Get reliable rangeland science

Written by Rachel Frost, Montana State University

Successful rangeland weed management plans should be an integrated process that involves the use of several control methods, combined with a well-planned strategy to reduce the impact of weeds on rangelands. The following steps outline a complete integrated strategy for protecting and enhancing rangelands threatened by weeds.

Inventory and mapping - Before a management program can be implemented, the extent of the problem must be determined. An inventory provides information on the weed species present, the size and density of the infestation, and the characteristics of the site including soil and vegetation complexes. This information can also be used to identify areas of potential invasion or possible routes of introduction to a specific land area. Once the information is gathered, it should be incorporated into a map to facilitate planning and implementation of control measures.

Planning and implementation - During the planning and implementation phase, problems are identified and prioritized and paired with appropriate solutions. The economic feasibility of the plan should be evaluated to ensure there are adequate resources to implement all phases of the weed management plan, including post-treatment monitoring and evaluation.

Preventing weed encroachment - By far the most cost-effective method of weed management is to prevent the introduction of weeds in the first place. Prevention programs involve limiting weed seed introduction and dispersal, minimizing disturbance, and practicing proper management. Specific ways to prevent new weed introductions are:

• Use certified weed-free hay, feed grain, straw, and mulch;
• Avoid driving through weed-infested areas and always wash the undercarriage of a vehicle that has been in weed-infested areas;
• Avoid grazing when weeds have mature seedheads. 
• Move livestock to a holding area for about 14 days after grazing a weed-infested area and before moving them to a weed-free area;
• Ask hunters and hikers to clean their clothes and equipment prior to coming on your land, especially if they have been in a weed-infested area;
• Minimize soil disturbance when possible; and
• Manage for vigorous, diverse vegetative communities capable of competing with weeds.

Early detection and eradication - Early detection of new weed infestations can facilitate complete eradication of a serious noxious weed before it has a chance to widely establish on rangeland. Weeds spread by establishing small satellite infestations, the advancing front lines of the main invasion. Early detection of these small infestations can lead to successful eradication or total removal of the weed from the area.

Containment of large infestations - Once weed infestations become too large to eradicate, containment is the most cost-effective strategy. Containment of large-scale infestations is beneficial because it preserves uninfested rangeland by treating the borders of existing infestation and preventing the infestation from spreading beyond its existing boundaries.

Select appropriate control techniques - No single weed control technique is appropriate for all areas in a management unit. Control techniques must be chosen according to available economic resources and the environmental considerations of the area. Specific things to consider when selecting the most appropriate control technique include: the target weed species, effectiveness of the control technique, availability of control agents such as insects or grazing animals, land uses, timeline of control, environmental considerations, and relative cost of the control techniques. A combination of control techniques may provide better control than a single technique.

Revegetation and proper grazing management - Revegetation with desirable plants may be necessary on sites without an understory of desirable species. These newly established species can minimize the invasion of rangeland weeds and improve forage quality of the site. A grazing plan with the goal of moderate grass utilization should be established on any management unit with a weed control program. The grazing system should allow ample recovery time between grazing periods for plants to recover and to promote litter accumulation, important for maintaining a health plant community.

Monitoring and evaluation - Any time a management program is initiated, monitoring and evaluation are the keys to determining program success and identifying needs for change in the program. Monitoring involves making observations, collecting data, and keeping detailed records. Ideally, monitoring will detect changes in both weeds and desirable plants, as well as biological control agent populations and soil characteristics such as erosion, bare ground, and compaction. Many rangeland weeds are difficult to control and require a long-term commitment on the part of the land manager to suppress or eradicate the weeds. The adoption of integrated weed management (IWM) strategies is the best way to protect uninfested rangeland and reclaim land with existing weed populations.

 

Monitoring is the best way to evaluate what impact the management strategies of your operation have on the rangeland. Pasture and rangeland monitoring should be a systematic, structured approach to tracking changes in plant communities over time. Before you begin the process of monitoring, it is important to understand why you are monitoring and to establish some well-defined goals for your monitoring program.

Setting a Monitoring Goal

• Why Monitor
• Where to Monitor
• What to Monitor

---

Why Monitor Rangelands

• Early Warning: Rangeland health deteriorates before livestock production or other uses decline. Further, changes in rangeland health usually occur gradually. Often human memory cannot detect changes until reminded by a historic photograph or some other artifact. Monitoring can tell you if you are moving in an undesirable direction in time to make a necessary change.
• Know if You are Reaching Your Goals? Monitoring will reveal if you are truly meeting your management goals and objectives, and help evaluate the benefits received from changes in management or range improvements.
• Have Data to Back You Up: Well-designed monitoring programs provide a record of responsible stewardship and success stories that can defend your management, and/or encourage other land managers to monitor.
• Enrich Your Knowledge: Monitoring can help you learn more about range plants and how they interact with each other and respond to grazing.

