.
Grazing Fees: Overview and Current Issues
Carol Hardy Vincent
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
September 4, 2009June 19, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RS21232
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
c11173008
.
Grazing Fees: An Overview and Current Issues
Summary
Charging fees for grazing private livestock on federal lands is a long-standing but contentious
practice. Generally, livestock producers who use federal lands want to keep fees low, while
conservation groups and others believe fees should be increased. The formula for determining the
grazing fee for lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service
(FS) uses a
base value adjusted annually by the lease rates for grazing on private lands, beef cattle
prices, and
the cost of livestock production. the cost of livestock production. Currently, the BLM and FS are charging a grazing fee
of $1.35 per animal unit month (AUM). For fee purposes, an AUM is defined as a month’s use
and occupancy of the range by one animal unit. The fee is in effect through February 28, 2013.
The collected fees are divided among the Treasury, states, and
federal agencies. Fee reform was
attempted but not adopted in the 1990s. Current issues include
Issues for the 112th Congress include instances of grazing
without paying fees and, efforts to retire certain grazing permits (H.R. 3432), and legislation to
automatically renew expired grazing permits until the renewal process is completed (S. 1129 and
H.R. 4234 (for further action on H.R. 4234 see H.R. 2578)). This report . This report
will be updated as
needed.
Congressional Research Service
.
Grazing Fees: An Overview and Current Issues
Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Current Grazing Fee Formula and Distribution of Receipts..........................................................2.. 3
The Fee Formula........................................................................................................................ 32
Distribution of Receipts ...........................................................................................................3.. 4
Fee Evaluation and Reform Attempts ............................................................................................4.. 5
Current Issues and Legislation.....................................................................................................5.... 6
Figures
Figure 1. Distribution of Forest Service Grazing Fees ..................................................................3.. 4
Figure 2. Distribution of BLM Grazing Fees: Section 3 ................................................................. 54
Figure 3. Distribution of BLM Grazing Fees: Section 15 ............................................................... 54
Tables
Table 1. Grazing Fees from 1981 to 20092012 (dollars per AUM)......................................................... 3
Contacts
Author Contact Information ........................................................................................................6..... 8
Congressional Research Service
.
Grazing Fees: An Overview and Current Issues
Introduction
Charging fees for grazing private livestock on federal lands is statutorily authorized and has been
the policy of the Forest Service (FS, Department of Agriculture) since 1906, and of the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM, Department of the Interior) since 1936. Today, fees are charged for
grazing on approximately 160 million acres of BLM land and 81 million acres of FS land
basically under a fee formula established in the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978
(PRIA) and continued administratively.1
On BLM rangelands, in FY2008FY2009, there were 15,682667 operators authorized to graze livestock, and
they held 17,812829 grazing permits and leases. Under these permits and leases, a maximum of
12,526,006483,175 animal unit months (AUMs) of grazing could have been authorized for use. Instead,
8,592,419639,177 AUMs were used.2 The remainder were not used due to resource protection needs,
forage depletion caused by drought or fire, and economic and other factors. BLM defines an
AUM, for fee purposes, as a month’s use and occupancy of the range by one animal unit, which
includes one yearling, one cow and her calf, one horse, or 5five sheep or goats. On FS rangelands, in
in FY2008, there were 6,289 livestock operators authorized to graze commercial livestock. A
maximum of 8,505,933 head-months (HD-MOs) of grazing were under permit; 6,796,581 HDMOs were authorized to graze.3 There were more than 8,000 grazing permits on FS lands as of
February 2008. The FS uses HD-MO as its unit of measurement for use and occupancy of FS
lands, similar to AUM. Hereafter AUM is used to cover both HD-MO and AUM.
The BLM and FS are charging a grazing fee of $1.35 per AUM from March 1, 2009, through
through February 28, 20102013. This
is the lowest fee that can be charged. It is generally lower than fees
charged for grazing on other
federal lands as well as on state and private lands. A 2005 study by the
Government Government
Accountability Office (GAO) found that other federal agencies charged $0.29 to
$112.50 per
AUM in FY20042004. While the BLM and FS use a formula to set the grazing fee (see
“The Fee
Formula” below), most agencies charge a fee based on competitive methods or a market
price for
forage. Some seek to recover the costs of their grazing programs. State and private
landowners landowners
generally seek market value for grazing, with; in 2004, state fees rangingranged from $1.35 to $80 per
AUM AUM
and private fees ranged from $8 to $23 per AUM.4 The average monthly lease rate for grazing on
private lands in 11 western states in 2007 was $15.60 per head.5
1
In 2010, state grazing fees continued to show
wide variation, ranging from $2.28 per AUM for Arizona to $65-$150 per AUM for Texas.
