United States

Department

of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain

Research Station

General Technical Report

RMRS-GTR-36WWW

September 1999

An Analysis of PILT-Related

Payments and Likely Property

Tax Liability of Federal Resource

Management Lands

Ervin G. Schuster

Paul R. Beckley

Jennifer M. Bushur

Krista M. Gebert

Michael J. Niccolucci

Published exclusively on the World Wide Web
Abstract

Schuster, Ervin G.; Beckley, Paul R.; Bushur, Jennifer M.; Gebert, Krista M.; Niccolucci, Michael J. 1999. An analysis

of PILT-related payments and likely property tax liability of Federal resource management lands. Gen. Tech. Rep.

RMRS GTR-36WWW. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research

Station. 23 p. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr36.pdf

This report stems from Congressional concern over the equivalency between Federal payments to counties

containing Federal resource management lands, the likely tax liability, and other county-level benefits and costs

associated with those lands. Results indicate that the overall tax liability on Federal lands is almost three times the

Federal payments. A survey of county executive officers indicates that the direct fiscal costs or benefits to county

governments from Federal lands and programs are modest.

Keywords: revenue sharing, tax equivalency, PILT, payments to counties, Payments in Lieu of

Taxes Act

The Authors

Ervin G. Schuster is a Principal Economist and

Project Leader for the Economic Aspects of Ecosystem

Management Research Work Unit, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula,

MT. His research includes timber economics, fire economics, and the economics of rural development. His

academic training was at the University of Minnesota

and Iowa State University, where he received a Ph.D.

in forest economics in 1971. Dr. Schuster has also held

positions with the Forest Service’s Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, along with Weber State University, the University of Idaho, and the University of

Montana.

Paul R. Beckley is an Economist for the USDA

Forest Service, Northern Region, Kalispell, MT. His

background includes economic impact analysis, natural resource investment analysis, and regional assessments. Beckley holds a B.S. degree in accounting and

economics and an M.S. degree (1971) in forest management from Utah State University. He is working on a

doctorate in natural resource economics at Michigan

State University and is a Certified Public Accountant.

Jennifer M. Bushur is a Physical Scientist for the

Naval Oceanographic Office, Stennis Space Center,

MS. She holds B.A. degrees in zoology and environmental geology from the University of Montana, where

she is also completing an M.S. degree in hydrogeology.

Bushur formerly held the position of Computer Specialist with the Economic Aspects of Ecosystem Management Research Work Unit, USDA Forest Service,

Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT,

where she worked on wildland fire management and

rural development issues.

Krista M. Gebert is an Economist for the Economic

Aspects of Ecosystem Management Research Work

Unit, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research

Station, Missoula, MT. Gebert holds B.A. and M.A.

(1996) degrees in economics from the University of

Montana, where she has also held teaching positions.

Her research focuses on economics related to ecosystem management and wildland fire management.

Michael J. Niccolucci is an Economist for the Economic Aspects of Ecosystem Management Research

Work Unit, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Research Station, Missoula, MT. Niccolucci holds B.A.

and M.A. (1989) degrees in economics from the University of Montana. Niccolucci works on economic issues

related to timber management and land management

planning. He also works closely with National Forest

System analysis teams dealing with environmental

impact statements and all-resources accounting

systems.
Research Summary

As part of the FY 1996 appropriation process, the

United States Congress directed the USDI Bureau of

Land Management (BLM) to provide information on

(1) the equivalency between Federal payments on

resource management lands and likely property taxes

those lands could generate; (2) the benefits and costs

to local governments resulting from the presence of

Federal lands; and (3) recommendations for amending

the Payments In Lieu of Taxes (PILT) legislation and

related revenue-sharing programs. In September 1997,

the BLM entered into an agreement with the USDA

Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Research Station to

provide tax equivalency and benefit-cost information.

The Station assembled a six-person team of researchers, organized a seven-person Steering Committee to

provide guidance on research direction and issues,

and conducted the research in accordance with a study

plan endorsed by the Steering Committee.

Tax equivalency information was developed through

a coordinated effort involving the research team, county

tax personnel, and agency land specialists. After selecting a nationwide random sample of 105 counties

(25 from the East, 40 from the Interior West, 30 from

the Pacific West, and 10 from Alaska), local tax assessors were contacted and the tax systems were studied

and learned. (Note: Counties containing less than 500

entitlement acres were excluded from the sample.) We

simulated agency property taxes after assessors developed appropriate tax categories (land-use classes),

agency personnel allocated lands into those categories, and the assessors reviewed the allocations. Assessors also provided needed information on taxable

values, tax rates, and tax procedures. Information on

PILT and revenue-sharing payments was provided by

the BLM.

Although we evaluated several versions of tax equivalency, the comparison between potential property taxes

and (1) PILT payments or (2) PILT plus revenuesharing (RS) payments (PILT+RS) are probably the

most appropriate; both were expressed on a “per-acre”

basis. Though many individual counties were tax

equivalent in FY 1997, we found little evidence of

aggregate tax equivalency. (Note: Many governmental units in Alaska have no property tax.) The listing

below shows that, nationwide, potential taxes exceed

PILT or PILT plus RS payments by $1.31 and $0.94

per acre, respectively:

PILT versus Taxes PILT+RS versus Taxes

East -$6.05 -$5.40

Interior West -0.57 -0.42

Pacific West -3.32 -1.61

Alaska -0.66 -0.59

United States -1.31 -0.94

However, under the PILT versus Taxes version of

equivalency, 51 percent of all counties are tax equivalent (i.e., PILT ≥ property taxes), while under the

PILT+RS version, about 62 percent are equivalent. If

revenue-sharing payments were held constant but

PILT were fully funded, Federal payments would be

equivalent to taxes in about 69 percent of all counties.

To generate an aggregate national tax equivalency, a

fully funded PILT would have to be increased by a

factor of almost 3-1/2 times; even then, 18 percent of

the counties would still not be tax equivalent.

We assessed the locally perceived benefits and costs

associated with Federal lands with a questionnaire

administered to the Chief Executive Officer of each

sampled county. The questionnaire was divided into

three parts, responses to which were based on experience and professional judgement, NOT on a detailed

examination of fiscal records or accounts. We received

responses to about 76 percent of the questionnaires.

For these types of responses, the median (middle)

response is the best measure of the typical response.

Part A of the questionnaire sought information about

costs imposed on county governments because of the

presence of Federal lands and associated management programs. We found little indication of costs

imposed. Nevertheless, Federal lands and programs

mostly increased local costs for search and rescue, law

enforcement, road construction and maintenance, and

fire protection and control; but even for those areas of

greatest importance, county officials judged the added

costs to be “small.” Recreation programs were most

commonly identified as responsible for cost increases.

Part B of the questionnaire dealt with direct fiscal

benefits (cost savings) to county governments associated with the presence of Federal lands and associated

programs. Again, we found little indication of direct

fiscal benefits. Of the 16 areas of potential fiscal

benefits, “use of Federal lands” was rated the highest,

but that rating was only “small”; the median rating for

all other potential fiscal benefits was “none.” (Note:

Direct fiscal benefits to county government do not

consider indirect fiscal benefits, such as those resulting from economic activity [e.g., timber and land]

occurring on Federal lands.)

Part C of the questionnaire dealt with other benefits

to communities and individuals in the county. Respondents were provided 21 areas of potential benefits and

indicated that “places to hunt and fish,” “places to

recreate,” and “recreational facilities” were the top

benefits received by communities or individuals in the

county; the median rating for those benefits was

“moderate.”

Research results seem to provide a basis for a number of conclusions regarding both the tax equivalency

issue and the question of local fiscal benefits and costs

derived from Federal ownership. Regarding property
tax equivalency: (1) in the aggregate, property taxes

are substantially higher than either PILT or PILT

plus RS payments, nationally and for regions in FY

1997; (2) the aggregate tax equivalency shortfall notwithstanding, about 62 percent of counties were property tax equivalent in FY 1997; (3) “across-the-board”

increases in Federal payments to achieve aggregate

equivalency are far more costly than if targeted increases were possible; and (4) under any version of tax

equivalency, including that where PILT or RS payments were increased until Federal payments equaled

property taxes nationally, some counties were still not

tax equivalent.

Regarding local benefits and costs as perceived by

local officials: (1) though there may be anecdotal evidence to the contrary, overall costs imposed on local

governments were generally rated as “none” or “small,”

and “search and rescue” was the top-rated cost item;

(2) although specific instances may exist, widespread

cost savings received by local governments would be

difficult to document because direct fiscal benefits

were generally rated as “none,” and “use of Federal

lands” was the top-rated cost-savings item; and

(3) although the magnitude of benefits to communities

and individuals is not overwhelming, indications are

that Federal lands and programs mainly help provide

a pleasant place to live, enhance the quality of life, and

affect lifestyle.

Acknowledgments

This study could not have been accomplished without the active support and cooperation of our Steering

Committee, agency lands and resource specialists,

and county personnel. The Steering Committee did far

more than could be expected and did it well. They

traveled across the country to help design the study,

argued issues of policy and procedure, and encouraged

the research team when confidence waned. The Steering Committee included Dr. Gregory Alward (USDAFS), Wendy Favinger (USDI-BLM), William Howell

(USDI-BLM), Richard Phillips (USDA-FS), Michael

Retzlaff (USDA-FS), and David Schmidt (Linn County,

OR). Also, the land specialists and other professionals

from the several agencies were a credit to themselves

and their agencies. They provided timely information

in a competent manner, often in light of many conflicting demands on their time. Finally, county personnel

were marvelous. Our questionnaire was directed to

the Chief Executive Officer of each sampled county, a

group of unquestionably busy individuals; yet nearly

80 percent took the time to respond. Tax-related information was obtained from persons in county tax organizations. We worked with assessors, appraisers,

clerks, and more, often on a teleconference at the same

time, and on several occasions. With a commitment to

accuracy, attention to detail, and down-home cordiality, they made our job a pleasure. To all, thanks.

Contents

Introduction ...............................................................1

Previous Studies ........................................................2

Methods .....................................................................4

Assumptions and Limitations................................4

Tax-Equivalency Phase ..........................................5

Data Collection ...................................................5

Data Analysis .....................................................6

Benefit-Cost Phase .................................................7

The Questionnaire ..............................................7

Data Analysis .....................................................7

Results .....................................................................8

Tax Equivalency .....................................................8

Taxable Value .....................................................9

The Tax Bill ...................................................... 10

Federal Payments.............................................11

Equivalency ...................................................... 11

Benefits and Costs ................................................15

Costs Imposed on Local

Governments.................................................16

Fiscal Benefits to Local

Governments.................................................17

Benefits to Communities and

Individuals ....................................................19

Discussion ................................................................21

References ................................................................23
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-36WWW. 1999 1

Introduction ____________________

Almost from the beginning of nationhood, the Federal government of the United States was acquiring,

disposing, and retaining lands within its ever-evolving boundaries. According to Clawson (1972), some of

the earliest examples of retaining land holdings in

Federal ownership involved lighthouses and Coast

Guard stations. Although major Federal reservations

of public domain did not begin until the establishment

of Yellowstone National Park in 1872, local government interest had already been perked. Could local

jurisdictions treat reserved Federal lands as if they

were private lands and subject to property taxation?

Early in the 19th century, the United States Supreme

Court answered “no,” holding that local governments

could not tax Federal lands within their jurisdictions.

Local governments then had a reason to be concerned

about Federal retention of the public domain. Federal

actions could affect local revenues.

Reservation of public domain for forest reserves in

1891 led to a change in the relationship between the

Federal government and local jurisdictions. The Federal government began providing local governments

with payments in lieu of (instead of) property taxes.

The forests reserves of 1891 became the National

Forests of 1905, and legislation passed in 1908 provided that the USDA Forest Service share 25 percent

of its revenues (known as the 25-Percent Fund) with

local governments. This was followed by legislation

providing for additional revenue-sharing arrangements

between other Federal agencies and local governments, including the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934,

revenue sharing on wildlife refuges, and so on. According to Hibbard (1965), revenue sharing during the 19th

century resulted from distributing proceeds from sale

of the public domain. According to Clawson and Held

(1957), revenue sharing during the 20th century resulted from sale of commodities from public lands.

