U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

96–667 PDF 2004

S. HRG. 108–680

GRAZING

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

TO

REVIEW THE GRAZING PROGRAMS OF THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND THE FOREST SERVICE, INCLUDING PERMIT RENEWALS, 

RECENT AND PROPOSED CHANGES TO GRAZING REGULATIONS, AND 

RELATED ISSUES; AND TO EXAMINE THE WILD HORSE AND BURRO 

PROGRAM, AS IT RELATES TO GRAZING, AND THE ADMINISTRATION’S 

PROPOSAL FOR SAGE GROUSE HABITAT CONSERVATION

JUNE 23, 2004

(

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman 

DON NICKLES, Oklahoma 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BOB GRAHAM, Florida 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

ALEX FLINT, Staff Director 

JUDITH K. PENSABENE, Chief Counsel 

ROBERT M. SIMON, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho, Chairman 

CONRAD R. BURNS, Montana, Vice Chairman 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

JON KYL, Arizona 

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Carolina 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California

PETE V. DOMENICI and JEFF BINGAMAN are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee

DICK BOUTS, Professional Staff Member 

DAVID BROOKS, Democratic Senior Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page

Casabonne, Mike G., President, New Mexico Public Lands Council, Hope, 

NM ......................................................................................................................... 9

Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator From Idaho ................................................... 2

Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator From New Mexico .................................... 1

Groseta, Peter Andrew, Chairman, Federal Lands Committee, National 

Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Cottonwood, AZ ................................................. 3

Hughes, Jim, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management, Department 

of the Interior ....................................................................................................... 27

Kyl, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator From Arizona ........................................................... 3

Skinner, Bob, on behalf of the sheep and cattle rancher members of the 

Public Lands Council and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association ........... 16

Thompson, Tom, Deputy Chief, National Forest System, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture ....................................................................................... 32

(1)

GRAZING 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 2004

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 4:17 p.m., in room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Larry E. Craig presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

The CHAIRMAN. This is the subcommittee hearing. I am chairman 

of the full committee. The subcommittee chairman is Senator 

Craig. He will be along shortly, in which event I will probably be 

in and out. 

I want to do what he had suggested, that we take the visiting 

witnesses first. So, Mr. Hughes from the Department, would you 

wait, and if the three witnesses that have come to us from other 

States, would they take the witness stand and let us get started? 

Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CRAIG. Senator Domenici. 

The CHAIRMAN. Before you proceed—and I thank you for coming 

up here. This has been a difficult day for us. It is not like we have 

run away from you. It is just that we had seven votes. That is very 

unusual. You cannot come up here and go back down. So that is 

where we were. 

I want to thank the three witnesses that came from out West, 

Mr. Skinner, Mr. Casabonne, and Mr. Groseta, because it is very 

important that we hear from you. We will hear from the Federal 

people. 

I just want to say a simple kind of proposition. We started years 

ago trying to get both the BLM and the Forest Service where they 

would get caught up on their permitting, and that if they did not 

and it was no fault of the permittee, we kept on year after year 

passing amendments that would not in any way cause your leases 

to be changed by that problem. 

We have gotten to the point now where we have done that for 

10 or 12 years, and I hope that we finish up here today with some 

understanding by the Federal Government on what their responsibility is. And is it a question of money or not? And can we get this 

thing under control some way? It is just awful that with all the 

management tools we have got that we cannot do this. Frankly, we 

have pushed them very hard in our State, hard enough that I do 

2

not want to do that anymore. I am here to tell them they have got 

to push hard in every State. 

With that, I yield to the subcommittee chairman and I will be 

back in a while. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, U.S. SENATOR

FROM IDAHO 

Senator CRAIG. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you for stopping by. 

Certainly public land grazing in New Mexico is every bit as important to that State as public land grazing is in my State of Idaho 

or the Senator from Arizona’s State or any other western public 

land State where the livestock industry still plays a major role in 

overall agricultural economies and production. 

So this is a second oversight hearing that we have held, one 

about a year ago this time, that is reflective of what the chairman 

has spoken to, and that is trying to get it right in cattle country, 

understanding and hoping to send a message to the agencies and 

to other interested parties that grazing is an important use of our 

public resources and done responsibly and wisely, as we think it is. 

So, gentlemen, we thank you for being here. 

I am going to turn to my colleague from Arizona for an introduction of a constituent, and then I will move to the balance of you. 

Then we will get your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Craig follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, U.S. SENATOR

FROM IDAHO

Good afternoon and welcome. Today’s oversight hearing is on grazing programs 

on Forest and BLM administered Federal Lands. I want to welcome Senator Domenici, Chairman of the Full Committee, Senator Wyden, our Ranking Member for the 

Subcommittee and our other members. 

Also, I want to welcome Mr. Jim Hughes, Deputy Director for the Bureau of Land 

Management; and Mr. Tom Thompson, Deputy Chief for the Forest Service. And our 

other witnesses, all ranchers who deal with these issues daily:

• Mr. Andy Groseta, Chairman of NCBA’s Federal Lands Committee, from Cottonwood, Arizona, 

• Mr. Mike Casabonne, President, Public Lands Council of the New Mexico 

Cattlegrowers’ Association from Hope, New Mexico, 

• Mr. Bob M. Skinner with the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association from Jordan Valley, Oregon.

This is the second oversight hearing we have held on this issue in as many years. 

The ranching industry has been under assault for some time. Whether by benign 

neglect, lack of adequate priority or interest, or intentional anti-grazing actions of 

the past decade, we have reached a state of urgency for addressing our federal grazing programs. The new players this administration has put in place have shown a 

commitment to solving these problems, and maybe we are beginning to turn the corner, but there is still much to do. It is my intention to continue with oversight hearings in the future until I’m confident that there has been sufficient progress that 

we have sustainable programs on the ground that will support a viable industry. 

As a former rancher, I know the benefits and challenges of grazing. In Idaho, cattle industry is one of our most valuable agricultural products. 

I support grazing because I believe multiple use of public lands is a win-win situation. Ranchers are good stewards of the land. They know that their livelihoods are 

dependent upon the land, and if they abuse it, they will not prosper. 

Grazing also reduces the risk of fire potential by reducing the fuel load of the land 

and is an important tool in combating invasive non-native weeds. 

What these hearings are about is ensuring the continued use of public lands for 

grazing in ways that protect the environment. 

Today, we will hear from the Administration about the current status of their current grazing programs and their progress on rangeland management. 

3

I have asked the BLM to speak on the current management situation with respect 

to wild horses and burros on the public rangelands. This program is intended to consider other resources such as wildlife and vegetation, and-other uses such as livestock grazing and recreation. But the problems that come with these growing populations, have been compounded by years of drought and vast areas of wildfire. Management tools are minimal, very expensive and seem to have marginal effectiveness. 

I look forward to hearing more about this important rangeland issue. 

We will also hear about the Administration’s proactive approach on sage grouse 

habitat conservation. 

I welcome our witnesses that are here today. We are eager to hear your plans and 

concerns, and want to assist you whenever possible.

STATEMENT OF HON. JON KYL, U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA 

Senator KYL. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am just going to 

take a second because everybody has been waiting far too long 

here. 

But Andy Groseta is not just a constituent of mine, but a friend 

and a rancher that is well representative of the problem of the 

cattlemen generally in our Western States where we have drought, 

where there have been cutbacks. He will tell you there are folks 

who have not had cattle on their allotments for years because of 

a variety of circumstances. 

And I share the comments that both you and the chairman of the 

full committee have made. We have got to do a better job of coordinating with our agencies and the folks that are out there trying to 

make a living. It is tough enough, with all the conditions that we 

have to deal with, when we do not have a Government that is necessarily as responsive as it can and should be. It is up to us to help 

make that happen. 

But Andy Groseta will be speaking for the National Cattlemen’s 

Beef Association, but I know he will tell the story of the Tonto Forest in Arizona too. 

I want to welcome him and welcome all of you and apologize in 

advance for having to leave. We are all now way backed up today. 

So you will see us come in and out of the meeting. But we will have 

the full record in front of us. We will debrief the chairman, and the 

fact that there are not as many people here does not mean there 

is a lack of interest. It is just the fact that we have had this kind 

of a day. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this extraordinarily important hearing. 

Senator CRAIG. Jon, thank you very much. 

Andy, thank you for joining us. Mike Casabonne, president, Public Lands Council of New Mexico Cattlegrowers’ Association from 

Hope, New Mexico. Bob Skinner, a gentleman I have known for a 

good long while, from the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association from 

Jordon Valley, Oregon. Gentlemen, we thank you. Andy, we will 

start with you. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF PETER ANDREW GROSETA, CHAIRMAN,

FEDERAL LANDS COMMITTEE, NATIONAL CATTLEMEN’S 

BEEF ASSOCIATION, COTTONWOOD, AZ 

Mr. GROSETA. Thank you, Senator. Good afternoon, Chairman 

Craig and Senator Kyl. 

My name is Peter Andrew Groseta, and I am a third generation 

cattle rancher from the Verde Valley in north central Arizona. My 

4

family came to the Verde Valley at the turn of the last century to 

work in the copper mines in Jerome, Arizona. In 1922, my father’s 

family moved to a ranch in Middle Verde and in 1936 to Cottonwood, where our ranch operations are headquartered today. 

We are a family run ranching operation. My father passed away 

in May 2000 and my mother still lives on the ranch. We are in the 

cow/calf business. For 20 years, we owned and operated two 

ranches, the cow/calf operation and a stocker operation. We have 

sold our native yearling cattle to feeders in California, Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, and Kansas. With severe drought conditions that 

started in the mid 1990’s, we sold our stocker ranch. In addition, 

we downsized our cow herd to a core herd trying to retain the genetics in our cattle that have been developed and improved upon 

for 82 years. 

I also serve as chairman of the Federal Lands Committee of the 

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. I appreciate the opportunity 

to be here today to provide some of my experience in public lands 

grazing to the committee on behalf of the sheep and cattle rancher 

members of the Public Lands Council and National Cattlemen’s 

Beef Association. 

Restocking the Tonto National Forest and range monitoring. Arizona, along with the rest of the Southwest, has been severely 

stricken by drought for the last several years. Because of drought 

and other issues, animal unit months on Forest Service land has 

been reduced on the Tonto National Forest by nearly 80 percent, 

and the area’s ranching community has suffered. As you can well 

imagine, this drastic reduction in AUM’s has created a distrust of 

the Forest Service among the ranchers who question the drought 

required reductions at the scale imposed. 

The Public Lands Council and NCBA recognize the drought is a 

serious resource issue. We have also worked hard to ensure that 

agency decisions are based on science, facts, and policy and not on 

the personal biases of individual agency employees. Clearly the cooperation of all affected parties will be required to enable the Forest Service to effectively fulfill its multiple use mandate for managing public lands. 

Fortunately, signs of such cooperation with the Forest Service, 

the Bureau of Land Management, the NRCS, and a number of 

State partners are beginning to emerge to at least give rise to hope 

that the lands can be managed in a sensible manner that recognizes the needs of both resource condition and local ranching communities. 

First, the U.S. Forest Service, the NCBA, the Public Lands Council, the Arizona Cattle Growers, along with the Gila County Cattle 

Growers’ Association, have recently teamed up and signed an 

agreement called the Tonto Restocking Agreement to restock cattle 

on Arizona’s Tonto National Forest. The Tonto National Forest will 

expedite the return of as many cattle as supportable by forage conditions on these allotments. 

An integral element of the restocking program is that monitoring 

data will be used to support decisions about cattle numbers on the 

ground, reducing the chance that personal biases can influence resource decisions. The resource information produced by third parVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:35 Nov 10, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\96667.TXT SENE3 PsN: SCAN
5

ties will help stabilize grazing management both for ranchers and 

for the Forest Service. 

Grazing permit renewal. It is imperative to the financial success 

of a public lands ranching operation that permits to graze on those 

public lands be renewed in a timely manner when they expire. 

Ranchers who run cattle on Federal land need and deserve a stable 

regulatory environment within which to operate. 

The U.S. Forest Service grazing permit backlog in particular is 

tremendous and would put our members’ operations at risk in the 

absence of existing protective language. We understand the Forest 

Service will not be able to eliminate this backlog in the 4 remaining years of the new legislation. 

Given these times of large budget deficits, it seems unlikely that 

Congress will provide the additional funds needed to eliminate the 

permit backlog. We, therefore, urge members to consider whether 

additional reform of NEPA is warranted to help with the problem. 

Vacant allotments. Perhaps one of the more important issues facing the public land grazing industry and Federal land managers is 

what to do about the increasing number of vacant allotments appearing throughout the West on Federal lands. PLC and NCBA is 

opposed to proposals for Federal policy that favors eliminating the 

infrastructure needed to support grazing on public lands. Vacant 

allotments in the Federal Government’s inventory should be made 

available to existing ranching operations before they are considered 

for other uses. In particular, we oppose legislation introduced by 

Congressmen Grijalva and Shays to fund permanent retirement of 

Federal grazing permits. This position is consistent with those in 

and out of the Government who recognize the value of keeping 

ranches intact. This position is also consistent with those who support the principle of the multiple use of public lands in which grazing is a co-equal use of those lands. 

Still, we recognize that some ranchers may want to get out of the 

business and there is not always someone ready to step in behind 

them to take their place. We also believe that ranchers get forced 

out of business by overly zealous regulation of operations by Federal employees. Land use conflicts between ranching and predators 

also make continued operations untenable for some. 

Voluntary or forced relinquishment of grazing permits is particularly painful for ranchers because of the economic value conferred 

by possession of a permit is recognized in the marketplace and is 

part of the business assets maintained by ranchers with livestock 

grazing on public lands. Even environmentalists recognize the economic value of permits, as indicated by their willingness to compensate ranchers for that value in the Grijalva/Shays bill. The 

point here is that when ranchers leave or are forced off their Federal allotments, they also lose part of their equity value of their 

businesses, as well as part of their way of life. 

In closing, I want to thank you for the opportunity to present the 

views of the Public Lands Council and the National Cattlemen’s 

Beef Association to the subcommittee on issues facing ranchers 

grazing livestock on public lands. I would be pleased to answer any 

questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Groseta follows:]

6

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETER ANDREW (‘‘ANDY’’) GROSETA, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL

LANDS COMMITTEE, NATIONAL CATTLEMEN’S BEEF ASSOCIATION, AND OWNER, W 

DART RANCH, DBA GROSETA RANCHES, LLC 

Good afternoon, Chairman Craig and distinguished members of this subcommittee, my name is Peter Andrew Groseta; and I am a third-generation cattle 

rancher from the Verde Valley, in north central Arizona. My family came to the 

Verde Valley at the turn of the last century to work in the copper mines in Jerome, 

Arizona. In 1922, my father’s family moved to a ranch in Middle Verde, and in 1936 

to Cottonwood, where our ranch operations are headquartered today. 

