In the United States, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages rangeland resources under dynamic conditions such as drought, annual grass invasion, and larger and more frequent wildfires. But federal policies governing rangelands are not structured to respond to annual variability or unexpected events. To integrate flexibility into public rangeland administration and potentially leverage fuels management treatments at the landscape scale, the BLM and livestock grazing permittees are exploring outcome-based rangeland management approaches to achieve desired ecological, social and economic conditions. This paper examines administrative policies and barriers to using outcome-based approaches to manage fire risk in Idaho through 70 semistructured interviews with permittees, BLM staff, and other agency and nongovernmental stakeholders in three Idaho BLM field areas. We analyzed how rules and norms in policy implementation contributed to perceptions of barriers within and among different field areas. Factors affecting perceptions of outcome-based rangeland management implementation included BLM staff tenure, permittee-agency relationships, beliefs about the efficacy of grazing to manage fire risk, and leadership and staff experience in navigating National Environmental Policy Act requirements or potential lawsuits. Differences in the informal institutions among field areas led to different interpretations of latitude found within formal institutions (“gray zones”) for implementation. This study highlights the importance of local context and the interactions between administrative policies and agency culture for implementing adaptive approaches to managing wildfire risk on public rangelands.