 Historically, interest in revenue sharing focused

on property tax equivalency—how well revenue-sharing payments approximated property taxes if those

lands were in private ownership. Studies commonly

estimated the tax-generating capabilities of Federal

lands and compared them to revenue-sharing payments plus “in-kind” payments. In-kind payments

refer to activities undertaken by Federal agencies that

might otherwise fall to local governments, such as

constructing forest highways and controlling fires.

The question of tax equivalency is inextricably linked

to the magnitude of revenue-sharing payments, which

varies with market outcomes—prices and output levels. Conditions of favorable prices and output levels

promote tax equivalency, while low prices or output

levels discourage equivalency. Moreover, fluctuation

in price and output levels create a degree of uncertainty for local governments relative to the dependability of revenue sharing as a source of funds to

finance local government activities.

The desire for property tax equivalency and revenue

dependability led local government to become interested in the nature of management practiced by Federal land-management agencies. Local governments

had a vested interest in management outcomes, be

they land allocations to the National Wilderness Preservation System, reauthorization of the Endangered

Species Act, or implementation of the concept of ecosystem management. That local governments were

too interested in management outcomes and that

Federal revenue sharing was not a dependable revenue source was judged undesirable, at least by the

Public Land Law Review Commission established by

the U.S. Congress to look into these and related matters during the 1960’s. In its report, “One-Third of the

Nation’s Land,” the Public Land Law Review Commission (1970) recommended revamping Federal revenue

sharing with a systematic approach that coordinated

various revenue-sharing programs in a way that promoted tax equivalency and funding stability.

The Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Act (31 USC

1601-1607) was passed in October 1976, thus promoting the Public Land Law Review Commission’s recommendation of nearly a decade earlier. This Act became

effective with fiscal year (FY) 1977 and is administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau

of Land Management (BLM). PILT held the promise of

both stabilizing Federal payments to counties and

improving prospects for tax equivalency (Schuster

1995). PILT has now become a significant part of

Federal land payments, especially in the West

(Schuster 1996). Now after 20 years of operation, the

United States Congress directed the BLM to assess

several aspects of PILT’s performance (U.S. Congress

1996):

1. The extent to which payments under the PILT

Act exceed the tax revenues that States and local

governments would receive from entitlement lands (as

defined in such Act) if such lands were taxed at the

same rates as other lands;

2. The nature and extent of services provided by

units of local government to visitors to entitlement

lands, and the economic benefits resulting from the

presence of such visitors;

3. Other economic benefits to communities in areas

where Federal lands are located;

4. Recommendations concerning the feasibility and

desirability of amending the PILT Act and other laws

under which payments are made to local governments

on the basis of the location of Federal lands and

revenues derived from such lands....
2 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-36WWW. 1999

The BLM entered into an agreement with the USDA

Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Research Station to

develop information needed to satisfy the first three

congressional directives; recommendations are deferred to the BLM. In an attempt to provide a cohesive

research framework, and after taking some interpretive liberties, this study addressed three topics:

1. Tax Equivalency: Compare Federal payments

(PILT and resource-based, revenue-sharing payments)

to local governments for entitlement lands, to property taxes those lands would generate if taxed at the

same rate as other lands;

2. Costs: Describe the nature and extent of costs

imposed on local governments by the presence of

entitlement lands and associated management activities; and

3. Benefits: Describe the nature and extent of economic benefits accruing to local communities and

individuals, resulting from the presence of entitlement lands and associated management activities.

Information on these topics was developed by a

Forest Service research team working in conjunction

with a Steering Committee of PILT experts. Focusing

on FY 1997, information on tax equivalency came from

a nationwide sample of 105 counties, involving the

coordinated efforts of county tax specialists and agency

land management personnel. Information on benefits

and costs was derived through a questionnaire administered to the Chief Executive Officer for sampled

counties. Although several types of local government

receive PILT payments, they will be referred to collectively as “counties.” Research design and methods

were formulated to address the weaknesses and

strengths identified in an analysis of previous studies.

Research was conducted, data were analyzed, and a

final report (USDA-FS 1999) was delivered to the

BLM. This document has been adapted from that

report.

Previous Studies ________________

Long before the PILT Act was passed in 1976,

concern was expressed about the level of the revenuesharing (RS) programs as well as their stability (or

dependability). In addition, there was a general feeling that such programs fell far short of compensating

counties for the property tax losses. Local governments were concerned that not only were they losing

tax revenue, but also that extra costs were being

imposed on them due to the need to provide additional

services to employees and visitors connected with

Federal lands. It was also noted, however, that in

addition to any extra costs imposed on local governments by the presence of Federal lands, local governments also receive many types of benefits from these

lands. Though many of these benefits (such as watershed and recreational values) are difficult to quantify,

attempts were made to measure other, more tangible

benefits. These benefits often took the form of “inkind” contributions or services that “...could be reasonably expected to have been made by State, county,

or other local governments in the absence of Federal

expenditures” (Clawson and Held 1957).

In 1950, the National Education Association conducted a study (Committee on Tax Education and

School Finance 1950) to estimate the value of all

Federal holdings, including land, buildings, and dams.

Estimated property taxes for these lands were calculated by local tax officials and compared to revenuesharing payments. The fiscal problems caused by

Federal land ownership were discussed, but no attempt was made to quantify the costs to the State and

local governments. Results showed that Federal payments were about 31.4 percent of the estimated taxes.

Several problems with this study were noted by

Clawson and Held (1957). First, no restraints were

placed on those estimating the taxes, and it was felt

that local tax officials might have overestimated the

taxes lost on Federal lands. Second, no account was

taken of the value of in-kind contributions provided by

the Federal government, such as fire protection or

road construction.

In a 1955 and 1965 follow-up study, Williams (1955

and 1965) focused on counties containing National

Forest land. Payments from the Forest Service’s 25-

Percent Fund for the year 1952 were compared to the

property taxes that might be payable on such land if it

were taxed as private property. This study also attempted to estimate the value of in-kind contributions. The 652 counties containing National Forest

land were grouped into 34 strata based on location,

and natural and economic characteristics. An average

of four sample counties was selected from each stratum for a total of 135 counties. In each sampled county,

Forest Service personnel contacted local assessment

officials to gather information on assessment classes

and the average assessed value per acre for each class.

The National Forest land was then classified by Forest

Service personnel into one of the local assessment

classes, an estimated assessed value was computed,

and taxes were calculated using local tax rates. Inkind contributions were estimated by looking at Forest Service expenditures on fire control, forest highways, and construction and maintenance of roads,

trails, and structures.

Results showed 25-Percent Fund payments to be 58

percent of the estimated per-acre tax. However, when

in-kind contributions were added to 25-Percent Fund

payments, total benefits to counties were estimated to

be 126 percent of the taxes. The 1965 followup report,

using data for 1962, divided Forest Service holdings
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-36WWW. 1999 3

into National Forests and National Grasslands.

Twenty-five Percent Fund payments for 1962 again

fell short of being tax equivalent, calculated to be 44

percent of the estimated per-acre tax for the National

Forests and 63 percent for the National Grasslands.

When in-kind contributions were added, total benefits

exceeded the estimated taxes on the National Forests,

with total benefits calculated to be 146 percent of the

tax per acre. On the other hand, inclusion of in-kind

benefits for the National Grasslands did not make up

for the loss of taxes, with total benefits still accounting

for only 81 percent of the tax per acre.

In 1964, the U.S. Congress established the Public

Land Law Review Commission to review existing

public laws and regulations and to recommend necessary revisions. One of the key topics addressed was the

tax immunity of Federal lands and its impact on State

and local governments. A series of studies conducted

for the Public Land Law Review Commission by EBS

Management Consultants (1968) analyzed 40 Federal

statutes providing for compensation to States and/or

local governments through revenue sharing and payments in lieu of taxes. These studies were primarily

concerned with assessing the impact of Federal lands

on the financial policies of State and local governments. Through case studies consisting of 5 States and

50 counties, several issues were addressed: (1) the

costs or burdens to State and local governments from

the presence of Federal lands, (2) in-kind benefits

accruing to local governments because of Federal land,

and (3) the difference between State and local government receipts from the various Federal land programs

and the taxes “lost” due to the tax immunity of Federal

lands. Potential tax revenue from Federal lands was

estimated through cooperation of Federal agency field

officers and local tax officials. Federal lands were

grouped into land classes similar to those for comparable private land, and an assessed value for each

class was derived. A value for quantifiable benefits

such as land, construction materials, and roads was

estimated by Federal agency field officers. Data on the

burdens imposed on State and local governments by

Federal land ownership were obtained from State and

local county officials, but appropriate documentation

by these officials had to be provided.

For 1966, it was estimated that revenue sharing and

payments in lieu of taxes distributed $131.1 million to

State and local governments. Together with $13.1

million of in-kind benefits, State and local governments received $144.2 million in total benefits. Subtracting the $55 million in estimated additional burdens caused by Federal ownership, it was estimated

that State and local governments received an $89.2

million benefit from the presence of Federal lands.

However, for 17 of the 50 counties studied, burdens

were greater than Federal payments plus in-kind

benefits, resulting in a net loss to the counties. The

study also found revenue sharing programs to be

rather arbitrary in nature, having little connection to

the amount of revenue needed by a county, to Federal

acreage, or to the loss of taxes due to Federal immunity.

The Public Land Law Review Commission concluded

that the then-present system was too volatile and

provided inadequate compensation (PLLRC 1970).

The Commission recommended to Congress that a

system of payments in lieu of taxes should be implemented to mitigate the direct and indirect burdens

placed on State and local governments by Federal

land. The Commission’s 1970 proposal became a reality in 1976 when PILT was enacted as umbrella

legislation covering several resource-based revenuesharing programs and assuring a minimum payment

level.

In the 2 decades since PILT was established, interest in the tax equivalency and revenue-sharing programs has continued to be a subject of debate and

study. The General Accounting Office (U.S. Comptroller General 1979) reviewed Federal land payment

programs in six Western States. The objective of the

study was to assess inequities in the current programs

and to examine alternative land payment programs.

In the six States reviewed, the amount paid to State

and local governments under the Federal land payment programs in FY 1977 exceeded by $187.3 million

(or $1 per acre) the amount they would have received

on a tax-equivalency basis. Despite these findings, due

to the inequities found in the system, a full taxequivalency program was recommended to replace the

system of PILT and revenue-sharing programs.

Huebner and others (1985) compared the system of

receipt sharing on National Forest System lands with

an alternative, tax-equivalency program. The alternative program included a floor on tax-equivalency payments equal to each county’s average 25-Percent Fund

payment for 1977 to 1983. Forty counties in eight

States were selected for analysis. Neither the counties

nor the States were selected by statistical methods but

rather chosen to compare east-to-west, north-to-south,

differing payment levels, and States with different tax

systems. National Forest System lands were classified

and assessed in cooperation with local tax authorities.

Tax equivalency values were determined with and

without the floor. Counting both 25-Percent Fund

payments and PILT payments, in 1983, revenue-sharing payments to the 40 counties amounted to

$56,178,260, estimated tax-equivalency payments

without the floor were $32,853,450, and payments

with the floor were $81,157,060. Almost half of the

counties in the sample sustained a loss under tax

equivalency when looking at both revenue sharing

and PILT payments. Counties containing National
4 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-36WWW. 1999

Forest land with an abundance of timber received the

most money from revenue sharing and PILT. Counties where recreation, wildlife, and wilderness prevailed received the smallest amount. This trend was

reversed for tax-equivalency payments. The authors

concluded that the tax-equivalency proposal failed to

produce many of the desired effects such as a more

equitable distribution or eliminating the possibility of

increasingly “overcompensating” a few counties.

A recent study of five Western States by the Bureau

of Land Management (USDI-BLM 1992) found that

Federal payments were greater than what these lands

would command in property taxes. The value of the

Federal lands was assessed by BLM field officers,

realty specialists, and land appraisers. Property taxes

on the Federal lands were calculated by comparing

comparable tracts of private and public land. Real

property tax revenues per acre for selected tracts of

privately owned, unimproved land were collected by

BLM field officers using public records. These values

were then compared to tax information for the public

land tracts gathered from State BLM officers. Overall,

for FY 1991, PILT and revenue-sharing payments to

State and local governments averaged $0.296 per acre.

For tracts of comparable privately owned land, estimated real property tax payments averaged $0.098

per acre.

A critique of the BLM study by the National Association of Counties (NACO 1992) highlighted several

problems. First, BLM officials did not contact local tax

officials to request property tax information on comparable private property. The BLM, due to time constraints, had decided against making direct contact

with State or local officials concerning the study.

