Survey of Grazing Programs
in Western States
Pamela Baldwin
Legislative Attorney
American Law Division
Betsy Cody
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Environment and Natural Resources Division
January 30, 1996
96-97 A
SUMMARY
This report sets out in chart form a survey of grazing
programs on state-owned lands in 16 western states. It presents
information on acreage, numbers of permits or leases, and fees
for state grazing programs. It also contains information on state
policies relating to various features such as non-use, range
improvements, and subleasing. The Report is based on telephone
interviews with state grazing program officials.
OVERVIEW
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM, Department of the
Interior) and the Forest Service (Department of Agriculture)
manage approximately 70 percent of the 650 million acres of land
owned by the federal government, much of which is classified as
rangeland. The BLM generally manages lands that were obtained by
the federal government from sovereign nations through purchase,
treaty, or other means, and which, for a variety of reasons, were
retained in federal ownership. These lands are generally known as
"public domain" lands. The Forest Service manages
numerous National Forests, many of which are
"reservations" from the public domain lands, together
with other national forest system lands acquired and managed for
specific purposes. Both agencies have well-established programs
to administer private livestock grazing on agency lands. Grazing
is also allowed in some national park units and national wildlife
refuges.
Congress is currently considering changing the laws governing
livestock grazing on the lands managed by the Forest Service and
the BLM. As background for the consideration of federal grazing
issues, the attached charts compare several features of the
management of livestock grazing on state-owned lands in the 16
western states. At the time of statehood, the western states
received grants of land from the federal government to support
schools and for other purposes. Some states retain those lands
and use the revenues generated by the lands for the purposes
stated in the relevant grants; other states have sold some or
many of the lands and have used the proceeds to support the
intended purposes. Therefore, some states have substantially more
lands remaining in state ownership than do other states.
CRS prepared the following charts by conducting a survey of
the grazing practices of the 16 western states: Arizona,
California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada,
New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah,
Washington, and Wyoming. We interviewed state grazing program of
finials by telephone, asking each representative specific
questions relating to grazing fees; lease (or permit) preferences
and qualifications; the number of acres and leases; and policies
and requirements related to "nonuse", on range
improvements, stocking or Animal Unit Month (AUM) reductions and
monitoring, subleasing, water rights, wildlife, riparian
programs, other use access, and advisory boards.
Several aspects of the grazing survey warrant brief
explanation or discussion.
The statistics on acreages and number of leases (or permits)
involved are approximate. The states vary widely as to the amount
of land currently under grazing use. Again, this is largely due
to differing state policies regarding the retention and use of
state-owned lands.
Grazing fees and the means of calculating them also vary
widely from state to state and sometimes even within a state.
Some states solicit public bids at auction; some states derive
the grazing fee through use of a formula; some states may combine
a bidding system for allocating leases, yet also charge
additional fees such as rental fees or AUM charges. Some formulas
are patterned after the formula in the Public Rangeland
Improvement Act (PRIA); others differ. Most state formulas rely
on some combination of forage value and other livestock market
factors such as beef prices, costs of production, or livestock
income. (For more information on grazing fees, see, Grazing
Fees: A Primer, CRS Report for Congress 95-1, by Betsy A.
Cody, December 23, 1994.) The grazing fees charged by the states
are consistently higher than those charged for grazing on federal
rangelands. In some areas state and federal rangeland quality is
comparable; however, in others it is not. Fees listed in this
report are generally those charged for grazing on state school or
trust lands and not lands managed by state wildlife agencies.
Nonuse of federal grazing allotments is allowed under the new
regulations of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) that became
effective August 21, 1995. The first two columns on Part II of
the chart probe whether applicants for a state grazing lease or
permit must be in the livestock business and whether an allotment
may be rested or retired from grazing during a permit term.
There is considerable variation with respect to titling and
sharing the costs of range improvements such as fences,
structures, and water improvements. Typically, more significant
improvements are titled in the name of the state. Additionally,
title to water rights is almost universally retained in the name
of the state. Respondents often emphasized that because livestock
grazing is allowed only by permit or lease, it is appropriate for
the state to hold the water rights in the underlying legal
estate.