We are a family-run ranching operation. My father passed away in May of 2000, 

and my mother still lives on the ranch. We are in the cow/calf business. For 20 

years, we owned and operated two ranches, a cow/calf and a stocker operation. 

We have sold our native yearling cattle to feeders in California, Texas, Oklahoma, 

Colorado and Kansas. With severe drought conditions that started in the mid 1990s, 

we sold our stocker ranch. In addition, we downsized our cow herd to a ‘‘core’’ herd 

trying to retain the genetics in our cattle that have been developed and improved 

upon for 82 years. 

Our present ranch consists of approximately 25,000 acres. This includes private 

(deeded), state and Forest Service lands. The ranch consists of 88 percent Forest 

Service lands. 

My wife, Mary Beth, and I have raised three children, one son and two daughters, 

who are all presently enrolled at the University of Arizona, majoring in agriculture. 

Our son, who graduates this December, would like to come back to run the ranch 

after he receives his college degree. It is very gratifying, as a parent, to have our 

children (fourth generation) carry on the family ranching business. In these times, 

we are seeing less and less family-owned ranches in the West. With more and more 

government regulations (ESA, CWA, NEPA, etc.) and estate tax issues, it is making 

it more difficult for family ranches to continue to remain profitable and stay in business. I also serve as Chairman to the Federal Lands Committee of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to provide 

some of my experience in public lands grazing to the Committee on behalf of the 

sheep and cattle rancher members of the Public Lands Council and the National 

Cattlemen’s Beef Association. 

The Public Lands Council (PLC) represents sheep and cattle ranchers in 15 western states whose livelihood and families have depended on federal grazing permits 

dating back to the beginning of last century. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) is the trade association of America’s cattle farmers and ranchers, and 

the marketing organization for the largest segment of the nation’s food and fiber industry. 

Ranching out west has been part of the landscape, the economy, and the culture 

for approximately three centuries. About 214 of the 262 million acres managed by 

BLM are classified as ‘‘rangelands,’’ as are 76 million of the 191 million acres managed by the Forest Service. More than 23,000 permittees, their families, and their 

employees manage livestock to harvest the annually renewed grass resource grown 

on this land. Western ranching operations provide important additional benefits to 

the Nation by helping to preserve open space and reliable waters for wildlife, by 

serving as recharge areas for groundwater, and by supporting the economic infrastructure for rural communities. Our policy is to support the multiple-use and sustained-yield of the resources and services from our public lands which we firmly believe brings the greatest benefit to the largest number of Americans. Both PLC and 

the NCBA strive to create a stable regulatory environment in which our members 

can thrive. 

RESTOCKING THE TONTO AND RANGELAND MONITORING

Arizona, along with the rest of the southwest, has been severely stricken by 

drought for the last several years. Because of drought and other issues, Animal Unit 

Months (AUMs) on Forest Service land has been reduced on the Tonto National Forest by nearly 80 percent, and the area’s ranching community has suffered. As you 

can well imagine, this drastic reduction in AUMs has sown distrust of the Forest 

Service among the ranchers, who question whether the drought required reductions 

at the scale imposed. The Public Lands Council and NCBA recognize the drought 

is a serious resource issue with which to be grappled. We, have also worked hard 

to ensure that agency decisions are based on facts and policy, and not on the personal biases of individual agency employees. Clearly, the cooperation of all affected 

parties will be required to enable the Forest Service to effectively fulfill its multipleuse mandate for managing public lands. 

7

Fortunately, signs of such cooperation with the Forest Service, BLM, NRCS, and 

a number of state partners are beginning to emerge to at least give rise to the hope 

that the lands can be managed in a sensible manner that recognizes the needs of 

both resource condition and local ranching communities. First, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), NCBA, PLC, and Arizona and Gila County Cattle Growers have recently 

teamed up to restock grazing cattle on Arizona’s Forest Service land. The Tonto National Forest Restocking Agreement signed by Arizona-based representatives of the 

USFS, the Arizona Cattle Growers Association, and Gila County Cattle Growers will 

expedite the return of as many cattle as supportable by forage conditions on allotments. 

Having the ranchers and the Forest Service work collaboratively on this project 

has offered an opportunity to begin rebuilding trust between the Agency and the 

ranching industry and provides a broader perspective for the Agency to administer 

National Forest lands collaboratively with important forest stakeholders. Forest 

Service participation in this project is important agency recognition of the important 

contributions ranchers make to rural economies and to the benefits of helping keep 

large landscapes intact. 

Key components of the Tonto Restocking Program include:

• A Coordinated Resource Management Task Force comprised of qualified range 

technicians representing the Forest Service, Arizona Association of Conservation Districts, University of Arizona, and Natural Resources Conservation Service, will assist ranchers with monitoring and planning strategies for each grazing allotment. 

• Technical Resource Team members will assess resource conditions and provide 

stocking options for individual grazing allotments. 

• If the team determines that stocking is appropriate, alternatives will be presented addressing stocking levels under various management situations. 

• Options presented by the Technical Resource Team will be used by Forest Service line officers when making decisions regarding stocking. 

• Ranchers will stock allotments in accordance with the line officer’s decision. The 

line officer will use monitoring based on recommendations provided by the team 

in determining if numbers need to be adjusted. Ranchers will subsequently adjust livestock numbers, either up or down, as directed by the line officer. 

• All recommendations will be made by allotment on a case-by-case basis and conform to all legal requirements and agency policies.

An integral element of the restocking program is that monitoring data will be 

used to support decisions about cattle numbers on the ground, reducing the chance 

that personal whim can drive resource decisions. The Tonto National Forest restocking effort is an extreme example of why industry concluded that the long-term 

viability of grazing on public lands depends on the availability of reliable information upon which to make management decisions. The resource information produced 

by third parties will help stabilize grazing management both for ranchers and for 

the Forest Service. 

The Forest Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service have supported monitoring on the Tonto National Forest in other ways as well. Both agencies 

have contributed funding to support additional staff positions to give monitoring the 

attention it needs. Additionally, both agencies have worked to implement a program 

of financial assistance to ranchers through the Farm Bill Environmental Quality Incentives Program who implement rotational grazing systems on their public land allotments. The purpose of the program is to conserve the forage resource on the public lands, and to support the economic viability of ranching operations during difficult economic times because of the drought. Many people in and out of the administration understand that keeping intact ranching operations on public and private 

lands is among the most effective means for keeping large landscapes intact with 

the attendant wildlife habitat benefits of those landscapes. The EQIP dollars will 

help accomplish this important conservation goal. We appreciate the support of 

NRCS and the Forest Service for restoring responsible grazing on the Tonto National Forest. 

Our support for monitoring extends to seeking additional appropriations. In FY05, 

PLC and NCBA supported increased funding for the BLM’s monitoring budget 

through the range program. We were unable to request additional funding for the 

Forest Service because, unlike the BLM, they were unable to directly, concretely account for where the money was spent. We will continue to seek funding for monitoring where the agencies can directly account for the use of those additional dollars. 

8

GRAZING PERMIT RENEWAL

It is imperative to the financial success of a public lands ranching operation that 

permits to graze on those public lands be renewed in a timely manner when they 

expire. Ranchers who run cattle on federal land need and deserve a stable regulatory environment within which to operate. A business cannot remain economically 

viable when its capital is in question due to the federal government’s lack of ability 

to meet its obligations. Last year, Congress took the important step of enacting legislation to ensure that permits would not be interrupted for a period of five years 

while the agencies strive to eliminate their backlog of permits for which they have 

not completed required NEPA documentation. 

The U.S. Forest Service’s grazing permit backlog, in particular, is tremendous and 

would put our members’ operations at risk in the absence of existing protective language. We understand the Forest Service will not be able to eliminate this backlog 

in the four remaining years of the new legislation. We urge Congress to take a comprehensive look at permit renewal issues to come up with a long-term solution that 

takes into account the need to provide a stable regulatory framework for ranchers 

throughout the west as well as the needs of the agency to complete their work. 

Given these times of large budget deficits, it seems unlikely that Congress will 

provide the additional funds needed to eliminate the permit backlog. We therefore 

urge members to. consider whether additional reform of NEPA is warranted to help 

with the problem. Grazing allotments with small numbers of cattle, or whose resource condition has been demonstrably stable over many years, or on which threatened or endangered species do not reside may not require the same level of NEPA 

attention as do allotments with more complicated and important resource issues. 

PLC and NCBA have long-believed that federal land management dollars are better 

spent on managing resources than on producing documentation that adds little 

value to understanding resource issues on the ground. 

VACANT ALLOTMENTS

Perhaps one of the more important issues facing the public land grazing industry 

and federal land managers is what to do about the increasing number of vacant allotments appearing throughout the west on federal lands. PLC/NCBA’s starting 

point in addressing this question is opposition to proposals for federal policy that 

favors eliminating the infrastructure needed to support graze public lands. In particular, we oppose legislation introduced by Congressmen Grijalva and Shays to 

fund voluntary relinquishments of federal grazing permits. This position is consistent with those in and out of the government who recognize the value of keeping 

ranches intact for keeping large landscapes intact. This position is also consistent 

with those who support the principle of multiple-use of public lands in which grazing is a co-equal use of the lands together with waterflows, fish, wildlife, recreation, 

and timber. 

Still, we recognize that some ranchers want to get out of the business and there 

is not always someone ready to step in behind them and take their place in the operation. We also believe that ranchers get forced out of business by overly zealous 

regulation of operations by federal employees. Land-use conflicts between ranching 

and predators also make continued operations untenable for some. 

Relinquishment of grazing permits is particularly painful for ranchers because the 

economic value conferred by possession of a permit is recognized in the marketplace 

and is part of the business assets maintained by ranchers with livestock grazing on 

public lands. Apart from whether holding a grazing permit is legally recognized as 

a property right, the permits are bought and sold as part of larger ranch transactions, banks loan money on permits, and the Internal Revenue Service taxes 

ranchers on the value conferred by permits. Even environmentalists recognize the 

economic value of permits as indicated by their willingness to compensate ranchers 

for that value in the Grijalva/Shays bill. The point here is that when ranchers leave 

or are forced off their federal allotments, they also lose part of the value of their 

businesses as well as a part of their way of life. 

Whatever the specific cause, both the BLM and the FS have a number of vacant 

allotments on their rolls which are not retired to other uses and are not being actively used for grazing. PLC and NCBA are concerned that these grazing allotments 

be made available in the first instance to other ranchers to use either individually 

or to manage collectively to optimize the size of their ranching operations. Should 

other ranchers not wish to avail themselves of surplus allotments, then the allotments should be held in reserve by the federal agencies for times when drought or 

other causes requires more forage to be available for grazing to minimize the impact 

of adverse conditions on any single allotment. 

9

These reserved allotments should be considered part of a working ranching landscape. At no time should grazing allotments be set aside for conservation use. 

CONCLUSION

I want to thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Public Lands 

Council and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association to the subcommittee on issues 

facing ranchers grazing livestock on public lands. I would be pleased to take any 

questions members of the subcommittee may have for me.

Senator CRAIG. Andy, thank you very much. 

Mike, we will turn to you. 

STATEMENT OF MIKE G. CASABONNE, PRESIDENT,

NEW MEXICO PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL, HOPE, NM 

Mr. CASABONNE. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the 

committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify here in behalf of 

New Mexico Public lands Council. My name is Mike Casabonne. I 

am a rancher in southeastern New Mexico. I raise sheep and cattle 

on intermingled privates, Federal, and State land. I grew up on the 

ranch that our family continues to operate near Hope, New Mexico. 

My family has been ranching in southeastern New Mexico since the 

early 1900’s. 

I would specifically like to talk to you today about rangeland 

monitoring on Federal land used for livestock grazing and the proposed changes to the Bureau of Land Management’s grazing regulations and some other topics related to Federal land livestock 

grazing. 

New Mexico’s livestock producers support the collection of monitoring data on Federal rangeland. We believe it is essential for Federal land managers and ranchers alike to have access to results of 

long-term vegetative monitoring to adequately assess the condition 

of rangeland and to be able to manage it in the best interests of 

the rancher as well as the public. It is also essential to document 

our record of good stewardship of Federal grazing land. 

The BLM in New Mexico has a good record of data, especially in 

the southern part of the State. The New Mexico Department of Agriculture and the Range Improvement Task Force of New Mexico 

State University have contributed to agency expertise in collecting 

and analyzing monitoring data, and the record of data, along with 

the involvement of university scientists and the academic community in the Public Rangeland Improvement Act, PRIA’s section 8 

process has been instrumental in averting or resolving conflict between the BLM and ranchers in contrast to what has occurred in 

other areas and on U.S. Forest Service administered lands where 

there is little or no data. This system, we feel, is a model that 

would benefit agency range management west-wide. 

We believe the record of data is invaluable to all parties concerned with range management, including ranchers and the land 

management agencies, and we must not break the continuity of 

that record, where it exists, and build a record where there is none. 

In addition to our belief that the collection of monitoring data 

leads to better management of range resources, it is also a statutory requirement of the BLM and the Forest Service to collect and 

analyze data on the condition and trend of Federal rangeland. The 

numerous statutes are detailed in my written testimony. 

10

The data collected should be of physically measurable characteristics, repeatable, and demonstrate consistent results over time. 

Change in range condition normally happens slowly in arid climates and under such conditions, a one-point-in-time assessment of 

rangeland is not useful. The data must be collected over several 

growing seasons to be of maximum value. Long-term, quantitative 

vegetative monitoring has proven to be the most accurate method 

of assessing range condition and trend. 

In addition to vegetative monitoring, data is needed on the impacts of uses other than livestock grazing. Methods to assess forage 

use specifically by different species of wildlife, impacts by oil and 

gas production and recreational use need to be developed. It should 

not be assumed that all impacts of use are attributable to livestock 

grazing. 

If more resources were directed to monitoring, then many of the 

other problems that drain off personnel and budget resources 

would be avoided. 

New Mexico livestock organizations, in cooperation with New 

Mexico State University and the Department of Agriculture and 

Soil and Water Conservation districts have encouraged rancher 

monitoring. But even if the agencies have the full cooperation of 

the ranching community in a cooperating monitoring program, it 

will be unrealistic to expect that the industry will be able to collect 

data, to provide the level of data that is needed to accomplish the 

task. 

Whatever the industry response may be to rancher monitoring, 

the agencies are still legally required to collect data and ranchers 

should not be expected to assume that much of the agencies’ responsibilities. If agency budget and personnel limits are constraints 

on monitoring, ranchers’ resources in those areas are even more 

limited. 