---

Where to Monitor

Select a monitoring location. For many, deciding the location of plots seems to be the hardest part of monitoring. Fortunately, there are some basic guidelines we can follow to ensure that our monitoring locations are in line with our goals and objectives and will provide information that truly reflects what we want to monitor.

Note that if you are monitoring on a public allottment and setting up new plots, it is essential to coordinate among permittee (if managing livestock) and range conservationists to agree to a location. Make sure the location(s) reflects areas of resource concerns. The data you collect will only be as meaningful to the degree that you agree on where to monitor, and agree that this location reflects resources concerns of all parties managing an allottment. 

Start with the big picture. Not all rangeland is created equal, and we should compare apples to apples. There are several ways to classify land areas: such as by land use, vegetation (current or historic), soils, or climate. The most current and widely used rangeland classification system is the ecological site. An ecological site — also referred to as "range site" — is an area with similar soil and climate conditions. These conditions determine the kind and amount of vegetation produced on that site. Monitoring sites should be selected to represent the different types of ecological sites on the unit.

Now we have to ask the more specific question of where within these ecological sites we are going to establish the monitoring plot. The selection of study site should clearly reflect the management or monitoring objectives. For example, if monitoring riparian vegetation, the monitoring site should be located in a riparian area.

Selection criteria. Criteria used for selecting sites are generally based on seral state of plant community, topography, location of water, fences and natural boundaries, areas of animal concentration, and presence of species of interest. Also consider kinds of statistical comparisons or intended interpretations.

All these criteria help us to identify key and critical areas to monitor.

• Key areas are a portion of land which serve as an indicator of land conditions, trends, or degree of seasonal use by animals because of location, grazing or browsing value, or topography.   These key areas are considered indicators of what is happening on a larger area as a result of on-the-ground management actions.

• Critical areas are units that contain unique or special values, such as fragile watersheds, sage-grouse nesting grounds, riparian areas, and habitats with rare plants.

Remember, monitoring sites must always be clearly mapped and documented. In other words, use GPS, explain somewhere in your survey notes why and how you selected the sites for evaluation, and consider marking it with a T-post or other marker. 

---

What to Monitor

Vegetation and Soil Attributes. There are many ways to measure plants and vegetation, but, there are only about 6 "attributes" that are commonly measured. Vegetation attributes are characteristics of an individual plant, plant species, type of plant (e.g., grass, forb, shrub), or plant community that can be measured or quantified. That is, how many, how much, or what kind of plant species or type are present. The most commonly used attributes are:

• Plant species or type - Which species or what type of plant is it?
• Frequency - Is the plant there or not?
• Density - The number of plants per unit of area.
• Biomass - How much do the plants in a given area weigh?
• Cover - How much of the ground surface do the plants cover? This can be stated as an absolute spatial amount (e.g., 24-m2) or as the percent of an area.
• Structure - How tall were the plants and how were branches and leaves arranged?

We can also make observations about the health, condition, or vigor of individual plants or plants communities, how much of the current year’s growth was used by grazing animals. And we can combine the above attributes to create variables such as species composition, biodiversity of the site, or similarity with historic measurements or other sites.

Photopoints. Properly located photopoints can provide useful information in addition to any other monitoring that is done. Photos of the same area, across time, should be taken from the same point, in the same direction, at the same time of year or growth stage and day, and with the same focal length. This helps insure high comparability among pictures across years. Ideally, a stake or other marker is placed in the ground to facilitate repeat photography. Care should be taken to use stakes that will not harm animals or people or attract animals to the site. Landscape and close-up photos provide useful information. Photopoints should be located in key areas that will reflect changes in management actions. To be most useful, the photographer should use a written card describing the location, date, and other useful information that is placed in the field of view. The photographer should keep notes on anything observed at the time of the photo.

Comparing photographs (close-up or general view) of the same area taken over a period of years helps document changes in the soil and plant community.

Riparian Areas. The ribbons of green between the uplands and the water are riparian areas. The green vegetation and cool shade make these areas attractive to livestock and wildlife. Therefore, use of plants in these areas should be closely monitored to ensure adequate and appropriate vegetation exists to maintain ecological processes.

Grazing Records. Records of where and how long livestock graze in an area can determine if an area is being overgrazed or underutilized. Monitoring the amount of forage used by livestock each year, and where in a grazing allotment that use occurs,  will help determine if changes are needed in stocking rate, the grazing schedule, the location of supplements, or changes in management to improve the distribution of livestock. Various monitoring methods have been developed to measure grazing animal use. The two main methods are utilization and stubble height.