The states approach the issue of subleasing differently, and
vary as to whether additional fees or revenue-sharing
requirements are imposed. Some states that charge "fair
market value" for grazing leases take the position that if
an allotment can be subleased at a profit, that is evidence that
the rental fees charged by the state should be raised; others
were less concerned with the revenue issue.
Very few states have formal monitoring requirements, but
rather rely heavily on the professional judgment and range
condition evaluations of their range managers. (One respondent
stated that the managers do "ocular surveys.") Carrying
capacity of allotments often is established by applying the range
evaluation criteria of the Natural Resource Conservation Service
(formerly the Soil Conservation Service) in the Department of
Agriculture, BLM evaluations, past history of use, or the
judgment of the range managers. In some states, AUM capacity may
be determined by the state, but annual reductions in active use
or stocking rates are left up to the lessee or permittee. In
other states, reductions are directed by the range managers. Some
states indicated reluctance to reduce active use where doing so
would result in a reduction of fees.
Typically, no express allowance of forage is made on behalf of
wildlife, although this element might be included at least to
some degree in the initial evaluation of range condition and
determination of carrying capacity, especially in those states
that rely on BLM range assessments. However, Wyoming expressly
sets aside at least 2% of forage for wildlife consumption, and
may list a higher percentage in order to reduce fees to a lessee
for an allotment where actual wildlife use is higher than 2%.
Not many states have a formal program of riparian protection,
but this aspect of range management appears to be under study and
may be changing in many states. At least one state in the
northwest affected by declining salmon populations has instituted
a riparian program.
Very few states make use of any continuing citizen advisory
boards, although some states have used boards to address
particular issues.
PART I. STATE GRAZING
STATISTICS AND FEES
| |
|
|
|
|
| State |
Acres (millions) |
Number of Leases (and/or Permits) |
$/AUM (1996) |
Fee Structure |
| Arizona |
8.4 |
1,426 |
$2.18 |
Based on the "appraised value of
forage on Arizona State Trust land," from work of
the Grazing Land Valuation Commission. From 1982-1994,
fees were based on a modified PRIA formula, using a base
fee of $0.95 instead of $1.23. Fees during this time
ranged from $1.40 to $1.53 per AUM. |
| California |
0.075 |
26 |
$500/year, minimum |
Fee based on costs and revenues
associate with the grazing program. Rental is based on
comparable private leases with a $500 minimum rental
charged for all new grazing leases. Historically, the
State Lands Commission used the PRIA formula.
Additionally, lessees must pay an "expense
deposit" to cover lease processing costs. Applicants
pay a $25 statutory filing fee, plus processing costs.
The minimum expense deposit is $1,500. |
| Colorado |
2.6 |
2,800 |
6.50-$7.17 |
The State charges four fees based on
regional differences; generally, about two-thirds of
private lease rates. This new fee structure started
January 1, 1996, and will be phased in over three years
rising to a range of $6.65-$8.66 in 1998. Earlier fees
were 50 percent of the USDA National Agricultural
Statistics Service (NASS) survey of private grazing lease
rates, adjusted annually. |
| Idaho |
1.9 |
1,200 |
$4.86 |
A formula based on livestock (cattle and
sheep) market factors. Open bid for lease preference. The
1995 fee was $5.15 for cattle, and $3.86 for sheep. |
| Kansas |
fewer than 1,000 acres |
NA |
NA |
No grazing program. State lands are
grazed incidental to other management. |
| Montana |
4.1 |
8,000 |
$4.05 and $4.53 |
A rate derived from multiplying the
average price per pound for beef in Montana (from the
previous year) by 6.71. The State Board of Land
Commissioners raised the multiplier from 6.0 effective
June 16, 1995, for leases renewed or issued after July 1,
1993. For previously renewed or issued leases, the 6.0
multiplier will be used until the next lease renewal;
hence, two different fees. |
| Nebraska |
1.25 |
2,500 |
$15.50 |
A formula based on market factors.