Second, the National Association of Counties felt that

it was neither accurate nor fair to count revenue

sharing and other Federal land payments. Because

revenue sharing payments are earmarked for schools

and roads, rather than for general county purposes,

the National Association of Counties felt they should

not be included. Third, in the State of Oregon, timberland, grazing land, and recreational land were grouped

together as one classification. According to Oregon

officials, only timberland was an accurate classification in Oregon tax law. Other criticisms by Oregon

officials included too small of a sample size, use of the

wrong private tax rate, and the exclusion of the severance tax on harvested timber. In addition, for several

counties in Colorado, county officials felt that the BLM

had attempted to “find the lowest possible tax liability” by classifying everything as grazing land or waste

land.

Schmit and Rasker (1996), using the Interior Columbia River Basin as a case study, explored the

relationship between resource extraction on public

land and payments to counties (PILT and revenue

sharing). A tax-equivalency comparison was also done

on lands that had recently been transferred into or out

of Federal ownership. This comparison showed a great

deal of variation among counties, with some counties

receiving a great deal more revenue from Federal

ownership than private ownership, and others receiving a great deal less.

Finally, a recent study by the General Accounting

Office (GAO 1998) looked at the programs used by

Federal agencies to compensate State and local governments for the loss in property tax revenue due to

the tax-exempt status of Federal lands. Among the

issues evaluated were the differences among the programs and the processes used by the States of California, Oregon, and Washington to distribute the Federal

payments to local governments. They found distribution processes to be similar, but also found that, in

some instances, the differences affected both the

amount of revenue-sharing funds received by the counties and how these funds could be used. The General

Accounting Office concluded that there were few Federal laws specifying how revenue-sharing funds were

to be distributed to the counties, and that it is was

State laws that controlled the actual amounts that

counties received.

Methods _______________________

There were two distinct phases in this study. The

Tax Equivalency phase compared Federal payments

to local governments for entitlement lands to property

taxes those lands would generate if taxed at the same

rate as other lands. The Benefit-Cost phase described

the nature and extent of costs and benefits to local

governments and communities due to the presence of

entitlement lands and associated management. Research design and policy decisions were made by the

five-person research team (the authors) in conjunction

with the seven-person Steering Committee, which

included Forest Service and BLM economists along

with a county commissioner. The following describes

the assumptions and limitations of the study, and how

we collected and analyzed data for the two phases.

Assumptions and Limitations

Several assumptions were needed to complete this

study, either to limit the wide variety of complex

situations with which we were to deal, or to keep this

study’s scope compatible with resources available to

the research team or to county and agency cooperators. The assumptions were developed by the research

team and discussed with and agreed to by the Steering

Committee. As with all research results, study findings need to be interpreted in light of the assumptions.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-36WWW. 1999 5

Six of the most important assumptions made in this

study are:

1. Local Government–This study focused on the

units of local government eligible for PILT payments.

In most cases, that was the general purpose, local

government within the geographical subdivision is

known as a county (parish in Louisiana, township in

New England, or borough in Alaska); in FY 1997, that

also included cities in “unorganized” areas of Alaska.

In no case did the concept of local government include

special-purpose governments within counties, such as

independent school districts, fire districts, irrigation

districts, and so on.

2. Land Use–This study assumed no change in land

use. This decision was based on the impracticality of

allowing a change in land use, including determining

what that use would be. Wildlands commonly have

several concurrent land uses. Land uses identified for

this study were the “dominant” use, rather than the

subordinate use; they also reflected uses that were

“allowed” or permitted under current plans and regulations.

3. Property and Values–This study was limited to

land and its value in its current use. It did not explicitly consider personal property or structures and improvements affixed to the land, even if Federally

owned.

4. Tax Rate–When determining the tax bill for

Federal lands, the taxable value was multiplied by the

general county-wide tax rate (the mill rate), excluding

tax rates for other special-purpose taxing jurisdictions

within the county (e.g., independent school districts).

5. Revenue-sharing Payments–Although the Congressional direction to the BLM only called for a

comparison between PILT and property taxes, this

study additionally, but separately, reflected those

revenue-sharing payments considered as “prior year

payments” in PILT calculations, such as payments

under the Taylor Grazing Act.

6. Land Classification–This study sought agreement between agency and county tax personnel on

how agency lands would be treated within and among

tax classes; if irreconcilable differences occurred, we

deferred to the county’s classification.

Tax-Equivalency Phase

The tax-equivalency phase of this study took extra

precautions to ensure that the likely property taxes

generated from Federal lands were determined in

accordance with the way local taxing authorities would

make the assessment. In the case of special assessments (e.g., for timber or grazing), current land use

had to be compatible with applicable statutory

standards.

Data Collection—The focal point of this study was

“entitlement” lands. According to the BLM (1997a):

...entitlement lands consist of lands in the National

Forest System and the National Park System, lands

administered by the Bureau of Land Management,

and lands dedicated to the use of Federal water

resource development projects. Also included are

dredge disposal areas under the jurisdiction of the

Army Corps of Engineers, National Wildlife Reserve Areas withdrawn from the public domain,

inactive and semi-active Army installations used

for non-industrial purposes, and certain lands donated to the United States Government by State

and local governments.

Agencies administering entitlement lands include the

USDA Forest Service; the USDI Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, Bureau of Reclamation, and Fish and Wildlife Service; and the USDD

Army, including the Corps of Engineers.

The sampling unit in this study was a county (parish, township, or borough) containing entitlement

lands. The sampling frame was based on

MASTREC.DB for FY 1997, a database used in PILT

calculations and containing entitlement acreage totals for each county (USDI-BLM 1997b). Nationwide,

2,170 counties contain entitlement lands. Because we

did not know the variability of the tax-related data,

nor the cost and time to collect information from a

sampled county, we could not calculate the optimal

sample size needed. Accordingly, the research team

had extensive discussions with Dr. Hans Zuuring

(Professor of Forest Biometrics, University of Montana) about the sampling design and size. Our ultimate goal was to obtain information from the largest

feasible sample, consistent with our time frame, the

geographical distribution of entitlement lands, and

the geographical distribution of PILT-receiving counties. In the end, it was decided to draw a stratified,

random sample of 118 counties. Thirteen counties

were later excluded from the tax-equivalency sample

because they contained less than 500 acres of entitlement land, a restriction we adopted to avoid incurring

costs with small paybacks.

The final tax-equivalency sample of 105 consisted of

40 counties from the Interior West, 30 counties from

the Pacific West, 25 counties from the East, and 10

boroughs from Alaska. The East region included Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and all

States to the east. The Pacific West included California, Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii. The Interior

West contained all counties located between the Eastern and Pacific West regions. Counties were sampled

by region to ensure that the distribution of sampled

counties reflected the distribution of entitlement acres,

PILT payments, and other revenue-sharing payments.

States were grouped into regions based on logic and
6 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-36WWW. 1999

custom: the public land States were assigned to the

Western regions and then simply stratified into Pacific West and Interior West.

Originally, Alaska was sampled as part of the Pacific

West. However, Alaska was found to be quite unlike

other States in that several local governments in

Alaska contain vast amounts of Federal land but do

not use property taxes for financing. To illustrate, the

North Slope Borough (not in our sample) contains over

46 million acres of entitlement lands, an amount of

land slightly larger than North Dakota, and receives

Federal payments of about 1 cent per acre, all of which

exceeds the property tax of 0 cents per acre! With our

sample of East counties totaling 522 thousand acres,

the North Slope Borough alone contains nearly 10

times the acreage of our entire sampled East. Clearly,

Alaska can affect overall and regional results. We

thought it best to keep Alaska separate.

Determining the estimated tax bill for Federal entitlement lands required interaction of county tax

specialists, agency personnel, and research team members. Knowledge of the property tax system and the

specific land-use categories used by the counties was

needed. To gain needed knowledge of the property tax

system, we initially worked through the State offices

responsible for oversight of the property tax and by

accessing appropriate Internet sites. The specific land

categories and in-depth knowledge of the standards or

criteria used to assign land to each category were

developed by teleconference with the county assessor

or county appraiser. Once the classification systems

were understood by the research team and agreed to

by county tax personnel, data-collection forms outlining the land classes and instructions defining the land

classes were developed and sent to the appropriate

agency personnel for completion. In most cases, this

amounted to two to three agency contacts per county;

but in one case, almost a dozen agency persons were

contacted for one county. Agency contact was restricted to those agencies managing at least 500 acres

and accounting for at least 1 percent of the entitlement

acres in the county. However, the excluded acres were

included in the final calculations by assigning them

the estimated county-wide value per acre for the

included acres. Completed and returned data forms

were reviewed by research team personnel for completeness and forwarded on to the county assessor for

concurrence. If disagreement between agency and

county personnel occurred, county and agency personnel along with the research team would work to rectify

the difference. After agreement was achieved, county

assessors provided the research team with average

assessed values per acre for each land-use category

and general county-wide tax rates applicable to FY

1997. (Note: we use the term “tax rate” rather than

“mill rate,” because tax rate seems to be more widely

used and understood. Whereas the mill rate is measured in terms of 1/1000th dollar, the tax rate, measured in 1/100th dollar, is a percentage.) With all

needed information collected, the research team calculated the estimated tax value for the entitlement

acres.

Data Analysis—The main hypothesis implied by

the Congressional directive is whether Federal payments to counties are equivalent to the estimated tax

payments (i.e., Federal payments > tax payments).

Additionally, the payments to counties and estimated

tax payments were statistically tested at the regional

level (e.g., East, Interior West, Pacific West, and

Alaska).

The equivalency of PILT (and PILT plus revenuesharing) payments and the estimated taxes of the

entitlement lands were statistically compared. This

entailed comparing the PILT (or PILT plus revenue

sharing) payments per acre to the taxable value of the

entitlement lands per acre. The combined ratio estimators approach outlined by Cochran (1977) and Steel

and Torrie (1980) was used to test equality of sample

means. The statistical analysis consisted of estimating ratios (e.g., tax per acre) and their corresponding

variances and calculating the following test statistic:

where: and are the estimated combined ratios

and and are the corresponding variances.

This analysis was conducted on a regional and

national level. Probability levels were determined.

Logistic regression analysis was used to statistically

test the effect of county attributes on tax equivalence.

If the difference between Federal payments and tax

payments was positive (i.e., equivalent), tax equivalence was assigned a value of one. If the difference was

negative, tax equivalence was assigned a value of zero.

The logistic regression model is defined as follows:

Logit (Y) = B0 + B1*TCR + B2*ST + B3*FP + B4*PT

+ B5*POP + B6*TCA + B7*AB + B8*PA + B9*ETV

+B10*PD+B11*REG+ei

where: Y is the tax equivalency measure (0 or 1),

Bo-B11 are regression parameters to be

estimated,

TCR is total county revenue,

ST is the county 1998 sales tax percentage,

FP is percent 1997 Federal payments of 1992

county property tax,

PT is percent 1992 property tax of total 1992

county revenue,

POP is the 1996 county population,

TCA is total county acres,

t

R R

vR vR

= −

+

ˆ ˆ

( ˆ ) ( ˆ )

1 2

1 2

Rˆ

1 Rˆ

2

v R( ˆ )1 v R( ˆ ) 2
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-36WWW. 1999 7

AB is an indicator variable for A or B county

designation, based on the FY 1997 PILT

calculation,

PA is percent entitlement acres of total county

acres,

ETV is percent entitlement taxable value of

total county taxable value

PD is the county 1996 population density, and

REG is an indicator variable for region.

All PILT-related information came from PILT databases (USDI-BLM 1997b). County financial data came

from the 1992 Census of Government (USDC-BOC

1997), while sales tax information was provided by the

National Association of Counties (NACO 1998).

Stepwise logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the model and determine which independent

variables were statistically important. A significance

level of alpha = 0.05 was used to determine variable

entry. If the region variable (REG) was found significant, region-specific models would be developed.

Benefit-Cost Phase

Determining the costs imposed by, or the benefits

resulting from, the presence of entitlement lands and

associated management activities could entail substantial research endeavors. They could easily involve

in-depth analysis of fiscal records or rigorous comparisons of spending patterns. However, the language of

the Congressional directive to the BLM suggests a

lesser effort, an effort intended more to illuminate the

issue rather than provide a definitive, quantitative

analysis. Therefore, we addressed both topics through

a questionnaire directed to county officials.