• Utilization by grazing animals is the proportion of current year forage production that is eaten or trampled. Utilization is an index of grazing impact to the land that can help a rancher achieve his objectives. Measuring utilization on 2 to 3 key forage species each year will help you understand how your animals are grazing in an area and how much they are consuming of key plants. It will tell you if you need to move animals out of a pasture sooner or if some areas are receiving excessively heavy or insufficiently light grazing.
• Stubble height measures the height of the vegetation left at the end of the grazing season. The target amount of stubble left is normally based on management objectives.

Climate and Weather Patterns. Temperature and precipitation records can provide information that helps understand why the particular changes documented by a monitoring program occurred. Changes in vegetation, soils, and riparian areas can occur from many processes, not just livestock grazing or other land uses. Extreme weather events, or longer term changes in the climate, particularly the amount and timing of precipitation, can have profound effects on plant communities across time. A good understanding of how your rangeland responds to precipitation patterns can improve your ability to make needed adjustments in stocking rate or grazing system.

Data on precipitation and climate are available at the sites below, and also available through state or local resources. 

Inventory, unlike monitoring, refers specifically to ​a point-in-time. ​When ecologists, range management professionals, or others talk about inventory, they are referring to a point-in-time measurement to assess the condition of a resource. 

For example, ecologists may inventory the population of a rare plant. Or, range managers may inventory the condition of resources on a ranch. Inventorying is the systematic acquisition and analysis of information needed to describe, characterize, or quantify rangeland resources. Inventories can be used for mapping the extent and location of various rangeland resources such soils and vegetation. Inventory data may also be interpreted to assess ecological status of these resources. 

The actual type of data collected during inventory may not actually differ from the type of data collected during monitoring, but the big difference is that monitoring is repeated. Often, inventory data may be a baseline that informs future monitoring.

“Local knowledge” refers to a body of knowledge held by an individual or group of people about ecological systems, based on personal and/or cultural experience and observation. Local knowledge can be contrasted with knowledge that is primarily derived from a formal institution or specialized field of research. Local knowledge has much in common with traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), but the two are not synonymous.

Berkes (2008) defines traditional ecological knowledge as “a cumulative body of knowledge, practice and belief, evolving by adaptive processes and handed down through generations by cultural transmission”.  Local knowledge can be obtained through direct experience with the land but does not imply a culturally embedded and inter-generationally transmitted knowledge base that incorporates values, institutions and practices as well as biophysical observations. Traditional ecological knowledge is also experiential knowledge but it is culturally embedded, inter-generationally and socially transmitted and almost always includes a much wider set of beliefs, values and institutions that are inseparable from the other components of traditional ecological knowledge.

Both local knowledge and traditional ecological knowledge are not stationary. Knowledge can evolve, change and accumulate with new experiences and learning, as well as interactions with other forms of knowledge, including science. Both local knowledge and traditional ecological knowledge are useful and important sources of information, not only to those who have this knowledge, but also to science and understanding ecological change. For example, local knowledge and traditional ecological knowledge can fill in gaps where quantitative data may not exist, can provide important context about landscape history and management, and can engage local populations in decision making processes about ecological management. Many studies in the US and beyond have documented local knowledge and traditional ecological knowledge held by pastoralists, ranchers and others. Methods for documenting and collecting local knowledge often come from social science, and include techniques like surveys, interviews, and focus groups.

Over the past several decades the public has become increasingly concerned about the uses and management of rangelands. People value rangelands as open space, a source of clean water and wildlife habitat, as well as for the forage, timber, and mining resources extracted from them. They frequent rangelands to camp, hike, hunt, and drive off-road vehicles. They may also wish to view rangeland plant communities and rare wildlife species in an environment that remains undisturbed by these other uses. Unfortunately, the amount of rangelands is decreasing as they are converted to residential, commercial, and industrial use.

This increasing demand for finite rangeland resources has led to conflict over the appropriate uses and management strategies for these lands. The complex policy issues surrounding rangelands are further complicated by personal emotions tied to the differing belief systems of the various stakeholders involved. In many instances citizens have disagreed bitterly over the perceived condition of these lands, the impacts of various uses on them, and the ways they should be managed.

The purpose of this section of the rangelands site is to provide a constructive and non-threatening venue for the public to explore the key controversial issues surrounding the use and management of rangelands. By aiding citizens to clarify issues, to analyze management alternatives and their consequences, to stay abreast of legislation and legal decisions regarding the issues, and to discover new techniques of conflict resolution, we hope to encourage an informed public that may more effectively engage in policy debate and work toward resolving conflicts over rangeland resources.