Credits are issued for permittee/lessee provision of
fences, wells, etc. |
| Nevada |
0.11 |
Unknown |
Highly Variable |
The fee is determined by the highest bid
at open, public auction. Fees vary widely depending where
the land is located. |
| New Mexico |
8.0 |
3,400 |
$3.54 (1995) |
A formula based on land carrying
capacity and livestock market factors. The fee is
adjusted annually, but may not rise or fall by more than
a third in any year. The current fee formula was adopted
in 1987 following public hearings. |
| North Dakota |
0.71 |
4,900 |
Highly Variable |
Public auction for leases, with minimum
bids applying a Fair Market Value Leasing System. Highly
variable rates, ranging from a few dollars on western
rangelands to $30-$35 for best lands. This System is
based on average private rents adjusted to reflect the
value of the particular lands involved. |
| Oklahoma |
.50 |
2,800 |
$10 average |
Public auction for leases. Fees vary
widely, ranging from less than $6 up to $14, depending
upon land and forage conditions across the State. |
| Oregon |
.55 |
171 |
$2.72 and $3.43 |
A formula based on livestock market
factors and parcel size. The State charges two fees: one
for smaller or more isolated tracts of land and a higher
fee for large blocks of State land that resulted from
exchanges with BLM. Oregon has consolidated many formerly
"checkerboard" lands, and 90 percent of its
State lands now fall in the large block category. In July
1994, the State Land Board adopted regulations for
competitive bidding; however, this decision was
subsequently withdrawn. The current fee system is being
reviewed; some aspects of the lease Program are in
litigation. |
| South Dakota |
.81 |
3,000 |
+-$7.00 |
A formula based on State data published
by the NASS and statewide livestock market prices. |
| Utah |
3.150 |
1,550 |
$2.50 (1995) |
Based on the PRIA formula, plus $0.35
(for the last 5 years). Five cents is attributed to weed
control. At the end of the lease term, permits are
offered under a competitive bidding system. The permittee
has a "preference" right to meet the high bid,
but must meet the high bid to retain the permit. Some
large blocks of State lands have brought in bids of more
than $10,000. |
| Washington |
.91 |
1,224 |
$4.55 and $7.34 |
Formula plus a 12.84 percent lease-hold
tax (a tax that is passed-through to counties in lieu of
receiving property tax on State owned lands). The
standard formula is based on livestock market factors and
other factors such as landlord's share of land income,
permittee share of land assessment, and lessee
improvements. Washington State charges two different
fees: one for "permit range" and one for a
dryland grazing lease. The dryland grazing lease fee is
basically the permit range fee multiplied by 1.5. The
fees are set below private lease rates to account for
higher operating costs on State lands (i.e., the State
does not pay for fences and provision of water that might
be provided by private landowners). The current base fees
are $4.04 and $6.50, respectively. |
| Wyoming |
3.6 |
3,700 |
$3.50 minimum |
Board established fee of $3.50 per AUM,
per statutory requirement that fees be established on an
"equitable basis." Annual rental fees are based
on bids. Where there are conflicting applications, the
current lessee has a preference to meet the highest bid;
however, conflicting applications are not common. |
PART II. STATE GRAZING
PROGRAM FEATURES
| State |
Qualifications of Permittees |
Nonuse |
Range Improvements |
AUM Limits; Reductions; Monitoring |
Subleasing |
| Arizona |
Must be in livestock business and have
registered brand. |
Lessee elects full, partial, or nonuse
each year. |
Constructed, paid for, and owned by
lessee, with some exceptions. |
Overall AUM limits and per section
limits. Reductions based on range inventory and
conditions. No :mandatory monitoring; monitoring is part
of voluntary plans. |
Allowed if approved. State doesn't share
revenues. |
| California |
Not necessary to be in livestock
business. |
Allowed, but lease can be terminated if
not being used for the purpose of the lease. |
Paid for by lessee; no cost sharing or
reimbursement. Title comes to State at end of lease term. |
Usually follow BLM or lessee's advice on
carrying capacity. No reductions by State; lessee decides
active use. No monitoring. |
Allowed if approved, but unusual. State
share of revenues would be negotiated. |
| Colorado |
Not necessary to be in livestock
business. |
Allowed, but lease may be converted to a
special use permit (e.g. recreation) and re-leased for
grazing as well. |
Must be approved; lessee pays (with some
cost sharing available); lessee holds title and is
reimbursed on transfer. |
Range analysis to determine AUMs.