The Questionnaire—The questionnaire (available

on request from the authors) used to assess costs and

benefits of entitlement lands called for judgmental

responses, as opposed to quantitative dollar estimates.

In the questionnaire, we wanted to assess the nature

and extent of costs and benefits but not necessarily

their dollar magnitude. County officials were asked

the importance of a series of cost or benefit items that

were developed after talking to a sample of county

officials and agency personnel to identify what they

considered important. The draft questionnaire was

edited and stylized by questionnaire specialists at the

University of Montana’s Bureau of Business and Economics Research. Because questionnaire results were

to be used by the BLM to better understand its customers, the questionnaire carried the Office of Management and Budget approval number designated for

that purpose. The final questionnaire had three parts:

(1) direct fiscal costs, (2) direct fiscal benefits, and

(3) general community benefits. The questionnaire

was mailed to the Chief Executive Officer in the 118

counties initially sampled in the Tax Equivalency

phase; in most cases, that person was the chair-person

of the county commissioners.

Data Analysis—The survey results were summarized to determine average responses for each question by region. Logistic regression was used to statistically analyze how the county responses were effected

by county attributes (A-B designation, size of county,

etc.).

Response to each part of the questionnaire involved

a four-level scale, including “none,” “small,” “moderate,” and “substantial.” Initial analysis simply consisted of estimating the medians and means for all

questions. The medians were used to rank the questions for relative importance, and the means were

used to break ties. The summary tables produced from

this analysis allowed quick determination as to which

cost or benefit items were judged most important to

the county.

Logistic regression analysis was used to statistically

determine the affect of county attributes on questionnaire responses. The dependent variable was the questionnaire response. To estimate the logistic regression

model, responses were collapsed from the original

four-point scale to a two-point scale. The categories of

“none” and “small” were merged and the categories of

“moderate” and “substantial” were merged to form the

two-point scale. The two-point scale served as the

dependent variable in the logistic regression model.

The logistic regression model allowed for the testing of

the relationships between the county attributes (identified largely by the Steering Committee) and questionnaire response. The logistic regression model is

defined as follows:

Logit (Y) = B0 + B1*TCR + B2*ST + B3*FP + B4*PT

+ B5*POP + B6*TCA + B7*AB + B8*PA + B9*ETV

+B10*PD+B11*REG+ B12*AL+B13*TE + ei

where: Y is 0 for the none-small category and 1 for the

moderate-substantial category,

Bo-B13 are regression parameters to be

estimated,

TCR is total county revenue,

ST is the county 1998 sales tax percentage,

FP is percent 1997 Federal payments of 1992

county property tax,

PT is percent 1992 property tax of total 1992

county revenue,

POP is the 1996 county population,

TCA is total county acres,

AB is an indicator variable for A or B county

designation, based on the FY 1997 PILT

calculation,

PA is percent entitlement acres of total county

acres,

ETV is percent entitlement taxable value of
8 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-36WWW. 1999

total county taxable value,

PD is the county 1996 population density,

REG is an indicator variable for region,

AL is agency land distribution, and

TE is tax equivalency (estimated Federal

payments - estimated total tax).

Stepwise logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the model and determine which county attributes

were statistically significant. A significance level of

alpha = 0.05 was used to determine variable entry into

the model. One model was estimated for all regions

combined. However, individual regional-level models

were also investigated.

Results ________________________

This study developed information on the equivalency of Federal payments relative to likely property

taxes, and on direct fiscal benefits and costs to local

governments due to the presence of Federal lands and

related management programs. Data were obtained

from a nationwide sample of 105 counties, and involved coordinated efforts of study personnel, agency

resource specialists, and county tax officials. Benefit

and cost information was derived through a questionnaire administered to the Chief Executive Officer in

each sampled county. All data and analyses focused on

FY 1997.

According to PILT records, there were about 594.6

million acres of entitlement lands in FY 1997, contained in some 2,170 units of local government eligible

for PILT payments. Our sample of 105 counties contained 73.1 million acres, about 12 percent of the total.

As indicated earlier, we excluded counties with very

small amounts of entitlement lands. Even then,

sampled counties ranged from containing a low of 547

acres of entitlement lands to a high of about 6.4 million

acres. As a percent of total land in the county, entitlement acres ranged from a low of 0.07 percent to almost

100 percent, averaging about 31 percent (fig. 1). County

populations varied widely, from a low of 66 persons to

a high of over 2.6 million.

Tax systems also varied widely. For example, as a

percent of total county revenue, property taxes ranged

from a low of 0 percent (for six sampled governments

in Alaska without a property tax) to a high of almost 81

percent, averaging about 35 percent (fig. 2); in about

85 percent of the counties, property taxes accounted

for 20 to 60 percent of county revenue. About half of the

counties studied also levied a sales tax, and those

ranged from a low of 0.13 percent (1⁄8 of a percent) to a

high of 5.0 percent. Although we found the expected

negative correlation between county reliance on property taxes for revenue and magnitude of the sales tax,

the correlation was quite low (–0.104) and statistically

nonsignificant. Excluding the six counties without a

property tax, Federal payments (i.e., PILT and revenue-sharing payments) ranged from a low of about 0

percent of property taxes to a high of over 300 percent.

Within this backdrop of substantial variability, we

assessed tax equivalency.

Tax Equivalency

In this study, tax equivalency is measured by the

difference between the amount of Federal payments

per acre of entitlement land and the amount of property-related taxes those lands would have generated,

had they been taxed at the same rates as similar nonFederal lands, holding constant, current land use. If

the Federal payments equaled or exceeded the taxes

that would be generated, the payments are said to be

equivalent. In the process of assessing equivalency, we

found substantial variability. Some governmental units

levy no property tax, others do so with a very high tax

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

Mean = 31.0

Standard Deviation = 28.67

Mininimum = 0.07

Maximum = 95.7

PILT Entitlement Acres as a Percent of Total County Acres

0 20 40 60 80 >80

Percent of Counties

Figure 1—Distribution of counties: entitlement acres as percent

of total county acres.

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

Mean = 34.8

Standard Deviation = 18.69

Minimum = 0

Maximum = 80.75

Percent of Total County Revenue Derived from Property Taxes

No property 0 20 40 60 80 >80

tax

Percent of Counties

Figure 2—Distribution of counties: property tax as percent of

total county revenue.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-36WWW. 1999 9

rate. High tax rates, however, do not necessarily imply

high taxes, because there is substantial variability in

tax systems with regard to establishing taxable value.

Some units focus exclusively on market value, while

others use a complex system of preferential tax treatments. Local issues and concerns prompt these variations, which certainly frustrate analyses and

comparisons.

Taxable Value—Early on, it became quite clear

that taxation terminology is anything but uniform.

Depending on the county and circumstance, assessed

value, taxable value, highest and best-use value, along

with market value may or may not mean the same

thing. We adopted the term “taxable value,” referring

to the value against which the tax calculation is made.

Determining the taxable value for each agency’s lands

in sampled counties constituted the bulk of work

expended in this study. Contacts were made with each

county’s tax assessor. We then developed a set of landuse classes and class definitions into which agency

lands could be classified prior to determining taxable

value. In some cases, State law controlled or influenced classes and definitions. For example, under

North Dakota law, all nonresidential property was

classified as either cropland or noncropland, and State

officials specified per-acre values to be used in each

county. In other cases, there were no State guidelines

and counties were totally free to develop whatever

classes were needed. This proved to be a problem in an

Alaska jurisdiction where the existing property base

consisted of urban, residential properties; there was

no experience in taxing rural, wildland properties.

Preferential assessments were a major factor affecting taxable value. In many cases, a property’s market

value is used as the basis for determining the tax. In

other cases, social goals are reflected in preferential

taxation for certain kinds of land uses. When this

happens, the taxable value of a property may be only

a small portion of its market value. Preferential taxation was common in our analysis of entitlement lands,

involving open space, grazing, and riparian considerations. It also involved timber production, which has

major implications for taxable values in California,

Oregon, Washington, and Montana.

Preferential timber assessments affect taxable value

in two ways. First, in most cases they involve replacement or modification of the ad valorem system, often

through a two-part system that involves an annual

bare-land tax and a tax on harvested timber. Although

these systems are supposed to be revenue-neutral

(affecting only the timing of tax payments), they seem

to generate a substantial reduction in tax bills. Second, the general rule is that to receive preferential

timber taxation, the timber must be available for

harvest; it is not merely a matter of the land being

forested. Hence, different parcels of an agency’s forested lands within a county could be treated differently. In Oregon for instance, forested lands within

designated wilderness areas, National Parks, and

some National Wildlife Refuges are not available for

timber harvest and are not eligible for preferential

taxation. Consequently, those types of lands generally

have to be treated under the original, ad valorem

system and generate substantially higher taxable

values than similar lands available for timber harvest.

This aspect of preferential taxation clearly complicates and confuses comparisons of tax burdens among

agencies.

Once a set of land-use classes and definitions was

developed and approved by county tax personnel, that

information was communicated to agency personnel

with entitlement lands in the county. Following definitions provided, agency personnel assigned land holdings into the land-use classes. Most counties involved

two to three agencies, and we only had to contact one

or two individuals within each agency. In the extreme,

one county contained entitlement lands from six agencies, where the Forest Service’s holdings involved four

National Forests and eight Ranger Districts, the National Park Service involved multiple units, and so did

the Fish and Wildlife Service. County tax personnel

reviewed each agency’s allocation of land into tax

classes; disagreements were resolved; county endorsement was secured. The last involvement of county tax

personnel was to provide an estimate of the average

taxable value per acre for each land-use class. Sometimes that value was readily available from other tax

records; sometimes it was developed from information

on comparable sales; and sometimes it was provided

by State tax personnel (as in the case of timber

taxation).

Overall, Federal entitlement lands in our sampled

counties have an estimated taxable value of about $16

billion (table 1). This represents about 2.4 percent of

the total taxable value contained in those counties,

which, of course, does not reflect the estimated Federal entitlement land values. On a county basis, the

taxable value of entitlement lands relative to county

taxable value ranged from essentially 0 percent

(wealthy urban counties with little entitlement lands)

to several hundred percent (rural counties dominated

by Federal holdings). The Pacific West contained the

most taxable value, accounting for 90 percent of total

taxable value in sampled counties and 48 percent of

the taxable value on entitlement lands. Alaska lies at

the other extreme, accounting for less than 1 percent

of the county taxable value, but 13 percent of the

taxable value of entitlement lands. This is because

many Alaska jurisdictions have very small amounts of

private landholdings, but contain extensive acreages

of entitlement lands. Our estimates of overall taxable

values derives from the taxable value per acre, wherein
10 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-36WWW. 1999

the East leads with an average taxable value of $1,334

per acre.

The Tax Bill—The amount of property taxes due a

landowner is determined by multiplying taxable value

by a tax rate. Two aspects are noteworthy. First,

theoretically, this tax rate (in our case, a percent of

taxable value) is calculated annually and reflects local

government budget and total taxable value. Sometimes, however, tax rates are not calculated annually.

They are prescribed by State law as when following

property tax relief legislation. For example, as a consequence of Proposition 13, all California counties

used a 1 percent tax rate in FY 1997.

Second, although the county government typically

administers the property tax within a county, only a

portion of the tax bill will reflect the county’s government. That is, there may be several jurisdictions

within a county authorized to levy property taxes,

including a school district, fire district, irrigation district, etc. Although these are governments within a

county, they are not the county’s government and do

not spend PILT payments. To keep our accounting

straight, we focused exclusively on the county’s government, that which is typically associated with a

Board of County Commissioners.

We obtained the county-government-only tax rate

for FY 1997 from the county assessors. In most cases,

these rates were developed by the county in accordance with State guidelines. A county’s tax rate is

determined by dividing the total taxable value into the

budget needed to be obtained. In FY 1997, over half of

the sampled counties had tax rates of 1 percent or less,

not counting counties with no property tax (fig. 3).

County tax rates, for sampled counties with property

taxes, averaged 1.57 percent (or 15.7 mills), ranging

from a low of 0.11 percent (1.1 mills) to a high of 13.03

percent (130.3 mills). To illustrate, a tax bill of $1,570

would result from a property with a taxable value of

$100,000 being taxed at a rate of 1.57 percent. Are

property owners in a county with a tax rate of 10

percent taxed 5-times higher than an owner where the

rate is 2 percent? Probably not. Other things equal,

the high tax rate may be used in a county where

assessment procedures produce relatively low taxable

values, and the low rate in counties producing higher

taxable values.