Conflict Resolution

In response to conflict, organizations, initiatives, and others have pursued alternative methods besides litigation for resolving natural resource-based conflicts, and conflicts over rangelands in particular. The Udall Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution uses Environmental Conflict Resolution (ERC), described as “problem-solving discussions among diverse parties, facilitated or aided by a neutral third party and aimed at finding workable solutions to environmental problems or issues.” ERC uses a “problem-solving” approach that seeks to “expand the pie” by searching for mutually beneficial solutions among stakeholders, rather than an all-or-nothing approach for one side. ERC can involve more than two parties – for example, ERC processes can involve, ranchers, homeowners, the Bureau of Land Management, and recreationalists. A neutral third party can help design processes that allow for more productive discussions among stakeholders and allow for the exploration of mutually beneficial solutions. Other organizations, such as the Malpai Borderlands Group, and the Quivira Coalition engage diverse partners to work collaboratively to protect habitat for wildlife species, landscape health, and sustainable ranching and farming. While there is much potential for conflict on rangelands, there are groups that are working towards viable and productive conflict resolution alternatives to litigation.

Conservation Easements

Conservation easements are legal agreements between a landowner and a qualified entity, such a land trust, government, or municipality. A conservation easement is a tool used to conserve private land for agricultural purposes or open space in perpetuity. The need for conservation easements arose out of desire to retain agricultural lands and open space, despite the fact that land sold for development can have a much higher value. The basic model is that a farm or ranch retains ownership of the land, but gives up development rights. When/if the property is sold or changes ownership, the conservation easement stays with the property. In return for putting lands under conservation easement, a property owner receives grant funding, tax deductions and/or tax credits. Given that around 50% of rangelands are privately owned, and increasing development pressure, conservation easements are one tool that ranchers and farmers can use to receive an economic benefit for conserving open space and agricultural lands in perpetuity.

Species of Concern by State

• Arizona Threatened & Endangered Species: Listings by county for the state of Arizona. From the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services.
• California Threatened and Endangered Species: Lists by species within groupings like amphibians, birds, etc. From the California Department of Fish and Game.
• Colorado Species Concern: Colorado Division of Wildlife: Threatened and Endangered Species.
• Montana Threatened and Endangered Species: Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Commission.
• New Mexico Threatened and Endangered Species: 1998 Biennial Review and Recommendations from the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish.
• North Dakota's Endangered and Threatened Species: Quick guide designed to list and provide information about the federally listed threatened and endangered species found in North Dakota. From the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center.
• Oklahoma's Endangered and Threatened Species and Species of Special Concern: Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation.
• Oregon List of Threatened and Endangered Fish and Wildlife Species: A simple list giving common name, scientific name, and whether threatened or endangered. From the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.
• Washington Threatened and Endangered Species: Lists endangered, threatened, designated, candidate, proposed, and 'of concern' species, with most linked to a page with a brief description and pictures. From the Washington Department of Transportation.

Written by John Tanaka, University of Wyoming

Grazing by domestic livestock -- that is, cattle, sheep, and goats -- is one of the most widespread uses of rangelands. Deciding what species to graze, how to graze them, how many to graze, and where and when to graze has been the subject of much rangeland research and management. Economic analysis can help the decision-maker determine answers to those questions when he or she wants to know the profit maximizing levels.

The basic economic principle being applied is to equate the value of the marginal product to the marginal factor costs. In essence, this says that the last animal added to the herd should produce just enough income to cover the cost of producing it. With the law of diminishing returns, each animal added contributes less to profit than did the previous one and at the economically optimal stocking rate, the last animal adds nothing to profit. Stocking rate and varying stocking rate to match forage conditions have emerged as the most important factors influencing ranch profitability and the economic responses to grazing.

Grazing systems have been developed through the years to assist in the management of livestock and to improve the health of the land. If the system is going to be economically beneficial, either animal performance or forage production must improve over time. In addition, a grazing system could result in lower operating costs, may reduce fire danger due to removal of vegetation, or provide other habitat improvements that society values.

Economic Feasibility of Range Improvement Practices - Rangeland improvement practices are implemented for a variety of reasons. Historically, they were done primarily for managing livestock like cattle and sheep. As other uses of the rangelands became more important, managers began designing them for use by wildlife, to avoid impacts on wildlife and recreationists, to reduce soil erosion, to improve riparian areas, and many other reasons. Each of these uses causes different benefits and incurs different costs. The economic analysis of any such project is the same.

The economic analysis of any project requires that one estimate both the costs and the benefits from the project through time. Costs include both the initial investment and the annual maintenance and repairs. Benefits include all of the annual returns upon which society places value. The life of the project will also be an important consideration. A problem arises when not all of the costs or benefits can be quantified or valued.

Estimating Costs - Costs include the initial investment and annual maintenance and repairs. Projects can be designed in a variety of ways, each affecting both types of costs and the project life. A reasonable variety of project designs can be developed to achieve the management goals. Each design can have its costs estimated.