Usually historic levels or that of nearby lands (BLM,
etc.). No formal monitoring. If lands are in poor
condition, may impose a range plan. |
Allowed if approved, e.g. if health
problem. May reconsider if long term; State shares
revenues. |
| Idaho |
Not necessary to be in livestock
business. (Issues involving qualifications are being
litigated.) |
Allowed, at reduced fees if not more
than 2 consecutive years nor more than 3 years of 10 year
term. Allowed indefinitely if full fee is paid. |
State does larger improvements and has
title; lessee may do smaller ones, owns them, and is
reimbursed upon transfer. |
Range managers set AUMs based on
"ocular inventory;" no formal study or
monitoring requirements. Usually lessee decides
reductions in active use. |
Allowed with approval; small additional
fee to State. |
| Kansas |
No grazing program. State lands grazed
incidental to other management. |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
| Montana |
Not necessary to be in livestock
business. Corporation that can hold land may apply. |
Allowed, but lessee must pay for
permitted AUMs. If long term, might reclassify lands and
re-lease for grazing too. |
Must be approved; lessee pays with some
cost sharing; lessee owns, new lessee buys out. |
State sets AUM capacity; lessee
determines active use. No formal monitoring; decisions
based on staff judgment. Usually reviewed only every 10
years, unless a problem is noted. |
Allowed if approved, up to 2 years; will
reevaluate if longer time. Can have pasturing agreements
with limits on amounts charged. |
| Nebraska |
Not necessary to be in livestock
business. |
Allowed, but State may change rental if
used for other than agricultural. |
Paid for by lessee; lessee has title and
is reimbursed upon termination or transfer. |
Carrying capacity determined by
interviews with area ranchers, benchmark leases, and NRCS
criteria. AUMs determine fees, but lessee determines
active use. No formal monitoring. |
Allowed with approval. State doesn't
share revenues, but may raise lease fee if subleasing ate
is higher. |
| Nevada |
Nevada allows private grazing on very
few State lands, negotiated on individual basis. There is
no overall grazing program per se; however, the Division
of Wildlife may allow incidental grazing on their lands. |
Not usually an issue because of
individual negotiated leases and use. |
Must be approved; lessee may be allowed
an offset. |
Carrying capacity determined by NRCS
forage criteria. No formal monitoring. |
Prohibited. |
| New Mexico |
Not necessary to be in livestock
business. |
Allowed, but same fees paid based on
carrying capacity. May cancel and release active or
nonuse areas if higher use available. |
Must be approved. Lessee pays and owns. |
Carrying capacity and AUMs determined by
range scientists. May be reevaluated at request of
lessee, because payment is based on capacity. No system
for temporary reductions, but studying issue and may give
a prorated fee reduction. |
Allowed if approved. Lessee pays extra
20% of usual rate. No criteria for approval. |
| N. Dakota |
Not necessary to be in livestock
business. Individual and corporations may apply. |
Allowed. |
All must be approved, except fences.