One criticism of past studies is their failure to reflect

the simulated taxable value associated with Federal

holdings in the tax rate calculation. Other things

equal, if Federal holdings were taxed and if their

taxable value were included in the tax rate calculation, the tax rate ought to drop. We made those

calculations by (1) determining the taxable value associated with the tax rate discussed above; (2) calculating the county budget implied by those taxable values

and tax rates, and holding the budget constant;

(3) adding the simulated taxable value from Federal

holdings to the county’s existing taxable value, while

subtracting the Federal payments (PILT and revenuesharing payments) lost if the lands were taxed; and

(4) calculating a new tax rate. To our surprise, the tax

rate did not always decrease. In fact, the average of the

tax rates increased from 1.57 percent to 1.61 percent,

with the tax rate in almost half of the sampled counties

going up. Whether the new tax rate goes up or down

depends on the estimated taxable value per acre for

the Federal lands versus its current value in terms of

Federal payments per acre. If the Federal lands

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

Percent of Counties

0 .01 .02 .03 .04 >.04

County-wide Tax Rate

Mean = 0.015

Standard Deviation = 0.02

Minimum = 0.0

Maximum = 0.13

No property

tax

Figure 3—Distribution of counties: county-wide tax rate.

Table 1—FY 1997 tax characteristics of sampled entitlement lands, by region.

Total county Entitlement lands

Region taxable value Acres Taxable value Value per acre

East $16,638,717,742 580,813 $774,940,649 $1,334

Interior West 51,738,280,694 40,847,757 5,672,048,052 139

Pacific West 606,526,005,722 20,099,514 7,705,792,311 383

Alaska 489,055,560 14,147,770 2,045,157,881 145

Overall $675,392,059,718 75,675,854 $15,915,316,586 $210
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-36WWW. 1999 11

generated more Federal payments (e.g., PILT and

revenue-sharing payments) than revenues if taxed,

the county tax rate will increase; otherwise it will

decrease.

The final part of the tax bill involved the tax on

timber harvest. Not to be confused with a “severance”

tax (Hall and others 1959), this tax is applicable to

timber lands given preferential timber taxation in

California, Oregon, and Washington, the annual bareland tax portion being reflected as taxable value. To

determine the timber harvest tax, State tax officials

specify an expected stumpage price, depending on

factors such as market conditions, species harvested,

and location and difficulty of the sale. The actual tax

is a percentage of harvest value, which is determined

by multiplying harvest volumes by State-specified,

expected stumpage price. All rates were obtained,

along with timber harvest information needed to simulate the amount of taxes generated by the harvested

timber. These amounts were added to the estimated

FY 1997 property tax bill.

Federal entitlement lands in sampled counties would

have produced about $116 million dollars in tax receipts in FY 1997 (table 2). About 92 percent ($107

million) of these receipts result from property tax

revenues based on the tax rates applicable to that

fiscal year. The remaining property tax receipts would

have been generated through the tax on timber harvested on entitlement lands in California, Oregon, and

Washington. Table 2 also shows that property tax

revenues would have dropped by 18 percent, to $80

million, if the taxation rate was calculated to reflect an

influx of Federal taxable value (i.e., Tax 2). Information and analyses that follow will be oriented toward

Tax 1, exclusively.

Federal Payments—For purpose of this study,

Federal payments to counties consisted of PILT payments plus revenue-sharing payments used in PILTpayment calculations as specified in PILT legislation.

This approach limits revenue-sharing payments to

those received and controlled by the county government. It does not reflect revenue-sharing payments

received by State governments that may or may not be

transmitted to the county (most notably from mineral

leasing revenues). Neither does it reflect those revenue-sharing payments received by other governments

within a county (most notably independent school

districts). This limitation is particularly important to

the 25-Percent Fund administered by the Forest Service. Although 25-Percent Fund payments may be

used for schools and roads within a county, many

county governments only provide for roads. Schools

are financed through independent school districts, not

controlled by the county government.

FY 1997 PILT payments were obtained from USDIBLM records, and reflect a 53.33 percent proration of

that allowed, needed because PILT appropriations fell

short of the amount needed for full funding. Assuming

prior-year payment information provided to PILT administrators is accurate, we obtained internal FY

1998 PILT records to determine the level of revenuesharing payments received in FY 1997. Overall, we

found that revenue-sharing payments were more than

3-times those of PILT payments in FY 1997 (table 3).

This was especially true in the Pacific West where

revenue-sharing payments exceeded PILT payments

by almost 10-fold. Only in the Interior West region did

PILT payments exceed those from revenue sharing.

Overall, payments made to county governments in the

Pacific West accounted for over 70 percent of the

Federal payments identified.

Equivalency—This study developed a substantial

amount of PILT- and tax-related information, and we

were able to simulate several versions of tax equivalency. On a “per-acre” basis, Federal entitlement lands

in the sampled counties would generate an average of

$1.48 per acre in tax revenues (table 4). In the several

versions of Federal payments we evaluated, none were

equivalent to the estimated property taxes. Overall,

PILT payments amount to 17 cents per acre, only 11

percent of the tax bill; at 54 cents per acre, PILT plus

current revenue sharing account for 36 percent of the

tax; a fully funded PILT would account for 22 percent;

and a fully funded PILT plus current revenue sharing

Table 2—Estimated FY 1997 taxes on sampled entitlement lands, by region.

Property taxes Timber

Region Tax 1a Tax 2b harvest tax Total tax

East $3,837,048 $3,441,915 $0 $3,837,048

Interior West 31,972,948 28,777,965 0 31,972,948

Pacific West 61,333,409 47,698,716 8,762,177 70,095,586

Alaska 10,133,728 979,497 0 10,133,728

Overall $107,277,132 $80,898,093 $8,762,177 $116,039,310

a

Tax 1 uses actual 1997 tax rates.

b

Tax 2 uses 1997 tax rates adjusted to reflect inclusion of entitlement land values.
12 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-36WWW. 1999

Table 3—Estimated FY 1997 Federal payments on sampled

entitlement lands, by region.

Revenue PILT PILT +

Region sharing payments revenue sharing

East $376,404 $322,729 $699,133

Interior West 6,390,853 8,625,127 15,015,980

Pacific West 34,308,243 3,364,198 37,672,441

Alaska 929,717 795,976 1,725,693

Overall $42,005,217 $13,108,030 $55,113,247

Table 4—Estimated FY 1997 total tax and Federal payments per acre, by region.

Federal payments

PILT+ PILTa +

Region Total tax PILT revenue sharing PILTa revenue sharing

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $ per acre ---------------------------------

East $6.61 $0.56 $1.20 $1.04 $1.69

Interior West 0.78 0.21 0.37 0.40 0.55

Pacific West 3.49 0.17 1.87 0.31 2.02

Alaska 0.72 0.06 0.12 0.11 0.17

United States $1.48 $0.17 $0.54 $0.32 $0.68

a

 = Fully funded PILT.

Table 6—Estimated FY 1997 tax equivalency (Federal payments - total taxes)

per acre, by Federal payment type, by region.

PILT + PILTa +

Region PILT revenue sharing PILTa revenue sharing

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $ per acre - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

East –6.05 –5.40 –5.56 –4.92

Interior West –.57 –.42 –.39 –.23

Pacific West –3.32 –1.61 –3.17 –1.47

Alaska –.66 –.59 –.61 –.55

United States –1.31 –.94 –1.17 –.80

a = Fully-funded PILT.

Table 5—Results of statistical test of difference in per-acre

estimates of tax versus Federal payments, by region.

Tax versus PILT +

Tax versus PILT revenue sharing

Region t-value P level t-value P level

East 2.17 0.04 1.94 0.06

Interior West 2.68 .01 1.90 .06

Pacific West 5.08 .01 2.20 .04

Alaska 3.75 .01 3.35 .01

Overall 3.22 0.01 1.74 0.08
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-36WWW. 1999 13

would account for 46 percent of the tax bill, in the

aggregate. On a per-acre basis, the East region dominates both taxes and PILT-related amounts, averaging $6.61 per acre in taxes and 56 cents per acre in

PILT payments. However, when revenue-sharing payments are added to PILT payments, the Pacific West

dominates; this is because of the high level of revenuesharing payments received by Pacific West counties

(see table 3). By all measures, government units in the

Alaska region have the lowest level of taxes or Federal

payments per acre of entitlement lands.

Information shown in table 4 resulted from a samplebased, statistical estimation process. But before the

equivalency issue can be reliably assessed, it must be

determined if the regional estimates of tax per acre

and Federal payments per acre are statistically different. We conducted two sets of statistical tests, one

comparing our estimates of tax per acre to PILT per

acre and the other comparing our estimates of tax per

acre to Federal payments (= PILT + Revenue Sharing)

per acre. In all cases, estimates of taxes per acre and

payments per acre are statistically different (table 5).

Consider our Pacific West estimates of $3.49 tax per

acre and $1.87 per acre PILT plus revenue-sharing

payments per acre (table 4); statistical test results (tvalue = 2.20) indicate that there is a 96 percent chance

(= 1.0 - P level of 0.04) that the estimates are different.

In the case of Alaska, there is virtually a 100 percent

chance (= 1.0 - P level of <0.01) that our estimates of

$0.72 tax per acre and $0.06 PILT payments per acre

(table 4) are different. Statistical test results reflect

the closeness of our per-acre estimates, the variability

of the data, and the sample size. Too small of sample

sizes will often fail to detect statistical differences.

However, because our analyses detected statistical

differences, our sample size of 105 seems to have been

adequate. Consequently, we can confidently use our

estimates of tax per acre and payments per acre to

assess tax equivalency at both the regional and national levels.

Estimates of taxes per acre and Federal payments

per acre from table 4 reflect several versions of tax

equivalency (Federal payments – total property taxes)

in table 6. Overall, no version is equivalent, meaning

that estimated property taxes always exceeded Federal payments. Deficiencies ranged from –80 cents per

acre to –$1.31 per acre. Predictably, the most equivalent version of tax equivalency is under a fully funded

FY 1997 PILT and revenue sharing, followed by FY

1997 PILT and revenue sharing, followed by a fully

funded FY 1997 PILT, and lastly by FY 1997 PILT

only. This general pattern of best and worst tax equivalency is followed by each region. However, the middle

positions switch, depending on the region. In the

Pacific West, the second-best equivalency situation is

with FY 1997 PILT and revenue sharing; but in the

Interior West, second-best is with a fully-funded PILT

and no revenue sharing. These intermediate position

results simply reflect that the Pacific West receives

relatively more revenue-sharing payments relative to

PILT payments, and the Interior West receives relatively more PILT payments.

Tax equivalency information in table 6 can also be

used to estimate the budget required to achieve overall

tax equivalency. For example, under a fully funded

PILT, there would still be an overall equivalency

deficit of $1.17 per acre. In FY 1997, PILT payments

totaled about $113 million, but that was only 53.33

percent of the authorized payment. A fully fund PILT

would cost about $212 million, $99 million more than

was available. But even when fully funded, it would

cost an additional $696 million (= 1.17 x 595 million

acres) to make PILT payments equivalent to total

taxes on the 595 million acres of entitlement lands.

The total cost would be $908 million, $113 million in

the original FY 1997 PILT payments, plus an additional $795 million ($99 million to achieve full funding

plus $696 million to achieve equivalency).

Even though overall or regional Federal payments

may not be equivalent to taxes in the aggregate, they

are equivalent for many individual government units.

For example, based on the PILT plus revenue sharing

version of tax equivalency, almost 62 percent of government units receive Federal payments equal to or

exceeding property taxes (table 7). PILT payments

alone are equivalent to property taxes in 51 percent of

the government units. If PILT were fully funded and

revenue-sharing payments remained as they were in

FY 1997, almost 69 percent of the governments would

be tax equivalent. Under all versions of tax equivalency, the Pacific West has the lowest percentage of

counties equivalent, averaging just over 30 percent for

the situations studied. However, regions that fare the

best varies with the situation, although Alaska tends

to be the highest, averaging just under 70 percent.

Results from tables 6 and 7 may seem inconsistent.

