Grazing Fees: Overview and Issues

Carol Hardy Vincent
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

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. 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, 2014. The collected fees are divided among the Treasury, states, and federal agencies. Fee reform was attempted but not adopted in the 1990s.

Issues for the 113th Congress include whether to retain the current grazing fee or alter the charges for grazing on federal lands, for instance, through an Administration proposal for an additional administrative fee of $1 per AUM. Congress also is evaluating proposals (e.g., H.R. 145, Section 102(e); H.R. 1187, Section 129; and S. 354, Section 5) to end grazing on particular allotments through the voluntary waiver of the permits and the subsequent closure of the related allotments to grazing. Another set of issues involves expiring grazing permits. These issues include whether to (1) continue to automatically renew expiring grazing permits until the permit renewal process is completed, (2) categorically exclude certain permit decisions from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act, and/or (3) extend the general duration of grazing permits from 10 to 20 years. Such provisions have been included in House and Senate companion bills (H.R. 657 and S. 258).


Date of Report: May 6, 2013
Number of Pages: 12
Order Number: RS21232
Price: $29.95


To Order:

RS21232.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Federal Assistance for Wildfire Response and Recovery

Kelsi Bracmort
Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy

Raging wildfires, burned homes, and the evacuation of thousands make headlines nearly every fire season. More than 9.3 million acres burned in 2012, the third-largest acreage burned annually since 1960.1 Severe wildfires in 2012 occurred in Oregon and New Mexico, including the Whitewater-Baldy fire, which was the largest wildfire in New Mexico history.2 Options for federal support and assistance—during the fires, in the aftermath, and aimed at preventing a recurrence—have been considered by many concerned about the ongoing disasters. This report briefly describes these federal options.


Date of Report: May 8, 2013
Number of Pages: 4
Order Number: R41858
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R41858.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Sage Grouse and the Endangered Species Act (ESA)

Kristina Alexander
Legislative Attorney

M. Lynne Corn
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

Western states have seen conflicts over natural resources for more than a century, involving issues such as grazing, roads, fences, oil and gas development, urban expansion, spread of invasive species, water rights, timber harvest, and pollution. In many cases, the conflicts involve the protection of endangered and threatened species, often with one group seeing listed species as an obstacle to their development goals or property rights, and another group advocating protection in line with their environmental, scientific, or economic goals. One such controversy is developing in 11 western states over sage grouse, whose numbers can be threatened by roads, fences, power lines, urban expansion, and energy development. This report describes the state of knowledge about these birds, history of efforts to protect them, and current controversies.

The sage grouse, once abundant in western sagebrush habitat in 16 states, has dropped in numbers, and is now found in 11 states. Its decline can be attributed to several factors—increased use of sage grouse habitat by ranching and energy development, decreased sagebrush due to noxious invasive species, and loss of habitat due to more frequent fires. However, the extent of the decline is not certain, and some dispute that the sage grouse is in peril.

There is some discussion over how many species of grouse there are and how they may be related. Currently, two closely related species are recognized by scientists: the Gunnison grouse (Centrocercus minimus) and the sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), sometimes referred to as the greater sage grouse. At one time, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS or Service) also recognized two subspecies—the eastern sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus urophasianus) and the western sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus phaios)—but FWS reversed that position. In addition, FWS has designated distinct population segments (DPS) of sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Parties have filed petitions seeking to protect these birds under the ESA by having them listed as threatened or endangered, but none are listed under the act. On January 11, 2013, however, FWS proposed listing the Gunnison grouse as endangered.

In July 2011, FWS reached a settlement in several lawsuits regarding delays in listing species, include the sage grouse. According to the settlement agreement, a proposed listing rule or a decision that listing is not warranted is due for the Mono Basin sage grouse DPS by the end of FY2013, and for the Columbia River Basin sage grouse DPS and the greater sage grouse by the end of FY2015. At present, those grouses’ protection under the ESA has been deemed warranted but precluded by higher protection priorities. Thus, the sage grouse is treated as a candidate species and does not have the protections that a listed species would have.

One factor in making a listing decision is whether other regulations are in place to provide adequate protection of a species so that federal listing is not necessary to prevent extinction. States in primary sage grouse habitat have taken action to forestall an endangered species listing, which some believe would inhibit energy development on vast amounts of public and private property. Additionally, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service have policies to protect the grouse on their lands, although courts have found those policies lacking. These issues are at the forefront as Congress considers increased energy development on federal lands, while balancing the mission of the ESA.