State holds title unless otherwise agreed. Lessee may get
a credit or cost-share |
Range specialists determine carrying
capacity which is reviewed at least every 5 years. Lessee
determines active use usually, but reductions may be
required. No formal monitoring. |
Prohibited, except for technical
subleasing by a grazing association to its Members. |
| Oklahoma |
Not necessary to be in livestock
business. Corporations must be agricultural. Disqualified
if violated previous lease. |
Allowed, but would not approve long term
nonuse. |
Must be approved; discourage long term
infrastructure, because State builds major structures,
lessee smaller ones. |
Carrying capacity determined by using
NRCS evaluation techniques. Reductions in active use
determined by land management technicians (this
possibility specified in contract). No monitoring
requirements. |
Allowed 1 year for health reasons; not
Otherwise. Lessee may add other names to Lease. No
revenue sharing, but State may raise rate next time. |
| Oregon |
State regulations on bidding and
qualifications of lessees are suspended pending appeal. |
May allow nonuse established in a Range
Management Plan, otherwise not. May allow
"conservation use" on a particular parcel. |
Under old rules, lessee owned to the
extent paid for; under new rules, State will own. |
Carrying capacity determined by
professional judgment; AUMs reevaluated annually by range
management in consultation with lessee and approved by
supervisor. Photos to indicate condition and trend. |
Allowed with approval; State keeps all
of subleasing compensation. |
| S. Dakota |
Not necessary to be in livestock
business or own base property. |
Allowed, even if whole term (5 years).
Must pay full fees and taxes. |
Must be approved and permit issued.
Title to lessee, who is reimbursed upon transfer. |
Carrying capacity determined by using
NRCS evaluation criteria. No required reductions during
term; active use left up to lessee. No monitoring. |
Can graze other people's livestock, but
not sublease to control of another. |
| Utah |
Not necessary to be in livestock
business. |
Allowed, but permittee pays full fee. |
Must be approved. All are titled to
State, but permittee reimbursed for value upon transfer. |
Carrying capacity determined through
professional judgment of range managers. Reductions in
active use also based on managers' judgment. Some
monitoring done by BLM statewide. |
Allowed with approval. State may
increase fees or impose an additional flat fee per AUM. |
| Washington |
2 systems: 1) permits similar to
federal; 2) leases with greater rights. By law, applicant
must have 2 years' experience in range management or
animal husbandry. |
Allowed for grazing leases. Temporarily
allowed for grazing permits, depending upon certain
conditions and with State approval. |
Leases: If approved, lessee pays for and
owns, and is reimbursed current value upon transfer, etc.
Permit: some cost-sharing; State owns all. |
Carrying capacity determined through
professional judgment of range managers. Reductions: if
lease, reductions are determined by lessee; if permit,
State may adjust AUMs based on professional judgment of
range managers. Permits are monitored annually. Leases
are monitored at least every five years, up to monthly if
resource issues/concerns are present. |
If lease, allowed with approval and
State does not share in revenues because State charges
fair market value. If permit, subleasing is not allowed. |
| Wyoming |
For initial leases, must have grazing or
agricultural use for the lands. |
Allowed because State does not check
number of stock or level of use, unless condition
deteriorates. |
Approval required for costs more than
$750. Lessee pays and owns, and is reimbursed by the new
lessee or purchaser upon transfer |
Carrying capacity determined in 1970s by
visual inspections by managers. Not reevaluated unless
change or lessee requests. Number of stock up to lessee.
No monitoring. |
Allowed if approved. Also pasturing
agreements. State gets 50% of money above the State lease
fee. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
PART III. ADDITIONAL FEATURES
OF STATE GRAZING PROGRAMS
| State |
Water rights |
Wildlife |
Riparian |
OtherUses;Access |
Advisory Boards |
| Arizona |
State holds title, unless diversion
originates on other lands. |
No allowance made in allocating forage. |
No program or standard protection terms
in leases. Some protection required when appropriate. |
Hunting and fishing allowed with
license. Other recreational use allowed with permit.
Access to lands not guaranteed. |
None for grazing program. |
| California |
State holds title. |
No allowance. |
All leases subject to Cal. Environmental
Quality Act and will have riparian protections. |
Public uses allowed if public access
exists and if use is compatible with livestock use. |
None. |
| Colorado |
State holds title. |
No allowance made in allocating forage.