For example, if the manager decides to remove a woody plant species to increase the amount of forage available for cattle, there are many ways to achieve that goal, including using herbicides, prescribed fire, mechanical removal, and biological control. Each of these methods can be applied at different intensities with different success rates and risks. Different herbicides can be applied using ground or aerial application methods, at different rates, and in different patterns with different levels of brush kill and different levels of plant responses.

The manager must weigh all of these factors in deciding on the methods to use for a particular project. In many areas, there will be a desired method to implement based on experience. That should not preclude the evaluation of alternatives based on changing sets of goals to be achieved.

Estimating Benefits - Benefits from rangeland improvement practices can be more difficult to estimate. Benefits from livestock forage produced are relatively straightforward, while those related to scenic views and wildlife may be harder.

If the benefit is from livestock forage, it can be valued by either considering the cost of alternative feeds such as hay or leased pastures. The process is to estimate how much additional forage will be produced by the practice and apply one of those values to it to come up with a total value.

If the project is expected to result in nonmarket benefits such as reduced soil erosion, increased streamflow, wildlife habitat, scenic views, or recreational opportunities, the benefit estimation is much more difficult. Basically three methods can be used in these cases: travel cost method, contingent valuation method, and avoided costs.

The travel cost method (TCM) can be used if there is a specific location people travel to do something. It is primarily used for recreation sites where people go to an area to hunt, fish, swim, boat, view scenery, or enjoy other such activities.

The contingent valuation method (CVM) is used when the item or use being valued is not necessarily based on a location. In essence, the method seeks to ask a cross section of people what they would be willing to pay for some changed condition or situation. The responses are then used to come up with an estimate of value.

The avoided cost method would be used if the project were to reduce costs incurred before the project was implemented. If reduced soil erosion resulted in less water treatment or reduced the need to dredge behind dams, those reduced costs can be considered a benefit of the project.

Each of these nonmarket valuation methods has been used for a variety of uses of rangelands. While there are concerns about their validity for use in planning and management, each method can provide relative values that could be used in project analysis. Care must be applied in both how the methods are applied and how the resulting estimates are used.

Feasibility Analysis - Once the costs and benefits are estimated, three basic methods are used to estimate economic feasibility:

• Internal Rate of Return (IRR)
• Present Net Worth (PNW)
• Benefit-Cost Ratio (B/C)

With three methods available, which is the best to use? All three methods use the same information. In the case of PNW and B/C, the analyst needs to know what discount rate to use in the calculations, whereas with the IRR, the analyst needs to know what interest rate to compare with the IRR. PNW is likely the best method to use (Workman 1981), although the others provide useful information as well.

See also: Workman, J. P. 1981. Disagreement among investment criteria - A solution to the problem. Journal of Range Management 34:319-324.

---

Internal Rate of Return (IRR)

The internal rate of return (IRR) is one measure used by economists to evaluate investments. It is based on the principal of discounting which is where future values are brought to present values based on some discount rate. The IRR method seeks to find that discount rate whereby the present value of future returns just equals the initial investment cost.

In rangeland management, many projects will have an initial cost that will create changes in future costs and returns to whatever operation is being considered. For example, seeding desirable grass and shrub species is an activity to restore degraded rangelands or to change the desired mix of vegetation on a particular range site. The process of removing undesirable vegetation, preparing the seedbed, and seeding the desirable plants entails an initial cost. The initial investment is expected to change the future income stream to the ranch by increasing forage, changing the season of forage availability, and/or changing herd management. If values are placed on each of the costs and returns, and the timing of each of those, an IRR can be calculated.

The decision rule is that if the IRR is greater than the rate of return that the decision-maker could earn on the use of those funds, then the project is considered to be economically feasible. Another way of looking at it is if the IRR is greater than what the decision-maker would have to pay in interest to finance the project, then it is economically feasible.

The IRR is one economic measure to help evaluate an investment. It can help a rangeland manager decide if the project will return enough to justify making the investment based on the cost of borrowing funds or an alternative investment rate -- for example, what you could earn in an alternative such as the stock market.

If you assume that the net annual returns from the initial investment are equal, then you can apply the following formula and seek to find the discount rate, either through trial and error or using set tables as described in Nielson (1977).

I = Initial investment

R = Net additional annual return

r = Discount rate

i = Years of equal net annual returns.

If the net annual returns are not equal, you can use the formula for Present Net Worth and solve for Present Net Worth equal to zero.

For more information, see:

Nielsen, Darwin B. 1977. Economics of range improvements: a rancher's handbook to economic decision-making. Utah Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 466 (revised). Logan, Utah. 52 p.

Workman, John P. and John A. Tanaka. 1991. Economic feasibility and management considerations in range revegetation. Journal of Range Management 44(6):566-573.