Consider the tax equivalency version involving PILT

plus revenue sharing. Table 6 indicates that, overall,

there is a tax equivalency deficiency of $0.94 per acre.

Table 7, however, indicates that, overall, tax equivalency was found in 62 percent of the counties. Moreover, counties that are tax equivalent contain more

entitlement acres than the counties that are not tax

equivalent. These seemingly inconsistent results are

reconcilable because the tax and Federal payment

attributes of tax-equivalent counties are so different

from those not equivalent (table 8). In addition to most

of the counties being tax equivalent, about 58 percent

of the entitlement acres are contained in tax-equivalent counties, with Alaska ranging to almost threefourths. However, tax-equivalent counties account for
14 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-36WWW. 1999

Table 8—Distribution of tax and Federal payment attributes by tax

equivalent and not tax equivalent counties, by region.

PILT +

Entitlement Total revenue

Region acres taxes sharing

-------------------- percent -----------------

Tax equivalent

counties

East 45.8 1.5 61.9

Interior West 51.6 6.5 53.0

Pacific West 42.8 9.9 72.0

Alaska 73.7 5.2 72.2

United States 58.2 6.2 63.3

Counties not tax

equivalent

East 54.3 98.5 38.1

Interior West 48.4 93.5 47.0

Pacific West 57.2 90.1 28.0

Alaska 26.3 94.8 27.8

United States 41.8 93.8 36.7

Table 7—Percent of tax equivalent counties, by Federal payment type, by region.

PILT + PILTa +

Region PILT revenue sharing PILTa revenue sharing

------------------------------- percent ----------------------------

East 44.0 48.0 68.0 68.0

Interior West 57.5 62.5 70.0 75.0

Pacific West 10.0 43.3 23.3 50.0

Alaska 60.0 70.0 70.0 70.0

United States 51.0 61.7 63.4 69.2

a

= Fully-funded PILT.

Table 9—Characteristics of logistic regression model of FY 1997 tax equivalency (Federal

payments—total tax).

Characteristic Relative

Variable description Coefficient P valuea importance

1. Total county revenue —— —

2. Sales tax percentage —— —

3. Percent Federal payments of 0.2796 0.002 0.2412

property tax

4. Percent property tax of total –.0305 .094 –.0766

county revenue

5. 1996 county population —— —

6. Total county acres —— —

7. A/B county designation —— —

8. Percent entitlement acres of —— —

total county acres

9. Percent entitlement taxable value –.4649 .002 –.2390

of total county taxable value

10. Population density –4.4721 .063 –.1031

11. Region —— —

a

Significant at 0.10.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-36WWW. 1999 15

only 6 percent of the tax bill, while accounting for 63

percent of the Federal payments. Nonequivalent

counties account for about 94 percent of the tax bill,

ranging to a high of over 98 percent in the East. Taxequivalent counties may account for 58 percent of the

acres, but the average tax bill on those acres is a mere

$0.24 per acre, as opposed to an average tax bill of

$3.02 per acre for the nonequivalent counties.

It may be very costly to change Federal payments to

a level where all governments receive payments equivalent to property taxes. Consider the version of equivalency portrayed in table 6 under a fully funded PILT

and current revenue sharing, with an overall shortfall

of 80 cents per acre. To generate overall tax equivalency (i.e., no shortfall), the fully funded PILT would

have to be increased by a factor of 3.5. Similarly, the

same thing could be accomplished by holding PILT

payments constant at full funding and increasing

revenue sharing payments by a factor of almost 3.2.

Although either approach could generate overall tax

equivalency, not all government units would be equivalent. With the three-fold increase in PILT, about 82

percent of the units could be made equivalent, meaning that 18 percent would still not be equivalent; with

the three-fold increase in revenue-sharing payments,

about 77 percent would be equivalent. PILT payments

must be increased more than revenue-sharing payments because they play a smaller role in Federal land

payments. Under these versions of equivalency, Interior West governments fare the best, and Pacific West

governments fare the worst.

The problem with “across the board” increases in

PILT or revenue-sharing payments is that all counties

are made better off, not just the ones below tax equivalency. For example, we estimate that Federal payments (PILT plus revenue sharing) are already equivalent to property taxes in 62 percent of counties. Full

funding of PILT (roughly doubling PILT) would make

an additional 7 percent of the counties equivalent,

bringing the overall to 69 percent. To make the 7

percent tax equivalent, the 62 percent originally equivalent are made even better off. As mentioned, starting

from a fully funded PILT, revenue-sharing payments

would have to be increased by almost 3.2 to generate

overall tax equivalency, and even then 23 percent of

the counties would still not be tax equivalent. If

additional funds could be distributed to the

nonequivalent counties only, revenue-sharing payments would only have to be about doubled (over a

fully funded PILT) to achieve overall tax equivalency,

and all counties would be tax equivalent.

We looked into the question of why Federal payments to some government units are equivalent to

property taxes and not for others. We sought general

answers, not unit-specific explanations. Focusing on

the PILT plus revenue-sharing version of tax equivalency, we coded each county as being equivalent or not,

and then built statistical models (logistic regression)

designed to assess the importance of several explanatory variables in promoting (the likelihood of) tax

equivalency. Not knowing which explanatory variables would be most useful, we identified about a

dozen candidate variables that fell into three broad

categories: (1) those depicting the county’s tax system,

(2) those depicting the importance of Federal lands in

the county, and (3) those depicting the size of the

county.

The model we built correctly predicted tax equivalency in about 87 percent of the counties in our sample

(table 9), an outstanding result. The final model selected contained four independent variables, and regional designation was never even tentatively viable

(which is why region-specific models were not built).

Variables depicting the importance of Federal entitlement lands in the county (variable 3 and 9) seemed to

be the most influential, followed by population density

(variable 10) and the importance of property taxes in

county financing (variable 4). Consider variable 3: the

likelihood of tax equivalency increases as Federal

payments (PILT plus revenue sharing) increase as a

percentage of county property taxes. This is possibly

the case of a timber-rich (to generate Federal payments) but sparsely populated county (to keep the tax

base low). In the case of variable 9, however, the

likelihood of tax equivalency decreases as the taxable

value of Federal lands increases relative to the property tax base (as possibly in the case of a county where

National Parks or National Forests dominate).

Benefits and Costs

Part of the BLM’s directive from Congress was to

assess the costs imposed on local governments by the

presence of Federal land and the benefits that counties

receive from such land. We addressed these topics

through a questionnaire (available on request from

the authors) directed to the Chief Executive Officer of

the sampled counties. One hundred and eighteen

questionnaires were sent, asking county officials to

assess the magnitude of a series of cost and benefit

items on a scale ranging from None to Substantial. For

each item, respondents were also asked to identify the

Federal program (timber, recreation, etc.) most responsible for the costs or benefits (from a list of 10

programs). Ninety questionnaires were returned, for

an overall response rate of 76 percent.

 The questionnaire consisted of three sections:

(1) direct fiscal costs to the county government,

(2) direct fiscal benefits to the county government,

and (3) benefits to communities and individuals within

the county. For each section, questionnaire topics

were ranked based on the median response with the
16 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-36WWW. 1999

mean response used to break ties. For numerical

analyses, the response of None was quantified as 1,

Small as 2, Moderate as 3, and Substantial as 4.

Additionally, the most important questionnaire topics from each section were analyzed in more detail,

using analysis of variance to determine statistical

importance and difference. Once the top-ranked questionnaire items were identified, we used logistic regression to statistically analyze how the responses

were affected by 13 county attributes. These attributes were: (1) total county revenue, (2) sales tax

percentage, (3) percent Federal payments of property

tax, (4) percent property tax of total county revenue,

(5) 1996 county population, (6) total county acres,

(7) A/B county designation, (8) percent entitlement

acres of total county acres, (9) percent entitlement

taxable value of total county taxable value,

(10) population density, (11) region (East, Interior

West, Pacific West, or Alaska), (12) agency land

distribution, and (13) tax equivalency (based on Federal payments – total property taxes).

Costs Imposed on Local Governments—The

first section of the questionnaire listed 14 potential

county-cost items along with space where the county

official could specify any additional cost items. County

officials specified (using their best professional judgement) the portion of their county’s total expenditures

on the item that could be attributed to Federal entitlement lands or associated management activities. Officials also identified the Federal management

program(s) most associated with that cost item. For

this first section only, general guidelines were given

regarding the magnitude of the cost increase associated with the response categories: None (0 percent),

Small (less than 10 percent), Moderate (10 to 50

percent), and Substantial (more than 50 percent).

We found little indication that the presence of Federal lands imposes extra costs on counties. Table 10

lists the cost items, ranked by the median and mean

responses, the distribution of the responses into the

four categories, and the primary program most often

associated with the cost item. Over half (8 out of 14) of

the cost items had a median response of Small, meaning that less than 10 percent of the county’s expenditures on that item were attributed to Federal entitlement lands and activities. The remaining six items

had a median rating of None. However, for the top

three cost items (Search and Rescue, Law Enforcement, and Road Maintenance), more than 10 percent

of the respondents indicated that Federal entitlement

lands and associated management activities were responsible for greater than 50 percent of these expenditures. More than 25 percent of respondents indicated

Federal lands and activities were responsible for 10 to

50 percent of the expenditures on these items.

Recreation programs were most commonly identified as the management program responsible for cost

increases, with two-thirds of the cost items attributed

to Recreation. The other items were attributed to Fire

programs, Water, and the General presence of Federal

agency or entitlement lands. Four counties specified

other cost items where they felt Federal lands had a

substantial impact on costs; two listed county “weed

control” costs, one listed “hazardous materials,” and

another county listed expenses for the “coroner.”

Analysis of variance results indicated that the ratings for the top five cost items could not be distinguished from each other but were higher than the rest.

We used logistic regression (contrasting None and

Small versus Moderate and Substantial) to determine

if the responses to the top five cost items were affected

by any of 12 county attributes. In most cases (80

Table 10—Characteristics of responses to questions regarding cost-imposing items (fiscal costs to county governments).

Median Mean Distribution of responses Primary

Cost-imposing item rating rating None (1) Small (2) Moderate (3) Substantial (4) program(s)

----------------------- percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Search and rescue 2 2.35 25 35 21 19 Recreation

Law enforcement 2 2.29 21 41 25 13 Recreation

Road maintenance 2 2.24 27 33 29 11 Recreation

Fire protection and control 2 2.15 28 37 26 9 Fire

Road construction 2 2.02 35 35 21 9 Recreation

Judicial and legal 2 1.87 32 51 15 2 Recreation

Animal control 2 1.70 47 39 12 2 Recreation

Sewage and solid waste 1.5 1.63 50 42 3 5 Recreation

Public welfare 1 1.65 56 29 9 6 Recreation

Water supply 1 1.63 60 24 9 7 Water

Correctional facilities 1 1.62 51 37 11 1 Recreation

Health services 1 1.56 55 36 8 1 Recreation

Education 1 1.48 67 22 8 4 General

Hazardous waste 1 1.41 63 34 3 0 General
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-36WWW. 1999 17

percent), county attributes had no detectable (statistically significant) effect on the rating of cost items

(table 11), but in 20 percent of the cases, one of the

county attributes had a statistically significant effect

on the questionnaire response. (Note: In the cases of

significant effect, table 11 contains a “Yes,” and the

direction of the effect is given in parenthesis along

with additional information.)

Table 11 can be evaluated “by cost item” or “by

county attribute.” Using the “by cost item” approach

for Law Enforcement, Region was the only county

attribute that had a significant effect on the rating,

and that was because responses from the Interior

West tended to indicate a higher (+) cost imposed by

Federal lands and programs than did other regions.

No other county attribute had a consistent, systematic

effect on the rating for Law Enforcement. However,

four county attributes affected the rating on Fire

Protection and Control, including Region (attribute

11) and Total County Acres (attribute 6). The rating on

Search and Rescue was related to the percent of

entitlement acres in the county (attribute 8) and

Agency Land Distribution (attribute 12), where table

11 shows Yes (-) FWS, indicating that the effect was in

the negative direction for Fish and Wildlife Service

lands. In other words, counties with a larger percentage of Fish and Wildlife Service lands were more likely

to respond None or Small than they were to respond

Moderate or Substantial. Two county attributes

affected the rating for Road Maintenance costs, including the percentage of a county’s total revenue

made up by property taxes (attribute 4). In this case,

counties that depend more on property tax as a revenue source were more likely to respond that Federal

land had little or no impact on road maintenance costs.