We have another problem with the implementation of the standards and guidelines. The Standards of Public Land Health and the 

Guidelines for Grazing Management are being implemented in 

New Mexico and across the West. ‘‘Rangeland health’’ is a term the 

agencies have begun to use to replace ‘‘range condition,’’ and we believe the term ‘‘health’’ is less appropriate to describe rangeland. If 

health is less than optimum, the assumption is made that there is 

an illness with a cause that should be remedied, and we do not believe these analogies fit rangeland. 

As a first step in the process, BLM field offices in the State have 

begun a process they call watershed assessment using a handbook 

entitled Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health. This methodology is not science-based and results in an evaluation that is highly subjective. 

Another problem that we have with this process is it is a onepoint-in-time assessment that we do not believe is valid. We think 

that quantitative vegetative monitoring, as we mentioned before, is 

still the best way to assess range condition and that the indication 

of the vegetative monitoring is still the best measure of rangeland 

health. 

We also have some issues with the U.S. Forest Service, and the 

relationship between the Forest Service and the ranching community is not good. We understand that there are some steps being 

11

taken toward solutions, and the recent instruction to Forest Service 

range personnel to incorporate section 8 of PRIA into their grazing 

allotment administration is a positive step. There is gratification 

that the Forest Service has become concerned enough with the 

plight of ranchers in the region that a separate working group has 

been tasked to address the problem. How on-the-ground issues are 

handled at the allotment level, however, will be the way that success in rebuilding the relationship is judged. We will do our part 

in that effort. 

We did have some other comments on the Endangered Species 

Act and NEPA compliance. We believe that the environmental assessments that are required to be done on permit renewal, if there 

could be a categorical exclusion applied to the permit renewal process, which I am sure you have heard before, but that would release 

the agency personnel so they would be able to do a lot more of this 

monitoring that we think would avert a lot of the costly legal problems and the conflict that happens now. 

But with that, I will conclude and say we also have some detailed comments on the BLM regulatory reform that are a part of 

the written comments. 

With that, I again would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to address you here today on behalf of the New Mexico 

Public Lands Council. I too would be willing to answer any questions that the committee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Casabonne follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MIKE G. CASABONNE, PRESIDENT,

NEW MEXICO PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL, HOPE, NM 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, my name is Mike 

Casabonne. I am a rancher in southeastern New Mexico raising sheep and cattle 

on intermingled private, federal and state land. I grew up on the ranch that our 

family continues to operate near Hope, NM. My family has been ranching in southeastern New Mexico since the early 1900’s. 

I would specifically like to talk to you today about rangeland monitoring on federal land used for livestock grazing and the proposed changes to the Bureau of Land 

Management’s (BLM’s) grazing regulations and other topics related to federal land 

livestock grazing. 

AGENCY MONITORING

New Mexico’s livestock producers support collection of monitoring data on federal 

rangeland. We believe it is essential for federal land managers and ranchers alike 

to have access to results of long-term vegetative monitoring to adequately assess the 

condition of rangeland to be able to manage it in the best interests of the rancher 

as well as the public. It is also essential to document our record of stewardship of 

federal grazing land. 

The BLM in New Mexico has a good record of data especially in the southern part 

of the state. That data has been a major factor contributing to the record of sound 

range management of southern New Mexico ranches. New Mexico State University 

(NMSU), the New Mexico Department of Agriculture (NMDA) and NMSU’s Range 

Improvement Task Force have contributed to agency expertise in collecting and analyzing monitoring data. 

New Mexico has made extensive use of the provisions in Section 8 of the Public 

Rangelands Improvement Act (PRIA) that allow for consultation, cooperation and coordination among federal and state agencies and local private range users. The state 

of New Mexico and the BLM and Forest Service have MOU’s that formalize that 

relationship. The record of data along with the involvement of university scientists 

and the academic community in the PRIA Section 8 process has been instrumental 

in averting or resolving conflict between the BLM and ranchers in contrast to what 

has occurred in other areas and on U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) administered 

12

lands where there is little or no data. This system is a model that would benefit 

agency range management west wide. 

We believe the record of data is invaluable to all parties concerned with range 

management including ranchers and the land management agencies. We must not 

break the continuity of that record where it exists and begin to build a record where 

there is none. 

In addition to our belief that collection of monitoring data leads to better management of range resources it is also a statutory requirement of the BLM and Forest 

Service to collect and analyze data on the condition and trend of federal rangeland. 

Statutes mandating such data collection are listed as follows: 

National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA)

• The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 directs the Forest Service to prepare land and resource management plans (LRMP) for individual units 

of the National Forest System. The forest plan ‘‘provides for multiple use and 

sustained yield of goods and services from the national forest... in a way that 

maximizes long-term net public benefits in an environmentally sound manner.’’ • The Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) must contain four specific 

categories of findings and conclusions. This includes that the LRMP must provide ‘‘monitoring and evaluation requirements that will provide a basis for periodic determination and evaluation of the effects of management practices.’’

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA)

• Sec. 2. Findings: 

• (3) to serve the national interest, the renewable resources program must be 

based on a comprehensive assessment of present and anticipated uses, demand for, and supply of renewable resources from the Nations’ public and private forests and rangelands . . . . • (4) the new knowledge derived from coordinated public and private research 

programs will promote a sound technical and ecological base for effective 

management, use, and protection of the Nations’ renewable resources. • Sec. 6. (g)(2)(B) ‘‘provide for obtaining inventory data on the various renewable 

resources, and soil and water, . . . . 

• Sec. 6g(3)(c) insure research on and (based on continuous monitoring and assessment in the field) evaluation of the effects of each management system to 

the end that it will not produce substantial and permanent impairment of the 

productivity of the land. 

Federal Lands Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA)

• Sec. 102. (a)(2) The national interest will be best realized if the public lands and 

their resources are periodically and systematically inventoried and their present 

and future use is projected through a land use planning process coordinated 

with other Federal and State planning efforts. 

Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (PRIA)

• Sec. 2. (b)(1) inventory and identify current public rangelands conditions and 

trends as a part of the inventory process required by Section 201(1) of FLPMA 

• Sec. 2. (b)(2) manage, maintain and improve the condition of the public rangelands so that they become as productive as feasible for all rangeland 

values . . . . 

• Sec. 4. (a) Following enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior and the 

Secretary of Agriculture shall update, develop (where necessary) and maintain 

on a continuing basis thereafter, an inventory of range conditions and record of 

trends of range conditions on the public rangelands, and shall categorize or 

identify such lands on the basis of the range conditions and trends thereof as 

they deem appropriate. Such inventories shall be conducted and maintained by 

the Secretary as a part of the inventory process required by section 201 (a) of 

the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1711). and by the Secretary of Agriculture in accordance with section 5 of the Forest and Rangeland 

Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1603); shall be kept current on a regular basis so as to reflect changes in range conditions; and shall 

be available to the public.

To be of most value the data collected should be of physically measurable characteristics, repeatable and demonstrate consistent results over time. There are widely 

accepted methods of collecting range monitoring data that involve transects to determine composition, ground cover, exclosures for utilization studies and various other 

techniques that have been proven to give useful data and repeatable results. 

13

Change in range condition normally happens slowly in arid climates, which describes most of our western rangelands. Under such conditions a one-point-in-time 

assessment of rangeland is not useful. Data must be collected over several growing 

seasons to be of maximum value. Long-term, quantitative, vegetative monitoring 

has proven to be the most accurate method of assessing range condition and trend. 

The ’more years of data in the database, the more useful the information is. 

In addition to the quantitative vegetative monitoring, data is needed on the impacts of uses other than livestock grazing on rangeland. Methods to assess forage 

use specifically by different species of wildlife, impacts on forage production by oil 

and gas production and recreational use of federal lands need to be developed. It 

should not be assumed that all impacts of use are attributable to livestock grazing. 

Monitoring should be one of the agencies’ highest priorities. If more resources 

were directed to that effort many of the other problems that drain off personnel and 

budget would be avoided. 

RANCHER MONITORING

New Mexico livestock organizations, in cooperation with NMSU, NMDA and Soil 

& Water Conservation districts have encouraged rancher monitoring, not to replace 

agency efforts, but for their own use in management decision-making and in the 

event of adverse action by the agencies or third parties. We have always encouraged 

federal land ranchers to participate in agency monitoring efforts so they understand 

the data collection and analysis process. The BLM has recently asked us to encourage rancher monitoring on a cooperative basis with the agency. The New Mexico 

livestock industry is currently discussing ways we could assist the BLM in monitoring data collection. 

However, even if a significant number of ranchers participate with the agencies 

in monitoring efforts there are still hurdles to overcome. Rancher-collected data will 

be viewed as biased by grazing opponents. Agencies will have to review and authenticate data at a level to insure credibility. 

Cooperation with the agencies will have to be carried out on an allotment-by-allotment basis. Not all ranchers will be able to participate at the same level. The agencies will still have to administer the program and fill in the gaps where rancher 

data is insufficient. If the agencies have budgetary and personnel constraints; 

rancher resources are even more limited. Even with most optimistic estimates of 

how many ranchers will be able to undertake the task, it is unrealistic to expect 

the industry to be able to collect monitoring data at the level needed. 

Credible scientific data will provide basis for sound decisions and avoid costly conflict and legal actions that have drained so much of the agencies’ resources over the 

last several years. Agency investment in monitoring is a cost-effective policy. 

Whatever the industry response may be to rancher monitoring, the agencies are 

still legally required to collect data. Ranchers should not be expected to assume the 

agencies’ responsibility, which in reality as an industry will not be able to. 

The need for continued monitoring by both the BLM and Forest Service where 

there is a record of data and to begin data collection efforts where there the record 

is incomplete should be one of the agencies’ highest priorities. 

STANDARDS & GUIDES IMPLEMENTATION

There are serious problems with the way the Standards for Public Land Health 

and Guidelines for Grazing Management are being implemented in New Mexico and 

across the west. The Standards and Guides require an assessment of ‘‘rangeland 

health.’’ ‘‘Rangeland health’’ is a term the agencies have begun to use to replace the 

historical ‘‘Range Condition’’ with mixed results. Both are value-laden terms, the 

term ‘‘health’’ is less appropriate to describe rangeland. If ‘‘health’’ is determined to 

be less than optimum, the assumption is made that there is an illness with a cause 

that should be remedied. These analogies do not fit rangeland management. 

In New Mexico a process has begun to assess priority watersheds in BLM field 

office areas. These ‘‘watershed assessments’’ are conducted using a process outlined 

in a BLM technical reference titled ‘‘Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health.’’ 

This methodology is not science-based and results in an evaluation that is highly 

subjective. 

The evaluation of a particular site is reflected as a rating that is nothing more 

than a compilation of ratings of different attributes of the range site. The observer 

ranks what he sees compared to what he believes should exist under a set of defined 

conditions. The danger is that this process gives a ratings score to something that 

is not measured by any quantifiable method. 

This process violates one of the basic principles of range science by rendering a 

conclusion on rangeland health or condition based on a one-point-in-time assessVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:35 Nov 10, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\96667.TXT SENE3 PsN: SCAN
14

ment. A basic tenet of range management especially on and or semi-arid rangelands 

is that data must be collected over time to be of use. And these assessments are 

only interpreted subjective opinions, not scientific data. 

Page 1 of the technical reference defines how this process is to be used. It is specifically NOT to be used to ‘‘independently generate national or regional assessments of rangeland health.’’

‘‘The approach described in this technical reference IS designed to:

• Be used only by knowledgeable, experienced people 

• Provide a preliminary evaluation of soil/site stability, hydrologic function, and 

integrity of the biotic community (at the ecological site level). 

• Help land managers identify areas that are potentially at risk of degradation. 

• Provide early warnings of potential problems and opportunities 

• Be used to communicate fundamental ecological concepts to a wide variety of 

audiences in the field. 

The approach is NOT to be used to:

• Identify the cause(s) of resource problems. 

• Make grazing and other management decisions. 

• Monitor land or determine trend. 

• Independently generate national or regional assessments of rangeland health.’’

These assessments are a comparison of what the observer believes should exist 

on the site compared to observed conditions. There are many factors including lack 

of familiarity with similar range sites and inexperience in range evaluation that can 

lead to erroneous results from this process. Because of the subjective nature of the 

evaluations, the results are not repeatable. Sites monitored by this method cannot 

be monitored over time to provide useful data because the next evaluator may not 

see the same conditions the same way. 

Condition of some range sites is influenced by factors that cannot be changed by 

altering grazing management. This process may not identify these factors. The results could be used to suggest a solution to a problem that in reality will provide 

no remedy. Example: A proposed solution to localized erosion could be to reduce or 

remove livestock grazing when the only management practice that will have any effect on the problem may be mechanical erosion control. Although grazing may be 

involved in the condition, modification of grazing management by itself may not be 

part of the solution. Example: Grazing management may have no effect on brush 

encroachment on a range site without some form of brush control. 

Professional and academic range scientists have told us that this process is not 

science based and the results cannot be compared to quantitative vegetative analysis. Decisions based on these findings will not lend themselves to the PRIA Section 

8 process that has been used in New Mexico to such benefit because these decisions 

will not be based on any facts that can be scientifically confirmed or denied. 

We have not been able to find any significant benefit to the enhancement of range 

management from this process. 

Traditional vegetative monitoring is not as simple or as fast as the methods described above but there is no shortcut to obtaining useful data. While the BLM’s 

desire to use this method to gather range data because it is fast, easy and considerably less work is understandable, it does not meet the standard of good range 

science. Monitoring quantitative vegetative attributes of range sites is still the only 

way to get usable results. 

New methods of assessing some of these attributes are under discussion by range 

scientists and academics. The agencies should consider how they can incorporate the 

latest proven scientific methods into their monitoring program. 

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

We understand the desire to manage on a watershed basis. However the term 

‘‘watershed’’ can have different meanings that vary widely in scope. There must be 

recognition that resource problems can be different from area to area even within 

the same allotment in a defined watershed. Solutions to problems have to be found 

and applied on an individual basis. A localized problem should not lead to management prescriptions applied to the whole watershed unless it is demonstrated by 

sound data that it is needed across the wider area. 

NEPA COMPLIANCE

One of the reasons there is a shortage of personnel and resources to accomplish 

monitoring is the preparation of Environmental Assessments (EAs) for renewal of 

15

grazing permits. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations require 

each federal agency to develop its own set of NEPA procedures (40 CFR 1507.3) 

These agency procedures identify: 

a. which types of actions normally meet the criteria for preparation of EIS (i.e. 

if the action is a ‘‘major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment’’); 

b. which actions normally require EAs; and 

c. which actions normally do not have a significant effect on the quality of the 

human environment and therefore can be categorically excluded from further NEPA 

review procedures 

Agency personnel have become increasingly occupied with burdensome procedural 

tasks such as preparing Environmental Assessments for every permit renewal. If 

BLM and Forest Service range staff were relieved of some of these burdens, they 

would have more time to conduct rangeland monitoring and would then have the 

data to enable them to manage more effectively. 