Date of Report: April 22, 2013
Number of Pages: 30
Order Number: R40865
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R40865.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

An Overview of USDA Rural Development Programs

Tadlock Cowan
Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural Development

More than 88 programs administered by 16 different federal agencies target rural economic development. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) administers the greatest number of rural development programs and has the highest average of program funds going directly to rural counties (approximately 50%). The Rural Development Policy Act of 1980 also designated USDA as the lead federal agency for rural development. The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agricultural Reorganization Act of 1994 created the Office of the Undersecretary for Rural Development and consolidated the rural development portfolio into four principal agencies responsible for USDA’s mission area: the Rural Housing Service, the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, the Rural Utilities Service, and the Office of Community Development.

In the 112th Congress, the Senate farm bill (S. 3240) would have restructured the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (ConAct), a principle statute authorizing many of the loan and grant programs administered by USDA Rural Development. Among other changes, the bill would have consolidated several business loan and grant programs into a single business support platform. The bill would also have eliminated the Rural Collaborative Investment Program, Historic Barn Preservation, Rural Telework, and the National Rural Development Partnership. The bill also would have prioritized projects that support strategic economic and community development, involve multijurisdictional planning, have investment from other federal agencies, and have strategic plans developed through broad-based community planning involving multiple stakeholders. The House farm bill (H.R. 6083) in the 112th Congress would have reauthorized most programs, making only minor changes to certain programs.

An extension of the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246) provides discretionary funding for rural development programs through the FY2013 fiscal year at FY2012 levels, minus sequestration and rescissions. Congress is likely to take up drafting a new farm bill in summer 2013.

This report provides an overview of the various programs administered by the four USDA agencies, their authorizing legislation, program objectives, eligibility criteria, and FY2005- FY2013 funding for each program. A continuing resolution for FY2013 was enacted in March 2013 and provides funding at the FY2012 level (minus sequestration and two rescissions). The report will be updated as new USDA Rural Development programs are implemented or amended.


Date of Report: May 3, 2013
Number of Pages: 42
Order Number: RL31837
Price: $29.95

To Order:

RL31837.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Inland Waterways: Recent Proposals and Issues for Congress

Charles V. Stern Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

Inland waterways are a significant part of the nation’s transportation system. Because of the national economic benefits of maritime transport, the federal government has invested in navigation infrastructure for two centuries. Commercial barge shippers and other waterway users receive significant support through federal funding for operational costs, capital expenditures, and major rehabilitation on inland waterways. Since the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, expenditures for construction and major rehabilitation projects on inland waterways have been cost-shared on a 50/50 basis between the federal government and commercial users through the Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF). Operations and maintenance costs for inland waterways (which typically exceed construction and major rehabilitation costs) are a 100% federal responsibility.

Future financing for the inland waterway system is uncertain. The IWTF is supported by a $0.20 per gallon tax on commercial barge fuel, but its balance has declined significantly since 2005 due to a combination of increased appropriations, cost overruns, and decreased revenues. Without changes to the current financing system, IWTF spending is likely to be limited.

The Obama Administration recommends replacing the fuel tax with user fees that would increase revenues and potentially allow for more spending on inland waterways projects. It submitted proposals to raise inland waterways user fees in budget requests and deficit reduction proposals in FY2010, FY2011, FY2012, FY2013, and FY2014. Congress and industry interests have rejected each of these proposals. In 2010, the Inland Waterways Users Board (IWUB), a federal advisory committee advising the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on inland waterways, endorsed an alternative proposal that is supported by many barge industry interests. The proposal would increase the fuel tax by $0.06-$0.09 per gallon, but would require the federal government to cover all project costs for dams and rehabilitation that are currently shared with the IWTF. To date, no major changes to the inland waterway financing system have been enacted.

The user industry (including the barge industry and agricultural groups) argues that its recommended changes are necessary to shore up the trust fund, improve deteriorating infrastructure, and distribute costs equitably among beneficiaries (e.g., more funding for dams by federal taxpayer beneficiaries). The Obama Administration agrees that infrastructure upgrades are needed, but argues against shifting these costs to the federal government and instead proposes higher user fees. Some taxpayer and environmental groups favor increasing nonfederal costs not just for construction, but also for operation and maintenance expenses that are not cost-shared.

In the 113th Congress, H.R. 1149 would enact most of the aforementioned user proposal, including a $0.06 increase to the fuel tax. S. 407 would enact many of the same components, but with a $0.09 increase to the tax and a lower threshold for cost-sharing triggers. S. 601, the Water Resources Development Act of 2013, would authorize the project delivery recommendations of that proposal but would make no changes to the fuel tax or cost sharing. The Administration’s FY2014 budget also proposes a new, unspecified user fee expected for inland waterways. In considering inland waterways legislation, Congress may consider the appropriate cost share between the federal government and waterway users for various inland waterways costs, the appropriate type of user fee to fund the nonfederal share (fuel taxes, lockage fees, etc.), and the preferred planning process and funding levels for inland waterways.


Date of Report: May 3, 2013
Number of Pages: 29
Order Number: R41430
Price: $29.95

To Order:

R41430.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.