---

Present Net Worth (PNW)

Present Net Worth (PNW) is used to determine if the benefits, or income, are greater than the costs when both are valued in current dollars. The method requires that future values are discounted to a present value and added together. The basic formula is:

PNW = Present Net Worth

i = year being considered, generally 0 to N, where N is the last year of the planning horizon

Benefits_i = Benefits from the projects obtained in year i

Costs₍i) = Costs from the projects obtained in year i. The initial investment in the project is assumed to occur in year 0.

r = the discount rate.

For more information, see:

Nielsen, Darwin B. 1977. Economics of range improvements: a rancher's handbook to economic decision-making. Utah Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 466 (revised). Logan, Utah. 52 p.

Workman, John P. and John A. Tanaka. 1991. Economic feasibility and management considerations in range revegetation. Journal of Range Management 44(6):566-573. 

---

Benefit-Cost Ratio (B/C)

Written by John Tanaka, University of Wyoming

The benefit-cost ratio (B/C) is used to compare the present value of all benefits to the present value of all costs. The ratio is merely used to see if a $1 of costs will return at least $1 in benefits.

B/C is used by many federal agencies in the economic justification of projects. The discount rate is set by policy and is generally used at 3, 7, and 10% (or some other range) to see how sensitive the results are to the discount rate. In addition, the agencies have attempted to include nonmarket benefits and costs (i.e., goods and services for which there is no market price) in its calculation.

The basic formula for the B/C ratio is:

B/C = Benefit-Cost Ratio

i = year being considered, generally 0 to N, where N is the last year of the planning horizon

Benefits_i = Benefits from the projects obtained in year i

Costs_i = Costs from the projects obtained in year i. The initial investment in the project is assumed to occur in year 0.

r = the discount rate.

Written by John Tanaka, University of Wyoming

Public rangelands are primarily managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service, although other federal agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Defense manage significant acreages. These lands are owned by the people of the United States and are managed for various purposes as outlined in public laws and regulations. In this section, we will examine the economic aspects of different uses and how those uses affect the national treasury in terms of receipts and how local governments may be affected.

• Grazing Fees on Public Rangelands
• Grazing Fees on State Rangelands
• Grazing Fees on Other Federal Rangelands
• Recreation Fees on Public Rangelands
• Revenues to Government on Public Rangelands
• Revenues in Lieu of Taxes from Public Rangelands

---

Grazing Fees on State Rangelands

Written by John Tanaka, University of Wyoming

States were generally allocated two sections of land out of each 36 sections (a township) for the purpose of generating income to support schools. These school sections have been treated differently by each state but are generally set aside to maximize income to the school trust. In states that have retained ownership of school sections suitable for grazing, each state has developed a somewhat different method of setting the grazing fee. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted a study in 2005 that reported the different grazing fees in the western states.

Source: Government Accountability Office. 2005. Livestock Grazing - Federal Expenditures and Receipts Vary, Depending on the Agency and the Purpose of the Fee Charged. GAO-05-869. 110 p.

---

Grazing Fees on Other Federal Rangelands

Written by John Tanaka, University of Wyoming

The U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service (USFS) manage most of the public land grazing in the nation. In addition, several other federal agencies manage land and allow grazing for a fee. The agencies and fees they charge are shown below for 2004, the most recent year of this study. Specific grazing fees for current years may be found. These are presented to show relative fees charged by different agencies within the federal government.

Source: Government Accountability Office. 2005. Livestock Grazing - Federal Expenditures and Receipts Vary, Depending on the Agency and the Purpose of the Fee Charged. GAO-05-869. 110 p.

---

Recreation Fees on Public Rangelands

Written by John Tanaka, University of Wyoming

There are very few places where fees are charged for recreating on public rangelands. You may find fees for staying in specific campgrounds. There may also be fees to enter certain facilities such as interpretive centers. Permit fees may be charged in some instances, such as rafting certain rivers or parking in designated areas like snow parks.

Commercial outfitters and guides may also have to pay a permit fee to the land management agency to operate their business on public land. These guides and outfitters will likely charge for their services.

In general, most public lands are open to the public at any time. The Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service have the authority to charge different fees, and these are set mostly on a local or regional basis. The National Park Service does charge an entry fee for many of the national parks. Some of these fees are returned to the treasury, while others may be retained by the agencies to improve the areas for which fees were charged.

For more information:

U.S. Forest Service passes and permits

National Park Service fees and permits

---

Revenues to Government from Public Rangelands

The U.S. Department of the Interior has the administrative responsibility to calculate and distribute payments-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILT). The department publishes the Public Land Statistics online. Information on the amount each federal program raises in revenue and its distribution to the agency, state and local governments, and the Federal Treasury are reported.