A categorical exclusion from NEPA analysis should be applied to the regular permit renewal process. The grazing program has undergone a programmatic EIS and 

all revisions to management plans must undergo NEPA analysis. That should be 

sufficient to comply with the congressional intent of NEPA. 

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT COMPLIANCE

Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance is another process that distracts agency 

range staff and budget from meaningful range management. The single species 

management that occurs as result of ESA concerns leads to poor federal land natural resource management. BLM and Forest Service managers should not abdicate 

their role in managing resources under their responsibility to the Fish & Wildlife 

Service (FWS). Modification of the ESA to allow common sense solutions to be applied to endangered species concerns and limit legal action is desperately needed. 

Current ESA administration is not environmentally or fiscally responsible. There 

should also be legislation to require that ranchers or other private property owners 

be compensated for the replacement value of grazing capacity or other property 

taken for the benefit of endangered species. 

FOREST SERVICE ISSUES

The relationship between ranching community and the Forest Service in the 

Southwest Region is not good. This is not a new problem and we recognize that resolution will not be easy. We are hopeful that there has been recognition of the seriousness of the problem and that steps are being taken toward solutions. The recent 

instruction to FS range personnel to incorporate Section 8 of PRIA into their grazing 

allotment administration is a positive step. We find that the agency’s use of punitive 

reductions in cattle numbers is not productive. But there is gratification that the 

Forest Service has become concerned enough with the plight of ranchers in the 

Southwest Region that a separate working group has been tasked to address the 

problem. 

How on-the-ground issues are handled at the allotment level will be the way success in rebuilding the relationship is judged. We will do our part in that effort. 

PROPOSED CHANGES TO BLM REGULATIONS

The New Mexico livestock industry has been extremely pleased that the BLM has 

undertaken grazing regulatory reform, although in our view the reform may not go 

far enough. Our detailed comments are submitted as an attachment to this testimony and here are a few of the points our producers keyed in on.

• Section 4 permits 

• We requested that monitoring data should be one of the required sources of information used to determine status of Rangeland Health. (More appropriate 

term—Range Condition) 

• Inclusion of socio-economic factors in analysis of agency action (Human Dimension Standard) 

• Reinstatement of District Grazing Advisory Boards 

• Moving whole Standards & Guides section from Part 4180 to Part 1610 planning section of the regs. 

• Elimination of subleasing surcharge, not included in draft regs. but should have 

been, not a grazing fee issue. 

• Interested public definition 

• Burden of proof should be on BLM 

16

• Monitoring data has to be used to make decisions, not just rangeland health assessment

We have covered a great deal of ground here today and I know that addressing 

even a single portion of our concerns will require dedication and cooperation on the 

part of ranchers as well as federal land management agencies. We in New Mexico 

are certainly willing to do what we can to that end. Thank you for your time today 

and your consideration of these comments as they impact federal legislation. 

The following attachments have been retained in subcommittee files:

1. New Mexico Public Lands Council BLM Regulatory Reform Comments, 

March 2004 

2. BLM / Governor of New Mexico MOU 

3. U.S. Forest Service / NMDA MOU

Senator CRAIG. Mike, thank you very much. 

Now, Bob, we will hear from you. 

STATEMENT OF BOB SKINNER, ON BEHALF OF THE SHEEP 

AND CATTLE RANCHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC LANDS 

COUNCIL AND THE NATIONAL CATTLEMEN’S BEEF ASSOCIATION 

Mr. SKINNER. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and other members 

of the subcommittee. My name is Bob Skinner. I am a fifth generation rancher from Jordan Valley, Oregon. Our ranch currently has 

a BLM permit that allows us to utilize approximately 5,750 animal 

unit months for cattle in the Vale District in southeast Oregon. 

I am immediate past president of the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association and currently a National Public Lands Council delegate 

from my State of Oregon. I very much appreciate the opportunity 

to be here today to provide some of my experience as a public lands 

grazing permittee to this committee on behalf of grazing permittees 

across the West. 

Ranching out West has certainly been part of the landscape, the 

economy, and the custom and culture for well over a century now. 

More than 23,000 grazing permits, which are represented mostly 

by families that are not unlike mine, comprise the majority of permittees. All of the producer groups that I have and do represent 

support multiple use and sustained yield of the resources. 

Oregonians are rightfully proud of the many beautiful rivers that 

run through our State. Unfortunately, as things so often happen, 

management of these rivers and particularly those with segments 

that have been designated under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

have recently wreaked havoc with the livestock industry. The intent and spirit of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act has, at least we 

believe, been violated in that it now is used as a springboard to 

support litigation against our land management agencies and, of 

course, ultimately our people who are dependent upon these permits. 

The problem that has developed in Oregon is that extreme special interest groups have repeatedly brought suit against the land 

management agencies, in this case both BLM and Forest Service, 

because the management plans called for in this act may not directly address impacts such as grazing to the wild and scenic values. These special interest groups have mission statements that 

bluntly state that ‘‘they are out to terminate grazing.’’

In Oregon alone, special interest groups have brought suit challenging grazing under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act on the 

17

Donner und Blitzen River, the John Day, the Malheur, Murderer’s 

Creek, and Owyhee Rivers. Approximately 25 ranches are currently 

fighting for the livelihoods on the Malheur and Murderer’s Creek 

corridors. As the landowner representative that has been involved 

in several of these efforts, I can assure this committee that the anguish and frustration with the system is just devastating, not to 

mention the enormous financial burden that is necessary to fight 

for your life. 

The Oregon Cattlemen’s Association, along with the Public Lands 

Council and NCBA, ask this committee to bring a better balance 

between grazing and river protection to the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Act. The people whose lives and livelihoods are rooted in rural Oregon deserve attention for a remedy. There is no question that the 

law should prevent degradation of river values. We do not feel as 

though the intent of the law is to wreak havoc on rural families 

and communities in Oregon and throughout the West. We offer to 

work with the members of this committee to bring a better balance 

to the act and better carry out the spirit and intent of the law. 

An area of ongoing concern in the ranching industry is the Endangered Species Act, in particular, the potential listing of the sage 

grouse under the act. The greater sage grouse resides in 13 States 

in the West, including a significant population in southeast Oregon. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is currently reviewing multiple 

petitions to list the sage grouse as threatened or endangered under 

the Endangered Species Act and is scheduled to complete a 12-

month species status review by the beginning of 2005. 

Should Fish and Wildlife Service conclude at the end of this status review that listing the bird is warranted under the act, virtually all land use in the 13 States with designated habitat will be 

impacted. Unprecedented cooperation between Federal and State 

agencies, along with industry, is certainly helping compile data to 

prevent a listing. 

The Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies recently 

completed a conservation assessment of the status of the grouse. 

The assessment concluded that the population numbers have been 

stable for the last 15 years and that a number of areas in the West 

continue to have viable concentrations of populations. While there 

is some concern whether the population numbers will remain viable into the future, it also seems clear that the bird is not threatened with extinction at this time. 

I have heard it said by several agency personnel back in my 

home State of Oregon that this potential listing is not about saving 

the bird, but instead about grazing. The potential social and economic effects of listing in the West are devastating. I can personally remember when sage grouse numbers were supposedly at their 

peak in the latter 1950’s and 1960’s, and I have to remind the committee that this point in time is also when range conditions were 

at an historic low point. Agencies and industry alike were managing our rangelands for maximum production with little understanding of what may happen to the sustainability of the resource. 

Those days are long gone. We realize now the importance of rangeland ecology to not only the resource, but to our livelihoods as well. 

Invasive plants are one of the issues that we need to address and 

we most certainly appreciate Senator Craig’s effort with S. 144. We 

18

very much applaud that effort, and I think I have testified to your 

committee previously on that. We would like to get that in the 

record today. We realize that S. 144 has passed the Senate twice 

and currently is being considered by the House Ag and Resources 

Committees. Any help members of this committee can offer to enact 

S. 144 during this session of Congress would be much appreciated. 

The Public Lands Council and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association are committed to seeing that this bill pass and do pledge their 

help. 

The wild horses are a non-native species that is threatening our 

Western rangeland. In my recent conversations with local BLM 

personnel, I am very disturbed to learn that dwindling local resources and manpower are being diverted to deal with horses. We 

realize that the health of our rangelands is at stake here and understand the importance of gathering these horses. However, to diminish rangeland resources to address a single non-native could be 

a huge problem. We have so many issues facing us right now. 

In conclusion, I want to thank the members of this committee, 

particularly my Senator from Oregon, Senator Ron Wyden, for 

their important support for livestock grazing issues. Public Lands 

Council and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association staff have assured me they are ready and anxious to work with all of you to 

help resolve many of these issues I have talked about today. Thank 

you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Skinner follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BOB SKINNER, ON BEHALF OF THE SHEEP AND CATTLE

RANCHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL AND THE NATIONAL CATTLEMEN’S BEEF ASSOCIATION

Good afternoon, Chairman Craig and Distinguished Members of this Subcommittee, my name is Bob Skinner. I am a fifth-generation rancher from Jordan 

Valley, Oregon. I run 5,750 animal unit months of cattle on Bureau of Land Management land in the Vail District. I also served as President of the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to provide some of 

my experience in public lands grazing to the Committee on behalf of the sheep and 

cattle rancher members of the Public Lands Council and the National Cattlemen’s 

Beef Association. 

The Public Lands Council (PLC) represents sheep and cattle ranchers in 15 western states whose livelihood and families have depended on federal grazing permits 

dating back to the beginning of last century. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) is the trade association of America’s cattle farmers and ranchers, and 

the marketing organization for the largest segment of the nation’s food and fiber industry. Both PLC and the NCBA strive to create a stable regulatory environment 

in which our members can thrive. 

Ranching out west has been part of the landscape, the economy, and the culture 

for approximately three centuries. About 214 of the 262 million acres managed by 

BLM are classified as ‘‘rangelands,’’ as are 76 million of the 191 million acres managed by the Forest Service. More than 23,000 permittees, their families, and their 

employees manage livestock to harvest the annually renewed grass resource grown 

on this land. Western ranching operations provide important additional benefits to 

the Nation by helping to preserve open space and reliable waters for wildlife, by 

serving as recharge areas for groundwater, and by supporting the economic infrastructure for rural communities. Our policy is to support the multiple-use and sustained-yield of the resources and services from our public lands which we firmly believe brings the greatest benefit to the largest number of Americans. 

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS AND RANCHING IN OREGON

Oregonians are rightfully proud of the many beautiful rivers that course through 

our state. Unfortunately, as things so often happen, management of these rivers, 

and particularly those with segments that have been designated under the Wild 

19

River and Scenic Act, has brought harm to other segments in society, in this case 

the state’s rural ranching communities. A better balance between ranching and 

river protection needs to be struck under the Act. 

The Wild and Scenic River Act protects existing uses along designated river corridors, such as grazing. However, the Act also requires these existing uses to protect 

and ‘‘enhance’’ the values for which the river corridors were designated under the 

Act. PLC and NCBA believes that properly managed grazing can be compatible with 

maintaining healthy river corridors. However, the ‘‘enhance’’ standard in the Act 

poses a virtually impossible hurdle for grazing to meet. In each instance in which 

environmentalists have brought suit challenging grazing management plan for corridors along rivers designated under the Act, grazing has been eliminated. 

In Oregon alone, environmentalists have brought suit challenging grazing under 

the Wild and Scenic River Act on the Donner und Blitzen, the John Day, the 

Malheuer, and the Owyhee Rivers. Approximately 25 ranches were forced to cease 

operations as a result of the Malheur River suit alone. It is safe to assume that 

similar numbers were adversely affected by the actions brought on the other rivers. 

Elimination of these ranch operations means the elimination of a way of life that 

has been in place for generations in many cases. Without the ranches and their economic activity, the local communities obviously suffer as well, and ultimately the 

fabric of life in rural Oregon. 

PLC and NCBA ask this Committee to bring a better balance between grazing 

and river protection to the Wild and Scenic River Act. The people whose lives are 

rooted in rural Oregon deserve the respect and attention of this body. The law 

should prevent degradation of river values. It need not bring harm to rural families 

and communities in Oregon and throughout the west. We would be pleased to work 

with the members of this committee to bring a better balance to the Act. 

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT AND SAGE GROUSE

An area of ongoing concern in the ranching industry is the Endangered Species 

Act, and in particular the potential listing of the sage grouse under the Act. The 

Greater sage grouse resides in 13 states in the west, including a significant population in southeast Oregon. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is currently 

reviewing multiple petitions to list the sage grouse as threatened or endangered 

under the Endangered Species Act, and is scheduled to complete a 12-month species 

status review by the beginning of 2005. 

Should the FWS conclude at the end of the status review that listing the bird is 

warranted under the Act, virtually all land use in the 13 states with habitat will 

be impacted. PLC and NCBA recognize the obligation of the federal government to 

avoid jeopardy and conserve wildlife under the ESA. For this reason, our members 

have been active participants in an unprecedented locally-led single-species conservation efforts in all of the affected states. The BLM, Forest Service, and NRCS 

are collecting and cataloguing information about conservation practices that have 

been implemented using federal dollars and the Western Governor’s Association is 

collecting the same information for work that has been conducted on private lands. 

All three agencies have also given special priority to funding sage grouse conservation projects. 

The Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies recently completed a conservation assessment of the status of the sage grouse. The assessment concluded 

that the population numbers have been stable for the last 15 years and that a number of areas in the west continue to have viable concentrations of populations. While 

there is some concern whether the population numbers will remain viable into the 

future, it also seems clear that the bird is not in threatened with extinction at this 

time. 

In the face of these conservation efforts and findings about the population, many 

members of the public will become discouraged if FWS exercises its regulatory authority to list the bird and usurp the conservation efforts of states and local working 

groups which consist of local stakeholders. Local conservation efforts would be at 

risk for fading away. Industry members fear that a listing would create a new issue 

for litigation every time a new permit is issued. Our members also obviously fear 

that a decision to list could lead the FWS to impose regulatory conditions that could 

drive many ranchers out of business. 

We are further concerned that managing a bird with a west-wide range would be 

more of a workload than the FWS is prepared to handle. In this situation, the agency would understandably be put in a position when it would be forced to make 

quick, general management decisions that could ignore actual conditions on the 

ground. PLC and NCBA firmly believes that the best hope for conservation in this 

20

country is to engage as many local elements of society as possible. A FWS decision 

to list the bird is antithetical to this vision. 