Moreover, some states do not base fees on AUMs, but rather have fees that are variable, are set by
1
P.L. 95-514, 92 Stat. 1803; 43 U.S.C. §§1901, 1905. Executive Order 12548, 51 Fed. Reg. 5985 (February 19, 1986).
These authorities govern grazing on BLM and FS lands in 16 contiguous western states, which is the focus of this
report. Forest Service grasslands and are the focus of this
report. These states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico,
North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Forest Service grasslands and
“nonwestern” states have different fees. In addition, grazing occurs on other
federal lands, not required to be governed
by PRIA fees, including areas managed by the National Park Service, Fish
and Wildlife Service, Dept. of Defense, and
Dept. of Energy.
2
These statistics were taken from U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Public Land Statistics,
20082009, Table 3-8c and Table 3-9c, available on the BLM website at http://www.blm.gov/public_land_statistics/
index.htm.
3
These statistics, which are the most recent available, were taken from U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service Range
Management, Grazing Statistical
Summary, FY2008, March 2009, p. 4, available on the FS website at
http://www.fs.fed.us/rangelands/ftp/docs/
grazing_stat_summary_2008.pdf.
4
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Livestock Grazing: Federal Expenditures and Receipts Vary, Depending on
the Agency and the Purpose of the Fee Charged, GAO-05-869 (Washington, DC: September 2005), p. 37-40.
5
These statistics were taken from U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural
Statistics 2008, Table 9-48, at http://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Ag_Statistics/2008/Chap09.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
1
.
Grazing Fees: An Overview and Current Issues
pp. 37-40.
Congressional Research Service
1
Grazing Fees: Overview and Issues
auction, are based on acreage of grazing, or are tied to the rate for grazing on private lands.5 The
average monthly lease rate for grazing on private lands in 11 western states in 2011 was $16.80
per head.6
BLM and the FS typically spend far more managing their grazing programs than they collect in
grazing fees. For example, the GAO determined that in FY2004, the agencies spent about $132.5
million on grazing management, comprised of $58.3 million for the BLM and $74.2 million for
the FS. These figures include expenditures for direct costs, such as managing permits, as well as
indirect costs, such as personnel. The agencies collected $17.5 million, comprised of $11.8
million in BLM receipts and $5.7 million in FS receipts.6 Further, for FY2008 BLM has
estimated expenditures for the direct costs only of grazing management at $39.2 million, while
receipts were $10.0 million. 7 Receipts for both agencies have been relatively low in recent years,
7
For FY2009, BLM has estimated appropriations for grazing management at $49.3 million, while
receipts were $11.9 million. The FS has estimated FY2009 appropriations for grazing
management at $72.1 million, with receipts estimated at $5.2 million. Receipts for both agencies
have been relatively low in recent years, apparently because western drought has contributed to
reduced livestock grazing and the grazing
fee was set at the minimum level for 2007-20092011.
Other estimates of the cost of livestock grazing on federal lands are much higher. For instance, a
2002 study by the Center for Biological Diversity estimated the federal cost of an array of BLM,
FS, and other agency programs that benefit grazing or compensate for impacts of grazing at
roughly $500 million annually. Together with the nonfederal cost, the total cost of livestock
grazing could be as high as $1 billion annually, according to the study. 8
Grazing fees have been contentious since their introduction. Generally, livestock producers who
use federal lands want to keep fees low. They assert that federal fees are not comparable to fees
for leasing private rangelands, because public lands often are less productive; must be shared with
other public users; and often lack water, fencing, or other amenities, thereby increasing operating
costs. They fear that fee increases may force many small and medium-sized ranchers out of
business. Conservation groups generally assert that low fees contribute to overgrazing and
deteriorated range conditions. Critics assert that low fees subsidize ranchers and contribute to
budget shortfalls because federal fees are lower than private grazing land lease rates and do not
cover the costs of range management. They further contend that, because part of the collected fees
is used for range improvements, higher fees could enhance the productive potential and
environmental quality of federal rangelands.
