification
requirements described above.
Strictly speaking, a permit is not
transferred between two different parties.
Instead, the original permittee “waives” his or her permit via a
standard waiver form and, if the Forest Service accepts this waiver, issues a
new permit to the new permittee for the remainder of the term period. Waiver forms will generally be approved
provided the new permittee is qualified and the prior permit was validated to
begin with. However, the approval of the
new permit is conditioned on the new permittee purchasing the livestock and
base property of the previous permittee.
If the new permittee purchases both the land and the livestock from the
previous permittee, this presents no problem.
However, issues can arise when the would-be new permittee acquires only the previous owner’s livestock or the base property, but not both.
According to the Forest Service Handbook
on grazing, if the party purchases only
the base property, the operator will
need to have the new herd of livestock ready to graze with proof of ownership
and branding information ready. Any
livestock associated with the previous permit must be removed and the new herd
put on within 30 days of the execution of the waiver form.
Conversely, the Handbook states that if
the party purchases only the previous owner’s livestock, they must
obtain the required amount of property necessary to support the permit. This may require re-designating nearby
private land as the base property associated with the permit, which is a
separate process that the Forest Service may, within its discretion, not
approve. Moreover, livestock purchased as part of a permit must be the
same livestock that were permitted at the time of the purchase.
In addition, operators should be wary of
entering into any “buy-back” agreements – both with livestock and with base
property. Livestock that has previously
grazed on Forest Service land may not be resold to the original owner within
two years of the purchase without prior approval of the Forest Supervisor. Similarly, base property purchased from a permittee in connection with
issuance of a new permit must not be transferred back to the original owner within two years
of the purchase without prior approval.
Violation of the “two-year” rule may result in a cancellation of the
permit.
Operators should be aware that all the
above-mentioned requirements for qualifying for and transferring permits are
strictly enforced by the Forest Service.
The Forest Service has “seen it all” when it comes to creative attempts
to finagle base property or livestock ownership, and any attempt to circumvent
these requirements will dealt with harshly by the agency. While certain isolated exceptions exist --
e.g., for foreclosed mortgages and “escrow” waivers, as well as the possibility
of obtaining a conditional one-year permit if base property or livestock
requirements are not met through no personal fault of the permittee -- the end
result of trying to bend the rules may well be a cancelled permit.
Appealing
an Unfavorable Decision. If your
permit or transfer application is denied, or if your permit is renewed with
unfavorable terms, it may be necessary to appeal the decision. Unfortunately, those operators who are
familiar with the Bureau of Land Management’s appellate procedures will find
that the Forest Service does things differently. Comparatively speaking, there are fewer due
process rights available to an appellant.
Pursuant to the Forest Service’s grazing regulations the Forest Service
appeals process typically consists of a single appeal to the Forest Supervisor
(assuming the original decision was issued by a District Ranger), although a
higher-level “discretionary review” is sometimes available in rare instances
involving large-scale land management decisions. If the appeal is likewise unfavorable, then
one may seek judicial review in federal court.
Based on our experience with Forest
Service appeals, a couple of points are worth bearing in mind. First, an operator should be aware that the
Forest Service has very strict formal requirements for its appeals and is known
to reject appeals for not following formatting guidelines. This is why seeking legal assistance in the
preparation of your appeal is often a good idea. Second, if you are appealing a decision to
cancel or to not renew a permit based on resource conditions and/or grazing
practices, it is strongly recommended that you obtain the services of a
rangeland consultant to provide a technical basis to ground your appeal and
rebut any claims by the agency. This is
especially true if your appeal reaches the level of “post-decisional” agency
review or judicial review in federal court, as you will face an uphill battle
owing to inherently deferential standards of review in each instance.
Conclusion. The Forest Service’s grazing management
authority is highly discretionary. Any
applicant must own both the base property and livestock to qualify for the permit
and must properly validate the permit before seeking to transfer it via waiver. Special care must be given when acquiring a
permit via waiver so that base property and livestock requirements are met –
particularly if new livestock or new base property will be designated. Permittees must be transparent about their
operational structure to avoid penalties from the agency. Finally, while a permittee is allowed an
administrative appeal of any adverse decision, the technical difficulty
inherent in this administrative proceeding means it is a good idea to seek the
help of legal counsel and rangeland consultants before filing your appeal.
[1] Brian Gregg
Sheldon is an Associate Attorney with the Falen Law Offices, LLC with a primary
focus on property, environment and natural resources law. Falen Law Offices, LLC, has attorneys
licensed to practice law in Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Missouri, Montana,
Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. This article
should not be understood to state or imply that any lawyers of this law firm
are certified as specialists in a particular field of law. Colorado does not
certify lawyers as specialists in any field. The Wyoming State Bar does not
certify any lawyer as a specialist or expert. Anyone considering a lawyer
should independently investigate the lawyer's credentials and ability, and not
rely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. This article is
informational and is not legal advice. Use of this article or contact with this
law firm does not create an attorney-client relationship.
2 comments:
There is another difference between BLM and FS regulations in that the BLM still uses the term Animal Unit Month or AUM as a way to count livestock while the FS now simply calls the numbers with the term "head month". Both mean the same thing and now but neither agency adheres to the original definitions. Originally an Animal Unit was a 1,000 pound cow with a calf and an AUM was the amount of feed consumed by that cow in a month. The quantity and quality of feed is still important for livestock production but not used at all in regulatory language. Both agencies have cleverly cut permitted numbers of livestock by discarding the technical definition of AUM.
You are right Floyd........both agencies have a long history of bias against cattle....as you so aptly pointed out in this one area of changing the meaning of definitions.
Post a Comment