---

Payment in Lieu of Taxes from Public Rangelands

Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) are amounts that the federal government pays local governments that have certain federal lands within their jurisdictions. PILT payments are made because the federal government does not pay state or county property taxes. The Bureau of Land Management administers these payments within the laws developed by Congress and the regulations therefrom. Payment amounts can be adjusted based on additional payments received from the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act as well as changes in the amount of money Congress appropriates for payment.

Learn more about PILT payments.

For the most part, the website shows calculations for PILT as defined below. There are some additional smaller payments that can affect the total amount actually paid explained at the website. County acres of qualifying public land can be found here. While they do not break down the actual payment by rangelands, acres by county in rangelands can be estimated using different criteria.

"DOI computes payments authorized under section 6902 of the Act using the greater of the following two alternatives:"

"(A) $2.37 (in fiscal year 2009) times the number of acres of qualified federal land in the county, as defined above, reduced by the amount of funds received by the county in the prior fiscal year under certain other federal land receipt sharing programs, such as the 25-percent timber program or the mineral leasing program -or- (B) Thirty-three cents, in fiscal year 2009, times the number of acres of qualified federal land in the county, with no deduction for prior-year payments."

"Both alternatives explained above are subject to a population ceiling limitation computed by multiplying the county population times a corresponding dollar value (adjusted annually for inflation) contained in the act."

Enterprise budgets developed for rangeland-based ranching operations may include production activities for both crops (for example, hay and grain) and livestock (cattle, sheep, and goats). In each type of budget, there should be a description of the physical resources used in the production process as well as estimates of the typical returns and costs incurred.

Most budgets are presented in different sections for income, variable costs, and fixed costs. Income comes from the sale of the product being produced. If it is hay or grain produced on the ranch for use by the livestock enterprise, it is still evaluated as if it were sold in a market. Essentially, the livestock enterprise has to buy it from the hay or grain enterprise. Variable costs are those costs that change with the level of production. If you raise one more cow, what do you have to spend to raise it? Fixed costs are those things that you have to pay regardless of whether you produce any product at all.

Both variable and fixed costs can be cash or noncash costs. Cash costs are those that you are going to buy. Noncash costs are those things that are not paid for directly but include items such as operator labor, interest and depreciation on machinery, and interest on capital items such as land, machinery, breeding livestock, and buildings. Noncash costs are also referred to as opportunity costs since you could be using the funds or time tied up in the current enterprise in another investment.

Every ranch will have a different combination of variable and fixed items of production. Because of this, their variable and fixed costs will vary. Items and values shown in the sample enterprise budgets below should only be taken as guides. An individual rancher will need to find the enterprise budget closest to his operation and make the necessary adjustments.

Below are links to a few sample cattle enterprise budgets. Your local Cooperative Extension Service may have additional enterprise budgets for crops and livestock in your area.

The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service provides information on state enterprise budgets 

Idaho: Cow-Calf - 500 Head

Oregon: 500 Head (Mountain Region)

---

Idaho: Cow/Calf - 500 Head

Economic costs are used in the University of Idaho costs and returns estimates. All resources are valued based on market price or opportunity cost. This budget presents both the average costs and returns per cow for a 500-head cow-calf operation and the total costs and returns for the ranch. The forage source is federal, state and private range, and some feeding is necessary in the winter.

Livestock Investment - Livestock investment is 500 cows, 25 bulls, and 10 horses. Cows have a useful life of 5 years after they are placed in the breeding herd. The culling rate is 15 percent and the cow herd has a 2 percent death loss. The ranch buys two-year old bulls and replaces them every 4 years. The weaned calf crop is 88 percent of the number of cows wintered. Of the 95 weaned heifer calves selected from the calf crop for replacements, 10 are culled because of non-breeding or poor quality. This leaves a net replacement rate of 85 head each year.

Machinery and Equipment - The cow/calf enterprise uses two ¾-ton pickups (4x4), one 1-ton pickup (4x4), two 80 HP tractors (one with a loader), a feed wagon, a stock trailer, and a gooseneck trailer. This equipment complement is minimal, but considered adequate to make the ranch operation functional. Values on these investments are calculated at 50 percent of new replacement cost to reflect typically aged but functional ranch equipment. Haying equipment is not included in this budget as hay production is treated as a separate enterprise. Only equipment that is necessary for the cattle enterprise is included. Refer to EBB2-AH-03 for a summary of the costs and returns associated with hay production in southwestern Idaho. Hay and other feeds used as inputs in this cow/calf budget are valued at the market price received by growers (farmgate).

Buildings and Improvements - The ranch has 37 miles of 4-wire fence, one barn, a calving shed, one two acre corral with working alleys, a squeeze chute, a calf cradle and a normal complement of veterinary equipment. Water is supplied from natural sources. Buildings and improvements are valued at 80 percent of new replacement cost.