5
These figures are derived from an April 2011 study by the Montana Department of Natural Resources and
Conservation. The report is at http://dnrc.mt.gov/Trust/AGM/GrazingRateStudy/Documents/
GrazingReviewByBioeconomics.pdf. In particular, Table 1 (p. 9) compares fees on state lands in 17 Western states. For
more information on state trust lands, see the state-specific reports on the website of the Western States Land
Commissioners Association at http://www.glo.texas.gov/wslca/documents/state-reports.html.
6
These statistics were taken from U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Charts and Maps,
Grazing Fees: Per Head Fee, 17 States, at http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Grazing_Fees/gf_hm.asp.
7
GAO-05-869, p. 21-22 and p. 30-31.
8
A copy of the report, Assessing the Full Cost of the Federal Grazing Program, is available at
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/Programs/grazing/Assessing_the_full_cost.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
2
Grazing Fees: Overview and Issues
Current Grazing Fee Formula and Distribution of
Receipts
The Fee Formula
The fee charged by the FS and BLM is based on the grazing on federal rangelands of a specified
number of animals for one month. PRIA establishes a policy of charging a grazing fee that is
“equitable” and prevents economic disruption and harm to the western livestock industry. The law
requires the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to set a fee annually that is the estimated
economic value of grazing to the livestock owner. The fee is to represent the fair market value of
grazing, beginning with a 1966 base value of $1.23 per AUM. This value is adjusted for three
6
GAO-05-869, p. 21-22 and p. 30-31.
7
This information was provided by the BLM Office of Legislative Affairs, in personal correspondence to the
Congressional Research Service on August 14, 2009. Comparable information for the FS is not readily available.
8
A copy of the report, Assessing the Full Cost of the Federal Grazing Program, is available at
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/Programs/grazing/Assessing_the_full_cost.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
2
.
Grazing Fees: An Overview and Current Issues
factors based on costs in western states of (1) the rental charge for pasturing cattle on private
rangelands, (2) the sales price of beef cattle, and (3) the cost of livestock production. Congress
also established that the annual fee adjustment could not exceed 25% of the previous year’s fee.
PRIA required a seven-year trial (1979-1985) of the formula while the FS and BLM undertook a
study to help Congress determine a permanent fee or fee formula. President Reagan issued
Executive Order 12548 (February 14, 1986) to continue indefinitely the PRIA fee formula, and
established the minimum fee of $1.35 per AUM. Without that requirement, the 2008 fee would
have been below one dollar, due to a decrease in beef cattle prices and an increase in production
costs, according to the BLM and the FS. The annual grazing fees since 1981, when the
FS and
BLM began charging the same fee, are shown in Table 1. The fee has ranged from $1.35 to
to $2.31.
Table 1. Grazing Fees from 1981 to 20092012 (dollars per AUM)
1981.....................$2.31
19911992.....................$1.97
200192
2003.....................$1.35
1982.....................$1.86
19921993.....................$1.92
200286
2004.....................$1.43
1983.....................$1.40
19931994.....................$1.86
200398
2005.....................$1.3579
1984.....................$1.37
19941995.....................$1.98
200461
2006.....................$1.4356
1985.....................$1.35
19951996.....................$1.61
200535
2007.....................$1.7935
1986.....................$1.35
19961997.....................$1.35
20062008.....................$1.5635
1987.....................$1.35
19971998.....................$1.35
20072009.....................$1.35
1988.....................$1.54
19981999.....................$1.35
20082010.....................$1.35
1989.....................$1.86
19992000.....................$1.35
2009.2011....................$1.35
1990.....................$1.81
2000.......2001.....................$1.35
2012..............$1.35......$1.35
1991.....................$1.97
2002.....................$1.43
Congressional Research Service
3
Grazing Fees: Overview and Issues
Distribution of Receipts
Fifty percent of allgrazing fees collected by each
agency, or $10
million—whichever is
greater—go to a range
betterment fund in the Treasury. The fund is
used for range rehabilitation, protection, and
improvement including grass seeding and
reseeding, fence construction, weed control,
water development, and fish and wildlife
habitat. Under law, one-half of the fund is to
be used as directed by the Secretary of the
Interior or of Agriculture, and the other half is
authorized to be spent in the district, region,
or forest that generated the fees, as the
Secretary determines after consultation with
user representatives.9 Agency regulations
contain additional detail. For example, BLM
regulations provide that half of the fund is to
9
Figure 1. Distribution of Forest Service
Grazing Fees
U.S. Treasury
25%
RBF*
50%
States
25%
*Range Betterment Fund
43 U.S.C. §1751(b)(1). For the FS, see 36 C.F.R. §222.10. For the BLM, see 43 C.F.R. §4120.3-8.
Congressional Research Service
3
.