Currently being studied. |
No particular program; part of general
range evaluation. |
Not allowed except through nomination
process and special use lease (with fee). |
None used; under study. |
| Idaho |
State holds title. |
No formal allowance. |
Riparian concerns are addressed on a
case-by-case basis through grazing management |
Allowed without restriction. |
None. |
| Kansas |
No program. |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
| Montana |
If place of use is State land, State
holds title. Permittee paid for value of improvements
upon transfer of permit. |
No allowance made in allocating forage.
Might reduce fees charged lessee if a problem, but not
usual. |
Impose conditions in special interest
areas, e.g. bull trout streams. Also may impose
conditions if riparian areas are deteriorating. |
With recreational use permit, may hunt,
fish, recreate, etc. in areas accessible without crossing
private land (or with permission). |
None on management issues. Had special
Board on fees. |
| Nebraska |
State holds title. |
No allowance in carrying capacity. |
No program. Up to lessee, but State may
impose stipulations on case-by-case basis. |
Allowed, but must have lessee's
permission. |
No public advisory boards; do have a
Board of trustees that administers grazing. |
| Nevada |
State holds title. |
Not usually an issue because of special
leasing program. |
No program; lease may contain terms. |
Other uses may be allowed depending on
type of lands (e.g. park, refuge, etc.). |
None. |
| New Mexico |
Lessee in declared water basin applies
for and holds title. If easement agreement, State holds
title. |
No allowance in carrying capacity. |
No particular program; studying issue. |
State has hunting and fishing easement;
recreational use allowed by permit. Free access except
across private land where permission is needed). |
One advisory board for she State land
office, no others. |
| North Dakota |
State holds title. |
No allowance because incidental use. |
No program; general requirement not to
pollute. |
Public access allowed unless approved
closure and posting. (Various degrees of closure.) |
No formal boards. |
| Oklahoma |
State holds title and usually builds
wells, ponds, etc. |
No allowance in carrying capacity. |
Program over last 10 years to improve
through individual lease conditions and EPA projects. |
Lessee regulates other uses and may
charge public a reasonable fee or exclude public. |
None. |
| Oregon |
State holds title. |
No express allowance; wildlife is
considered in Range Management Plans and determining
range condition. |
Increasing attention to riparian issues,
with protection by setting AUMs and seasonal
restrictions. |
No restrictions on other uses, except no
commercial allowed. permission of lessee not required. |
Rangeland Management Working Group
assisting with development of Rangeland Management Plans.
Balanced membership: lessee, environmentalists,
government representatives, etc. |
| South Dakota |
State holds title. |
No specific allowance. The NRCS criteria
to set carrying capacity deemed adequate. |
No program. |
Recreational uses (e.g., hiking,
photography, hunting, fishing, etc.), allowed without
permission of lessee. |
None. |
| Utah |
State holds title. |
Forage allocated on lands that are
managed similar to surrounding BLM lands; not on larger
State blocks. |
No program; may impose conditions if a
problem exists on an allotment. |
Open to other uses without permission of
permittee. Exclusive leases are available at higher rate. |
None at present -- had one board in
past. |
| Washington |
State holds title. |
Taken into account when determining
carrying capacity, but no specific amount or percentage.
State has 110,000 additional acres, which are lease to
the State Dept. of Fish and Wildlife for habitat. |
Yes; 1993 law for salmon protection
resulted in standards for grazing lands. Riparian
provisions may be included in Resource Management Plans
for each lease or permit. Not regulatory at present;
emphasizing partnerships. |
Multiple use access for low-impact
activities, as long as it does not interfere with the
State's fiduciary responsibilities to produce income from
the State lands. Lands an be posted only with written
permission from the State and only for protection of high
value crops or improvements. |
Advisory boards are authorized, but have
not seen used for grazing Program. |
| Wyoming |
Usually lessee and State hold rights
jointly. |
Allowance of 2% left for wildlife
consumption. May be set higher to reflect actual use
levels. |
No specific program. Most lands are
mixed with BLM lands and an private lands, and are
treated the same, de facto. |
Other uses allowed through special use
leases if compatible with grazing. More uses allowed in
more recent times. Public access exists for approximately
70% of the lands. |
None. Some special purpose committees
have been used. |
|
CRS Reports Home