Finally, the Road Construction rating, which was

affected by three county attributes, was the only one to

be affected by the Tax Equivalency variable (attribute

13). Counties with a larger difference between Federal

payments and estimated per acre taxes were more

likely to answer that Federal lands had a Moderate or

Substantial impact on the county’s road construction

expenditures.

Using the “by county attribute” approach, we can

assess the extent to which a particular attribute influences costs imposed on county governments. For example, Region (attribute 11) is most influential, affecting the rating on three cost items, Law Enforcement,

Road Maintenance, and Fire Protection and Control.

In all cases, counties in the Interior West indicated a

higher cost imposed than did other regions. Several

county attributes affected one or two cost items, and

four attributes had no effect on ratings for any cost

item. Interestingly, whether a county is an A or B

county had no effect on ratings, although the dependency B counties have on Federal lands may have

already been reflected in another attribute, such as

the percent of entitlement acres.

Fiscal Benefits to Local Governments—The

second part of the questionnaire dealt with direct

fiscal benefits to county governments. Respondents

were given a list of 16 potential Federally-provided

Table 11–County attributes having a statistically significant effect on questionnaire responses regarding direct fiscal costs imposed

on county governments, by cost-imposing item.

Search and Law Road Fire protection Road

County attribute rescue enforcement maintenance and control construction

1. Total county revenue No No No No No

2. Sales tax percentage No No No No No

3. Percent Federal payments of No No No Yes(-) No

property tax

4. Percent property tax of total No No Yes(-) No No

county revenue

5. 1996 county population No No No No No

6. Total county acres No No No Yes(+) Yes(+)

7. A/B county designation No No No No No

8. Percent entitlement acres of Yes (+) No No No No

total county acres

9. Percent entitlement tax value of No No No Yes(+) Yes(+)

total county tax value

10. Population density No No No No No

11. Region No Yes(+) Yes(+) Yes(+) No

Interior Interior Interior

12. Agency land distribution Yes (-) No No No No

FWS

13. Tax equivalency No No No No Yes(+)
18 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-36WWW. 1999

Table 12—Characteristics of responses to questions regarding cost-saving items (fiscal benefits to county governments).

Median Mean Distribution of responses Primary

Cost-saving item rating rating None (1) Small (2) Moderate (3) Substantial (4) program(s)

-------------------------- percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Use of Federal land 2 1.85 47 31 13 9 Recreation

Fire protection and control 1 1.76 60 12 21 7 Fire

Data and information 1 1.68 58 20 17 5 Fire

Road maintenance 1 1.64 55 32 7 6 General

Road construction 1 1.64 58 26 10 6 Timber, general

Technical expertise 1 1.60 51 39 9 1 General

Law enforcement 1 1.58 55 37 3 5 General

Environmental education 1 1.49 62 30 6 2 General

Water improvements 1 1.46 66 25 5 4 Water

Use of Federal employees 1 1.45 68 22 8 2 General

Use of Federal facilities 1 1.44 67 26 4 3 General

Insect and disease control 1 1.37 75 14 10 1 Timber

Training opportunities 1 1.35 71 24 4 1 General

Construction materials 1 1.35 74 20 4 2 General

Weed control 1 1.30 78 15 6 1 Grazing

Use of Federal equipment 1 1.24 77 22 1 0 General

Table 13—County attributes having a statistically significant effect on questionnaire responses regarding direct fiscal benefits

received by county governments, by cost saving item.

Use of Fire protection Data and Road Road

County attribute Federal land and control information maintenance construction

1. Total county revenue No No No No No

2. Sales tax percentage No No No No No

3. Percent Federal payments of No No No No No

property tax

4. Percent property tax of total No No Yes(-) No No

county revenue

5. 1996 county population No No No No No

6. Total county acres No No Yes(-) Yes(-) Yes(-)

7. A/B county designation No No No No No

8. Percent entitlement acres of No Yes(+) No No No

total county acres

9. Percent entitlement tax value No Yes(-) No No No

of total city tax value

10. Population density No No No No Yes(-)

11. Region No Yes(+) Yes(+) Yes(+) No

Interior Interior Interior

12. Agency land distribution No Yes (+) Yes(+) Yes(+) Yes(+)

FS BLM FS FS,FWS

13. Tax equivalency No No No No No
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-36WWW. 1999 19

goods and services (along with an “Other” category).

They were asked to indicate the magnitude of any “cost

saving” to their county government due to the good or

service being provided by the Federal agency at a

reduced cost or for free. Respondents were also asked

to indicate the Federal management program associated with the benefit item.

We found little indication that the presence of Federal lands in a county had any direct fiscal benefits

(table 12). Only one Federally-provided good or service

(Use of Federal Land) had a median rating as high as

Small. The rest of the potential cost-saving items had

a median rating of None. For over half of the items, the

primary Federal program associated with the benefit

item was the General presence of Federal agency or

entitlement lands. Unlike the cost-imposed section,

which identified the recreation program as associated

with several cost items, the only direct fiscal benefit

associated with Recreation programs was Use of Federal land. The only benefit listed under the Other

category was “emergency preparedness,” which was

ranked as providing a substantial cost savings to that

particular county’s government.

We determined that the top five questionnaire items

in the cost-savings section of the questionnaire were

indistinguishable from each other, but significantly

different from the rest of the questionnaire responses.

These five questions were analyzed in detail and the

results are shown in table 13. For the top-rated benefit

item, Use of Federal land, none of the 12 county

attributes analyzed had any significant effect on how

the question was answered. For Fire Protection and

Control, four variables were found to significantly

affect the responses. Percent of entitlement lands in

the county (attribute 8), Region (attribute 11), and

Agency Land Distribution (attribute 12) all had a

positive effect on the responses, while Percent entitlement taxable value of total county taxable value (attribute 9) had a negative effect.

Concerning the Data and Information question,

Region (attribute 11) had a significant effect as did the

percent of property tax, Total County Acres, and Agency

Land Distribution (attributes 4, 6, and 12). Larger

counties and counties more reliant on property taxes

as a revenue source were less likely to perceive data/

information as a moderate or substantial benefit.

Counties with a large percentage of BLM land and

Interior counties were more likely to respond that

Federally provided Data and Information provided

Moderate or Substantial cost savings.

The rating for Road Maintenance was affected by

three county attributes including Total County Acres,

Region, and Agency Land Distribution (attributes 6,

11, and 12). Large counties were less likely to feel that

Federally provided road maintenance was an important cost savings for their government, while counties

with a large percentage of BLM land were more likely

to perceive road maintenance as a Moderate or Substantial benefit. As with Road Maintenance, larger

counties (attribute 6) were less likely to perceive

Federally provided Road Construction as a benefit as

were counties with a high population density (attribute 10). However, counties with large percentages

of Forest Service or Fish and Wildlife Service land

(attribute 12) were more likely to perceive Federally

provided road construction as a cost savings for their

government.

The county attribute having the greatest effect on

the county’s perception of fiscal benefits was Agency

Land Distribution (attribute 12), affecting the rating

of four of the five benefit items. The only other county

attribute affecting more than one item was Region

(attribute 11), with counties in the Interior West

indicating greater cost savings from Federally provided Fire Protection, Data and information, and Road

Maintenance than other regions.

Benefits to Communities and Individuals—

The last section of the questionnaire dealt with a

broader range of benefits than did the previous section, which only focused on fiscal benefits to the county

government. This part of the questionnaire was more

concerned with general benefits to people and communities in the county. The format consisted of 24 potential benefit items, and response followed the same

pattern as before.

The responses to this portion of the survey (table 14)

indicate that county officials perceive benefits to people

and communities to be of higher magnitude than

direct fiscal benefits or costs accruing to the county’s

government. Unlike the low-rated responses in the

previous sections, three of the benefit items in this

section received a median rating of Moderate. All

three of these items (Places to Hunt and Fish, Places

to Recreate, Recreational Facilities) were associated

with recreation programs. Of the remaining 21 items,

18 received a median rating of Small, but only three

had a median response of None. As far as the primary

programs associated with the benefit items, 42 percent of the items were associated with the General

presence of Federal lands, 25 percent with Recreation,

and the remainder went to Water, Grazing, Timber,

Power, and Fire suppression.

Ratings for the top three benefit items were significantly different from the rest and were singled out for

further analysis. Table 15 shows the three benefit

items and the significant effects associated with them.

Counties with a relatively large percentage of entitlement acres (attribute 7) were more likely to respond

that Places to Hunt and Fish along with Places to

Recreate provided a Moderate or Substantial benefit

to the community. Region was also an important factor

in the responses to these two questions, with counties
20 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-36WWW. 1999

 Table 14—Characteristics of responses to questions regarding benefits received by communities and individuals.

Median Mean Distribution of responses Primary

Benefit item rating rating None (1) Small (2) Moderate (3) Substantial (4) program(s)

-------------------------- percent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Places to hunt and fish 3 3.08 13 14 24 49 Recreation

Places to recreate 3 2.97 16 12 32 40 Recreation

Recreational facilities 3 2.76 19 16 34 31 Recreation

Watershed protection 2.5 2.33 27 23 41 9 Water

Aesthetic setting 2 2.42 29 23 27 21 Recreation

Road network 2 2.31 31 24 29 16 Recreation

Lifestyle base 2 2.30 31 26 25 18 Recreation

Ecosystem protection 2 2.26 27 26 41 6 Grazing

Data and Information 2 2.07 36 31 22 11 General

Employment opportunities 2 2.05 26 51 15 8 Timber, general

Agency as economic base 2 2.04 41 24 25 10 General

Gathering forest products 2 2.02 38 31 21 10 Timber

Fire protection and control 2 2.00 47 21 17 15 Fire

Community stability 2 2.00 39 29 26 6 General

Permanent ground cover 2 1.93 45 28 16 11 Timber

Grants and agreements 2 1.86 41 40 13 7 General

Education programs 2 1.86 38 43 14 5 General

Increased property values 2 1.85 46 32 13 9 General

Civic leadership and service 2 1.77 45 36 15 4 General

Law enforcement 2 1.72 49 36 9 6 General

Water improvements 1.5 1.89 50 21 19 10 Water

Work force diversity 1 1.74 53 29 10 8 General

Support industrial base 1 1.64 58 24 14 4 Timber

Electric power 1 1.46 71 16 10 4 Power

Table 15—County attributes having a statistically significant effect on questionnaire responses

regarding benefits received by communities and individuals, by benefit item.

Places to Places to Recreational

County attribute hunt and fish recreate facilities

1. Total county revenue No No No

2. Sales tax percentage No No No

3. Percent Federal payments No No No

of property tax

4. Percent property tax of No No No

total county revenue

5. 1996 county population No No No

6. Total county acres No Yes(+) No

7. A/B county designation No No No

8. Percent entitlement acres of Yes (+) Yes (+) No

total county acres

9. Percent entitlement tax value of No No No

total city tax value

10. Population density No No No

11. Region Yes(-) Yes(-) No

Pacific West Pacific West

12. Agency land distribution No No No

13. Tax equivalency No No No
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-36WWW. 1999 21

in the Pacific West being less likely than counties in

the East to perceive Places to Hunt and Fish or Places

to Recreate as a Moderate or Substantial benefit to

their community. Finally, larger counties (attribute 5)

were more likely to perceive that Places to Recreate

provided a Moderate or Substantial benefit to their

community. None of the variables were found to have

a significant effect on the question regarding Recreational Facilities.

Discussion _____________________

The United States Congress asked the USDI Bureau

of Land Management to address several PILT-related

topics. First, it wanted to know “the extent to which

payments under the PILT Act exceed the tax revenues

that States and local governments would receive from

entitlement lands ... if such lands were taxed at the

same rates as other lands” (U.S. Congress 1996).