Grazing Fees: An Overview and Current Issues
be allocated by the Secretary on a priority basis, and the rest is to be spent in the state and district
where derived. Forest Service regulations provide that half of the monies are to be used in the
national forest where derived, and the rest in the FS region where the forest is located. In general,
the FS returns all range betterment
Treasury. The BLM and FS grazing receipts
are deposited separately. Monies in the fund
are subject to appropriations. The BLM has
been receiving an annual appropriation of
$10.0 million for the fund, as it did for
FY2010. The FS appropriation has been
approximately $3 million to $4 million in
recent years, reflecting roughly half the fees
collected and the agency’s budget requests.
For FY2010, the appropriation was $3.6
million.
Figure 1. Distribution of Forest Service
Grazing Fees
U.S. Treasury
25%
RBF*
50%
States
25%
*Range Betterment Fund
The fund is used for range rehabilitation,
protection, and improvement, including grass seeding and reseeding, fence construction, weed
control, water development, and fish and wildlife habitat. Under law, one-half of the fund is to be
used as directed by the Secretary of the Interior or of Agriculture, and the other half is authorized
to be spent in the district, region, or forest that generated the fees, as the Secretary determines
after consultation with user representatives.9 Agency regulations contain additional detail. For
example, BLM regulations provide that half of the fund is to be allocated by the Secretary on a
priority basis, and the rest is to be spent in the state and district where derived. Forest Service
regulations provide that half of the monies are to be used in the national forest where derived, and
the rest in the FS region where the forest is located. In general, the FS returns all range betterment
funds to the forest that generated them.
The agencies allocate the remaining 50% of the collections differently. For the FS, 25% of the
funds are deposited in the TreasuryTreasury10 and 25% are given to the states (16 U.S.C. §500; see Figure
1). For the BLM, states receive 12.5% of monies collected from lands defined in §Section 3 of the Taylor
Taylor Grazing Act10Act11 and 37.5% is deposited in the Treasury. Section 3 lands are those within grazing
grazing districts for which the BLM issues grazing permits. (See Figure 2.) By contrast, states receive
receive 50% of fees collected from BLM lands defined in §Section 15 of the Taylor Grazing Act.
Section 15 lands
are those outside grazing districts for which the BLM leases grazing allotments.
(See Figure 3)
.) For both agencies, any state share is to be used to benefit the counties that
generated the receipts.
9
43 U.S.C. §1751(b)(1). For the FS, see 36 C.F.R. §222.10. For the BLM, see 43 C.F.R. §4120.3-8.
Under 16 U.S.C. §501, 10% of these monies are allocated to the National Forest Roads and Trails Fund. However,
these funds sometimes have stayed in the Treasury, as directed by annual Interior appropriations laws.
11
Act of June 28, 1934; ch. 865, 48 Stat. 1269. 43 U.S.C. §§315, 315i.
10
Congressional Research Service
4
Grazing Fees: Overview and Issues
Figure 2. Distribution of BLM Grazing
Fees: Section 3
Figure 3. Distribution of BLM Grazing
Fees: Section 15
U.S. Treasury
37.5%
RBF*
50.0%
States
12.5%
States
50%
RBF*
50%
*Range Betterment Fund
*Range Betterment Fund
Fee Evaluation and Reform Attempts
PRIA directed the Interior and Agriculture Secretaries to report to Congress, by December 31,
1985, on the results of their evaluation of the fee formula and other grazing fee options and their
recommendations for implementing a permanent grazing fee. The Secretaries’ report included (1)
a discussion of livestock production in the western United States; (2) an estimate of each agency’s
cost for implementing its grazing programs; (3) estimates of the market value for public
rangeland grazing; (4) potential modifications to the PRIA formula; (5) alternative fee systems;
and (6) economic effects of the fee system options on permittees.1112 A 1992 revision of the report
updated the appraised fair market value of grazing on federal rangelands, determined the costs of
range management programs, and recalculated the PRIA base value through the application of
economic indices. The study results, criticized by some as using faulty evaluation methods, were
not adopted and the report has not been updated since.
10
Act of June 28, 1934; ch. 865, 48 Stat. 1269. 43 U.S.C. §§315, 315i.
11
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, and U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Grazing Fee
Review and Evaluation, A Report from the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior (Washington, DC:
February 1986).
Congressional Research Service
4
.