The personal experience of one of our members in Nevada gives us hope that an 

overall positive solution can be found for managing sage grouse populations. This 

rancher has grazed the same allotment for 27 years. When sage grouse population 

numbers were first called into question a few years ago, 5,000 birds were identified 

on the allotments. Since that time, resource specialists have come to believe there 

are more than 13,000 birds on the allotment. We believe that range-wide there is 

a sustainable number of sage grouse that can coexist successfully with livestock 

grazing. 

WILD HORSES AND BURROS

The Wild Horse and Burro program within the Bureau of Land Management 

needs congressional attention. Horse populations are exploding and the agency lacks 

the resources and authority to deal with them. 

Wild horses are not native to the west. They first appeared on the range after 

being abandoned or having escaped from early ranchers. The numbers of these 

horses grew until today there are approximately 36,000 horses on the open range, 

and 14,000 in long-term care. The goal of the program is to manage horse numbers 

at the appropriate management level (AML). The BLM has rarely if ever met this 

goal in the 30 year life of the program. 

Overpopulation of the horses is a problem for wildlife, vegetation, and of course, 

livestock grazing. The resource damage that occurs is devastating and takes many 

years to recover. The horses also cause damage to water holes, springs and riparian 

areas. Most big game numbers are controlled to a degree by predators and hunting. 

Livestock is managed in a systematic manner and move according to season and forage availability. Like all farm or ranch animals and wildlife, we believe horses too 

should be managed to keep them at or below the established AML. 

Just this past week at a public lands meeting of the Nevada Cattlemen’s Association, a permittee from Elko County Nevada came to us with his story. He has a winter permit to run cows and last fall as he was preparing to turn out, he discovered 

that the horses had totally used up the forage beyond the 60% utilization level that 

he is allowed to take. On the other hand, he would have been required to move his 

livestock when the 60% utilization occurred. The AML for that allotment is 181 

head of horses, while the actual count last fall was 589 head. This is just one example of many across the western ranges. We have been contacted by permittees from 

Oregon, Idaho, and Wyoming because of their frustration with unmanaged wild 

horse populations and the adverse impacts these populations have had on their 

ranching operations. 

PLC and NCBA would love to see the horse populations better managed through 

more effective adoption programs. To date, it appears that adoptions will not be able 

significant reduce the numbers of horses on the range. While the percentage of 

horses adopted in recent years has increased, horse adoption rates overall have declined over the years. All the same, any effort to increase adoptions by making 

greater use of third parties to perform the work may be an important step in the 

right direction. Incentives could also be identified to encourage non-profit foundations to become more involved in with facilitating horse adoption. 

The other existing solution for removing horses from the range is long-term care 

facilities, which is also accounts for the disposition of most horses removed from the 

range. Currently, there are approximately 14,000 horses and burros in long-term 

holding facilities, more than one-third of the entire wild horse and burro population. 

Horses can enter long-term facilities at a young age and live to 22 years and older. 

Long-term care costs taxpayers $1.25 per horse, per day, which quickly becomes a 

large financial burden. 

Wild horses are not native to the west. They first appeared on the range after 

being abandoned or having escaped from early ranchers. Horse in long-term facilities, in particular, are domestic animals. They are not running free on the open 

range and the vast majority of them will never do so again. Many of the horses are 

older and have been put up unsuccessfully for adoption several times. The likelihood 

is slim that horses rejected for adoption more than once will ever be adopted. 

In short, the Horse and Burro program is crying for congressional attention. We 

would be pleased to work with the Committee on solutions. 

NOXIOUS WEEDS

Invasives are one of those issues that do not jump out to grab the headlines. All 

the same, weeds are slowly taking over the landscape of many prime grazing areas 

and other natural areas and have the potential to take over many more. While a 

21

number of government programs exist that help the edges of the problem, no single 

program exists that focuses the cooperative energies necessary to succeed in defeating the onslaught of weeds. 

That is, no program before Senator Craig introduced his bill, S. 144. This important proposal relies on local cooperative weed management entities to identify and 

solve their weed problems on public and private lands. Local action is the proper 

focus for an issue that in large degree is a local land use control issue. S. 144 leaves 

it to the states to decide which of the local activities merit funding and minimizes 

the control that federal officials have over local land use. 

This important bill has passed the Senate twice. Currently it is being considered 

by the House Agriculture and Resources Committees. Any help members of this 

committee can offer to enact S. 144 this session of Congress would be very appreciated by PLC and NCBA. We thank Senator Craig and the members of this committee for their work on this important issue. 

CONCLUSION

I want to thank the members of this committee, and particularly Senator Wyden, 

for their important support for livestock grazing on public lands. PLC and NCBA 

staff are anxious to work with you to solve the many problems facing our members.

Senator CRAIG. Bob, thank you very much. 

We have been joined by my colleague, Craig Thomas of the great 

State of Wyoming. Craig, would you wish to make any opening 

comment? And I will let you start the questioning. 

Senator THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The opening comment, of course, is that we are all very concerned about the grazing, about the management of public lands 

for multiple use. As times change, they become more difficult. So 

I thank you very much for being here and talking somewhat about 

the issues that are there. 

Let me go back just a little and ask you to sort of put a priority 

on it. What do you think is the major problem, and what would you 

do about it? 

Mr. GROSETA. The grazing permit renewal is a problem that 

needs to be addressed. We have been on the band aid approach for 

several years I think as we all recognize, and we do appreciate 

what has transpired. Now we have legislation for 5 years, 4 years 

remaining. As I had shared with you in my presentation, in order 

to remedy that, I think that we need to be much more aggressive 

in NEPA reform. We really need to look at ESA and look at that 

hard. There has been a lot of talk about it, but no one seems to 

be willing to step up to the plate and to really address that issue 

and to resolve that. I really think that is the source of the problem 

that we really need to look at. 

Senator THOMAS. So the environmental analysis is too complicated and so on. 

Mr. Casabonne. 

Mr. CASABONNE. I would agree with that. The NEPA analysis 

that has to be done on permit renewal, of course, puts us in jeopardy by not being able to get the permits renewed in a timely manner, and if it were not for the legislation that kind of saves us from 

that, we would be gone. 

And then the other thing that that does is it takes the range personnel away from doing what we think should be their main job, 

and that would be monitoring and collecting the data that we think 

will show them how the land needs to be managed and will be information for us. It would also demonstrate to the public our record 

of stewardship, which we believe is important. We are not afraid 

22

of the monitoring data. We think there should be more of it collected, not less. 

Senator THOMAS. What is the answer to being able to do this 

more quickly or in a more timely way? 

Mr. CASABONNE. If there were the categorical exclusion for the 

NEPA analysis, the environmental assessments on renewal of 

every term permit as permit renewal was more of simple process, 

before you had to do the NEPA analysis, and then the range folks, 

instead of sitting in the office having to write NEPA documents all 

the time, could be out on your place running transects on the range 

study sites, and they would collect the monitoring data. 

Senator THOMAS. Mr. Skinner, what is your priority? What do 

you think is the most important problem and how do you fix it? 

Mr. SKINNER. In our area that thing that pops to my mind, Senator, is our litigation issues. It hamstrings the agencies. It is diverting manpower and money, both from the agencies and from the 

private sector. It takes personnel out of the field which is what my 

colleagues have been talking about. To address these constant assaults in the courts has just totally changed the management 

scheme of the agencies. It has lowered the morale in the agencies. 

It is just a real, real problem in the State where I am. 

Senator THOMAS. These are generally suits with respect to endangered species. They are not grazing particularly, but it has an 

impact on the grazing. 

Mr. SKINNER. Oh, yes. 

Senator THOMAS. They do not sue about the grazing permit itself 

often, do they? 

Mr. SKINNER. Well, indirectly. It is like they have told me in the 

past. They do not sue ranchers, but they do sue ranchers. They do 

not file suit against the ranchers. They file against the Forest Service or the BLM in our case, and of course, the ranchers are the permittees. So they are the ones that suffer the ultimate consequence. 

Senator THOMAS. No. I understand. 

Mr. SKINNER. Like in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act case, the 

law is clear. It states that grazing shall continue, but it says that 

they have to write the management plan. It is a long story. 

Senator THOMAS. There is one other area, before I run out of 

time, that we are particularly involved with, and you mentioned it, 

and that is wild horses. You mentioned the gathering process 

which we seem to be able to do rather efficiently and quite often. 

The problem is once they are gathered, what do you do with them? 

How would you handle that issue? 

Mr. SKINNER. That is a big, bib problem. We need to address 

that, and I think in talking to the BLM local office, $1.25 approximately per head. I cannot verify these numbers. They told me that 

currently there are around 22,000 of them in storage, whatever you 

call it. That is just an absolute, enormous burden on the taxpayer. 

Senator THOMAS. No question. 

Mr. SKINNER. I do not know what the answer is. 

Senator THOMAS. We have talked to them about increasing the 

eligible adoption numbers that a person could, if they choose. But 

you are right. 

I guess I am about out of time. But I have a bill in that says 

for endangered species, there has to be additional scientific inforVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:35 Nov 10, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\96667.TXT SENE3 PsN: SCAN
23

mation. It can be listed pretty easily now, and when they are listed, there ought to be a delisting process along with it. I think there 

have been almost 2,000 listed and only 20 delisted. 

What would you think of that? Do you think there ought to be 

more science to go into the listing process? 

Mr. GROSETA. Yes, and it needs to be science-based, fact-based. 

Senator THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CRAIG. Craig, thank you very much. 

Andy, the restocking plan for the Tonto National Forest and the 

effort that has been made in completing that is quite impressive. 

What do you attribute your success in reaching an agreement to? 

Mr. GROSETA. Well, collectively the cattlemen got engaged, along 

with the agency folks, and I think collectively all of us realized that 

we needed to work together. We are in this together. It was a situation that was created and precipitated to a point where with the 

drought conditions basically the Tonto National Forest was zeroed 

out. Last summer they had less than 1,000 head out of a total of 

60,000 permitted numbers on that forest. 

But through the efforts of the Gila County Cattle Growers, the 

local Cattlemen’s Association, the Arizona Cattle Growers, the 

PLC, NCBA, those people came back here to D.C., met with the 

staff, met with the regional people, and we came up with this restocking agreement. It was an agreement that we all collectively 

worked on and agreed to, and hopefully this is a model or a template that we can use in other places in the West because time will 

tell whether or not this is really going to work. We are looking 

right now at the implementation. We just got the agreement signed 

the first week of this month. All the groups signed a cover letter. 

That cover letter is going out now, I am told, as we speak, to all 

of the grazing permittees on the Tonto National Forest. 

The cattlemen have the opportunity—and this is one thing that 

is unique and was different than the past—of pulling together 

range resource teams, technical teams. They have the ability to use 

University of Arizona extension agents, private range consultants, 

or what we call third party people to bring them to the table. The 

Forest Service now has acknowledged they will use input from 

those folks. So it is just another way to bring more information to 

the table. 

And the recommendation from that group will be to the forest 

line officer and hopefully to get these folks back on the land. Some 

of them have been off the land 2, 3, and 4 years. They are totally 

out of business, and it is very difficult now to get back engaged in 

business. 

But we are excited, and I tip my hat to the Forest Service and 

also to the cattle growers. It was a collective effort to pull this off. 

As I said, the jury is still out, so to speak, but we are very excited 

about it. Hopefully it will be a template that we can use in other 

places in the West. 

Senator CRAIG. Is there flexibility in the plan to address any 

changes in conditions? 

Mr. GROSETA. Yes. Each rancher has the ability of putting together a team to bring in his own people to assess the conditions 

and its stock and monitoring is a critical component of this. They 

will go out and make an assessment, and then they will make a 

24

recommendation to the forest line officer. But we have flexibility 

where it is just not the agency making the decision. Now there is 

input from the ranching side. The rancher has the ability to go out 

and get a third party consultant, an outside consultant, and with 

them, they can make a recommendation to the line officer, this is 

what we want to do. Then they will go out and monitor. And monitoring is the name of the game. You have heard it several times 

this afternoon. 

In Arizona, we are very excited. The Arizona Cattle Growers has 

an arrangement with the NRCS. We have a person on board to 

work with cattlemen. This Tonto thing, this person will be engaged 

with the cattlemen on the Tonto. But actual dollars, time, and energy will be spent with the grazing permittee. And the Forest Service will recognize the facts and data collected by these third party 

vendors. So, yes, we are very excited about it. We have really nowhere to go but up in that particular situation. 

As I said, I commend the agency and the cattle growers for putting this together. I think it does a lot of things. It is something 

that we need to try and it is positive. 

Senator CRAIG. I appreciate that testimony. It is nice to hear 

when parties can come together collectively, something can come of 

it. 

And you are right. Monitoring is the name of the game. Mike, I 

want to switch to you because in your comments and testimony you 

talked a good deal about that. And it is important, and the great 

tragedy today with the resource we have within our agencies is 

that many of them spend more time in shop, if you will, doing exactly what you were talking about, than out on the ground. 

But when they go out on the ground, I have called it range management by yardstick. They take a ruler along and they measure 

the stubble. Therefore, that is the whole trend line, if you will, of 

the condition of the range. We are talking about standards and 

guidelines and all of that that may or may not work. I would like 

to think that good minds and collaborative processes understand 

range conditions, also historic knowledge not a yardstick. 

How would you propose correcting some of the problems we have 

got today as it relates to monitoring? 

Mr. CASABONNE. Senator Craig, I agree with you 100 percent. 

Some of the things that we have done in New Mexico with the 

BLM that have worked for a long time, similarly to what Andy is 

talking about that they have worked out with the Forest Service 

in their restocking plan on the Tonto, we always talk about section 

8 of PRIA. Section 8 of PRIA calls for careful and considered consultation, cooperation, and coordination with not only the permittees but with State agencies that are involved in land management. 

Years ago the State of New Mexico, through the Governor’s office, negotiated an MOU with the BLM to allow the New Mexico 

Department of Agriculture of the State, which has been represented by the Department of Agriculture, to cooperate with the 

BLM. Through an interdisciplinary team of range scientists, riparian specialists, wildlife specialists, and ag economists to analyze 

the socioeconomic impacts, they worked with the BLM and developed a monitoring protocol. It is not just a yardstick method, as 

25

you talked about, but it is a truly credible range science system of 

monitoring. 

And that is what has been done in some of the BLM field offices 

in New Mexico. It has not been done all over the State. It has been 

done to a greater or lesser degree in some places. I have been lucky 

enough on the allotments that I have anything to do with, we have 

over 20 years of monitoring data, and they were on a schedule to 

monitor every 5 years. Now they have fallen behind on that schedule because of these EA’s, primarily the environmental assessments that have to be done on permit renewal. That keeps the staff 

tied up in the office, and they do not have a chance to get out and 

do this kind of range monitoring. We think the methods are there. 