Based on this analysis, the simple response to this

question is that, overall, PILT payments do not exceed

tax revenues. In fact, overall, PILT payments are

about $1.31 per acre of entitlement land less than the

amount of property taxes those lands would generate

if taxed at the same rate as other lands. In some

regions, this shortfall is far greater (as in the East and

Pacific West), while it is only half that amount in

Alaska and the Interior West. But even with this

shortfall, about 51 percent of the counties are tax

equivalent. If PILT-related revenue-sharing payments

were added to the equivalency computation, the shortfall drops to $0.94 per acre, and about 62 percent of the

counties are equivalent. Under a fully funded PILT

plus revenue-sharing payments, the equivalency shortfall drops to $0.80 per acre, and 69 percent of the

counties would be equivalent, but full funding would

added about $99 million to the $113 million already

allocated for FY 1997. To achieve overall equivalency,

another $696 million would have to be added to the

fully funded PILT, and even then 18 percent of the

counties would not be equivalent. If additional funding could be variably distributed, overall equivalency

could be achieved at substantially less expense. This is

because any “across-the-board” increase in either PILT

or revenue-sharing payments would (unnecessarily)

increase payments to counties that were already tax

equivalent.

Congress also wanted to know about the “nature and

extent of services provided by units of local governments ... and the economic benefits resulting,” along

with other “economic benefits to communities” (U.S.

Congress 1996). These issues were addressed by a

questionnaire directed to 118 county Chief Executive

Officers. Although we did not conduct an accountinglevel inquiry as to the magnitude of costs imposed and

direct fiscal benefits received by local governments,

the magnitudes are probably small. Even for the item

felt most costly (Search and Rescue), fully 25 percent

of the counties indicated that there was no additional

cost imposed. In addition to Search and Rescue, county

officials indicated that the presence of entitlement

lands and associated programs appeared to add costs

to Law Enforcement, Road Maintenance, Fire Protection and Control, and Road Construction. Most officials linked cost increases to Federal recreation programs. As with costs imposed, cost savings to local

governments are also infrequent. Except for local

government’s Use of Federal Land, the majority of

county officials indicated there was no cost saving for

any other type of cost. However, the majority of county

officials indicated that their community receives moderate or substantial benefits from recreational aspects

of entitlement lands—Places to Hunt and Fish, Places

to Recreate, and Recreational Facilities.

Our research was clearly directed toward addressing the questions raised by Congress. But in the

process of understanding those topics, we came to

some additional realizations pertinent to this type of

research:

1. Tax Rates—After reviewing the literature, we

thought it a mistake to not recalculate the tax rate, so

as to reflect the additional taxable value of entitlement lands. We thought the initial (the rate used in FY

1997) tax rate would always be too high, and thus

overstate the Federal tax bill on entitlement lands.

This is not necessarily so. Whether the tax rate goes up

or down depends on the amount of taxes the land could

generate versus the amount of PILT and revenuesharing payments the county would forego. Many

tracts of entitlement lands produce more Federal

payments than they would taxes. On balance, entitlement lands would generate about 25 percent less taxes

when the “correct” tax rate is used, compared to the

initial tax rate.

2. Agency Comparisons—When we began this study,

it seemed possible to compare the taxable value of

lands administered by several resource management

agencies. We discovered, however, that State and local

procedures are so controlling that comparisons between agencies are almost meaningless. For example,

consider two identical tracts of timbered land in a

State that provides preferential timber taxation; one

tract is administered by an agency where timber

harvest is permitted and the other by an agency where

harvest is not permitted (and hence not eligible for

preferential taxation). It is entirely possible for the

tract that cannot be harvested to have taxable value of

$2,000 per acre and the other tract of $200 per acre

because of the preferential timber tax treatment.

3. Differences in Tax Systems—Throughout this

study, we struggled with the implications of the wide

variation in property tax systems. Some locations had
22 USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-36WWW. 1999

no property tax, while others had property taxes along

with a sales tax, liquor tax, and so on. Some locations

had substantial local discretion, while State law and

procedures controlled others. However, we came to the

realization that variation in tax systems does not

complicate our jobs; in fact, it is irrelevant to our job.

The Congressional directive to the BLM (U.S. Congress 1996) clearly focuses on “tax revenues ... from

entitlement lands....” Our job was to focus on land and

land taxes, to compare the amount of PILT and revenue-sharing payments produced by entitlement lands

to what they would have generated if taxed as other

lands. The Congressional question is one of equivalence between Federal land payments and likely property tax on entitlement lands, and does not involve

sales taxes paid by agencies or their employees, user

fees, or other county-financing considerations.

4. Tax Equivalency—At some point in the past,

property taxes were the dominant, if not the exclusive,

instrument of county finance. Under that circumstance, a comparison between Federal payments (e.g.,

PILT plus revenue sharing) and likely property taxes

provided an accurate portrayal of overall tax equivalency. But over the years, the supremacy of property

taxes has eroded. Other forms of financing were expanded and developed. Today, counties are financed

through a wide range of instruments, sometimes not

even including the property tax. Under this circumstance, the comparison between Federal payments

and likely property taxes may not accurately depict

overall tax equivalency. A comprehensive study of

overall tax equivalency would involve far more than

likely property taxes on Federal entitlement lands.

5. County Government—Any study of tax equivalency must address the question of what it is that taxes

are supposed to be equivalent to. In this study, the

Congressional directive to the BLM clearly focused on

payments made under the PILT Act. Indeed, the Act

specifically states that payments will be made to

“units of local government,” meaning “a county, parish, township, municipality, borough...below the State

which is a unit of general government....” Though we

termed them all “counties,” this study focused on

counties, parishes, townships, and boroughs. Accordingly, we set out to determine the relationship between Federal payments to county government and

the amount of property taxes payable to the county

government. Yet, within the geographical boundary of

a county there are numerous other “governments”

(beyond the “county government”) authorized to levy

property taxes—cities, rural fire districts, school districts, etc. This study focused equivalence on county

government, not governments within the county.

This study attempted to avoid known mistakes of

past research in the matter of property tax equivalency. Nevertheless, our own procedures introduced

several deficiencies that limit the authority of our

results:

1. Study Assumptions—We made two assumptions

that necessarily tended toward understating the estimated tax bill on entitlement lands: (1) land would be

taxed in its current use, and (2) valuation would reflect

land and natural resources, not structures and improvements. Depending on the amount of acreage and

value differentials involved, these deficiencies may be

more conceptual than real. In many rural circumstances, the value of structures, improvements, or a

small acreage with a high potential use is dwarfed by

the vast surrounding wildlands. In more urban settings or where very valuable special uses are involved

(e.g., dam/hydro-electric generation facilities), the assumption may be more influential. Although the

assumptions tended to understate taxable values, we

had no realistic option to the assumption.

2. PILT-related Information—This study relied

heavily on databases associated with administering

the PILT program. In several instances, we uncovered

discrepancies ranging from minor to quite substantial. For instance, a minor discrepancy occurred when

we found that jurisdiction over a particular tract of

entitlement land had transferred 10 to 15 years earlier

from one PILT-relevant Federal agency to another. In

this instance, results were not effected because we

simply dealt with the new agency. However, a major

discrepancy occurred when we found a situation where

the amount of entitlement land attributed to a PILTrelevant Federal agency was too high, by an enormous

amount. These discrepancies suggest internal audit

procedures.

3. Study Procedures—Study procedures are always

a compromise between the desired and the possible.

One of the most important procedural compromises

involved the valuation process. In reality, if a tract of

land is to become part of a county’s tax base, a sitespecific appraisal is conducted. This could involve

several person-hours for a few-acre parcel. This study

estimated the taxable value on over 75 million acres of

entitlement lands, with parcel size ranging from a few

acres to several million acres. Consequently, we had to

adopt a type of “mass appraisal” process that relied on

county records, average tax rates, and expert judgements. We do not understand how our less-indepth

procedures affected results. However, there was no

realistic alternative.

Earlier, reference was made to several questions

asked BLM by the United States Congress, questions

pertaining to tax equivalency and benefits and costs to

local governments. In the fourth question, the BLM

was asked to make “recommendations concerning the

feasibility and desirability of amending the PILT Act

and other laws under which payments are made to
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-36WWW. 1999 23

local governments...in order to provide assistance to

local governments that is more uniform and consistent

and less subject to fluctuations ....” (U.S. Congress

1996). The research reported here was intended to

address tax equivalency, benefits and costs to local

governments, and to provide the BLM a basis for those

recommendations.

References _____________________

Clawson, Marion. 1972. America’s land and its uses. Baltimore: The

Johns Hopkins Press. 166 p.

Clawson, Marion; Held, Burnell. 1957. The Federal lands: their use

and management. Lincoln: University of Chicago Press. 501 p.

Cochran, William G. 1977. Sampling techniques, 3rd ed. New York:

John Wiley & Sons. 428 p.

Committee on Tax Education and School Finance. 1950. Status and

fiscal significance of Federal lands in the eleven Western States.

Washington, DC: National Education Association of the United

States. Quoted in Clawson and Held. 1957. The Federal lands:

316-21, 323.

EBS Management Consultants Inc. 1968. Revenue sharing and

payments in lieu of taxes on the public lands. Volume I-IV.

PB195195. Washington DC.

General Accounting Office (GAO). 1998. Land management agencies: revenue sharing payments to States and counties. Report to

the Honorable Vic Fazio, House of Representatives. RCED-98-

261. Washington DC: General Accounting Office. 72 p.

Hall, Clifford R., Nelson, Alf Z., Williams, Ellis T. 1959. The

difference between a forest yield tax and a forest severance tax.

Journal of Forestry. 57(1): 38-39.

Hibbard, Benjamin H. 1965. A history of the public land policies.

Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. 579 p.

Huebner, Anne E.; Hickman, Clifford A.; Kaiser, H. Fred. 1985. A

tax equivalency study on National Forest System lands in the

United States. FS 396. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service. 50 p.

National Association of Counties (NACO). 1992. Memo to Senator

Pete V. Domenici from Larry Naake, Executive Director of NACO

in Response to BLM study: Comparison of PILT Payments to Real

Property Tax Collection for Selected Tracts–FY 1991.

National Association of Counties (NACO). 1998. Unpublished NACO

administrative records from the State tax guide. On file at: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Research Station, Missoula, MT.

Public Land Law Review Commission (PLLRC). 1970. Tax immunity. Chapter 14 in: One third of the nation’s land: A report to the

President and to the Congress. Washington, DC. 239 p.

Schmidt, Lara; Rasker, Ray. 1996. Federal land payment programs

in the Columbia River Basin. Washington, DC: The Wilderness

Society. 53 p.

Schuster, Ervin G. 1995. PILT—its purpose and performance.

Journal of Forestry. 93(8): 31-35.

Schuster, Ervin G. 1996. Revenue sharing and resource management in Western States. Western Journal of Applied Forestry.

11(1): 20-24.

Steel, Robert G. D.; Torrie, James H. 1980. Principles and procedures of statistics: a biometrical approach. New York: McGrawHill Book Company. 633 p.

U.S. Comptroller General. 1979. Alternatives for achieving greater

equities in Federal land payment programs: report to the Congress. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office. 59 p.

U.S. Congress House Committee on Appropriations. 1996. Committee report-Department of the Interior and Related Agencies

Appropriations Bill. 104th Cong., 1st sess. House Rpt. 104-173.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA-FS). 1999.

An analysis of PILT-related payments and likely property tax

liability of Federal resource management lands. Unpublished

paper on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT. 56 p. +

appendix.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census (USDC-BOC).

1997. Unpublished BOC records for the 1992 Census of Government. On file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management

(USDI-BLM). 1997a. Payments in lieu of taxes—fiscal year 1997.

Unpublished report. Washington, DC: Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 230 p.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management

(USDI-BLM). 1997b. Unpublished BLM administrative records,
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion,

age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or familial status.

(Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who

require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large

print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600

(voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights,

Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington,

DC 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

ROCKY MOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION

RMRS

The Rocky Mountain Research Station develops scientific information and technology to improve management, protection, and use of

the forests and rangelands. Research is designed to meet the needs

of National Forest managers, Federal and State agencies, public and

private organizations, academic institutions, industry, and individuals.

Studies accelerate solutions to problems involving ecosystems,

range, forests, water, recreation, fire, resource inventory, land reclamation, community sustainability, forest engineering technology,

multiple use economics, wildlife and fish habitat, and forest insects

and diseases. Studies are conducted cooperatively, and applications

may be found worldwide.

Research Locations

Flagstaff, Arizona Reno, Nevada

Fort Collins, Colorado* Albuquerque, New Mexico

Boise, Idaho Rapid City, South Dakota

Moscow, Idaho Logan, Utah

Bozeman, Montana Ogden, Utah

Missoula, Montana Provo, Utah

Lincoln, Nebraska Laramie, Wyoming

*Station Headquarters, 240 West Prospect Road, Fort Collins, CO 80526