Grazing Fees: An Overview and Current Issues
President Clinton proposed, and Congress considered, grazing fee reform in the 1990s, but no
reforms were adopted. In 1993, the Clinton Administration proposed an administrative increase in
the fee, and revisions of other grazing policies. The proposed fee formula started with a base
value of $3.96 per AUM, and was to be adjusted to reflect annual changes in private land lease
rates in the West (called the Forage Value Index). The current PRIA formula is adjusted using
multiple indices, a practice that some criticize as double-counting ability-to-pay factors.
Congressional objections forestalled an administrative increase, and new rules for BLM
rangeland management that took effect on August 21, 1995, did not increase fees.
No grazing fee bills have passed either chamber for several years. In the 104th Congress, the
Senate passed a bill to establish a new grazing fee formula and alter rangeland regulations. The
formula was to be derived from the three-year average of the total gross value of production for
beef and no longer indexed to operating costs and private land lease rates, as under PRIA. By one
12
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, and U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Grazing Fee
Review and Evaluation, A Report from the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior (Washington, DC:
February 1986).
Congressional Research Service
5
Grazing Fees: Overview and Issues
estimate, the measure would have resulted in an increase of about $0.50 per AUM. In the 105th
Congress, the House passed a bill with a fee formula based on a 12-year average of beef cattle
production costs and revenues. The formula would have resulted in a 1997 fee of about $1.84 per
AUM.
Current Issues and Legislation
There is ongoing debate about the appropriate grazing fee, with several key areas of contention.
First, there are differences over which criteria should prevail in setting fees: fair market value;
cost recovery (whereby the monies collected would cover the government’s cost of running the
program); sustaining ranching, or resource-based rural economies generally; or diversification of
local economies. Second, there is disagreement over the validity of fair market value estimates for
federal grazing because federal and private lands for leasing are not always directly comparable.
Third, whether to have a uniform fee, or varied fees based on biological and economic conditions,
is an area of debate. Fourth, there are diverse views on the environmental costs and benefits of
grazing on federal lands and on the environmental impact of changes in grazing levels. Fifth, it is
uncertain whether fee increases would reduce the number of cattle grazing on sensitive lands,
such as riparian areas. Sixth, some environmentalists assert that the fee is not the main issue, but
that all livestock grazing should be barred to protect federal lands. Provisions of 111th Congress
legislation (S. 1808) had sought to amend PRIA to set the grazing fee for federal lands in a state
at the level charged by the state for public grazing on its lands. This legislation has not been
reintroduced in the 112th Congress (as of June 18, 2012).
In 2005, several groups petitioned the BLM and FS to raise the grazing fees, asserting that the
fees did not reflect the fair market value of federal forage. When the agencies did not respond to
the petition, the groups sued.13 In addition to arguing that the BLM and FS unreasonably delayed
response to their petition, the petitioners argued that the agencies were required to conduct a
study under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to determine the environmental
impacts of the current grazing fee rate. On January 18, 2011, the petitioners got the relief they
sought—a response to the petition from the BLM and the FS—and the lawsuit was settled. The
response denied the request for a rulemaking.14
A handful of livestock owners in some western states have grazed cattle on federal land without
getting a permit or paying the required fee. The BLM and FS have responded at times by fining
and jailing the owners as well as impounding and selling the trespassing cattle. The livestock
owners claim they do not need to have permits or pay grazing fees because the land is owned by
the public; or that other rights, such as state water rights, extend to the accompanying forage; or
the BLM improperly allowed wild horses and burros to graze the land. A particularly longrunning controversy involved grazing without permits by Western Shoshone Indians on land in
Nevada they asserted belongs to the tribe under a treaty, but which the federal government
manages as public land.
13
Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Department of the Interior, No. 1:10-cv-00952-PLF (D.D.C. complaint filed
June 6, 2010).
14
For further information on this issue or other legal issues related to livestock grazing, contact Kristina Alexander,
Legislative Attorney, 7-8597.
Congressional Research Service
6
Grazing Fees: Overview and Issues
There have been efforts to end livestock grazing on certain federal lands through voluntary
retirement of permits and leases and subsequent closure of the allotments to grazing. This practice
is supported by those who view grazing as damaging to the environment, more costly than
beneficial, and difficult to reconcile with other land uses. This practice is opposed by those who
opposed by those who support ranching on the affected lands, fear a widespread effort to
eliminate ranching as a way of
life, or question the legality of the process. Supporters seek to
In some cases, supporters seek to have ranchers
relinquish their permits to the government in exchange for compensation by third
parties,
particularly environmental groups. After acquiring the permits through transfer, the
Congressional Research Service
5
.