---

Oregon: 500 Head (Mountain Region)

This livestock enterprise budget estimates the typical costs and returns of producing calves in the mountain area of northeast Oregon (Wallowa, Union, and Baker counties, the eastern portion of Umatilla County, and the northern portion of Harney County). These areas are within the Blue Mountains Ecological Province and have a mixed conifer forest with many open meadows. It should be used as a guide to estimate actual costs and is not representative of any particular ranch.

The major assumptions used in developing this budget are discussed below describing the representative ranch. 

Oregon Mountain 500 Head Livestock – The enterprise consists of 500 cows, 25 bulls, and 10 horses. A 95% conception rate is used, and 98% of the pregnant cows give birth. Cow death loss is 1%, bull death loss is 1%, and calf death loss is 5%. Mature cows are culled by 15% annually, and all replacement heifers are raised.

Calves are worked in April, including branding, vaccinating, and implanting. Cows are vaccinated in April and treated for external parasites. Cows and replacement heifers are vaccinated and pregnancy tested in the fall as the cattle are gathered. Cull cows, cull replacement heifers, and calves are sold November 1.

Livestock selling prices are a three-year average (2005-2008) of farmgate prices for the northeast region, including Baker, Crook, Grant, Morrow, Umatilla, Union, and Wallowa counties. Livestock weights are assumed typical for the mountain area.

Table 1. Oregon Cow/Calf Costs and Returns, Mountain Region, 500-Cow Herd

Table 2. Livestock Cost Assumptions

Table 3. Livestock Opportunity Cost Calculations

Oregon Mountain 500 Head Feed - Feed is supplied in the form of native and feeder-quality alfalfa hay, public range, and pasture. Cattle are fed hay for four and a half months, forest service range is used for three and a half months, privately owned spring range is grazed for one and a half months, and stringer meadows are utilized for the remaining two and a half months. A $2.50 per AUM charge covers fertilizer and irrigation expenses for the private pasture.

Salt and minerals are fed at the rate of 48 pounds per cow annually, and approximately one-third is assumed to be consumed by wildlife.

Oregon Mountain 500 Head Labor - Labor provided by two families is included as a variable cost of $27,000 per year, assuming eight months are dedicated to the cow/calf operation and four months to hay production.

Oregon Mountain 500 Head Labor Capital - Opportunity costs of operating capital are charged at a rate of 10 percent for the duration of the grazing season and 2.5 percent per year for the current market value of the ranch unit, including land and livestock.

Oregon Mountain 500 Head Equipment - A loader tractor and hay wagon are used to feed hay. A 3/4-ton pickup is used to pull a stock trailer, for general travel, and for general ranch work. Corrals are used in the spring and fall to work cattle. Two four-wheel ATVs are used for general ranch work.

Machinery and equipment values are based on spring 1996 replacement costs, assuming the assets are half depreciated. Table 4 summarizes the values assumed for machinery, equipment, and buildings as well the hours, miles, or years associated with their use. "Working Facilities" include a squeeze chute, corrals, and scales.

Machinery and equipment costs are shown in these tables for variable and fixed cost components. 

Table 4. Machinery Cost Assumptions

Table 5. Machinery and Equipment Cost Calculations

Oregon Mountain 500 Head Resources - The commercial value of land and improvements of a whole ranch unit ranges from $1,000 to $2,500 per cow unit (animal unit) depending upon productivities and extent of federal land dependency. This budget assumes that the ranch as a whole is valued at $1,750 per cow unit. The operator owns 4,100 acres of spring range and 1,480 acres of improved spring range, providing 410 and 1,150 AUMs, respectively, over one and a half months. In addition, 725 acres of stringer meadow is owned and supplies 1,425 AUMs over two and a half months. Property taxes total $2,643. Actual property taxes will vary with assessed value.

Oregon Mountain 500 Head Other Costs -  In the enterprise budget, implants, pour-on, vaccines, pregnancy testing, fly tags, and dewormer are included under the line item "Vet & Medicine." Brand inspection is $1.75 per animal sold, plus a $10 per trip charge with three trips assumed. Materials for fence repairs cost $1,350. "Supplies" include saddle, tack, and branding equipment. "Marketing Fees" are a flat 3% of the gross value of the livestock that are sold to cover marketing costs via satellite or through the auction yard, etc. "Utilities" include electricity, telephone, and others. "Legal and related expenses" cover costs associated with litigation regarding policy issues and other legal expenses. All items not included in the other budget line items, such as association dues, are accounted for under "Miscellaneous."

From: Turner, Brenda, Fred Obermiller, John Tanaka, Bart Eleveld, Bill Broderick, Gary Delaney, Randy Mills, and John Williams. 1998. Enterprise budget, 500 cow/calf, mountain region. Oregon State University Extension Service EM 8687