BLM Proposes Changes to Grazing Regulations

Comments must be submitted before midnight Eastern on July 13, 2026!

PLC appreciates the administrations steps to revise grazing regulations to provide flexibility within the permit structure, eliminate the singular burden borne by grazing permittees for the land use impact of all multiple-users, and address a bevy of process-related issues that have made grazing permits more difficult to process over the last 30 years. The proposed regulations: 

Land Health Standards & Assessments:

• Move the fundamentals of land health (previously section 4180.1) to a section 1700.1 of BLM regulations, which would make the fundamentals and assessments apply to all BLM lands/uses, not just grazing. The new section would also eliminate 1 of the 4 standards in the current regs since BLM does not have the ability to enforce activities related to state water quality standards. 
• Establishes a simplified process to develop and approve standards that does not require consultation of RACs and approval by the Secretary. 
• Establishes an expectation for a “step-down process” where the agency would conduct an initial land health assessments and a landscape level, and only conduct a site-specific step-down evaluation if necessary to do a causal factor analysis. When combined with the new placement of the standards/assessments, the causal factor analysis informs the agency which use is causing the condition on the landscape and authorizes the agency to adjust that use, rather than always defaulting to adjusting grazing. This addresses the longstanding burden grazing permittees have borne on behalf of other uses.

• Eliminates any mention of conservation use as a result of the PLC-led Supreme Court case where the court ruled conservation use is not an active use of a grazing allotment following the 1995 reg revision. 
• Eliminates verbiage related to “contributions to stewardship efforts” with respect to utilization and additional forage apportionment to eliminate conflict over criteria

• Proposes changes to AUMs, annual rangelands, base property, interested public, grazing preference, utilization and more. BLM proposes adding definitions including: temporary nonrenewable, temporary nonuse, terms and conditions, and more.

• Proposes changes to ensure a permits are only allotted to “production-oriented operations”, reflective of the Taylor Grazing Act’s requirement that grazing permits be issued to landowners “engaged in the livestock business”, and provides a definition of “production-oriented operations” to establish the same requirements. 
• Holds “indigenous livestock/animals” to the same standards and requirements as other livestock and require the use of a grazing permit. 

Flexibility: 

• Proposes changes to the content and modification of permits to prioritize a more flexible, outcome-based model for grazing authorizations: 
• Allows BLM to change livestock number and period of use when a permittee applies for TNR 
• Allows BLM to approve changes to period of use 21 days on either side of the specified date in permit T&Cs.
• Expands definition of “beginning rancher” to include the prior “sons and daughters” estate transfer requirement as well as grandchildren.
• Eliminates the prior requirement that a permittee own at least 50% of the livestock on the allotment to allow greater flexibility for beginning ranchers/children/grandchildren/mentees. 
• Proposes a single billing for smaller operations/for operations that elect to pay a bill in a lump sum rather than on an annual basis. Fees would be based on the average of the 10-year fee average for the decade preceding the payment, and would be nonrefundable (if the grazing fee went down during the term of the permit)

• Proposes changes to the adjudication process, identifies agency discretion of willful/nonwillful/incidental violations and respective treatment. 

Interior Launches Review of Wilderness, Wilderness Study Areas

Comments must be submitted by midnight Eastern on August 14, 2026! 

The Department of the Interior initiated a comprehensive review of recreation (rock climbing) policies and management of wilderness and wilderness study areas (WSAs) across the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

The review seeks to develop a consistent approach to recreational rock climbing across wilderness areas, but also seeks information on the current boundaries and management of wilderness areas and WSAs needs to be updated.   The review has three separate comment periods for each of the agencies involved:

Fish and Wildlife Service: COMMENT HERE

Bureau of Land Management: COMMENT HERE

National Park Service: COMMENT HERE