People know how to do that kind of stuff. They just need to have 

the priorities changed so they are not working on stuff in the office 

all the time and they are out doing these kinds of things. 

I would add that in the last revision to the grazing manual for 

the Forest Service, I think that I have seen a copy of that that said 

they are supposed to consider section 8 of PRIA. And I think that 

by consulting and cooperating, coordinating with the permittees 

and then the ability to involve the academic community or range 

consultants that have credibility that can institute monitoring protocols, that is a really beneficial thing, if the Forest Service will implement that to the degree that the BLM has in New Mexico. 

And we also have an MOU that is signed between the New Mexico Department of Agriculture and the Forest Service, which they 

have never really acknowledged and have never really used, but I 

think that can be a great process to help us and get more monitoring work done, which I think will benefit us all. 

It will also help protect us from these frivolous lawsuits that 

come along because if there is credible scientific data that will 

stand up in court, it is harder for groups to sue on things when 

they obviously do not have a case. And even if they do sue, the 

cases do not go very far. So it should be a cost effective thing for 

the agency to have a good, effective monitoring program in place 

so that they can be able to defend the actions that we know need 

to be taken. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, I totally concur with you. We will look at 

their budgets again, but you are right. There is a whole other set 

of policy out there that drives them in the directions that you have 

all spoken to, and that is part of the frustration I think all of us 

are attempting to deal with at this moment. 

Bob, you are right about the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and 

what is says as it relates to grazing. Now, I know Oregon is known 

for a lot of things. Is there something unique in the water out there 

that would cause parties to sue using Wild and Scenic Rivers to get 

cattle off the land? What causes that? That does not seem to be the 

tool in other areas of the country. 

Mr. SKINNER. Well, we have got a very liberal district court, and 

then we have got a very liberal Ninth Circuit that the district court 

has to answer to. There is no question that Oregon is the worst 

State for litigation in the Nation. There is no question. Every time 

I go to a public meeting, the rest of the people like these guys all 

wait to see what is going to happen to us because we are just 

under siege. There are some other States that are also under siege. 

26

But this is very carefully orchestrated. Make no mistake about 

it. We have a very liberal district court, and then of course, as you 

well know, that court has to fall back on the Ninth Circuit, which 

has not been all that friendly. That is why they are using us. That 

is why Oregon is in the fire line. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, I appreciate your frustration. We all recognize and go back to the point that Mike was making about monitoring and building a scientific base to make the arguments. If you 

cannot have that informational flow, you cannot make the arguments that justify a livestock presence there under the conditions 

so prescribed. It becomes increasingly difficult to sustain these lawsuits. 

Of course, you are right. It is orchestrated. There is no question 

there are organizations out there that have a very clear intent as 

it relates to getting livestock off the public lands. Hopefully, we 

have shifted some of that bias in the last few years. Many of us 

have worked mightily on it with the Department of the Interior 

and the Department of Agriculture to bring that pendulum back to 

center ground and to cause our agencies to work hard at bringing 

balance. The public policy is still there and the record is still there, 

and that in part is our difficulty. 

We have also struggled to attempt to bring some redirection to 

the Endangered Species Act. That has not occurred. It is not going 

to be an easy task to do. If we could get change to the President’s 

desk, he has pledged to sign it. I think he, like all of us, have seen 

its misuse as a law, but because it has become holy grail or at least 

is caused to be represented in that way, it is a very difficult law 

to make some reasonable adjustment in until it just runs amok. It 

has run amok in your State. It is running amok in our State right 

now with wolves, and it has happened in other States across the 

country. 

Now, of course, you have mentioned grouse and what we are 

doing there. We are going to be asking BLM in a few moments 

about that issue. That is tremendously important and we are working in a cooperative right now to see if we cannot get out in front 

of it with science to make the right decisions there. 

Thank you also for mentioning S. 144 and the cooperation with 

the National Cattlemen, along with Nature Conservancy and others. When you approach these things in the right way, you can 

build very valuable coalitions because certainly invasive species of 

weeds or plant life are damaging to the western ranges, and we 

have seen it in spades across my State and others. We are working 

hard to get that done. 

Gentlemen, thank you very much for your patience, first of all, 

and your presence here and your testimony and your involvement 

in these issues. We know that as active livestock producers, you 

take a lot of time away from your businesses to participate in this 

public process, and that is appreciated. We hope you will continue. 

We will try to make it a more productive experience. Thank you 

very much. 

Mr. GROSETA. Thank you. 

Mr. CASABONNE. Thank you. 

Mr. SKINNER. Thank you. 

27

Senator CRAIG. Now let me invite to the table Jim Hughes, Deputy Director of the Bureau of Land Management, Department of 

the Interior, and Tom Thompson, Deputy Chief, National Forest 

System, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Again, gentlemen, and those who accompany you, thank you for 

your patience and your staying power here today. I guess the shortness of our presence here today will be in direct relationship to 

your testimony. But we hope that it will be complete and comprehensive, and of course, your full statements are a part of the 

record. Jim, we will start with you. 

STATEMENT OF JIM HUGHES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF 

LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

ACCOMPANIED BY ED SHEPARD, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,

RENEWABLE RESOURCES AND PLANNING 

Mr. HUGHES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for inviting 

us to testify about the Bureau of Land Management rangelands. 

I am accompanied by Ed Shepard, BLM’s Assistant Director for 

Renewable Resources and Planning. 

The administration recognizes that ranching is an important 

component of the economies of many Western rural communities 

and it is the core of their history, their social fabric, and cultural 

identity. The BLM is committed to collaborating with those who 

work on the public lands as we strive for economically productive 

and environmentally healthy rangelands. 

The BLM manages grazing on more than 160 million acres of 

public lands in the West. In a typical year, the BLM has 1,500 permits up for renewal. The BLM experienced a spike in grazing permit renewals in 1999. Over 5,000 permits were due for renewal in 

1999, and 2,200 permits in the year 2000. Additionally, the BLM 

was required to improve environmental documentation for processing grazing permit and lease renewals. The increased workload 

made it clear that BLM would not meet the required deadlines for 

permit renewals. As Chairman Domenici stated, Congress gave us 

the language to protect the ranchers so we could try and work out 

a schedule to renew all these permits with the appropriate environmental analysis. 

Of the 12,041 grazing permits that expired between fiscal year 

1999 and fiscal year 2003, 10,234 have been fully processed. We believe at the BLM that the remaining backlog should be completed 

by the close of 2009, at which time the BLM plans to fully process 

all permits in the year they expire. 

A quick note on our grazing regulations: In the spring of 2003, 

we initiated a review of the regulations governing grazing management on public lands. The Secretary of the Interior announced the 

proposed rule in December 2003. The public comment period on the 

proposed rule closed in early March, and at this time we are in the 

process of reviewing and analyzing the public comments and drafting a final rule and EIS. The final EIS is scheduled to be completed 

and released in September of this year. We anticipate publishing 

the final rule in October, with an effective date of December of this 

year. 

The proposed rule recognizes that public land grazing has its 

roots in the settlement of the West. Communities and families still 

28

rely on a combination of public and private lands to sustain the 

rural landscape and open spaces. The changes outlined in the proposed rule are intended to be another important step forward to 

improve grazing, drawing upon the lessons learned since the previous revisions more than 8 years ago. 

Three major objectives of the proposed rule were to improve 

working relations with permittees and lessees, protect the health 

of the rangelands, and increase administrative effectiveness and efficiency. 

Regarding wild horses, the goal of BLM’s wild horse and burro 

program is to achieve and maintain healthy, viable wild horse and 

burro populations on the public lands that are in balance with 

other uses and the productive capability of their habitat. We need 

to achieve appropriate management levels to restore this balance. 

Current numbers of free-roaming wild horses and burros exceed appropriate management levels. 

The BLM’s strategy calls for removing enough wild horses and 

burros from the public lands now to achieve appropriate management levels. Removing excess animals will benefit the health of the 

herds, reduce the number of emergency gathers of animals during 

drought, improve habitat conditions for all public land resource 

users, and help to achieve healthy rangelands. The BLM recently received approval to reprogram $7.6 million 

from other programs to the wild horse and burro program in fiscal 

year 2004. We do understand the budget constraints facing the 

Congress, and we think this money will allow the BLM to move a 

significant number of animals from the rangelands into the adoption program or into long-term holding facilities. 

In regard to sage grouse, today the BLM manages about half of 

the remaining habitat for sage grouse. Although these birds range 

across 11 Western States and 2 provinces in Canada, their populations have decreased significantly over the past 4 decades as 

nearly one-half of their sagebrush nesting grounds were lost, degraded, or fragmented. 

The BLM is currently participating in cooperative conservation 

efforts that are being led by State wildlife agencies throughout the 

range of the sage grouse. 

Later this summer, the BLM expects to issue its National Sage 

Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy which will set out a framework for conservation of sage grouse and associated sagebrush 

habitats on lands administered by the BLM. The BLM’s national 

strategy has been designed to deliver a substantial Federal contribution to cooperative conservation efforts that are being led by 

State wildlife agencies throughout the range of the sage grouse in 

the West. 

Finally, the BLM is expending over $14 million in fiscal year 

2004 and we have requested an additional $3.2 million for fiscal 

year 2005 for restoration and conservation of sagebrush habitat. By 

taking proactive steps in sage grouse habitat conservation, we are 

fostering collaborative and voluntary measures in order to maintain flexibility in land use options and management. 

All of these BLM efforts recognize the important role played by 

ranchers in protecting the land and preserving open spaces in the 

West. The economic and social benefits of ranching in this country 

29

are many, and the BLM strives to preserve that important part of 

our heritage. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. We would be happy to 

answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hughes follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JIM HUGHES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND

MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Thank you for inviting me to testify regarding the management of Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) rangelands. The Administration recognizes that ranching is an 

important component of the economies of many Western rural communities, and it 

is the core of their history, social fabric, and cultural identity. Ranching can also 

play an important role in preserving open space in the fast-growing West. The BLM 

is committed to collaborating with those who work on the public lands as we strive 

for economically-productive and environmentally-healthy rangelands. 

As the Committee has requested, I will discuss grazing permit renewals, our 

pending grazing rulemaking, wild horse and burro issues as they affect the rangelands, and our efforts to conserve and enhance sage-grouse habitat while allowing 

productive uses of the public lands. 

GRAZING PERMIT RENEWALS

The BLM manages grazing on more than 160 million acres of public land in the 

West. We administer over 18,000 grazing permits and leases, and, in 2003, six million AUMs (animal unit months) were used. 

By regulation, grazing leases and permits are normally issued for 10-year periods. 

In a typical year the BLM has 1,500 permits up for renewal. As we have discussed 

before with this Committee, the BLM experienced a spike in grazing permit renewals in 1999. Over 5,000 permits were due for renewal in 1999, and 2,200 permits 

in 2000. Additionally, the BLM was required to improve environmental documentation for processing grazing permit and lease renewals. The increased workload made 

it clear that the BLM would not meet the required deadlines for permit renewals. 

Congress took action to ensure that grazing permittees and lessees could continue 

to graze if the BLM was unable to complete the environmental analysis mandated 

by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Since 1999, a provision has been 

included each year in the Interior Appropriations bill that gives the BLM the authority to extend grazing permits and leases under their same terms and conditions 

until completion of NEPA compliance, Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation, 

and other legal requirements. I would like to share with you what BLM is doing 

not only to address the permit-renewal workload, but also to avoid recurrence of this 

problem. 

As the BLM began working its way through the permit workload spike, it became 

increasingly clear that simply doing ‘‘business as usual’’ was not going to provide 

a long-term solution to the problem. Therefore, the Bureau has placed an emphasis 

on renewing expiring grazing permits within priority watersheds with significant resource-use conflicts or issues. Rather than rigidly adhering to a predetermined 

schedule of renewals, where possible, we are grouping permits with common impacts, watersheds and land health standards. Not only does this provide a more 

even redistribution of future permit renewals over a full 10-year cycle, but it also 

affords more timely completion of consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the NOAA Fisheries. In addition, these measures will facilitate an effective review of land health standards on a watershed basis, allow for improved cumulative impact analysis, and focus restoration resources. In the long term, this will 

improve and streamline our processing of permit renewals. 

Of the 12,041 grazing permits that expired between fiscal year 1999 and fiscal 

year 2003, 10,234 have been fully processed. The remaining 1,807 are planned for 

completion by the close of 2009, at which time the BLM plans to fully process all 

permits in the year they expire. 

Our experience has shown that most NEPA documents needed for grazing permit 

renewals have been at the Environmental Assessment (EA) level, with very few requiring full Environmental Impact Statements (EISs). Terms and conditions have 

been substantially unchanged from the expired permit for the overwhelming majority of fully processed permits. 

The BLM is strongly committed to meeting the permit completion goals I have 

outlined. The BLM will continue to closely monitor the status of grazing permit and 

lease renewals and, as appropriate, will make adjustments to meet our goals. However, in any given year, other factors, such as challenges to decisions through apVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:35 Nov 10, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\96667.TXT SENE3 PsN: SCAN
30

peals and litigation, or a particularly difficult fire season (which may involve temporarily diverting some BLM personnel) may test our ability to meet our planned 

timeframes. However, we do not believe this will impede our ability to complete this 

process by 2009, and we remain committed to meeting our goals. 

GRAZING REGULATIONS

In order to improve grazing management and continue to promote ranching on 

public lands in the rural West, the BLM, in the Spring of 2003, initiated a review 

of the regulations governing grazing management on public lands. We held four 

public meetings and received more than 8,300 comment letters on our Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Based on the input received from the public as well 

as our own experiences with the existing regulations, the Secretary of the Interior 

announced the proposed rule in December 2003. A draft environmental impact 

statement (DESI) on the proposed rule released for public review in January 2004. 

The public comment period on the proposed rule and DESI closed in early March. 

We received over 15,000 comments on that proposal. In addition, five public meetings were held across the West, as well as one here in Washington to take comments on the proposed changes. At this time, we are in the process of reviewing and 

analyzing the public comments and drafting a final rule and EIS. A final EIS is 

scheduled to be completed and released in September of this year. We anticipate 

publishing the final rule in October with an effective date of December of this year. 

Last December’s proposed rule recognizes that public-land grazing has its roots 

in the settlement of the West. Communities and families still rely on a combination 

of public and private lands to sustain the rural landscapes and open spaces. Many 

adjustments have been made in livestock grazing management and practices to improve the health of the public rangelands since the passage of the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act, and the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act. The changes outlined in the proposed rule are intended to be another important step forward to improve grazing upon the lessons learned since the previous revisions more than eight 

years ago. 

The three major objectives of the proposed rule are to: improve working relations 

with permittees and lessees, protect the health of the rangelands, and increase administrative effectiveness and efficiency. 