Grazing Fees: An Overview and Current Issues
groups groups
advocate agency amendments to land use plans to devote the grazing lands to other
purposes,
such as watershed conservation. These groups would not pay grazing fees under their
permits if
they opt not to graze during the amendment process, because fees are paid for actual
grazing.
In recent Congresses, legislation has been introduced to buy out grazing.
Legislation to end grazing on allotments generally through voluntary waivers of the permits (or
leases) by the permit (or lease) holders has been introduced in the 112th Congress. Under H.R.
3432, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture would accept the waiver of a
grazing permit, terminate the permit, and end grazing on the land covered by the permit.15 The
Secretaries could accept a maximum of 100 waived permits yearly under this authority. In
addition, legislation to end grazing on particular allotments through voluntary donations of the
permits by the permit holders has been introduced in the 112th Congress. For instance, pending
measures include H.R. 163, H.R. 1414/S. 765, and H.R. 3334, and at least one such provision has
been enacted (§122, P.L. 112-74). Similar provisions also were introduced in prior Congresses,
and in some cases were enacted (e.g., in P.L. 111-11, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act
of 2009, for certain lands in the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument in Oregon and in
wilderness areas in Idaho). Other pending 112th Congress legislation (S. 138) would allow the
Secretary of the Interior to acquire property and associated grazing permits in a particular area
and under specified conditions, for the purpose of permanently retiring the permits.
In earlier Congresses, legislation was introduced to “buy out” grazing permittees (or lessees) on
federal lands generally or on particular allotments. Such legislation provided that permittees who
voluntarily relinquished their permits would be compensated at a certain dollar value per AUM,
generally significantly higher than the market rate. The allotments would have been permanently
closed to grazing. Such legislation, which had been backed by the National Public Lands Grazing
Campaign, was advocated to enhance resource protection, resolve conflicts between grazing and
other land uses, provide economic options to permittees, and save money. According to
proponents, while a buyout program would be costly if all permits were relinquished, it would
save more than the cost over time. Opponents of buyout legislation include those who support
grazing, others who fear the creation of a compensable property right in grazing permits, some
who contend that it would be too costly, or still others who support different types of grazing
reform.
Bills enacted and pending in the 111th Congress seek to end grazing on particular allotments
through voluntary donations of the permits by the permit holders. Under these measures, the
Secretary is to accept the donation of a grazing permit, terminate the permit, and end grazing on
the land covered by the permit. Such provisions were enacted in P.L. 111-11, the Omnibus Public
Land Management Act of 2009, for certain lands in the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument in
Oregon and in wilderness areas in Idaho. They also are included in pending measures, for
instance, H.R. 192, the Central Idaho National Forest and Public Land Management Act, and
H.R. 2889 and S. 1270, the Oregon Caves National Monument Boundary Adjustment Act of
2009The extension, renewal, transfer, and reissuance of grazing permits have been under consideration
by the 112th Congress. Provisions of law (§415, P.L. 112-74) would continue the automatic
renewal of grazing permits and leases that expire, are transferred, or waived during FY2012FY2013. The automatic renewal provision would continue until the permit renewal process is
completed. The agencies have a backlog of permits needing evaluation for renewal, and the
enacted provision is intended to allow for continuity in grazing operations while the agencies
15
However, the Secretary would reduce (rather than end) grazing on the land covered by the waived permit if there are
other permits for the allotment that are not waived.
Congressional Research Service
7
Grazing Fees: Overview and Issues
complete the permit renewal process. Other pending bills (H.R. 4234 and S. 1129) also would
provide for the automatic extension of permits and leases that expire, are transferred, or waived
until the renewal process is completed. The Senate bill would categorically exclude the renewal,
reissuance, or transfer of a grazing permit from the requirement to prepare an environmental
analysis (under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)) if the decision continues the
current grazing on the allotment. By contrast, the House bill would allow the Secretary of the
Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to categorically exclude from NEPA the renewal,
reissuance, or transfer of a grazing permit under certain circumstances, including if the decision
continues the current grazing on the allotment. These provisions have been controversial.
Additionally, both bills would extend the general duration of grazing permits from 10 to 20 years,
with a goal of strengthening the predictability and continuity of operations.
Author Contact Information
Carol Hardy Vincent
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
chvincent@crs.loc.gov, 7-8651
Congressional Research Service
68