Significant provisions of the proposed rule include requirements that the BLM 

analyze and document the relevant social, economic and cultural effects of proposed 

grazing changes; a phase-in of changes in grazing use of more than 10%; and a provision for joint ownership of range improvements in some cases. Additionally, the 

proposed regulation removes the 3-consecutive-year limit on voluntary temporary 

non-use and requires BLM to use monitoring data in making certain determinations 

of land health. Furthermore, changes include expanding the definition of ‘‘grazing 

preference,’’ and making administrative revisions on stays pending certain appeals. 

WILD HORSE & BURRO PROGRAM

A priority of the Administration is to provide for sustainable multiple-use of the 

public lands. Among the authorized multiple uses that affect the rangelands is the 

BLM’s mandate to implement the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act. Our 

most recent estimate in February of this year indicated that the herd population totaled approximately 36,000 wild horses and burros on the public lands and another 

19,000 animals in holding facilities. (Since February, spring births have added approximately 7,500 additional animals.) 

The goal of BLM’s Wild Horse and Burro program is to achieve and maintain 

healthy, viable wild horse and burro populations on the public lands that are in balance with other uses and the productive capacity of their habitat. Achieving appropriate management levels of wild horses and burros is necessary in order to restore 

and maintain thriving natural ecological balance and maintain balance with other 

uses of the lands. Current numbers of free roaming wild horses and burros exceed 

appropriate management levels. If BLM were managing at the appropriate management level, approximately 26,000 animals would be on the open range at any one 

time. Wild horse and burro populations increase by approximately 20% per year, so 

populations will double approximately every five years without active management. 

The BLM’s strategy for managing wild horse and burro populations calls for removing enough wild horses and burros from the public lands now to achieve appropriate management levels, and implementing more efficient management for adoptions and long-term holding. Removing excess animals will benefit the health of the 

herds, reduce the number of emergency gathers of animals during droughts, improve habitat conditions for all public land resource users, and help to achieve 

healthy rangelands. 

31

Failure to act aggressively to achieve appropriate management levels will cause 

further harm to rangeland health by overgrazing forage resources. This in turn adversely impacts other public land resources such as wildlife habitat and populations. 

With wild horse and burro populations exceeding appropriate management levels, 

field managers are forced to consider reducing livestock below permitted use in an 

attempt to maintain rangeland conditions. This is a situation that the BLM is actively seeking to avoid. 

The BLM recently received approval to reprogram $7.6 million from other programs to the Wild Horse and Burro program for FY 2004. The BLM understands 

the budget constraints facing the Congress, and while the reprogramming authority 

doesn’t fully meet our request, the approved reprogramming level of $7.6 million 

will allow the BLM to move a significant number of animals from the rangelands 

into the adoption program or into long-term holding facilities. The BLM is currently 

calculating the exact number of removals that the agency will be able to conduct 

with the reprogrammed funds. The BLM also is analyzing other impacts of the approved reprogramming authority, including the timeframe for achievement of appropriate management levels. 

SAGE-GROUSE

Today, the BLM manages about half of the remaining habitat for sage-grouse. 

Once seen in great numbers and a popular game bird with hunters, the sage-grouse 

is an icon of the western sagebrush landscape. Although these birds range across 

11 western states and two provinces in Canada, their populations have decreased 

significantly over the past four decades as nearly one-half of their sagebrush nesting 

grounds were lost, degraded, or fragmented. 

Seven petitions to protect sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act were 

filed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) between 1999 and March 2003 

because of concerns over sage-grouse population declines. However, even before the 

petitions were filed, the BLM, in response to concerns about the bird population, 

began identifying actions that could be taken to stem declines on BLM-managed 

public lands. 

The BLM is currently participating in cooperative conservation efforts that are 

being led by state wildlife agencies throughout the range of the sage-grouse. With 

increasing numbers of at-risk species in the West, the BLM recognized the need to 

work with other Federal agencies and state wildlife agencies to more effectively coordinate conservation efforts in sagebrush habitat. Beginning in 2000, BLM began 

working with the FWS, the Forest Service (FS), and the Western Association of Fish 

and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to 

establish a Conservation Planning Framework Team consisting of four representatives from WAFWA member agencies and one each from BLM, FS, and FWS. The 

Framework Team is responsible for developing the range-wide conservation framework for sage-grouse conservation planning, and making recommendations and providing guidance to working groups concerning the contents of state and local conservation plans. 

In February-March 2004, BLM Director Clarke hosted several ‘‘listening meetings’’ with stakeholders and state wildlife agencies in Colorado, Montana, Washington, Oregon, Utah, Nevada, and Wyoming on sage-grouse conservation planning. 

The BLM has rewritten its interim Management Guidance to address concerns 

raised at the meetings. 

In July 2004, the BLM expects to issue its National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy which will set out a framework for conservation of sage-grouse 

and associated sagebrush habitats on lands administered by the BLM. The document identifies resources and actions necessary to support the development and implementation of BLM state-level strategies and/or plans. The BLM’s national strategy has been designed to deliver a substantial Federal contribution to cooperative 

conservation efforts that are being led by state wildlife agencies throughout the 

range of sage-grouse in the West. 

Cooperative conservation underlies most recent, large-scale conservation and land 

management efforts. It has produced unprecedented coordination across eleven 

Western states. 

Finally, the BLM is expending over $14 million in FY 2004 (and has requested 

an increase of $3.2 million for FY 2005) for restoration and conservation of sagebrush habitat. By taking proactive steps in sage grouse habitat conservation, we are 

fostering collaborative and voluntary measures in order to maintain flexibility in 

land use options and management. 

32

CONCLUSION

All of these BLM efforts recognize the important role played by ranchers in protecting the land and preserving open spaces in the West. The economic and social 

benefits of ranching in this country are many—and the BLM strives to preserve that 

important part of our heritage. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I would 

be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Senator CRAIG. Jim, thank you very much. 

Now let me turn to Tom Thompson. Welcome, Tom. Deputy 

Chief, National Forest System. 

STATEMENT OF TOM THOMPSON, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL 

FOREST SYSTEM, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ACCOMPANIED BY JANETTE KAISER, DIRECTOR, 

RANGELAND MANAGEMENT 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity 

to present the subcommittee with an overview of grazing management in the Forest Service. With me today is Janette Kaiser who 

is the Director of our Rangeland Management Program. 

The Forest Service has been managing rangelands for nearly 100 

years and has a long history of partnerships with the livestock producers who rely upon National Forest System lands. Today there 

are grazing allotments on nearly half of all National Forest System 

lands, approximately 90 million acres in 34 States. The Forest 

Service administers approximately 8,800 allotments, with over 

9,000 livestock permits, and about 9.7 million animal unit months 

of grazing for cattle, horses, sheep, and goats. 

On June 25, 2003 before this subcommittee, the administration 

testified about the Forest Service’s progress to implement section 

504 of Public Law 104-19, the Rescissions Act. Section 504 directed 

the Chief to identify grazing allotments that needed NEPA analysis 

and to establish and adhere to a schedule for completion of that 

analysis. The end date established in that schedule was 2010. 

The 2003 Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, Public Law 

108-7, directed the Secretary of Agriculture to renew grazing permits for those permittees whose permits expired prior to or during 

fiscal year 2003, as the Forest Service was behind the schedule established for the Rescissions Act and was dealing with pending 

lawsuits. 

The 2004 Interior Appropriations Act further directed the Secretary to renew grazing permits that expired or transferred or 

waived between 2004 and 2008, and directed the Secretary to report to Congress beginning in November of this year, 2004, and 

every 2 years thereafter, the extent to which analysis required 

under applicable laws is being completed prior to the expiration of 

grazing permits. 

As the years have progressed, the Forest Service has continued 

to complete NEPA analyses on those grazing allotments that are 

listed on the schedule. As of 2004, approximately 2,300 allotments 

have NEPA analysis completed. An additional 368 allotments are 

scheduled for completion of NEPA analysis this fiscal year. The 

Forest Service remains committed to completing the environmental 

analysis on the remaining allotments by the 2010 deadline without 

disrupting permitted livestock grazing activities. In May 2004, I 

submitted a letter to the regional foresters outlining this commitVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:35 Nov 10, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\96667.TXT SENE3 PsN: SCAN
33

ment and we are on track to report to Congress in November on 

our progress. 

The Department has testified previously before this subcommittee that the current decision-making procedures to authorize livestock grazing or other activities on rangelands administered 

by the Forest Service are inflexible, unwieldy, time-consuming, and 

expensive. The agency is continuing dialog with our colleagues at 

the Bureau of Land Management and the Council of Environmental Quality to discuss the challenges of complying with NEPA 

in a timely and effective manner. 

This year the Forest Service updated and clarified direction in 

the Forest Service Handbook dealing with rangeland management 

decision-making and how NEPA is implemented. The direction 

clarifies existing policies on how to develop efficient and effective 

range NEPA and apply adaptive management on a given allotment 

and highlights successful practices currently in use that can serve 

to extend the life of a NEPA document. 

With this updated process, adaptive management is built into 

the proposed action by defining the maximum limits of what will 

be allowed on the grazing allotment in terms of appropriate timing, 

intensity, frequency, and duration of livestock. 

The ecological conditions of rangelands often affect the social and 

economic stability of many rural communities. 

Some national forests and national grasslands have established 

programs that encourage the grazing permittee to conduct much of 

the implementation monitoring. In some cases the permittee, working in conjunction with the Forest Service and other Federal agencies, universities, and rangeland consultants, has developed a successful, collaborative monitoring program. 

An example of this effort is in the Southwestern Region where 

the Forest Service is developing cooperative agreements with New 

Mexico State University and the University of Arizona, focused on 

collaborative monitoring. The goal of these agreements is to utilize 

expertise at the State institutions to help the agency develop monitoring strategies for rangelands. 

Also, the Forest Service and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association in April 2004 have signed a joint letter that was delivered 

to Forest Service personnel and permittees requesting volunteers to 

establish pilots for cooperative monitoring under this MOU to facilitate the process and lead the way for others to follow. 

The drought these past 6 to 8 years has persisted over much of 

the Western United States, and predictions call for more dry 

weather throughout most of the West. It will take a number of 

years of higher than average rainfall to recover from the drought. 

In 2002 and 2003, significant reductions in grazing use on National 

Forest System lands occurred in the West and the Western Great 

Plains. Although it is still too early to know the full effects of the 

drought this year, reductions in grazing use could still occur. 

The Forest Service has actively coordinated drought management 

with Federal, State, and local government agencies and officials. 

Collaboration efforts are tremendously important, as has already 

been pointed out. The Forest Service has been working with our 

partners in the livestock industry to improve coordination and comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:35 Nov 10, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\96667.TXT SENE3 PsN: SCAN
34

munication in particular since the drought has affected rangelands 

throughout the West. 

Recently a unit in the Forest Service implemented a different 

process to work with the ranching community to incorporate values 

and economic needs of the ranching industry consistent with sound 

rangeland administration. On the Tonto National Forest, this effort, as has been described, shows a lot of promise. Through a collaborative effort, both the Forest Service, the Tonto and the Southwestern Region, and the Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association have 

developed a process to allow for the return of livestock as drought 

conditions improve. Implementation of this process I think reaffirms the Forest Service’s commitment to multiple use management. 

This concludes my statement. I would thank the committee for 

their interest in this program and our progress. I would be pleased 

to answer any questions that you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TOM THOMPSON, DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL FOREST

SYSTEM, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity 

to present the subcommittee with an overview of grazing management in the Forest 

Service. The Forest Service has been managing rangelands for nearly 100 years, and 

has a long history of partnerships with livestock producers who rely upon National 

Forest System (NFS) lands. Livestock grazing on National Forests reserved from the 

public domain is administered under a number of statutes, including the GrangerThye Act of 1950, the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, the Forest and 

Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, and the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act of 1976, among others. These laws augment the authority in 

the Organic Act of 1897, which established the National Forests and directed the 

agency to regulate the use and occupancy of the forests to protect them from destruction. 

Today, there are grazing allotments on nearly half of all National Forest System 

lands, approximately 90 million acres of land in 34 states. The Forest Service administers approximately 8800 allotments, with over 9000 livestock permits, and 

about 9.7 million animal unit months of grazing by cattle, horses, sheep, and goats. 

Nearly all this permitted grazing is located in the Western states (99%), with only 

about one percent occurring in the Eastern forests. 

GRAZING PERMIT ADMINISTRATION

On June 25, 2003, before this Subcommittee, the Administration testified about 

the Forest Service’s progress to implement Section 504 of Public Law 104-19 (the 

‘‘Rescissions Act’’). Section 504 directed the Chief to identify grazing allotments that 

needed NEPA analysis and to ‘‘establish and adhere to’’ a schedule for the completion of that analysis. The end date established in the schedule was 2010. The Rescissions Act was needed because the Forest Service faced a daunting challenge in 

1995 to complete the NEPA process on 6,886 allotments, with approximately 1⁄2 of 

these Forest Service grazing permits due to expire. 

The 2003 Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, Public Law 108-7 (as amended 

by the 2003 Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act) directed the 

Secretary of Agriculture to renew grazing permits for those permittees whose permits expired prior to or during fiscal year 2003, as the Forest Service was behind 

the schedule established for the Rescissions Act and was dealing with pending lawsuits. NEPA analyses will still have to be completed on these allotments and the 

terms and conditions of the renewed grazing permit will remain in effect until such 

time as the analysis is completed. 

The 2004 Interior Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-108) further directed the Secretary 

to renew grazing permits that expired are transferred or waived between 2004 and 

2008, and directed the Secretary to report to Congress beginning in November 2004, 

and every two years thereafter, the extent to which analysis required under applicable laws is being completed prior to the expiration of grazing permits. 

As the years have progressed, the Forest Service has continued to complete NEPA 

analyses on those grazing allotments that are listed on the schedule. As of February 

35

2004, approximately 2300 allotments have NEPA analysis completed. An additional 

368 allotments are scheduled for completion of NEPA analysis this fiscal year. The 

Forest Service remains committed to completing the environmental analysis on the 

remaining allotments by the 2010 deadline without disrupting permitted livestock 

grazing activities. In May 2004, I submitted a letter to Regional Foresters outlining 

this commitment and we are on track to report to Congress in November on our 

progress. 

GRAZING PERMIT EFFICIENCIES

The Department has testified previously before this Subcommittee that the current decision-making procedures to authorize livestock grazing or other activities on 

rangelands administered by the Forest Service are inflexible, unwieldy, time-consuming, and expensive. For several years, the Forest Service has evaluated alternative procedures that would satisfy our legal obligations, provide the agency with 

management flexibility, shorten the decision-making time, and reduce the cost to 

the taxpayer associated with rangeland management decisions. The agency is continuing dialogue with our colleagues at the Bureau of Land Management and the 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to discuss the challenges of complying 

with NEPA in a timely and effective manner. In addition, the agency is working on 

methods of prioritization through the development and use of qualitative tools that 

assess rangeland health and sustainability through the use of indicators that are 

linked to existing monitoring data. 

EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE NEPA ANALYSIS AND RANGELAND DECISIONS

This-year the Forest Service updated and clarified direction in the Forest Service 

Handbook dealing with rangeland management decision-making and how NEPA is 

implemented. The direction clarifies existing policies on how to develop efficient and 

effective range NEPA and apply adaptive management on a given allotment and 

highlights successful practices currently in use that can serve to extend the life of 

the NEPA document. This new directive will help the agency move forward in completing environmental analysis in an expedited manner on those allotments still remaining on the 1996 Rescission Act schedule. 

With this updated process adaptive management is built into the proposed action 

by defining the maximum limits of what will be allowed on the grazing allotment 

in terms of the appropriate timing, intensity, frequency, and duration of livestock 

grazing. Standards are set that can be checked with implementation monitoring to 

determine if prescribed actions have been followed or if management changes are 

needed. Carefully focused monitoring will allow for adjustments. 

MONITORING

The ecological conditions of rangelands often affect the social and economic stability of many rural communities. To assure these lands are capable of providing 

sustainable products for future generations, the ecological conditions of these lands 

are monitored against specific standards. Implementation and effectiveness monitoring are the two types of monitoring that the Agency uses. Implementation monitoring is an annual measurement of rangeland resources, such as vegetation use, 

to assure permit compliance with written instructions. Effectiveness monitoring is 

long-term (5-6 years) where rangeland resources are monitored to assess whether 

prescriptions and objectives set forth in Forest Plans, allotment management plans 

or other relevant documents are being met. 

Some National Forests and National Grasslands have established programs that 

encourage the grazing permittee to conduct much of the implementation monitoring. 

In some instances the permittee, working in conjunction with the Forest Service, 

other Federal agencies, universities and rangeland consultants, has developed a successful, collaborative monitoring program. 

An example of this type of effort is in the Southwestern Region where the Forest 

Service is developing cooperative agreements with New Mexico State University and 

the University of Arizona focused on collaborative monitoring. The goal of the agreements is to utilize expertise at State institutions to help the agency develop monitoring strategies for rangelands. For example, the agreement with the University of 

Arizona will focus on improving monitoring data collection and analysis related to 

natural resource management; developing collaborative opportunities between the 

Forest Service and non-governmental entities and organizations to monitor the ecological trends of national forest rangelands in Arizona; establishing uniform monitoring protocols that everyone understands; enhancing data collection processes, 

training, and reporting methods; and increasing the number of national forest allotments being monitored. 

36

The Forest Service has worked with industry representatives over the years regarding implementation and effectiveness monitoring. This year we signed a national Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Public Lands Council of the 

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) for the implementation of a cooperative rangeland monitoring program. This program establishes a framework for voluntary, collaborative work between grazing permittees and the Forest Service to improve the quality and quantity of short- and long-term allotment level monitoring 

on National Forest System rangelands. 

Also, the Forest Service and NCBA in April 2004 signed a joint letter that was 

delivered to Forest Service personnel and permittees requesting volunteers to establish pilots for cooperative monitoring under this MOU to facilitate the process and 

lead the way for others to follow. This is a great opportunity for both entities to 

collaborate on long-term goals and objectives for rangeland resources. 

The House report accompanying the Department of the Interior and Related 

Agencies Appropriations Act of 2002 directed the Secretary of the Interior and the 

Secretary of Agriculture to prepare a report on how the Departments would address 

the long-term monitoring, ecological classification of vegetation and soil survey work 

which is needed to efficiently address rangeland conditions. This report is still being 

drafted. 

DROUGHT

For the past 6 to 8 years drought has persisted over much of the Western United 

States. Predictions for this year call for more dry weather throughout most of the 

West. Although there has been some winter and spring precipitation over wide 

areas, in particular in New Mexico, Arizona, and the Southern Rockies, much of the 

West continues to have a significant water deficit. It will take a number of years 

of higher than average rainfall to recover from the drought. In 2002 and 2003, significant reductions in grazing use on National Forest System lands occurred 

throughout the West and the Western Great Plains. Although it is still too early 

to know the full effects of the drought, reductions in grazing use for 2004 could still 

occur. 

The Forest Service has actively coordinated drought management with Federal, 

State, and local government agencies and officials. The agency is actively participating on national, State, and local drought task forces coordinating drought relief 

to our permittees. We are working closely with industry representatives to provide 

up-front information about what we are doing and seeking input from them. 

Locally, the Forest Service is managing drought impacts on a case-by-case basis. 

Local officials are communicating early to ensure the permittee is informed and has 

enough time to implement temporary changes or along-term strategy. The Agency 

is coordinating with universities and user groups to best address the concerns at 

the local level. 

COLLABORATION EFFORTS

The Forest Service has been working with our partners in the livestock industry 

to improve coordination and communication, in particular since the drought has affected rangelands in the Interior West and Southwest. The agency recognizes that 

ranching is an important component of the economies of many western rural communities as well as the contribution of livestock production. 

Recently, a unit in the Forest Service implemented a different process to work 

with the ranching community to incorporate the values and economic needs of the 

ranching industry consistent with sound range administration. Over the years, as 

the drought and other range management issues have increased, reductions in the 

number of livestock that could be sustained on Federal lands has been seriously reduced due to very little forage or water. On the Tonto National Forest in Arizona, 

this has meant up to an 80% reduction of annual grazing use has occurred. As livestock were removed, the agency recognized that a process needed to be developed 

to ensure all parties interested in grazing management were involved in coordinating the restocking of allotments when conditions allowed livestock to return. 

Through a collaborative effort between the Forest Service (the Tonto National Forest and the Southwestern Region), the Arizona Cattle Growers Association, and the 

Gila County Cattle Growers Association, the Tonto Restocking Process was developed to allow the return of livestock as drought conditions improved. Implementation of this process reaffirms the Forest Service’s commitment to multiple-use management. The process offers an opportunity to rebuild trust between the agency and 

the ranching industry and provides a broader perspective for the agency to administer National Forest lands collaboratively with important forest stakeholders. 

37

INVASIVE SPECIES

Rangelands are an important component of ecosystem diversity at a national 

scale. Key factors to rangeland health are sustainable use and proper management. 

The Forest Service works with other land managers to ensure rangelands are productive for current and future use. 

Invasive species has been identified by the Chief of the Forest Service as one of 

the four significant threats to our Nation’s forest and rangeland ecosystems. 

Invasive species have been characterized as a ‘‘catastrophic wildfire in slow motion.’’ 

Thousands of invasive plants, insects, and other species have infested hundreds of 

million of acres of land and water across the Nation, causing massive disruption to 

ecosystem function, reducing biodiversity, and degrading ecosystem health. Invasive 

organisms not only affect the health of America’s forests and rangelands but also 

the health of wildlife, livestock, fish, and humans. 

To address its role in this issue the Forest Service recently assessed its capacity 

in forest research and forest and rangeland health. The agency has found the best 

opportunity for contributing to success is managing the agency’s invasive species efforts will come from working strategically using all of our scientific, management, 

and partnership resources. Soon, the Forest Service will release a National Strategy 

and Implementation Plan for Invasive Species which will outline short and long 

term goals for their management and control. The agency is working collaboratively 

with our partners to improve the capacity for handling invasive species across landscapes and streamline procedures so actions can be taken quickly before the invasion spreads rapidly. 

As the agency implements this national strategy, our actions will be proactive 

rather than reactive, holistic across multiple jurisdictions and ownerships, and collaborative in nature. Invasive species management is more than just a forest or 

rangeland issue, it is an ecosystem and biodiversity issue, and therefore the Forest 

Service will work with all who are interested to help promote the eradication or control of invasives wherever they occur. 

This concludes my statement. I want to thank the Committee for their interest 

in rangeland management in the Forest Service. I would be pleased to answer any 

questions that you may have.

Senator CRAIG. Well, thank you both very much. I do have some 

questions. I will proceed through those as rapidly as I can. 

To both of you, have the push by Congress and the resulting effort on your parts, as it relates to dealing with the backlog of processing permits, in any way diminished the ability of the agency to 

conduct other aspects of the range management programs that you 

have? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Obviously, we have a limited number of people 

and the effort that is going on on the NEPA side is taking away 

from people being able to do monitoring and do other work that 

needs to be done. There have been big challenges in stretching the 

people that we have, and we have fewer people in the range program today than we had 10-20 years ago, for sure. It is stretching 

people thin. Certainly the effort that is put into lawsuits and other 

things also detracts from the ability to do monitoring, to do range 

administration on the ground. 

Mr. HUGHES. I think that is a good synopsis for the BLM also. 

We have our range people involved in our regulation reform. We 

have them involved in the sage grouse effort that we are trying to 

help to prevent a listing. We have our people involved in a national 

vegetative EIS study that is ongoing that will allow us to better attack invasive weeds. All of these put a strain on the work force. 

I cannot give them anything more to do. There are a lot of innovative things. People come to us with ideas that we just do not have 

the manpower to do because they are busy doing this or they are 

in court or they are preparing environmental assessments. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, the BLM has moved ahead with reasonable 

speed. Your numbers are down substantially from where they were. 

38

Tom, let me ask you a similar question. You have indicated that 

from 1995 through the end of this year, the Forest Service will 

have completed about 2,668 out of the 9,000 permits, which 

equates to a little over 266 permits per year, if you average that 

out. If I am doing my math correctly, you have approximately 6,332 

more permits to complete by 2010, and at the rate of 368 permits 

per year, I think you know where I am going. It will take you approximately 17.2 more years to clear the expected backlog. 

Would you mind telling me exactly what steps you have taken 

or will take to ensure that by 2010 you can guarantee me and this 

committee and the Congress that the agency will meet the commitment you just made in your testimony today? 

Mr. THOMPSON. I can tell you what steps we have taken. I am 

going to be short on guarantees. What I will say is we are committed to doing the NEPA that we need to do. 

We have been working hard at trying to improve the permit decision-making process. We have just issued chapter 90 which describes approaches that help the field folks better stage and understand how they can use adaptive management and monitoring and 

understand the levels of decisions that need to be made. 

There are process issues involved here, and to a large extent, I 

think the complexity of some of the forested lands where we have 

rangeland permits at the same time adds to that complexity. The 

land differences between a lot of the BLM and most of the Forest 

Service adds a level of complexity. I suppose one could also understand that there is a certain level of increased scrutiny that comes 

from that. So the pressures to produce and get more specific with 

that complexity are great. 

I think we have two main issues. One is process. The other one 

are the resources, the people to accomplish the work. Obviously, 

the drought has diverted a lot of that attention. Lawsuits have diverted some that attention. All of those things are out of our control. 

We are working hard. Our folks are working hard. Some regions 

are making more progress than others. But we are working hard 

to meet the schedule, but your math is not wrong. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, is 2010 unrealistic? We ought to know that 

sooner rather than later. 

Mr. THOMPSON. On the schedule that we are on, it is not likely 

that we will be able to meet all those completed, but we are putting 

all of our energy forth to try to do everything that we can. We hope 

that we can make some gains in process that would allow us to increase the numbers that we would be able to accomplish in the 

next few years. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, in your testimony you said that the agency 

is continuing a dialog with our colleagues at the Bureau of Land 

Management and the Council on Environmental Quality to discuss 

the challenges of complying with NEPA in a timely and effective 

manner. In addition, the agency is working on methods of 

prioritizing through the development and use of qualitative tools 

that assess rangeland health and sustainability through the use of 

indicators that are linked to existing monitoring data. 

I guess when I read statements like that—I did not know that 

this is a new science that we are just developing. I thought the 

39

science was somewhat complete, while it evolves a little bit, and I 

understand complexities. I am a bit frustrated. How much time is 

being spent and how many people are being spent in that last 

statement versus just getting on with the business of, if you will, 

moving this process? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, again, Mr. Chairman, the folks in the field 

have been using the processes as best they can and as best they 

knew. For example, when I spoke of chapter 90, I think it helped 

the field to understand how to sort through the process better. It 

does not answer all the questions. They still have to go through the 

process for all permits. What we were trying to do and what I hope 

that we may be able to do would be to sort through those and in 

some cases do a lesser amount of analysis than others. Those kinds 

of tools, though, have got to be worked out collaboratively, and I 

think certainly we would encourage and be pleased to work with 

not only the BLM but the committee in trying to identify what 

some more of those might be. 

Senator CRAIG. Has the Chief laid down hard targets to be met 

on an annualized basis that drive you toward the 2010 number? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Early on, we had a schedule, obviously, and that 

was what was laid out. There has been, obviously, a lot of slippage 

in that schedule. We have attempted each year to do what was reasonable given the people that we had to accomplish, and I think 

the numbers that we have this year are certainly not what they 

should be to get back on schedule, but they are what we think we 

could reasonably do this year. 

Senator CRAIG. Have requests been made for more money and 

more personnel specific to meeting goals and targets, and driving 

toward a 2010 number? 

Mr. THOMPSON. I could share what our schedule is as far as accomplishment and what we expect in a number of different forms, 

by region, by forest. I do believe that funding is an issue. 

Senator CRAIG. If funding is an issue, have you requested more 

funding specific for this purpose? 

Mr. THOMPSON. Let me maybe ask Director Kaiser if she would 

like to talk a little bit about this target issue because she might 

be able to answer it better. 

Senator CRAIG. Surely. 

Ms. KAISER. I think what the agency is struggling with is a matter of priorities. I think that the last submission, last budget request, was slightly down, and that just has to do with priorities. 

We continue to try to raise the issue within the agency and balance 

those priorities. 

As you know, we are dealing with Healthy Forests initiatives and 

we just came through the Healthy Forest Restoration Act legislation, and we are again trying to double our efforts to meet those 

demands. Those have to be worked out in terms of priorities. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, it obviously is very frustrating to me and 

to a good many people. We have got substantial demands out there. 

We have got lawsuits. We have begged off from those and addressed these problems with some of our colleagues by what we put 

in budgets and what we put in for time lines for completion and 

commitments, public commitments, for this purpose. If priorities 

get skewed in the absence of resources, then you really need to 

40

help us by giving us tools with which to argue for additional resources. Whether we get it or not, that is partly our burden, but 

if we do not get those numbers, if it is a matter of shifting around 

inside the agency and we do not meet these targets, then are we 

really going to solve some of the other resource problems that probably some of my friends out in Idaho are going to want to meet you 

in court with? I say ‘‘friends’’ with some degree of question mark 

behind it. But the reality is there are a lot of critics out there, and 

I would much prefer being a friend than a critic in helping you facilitate what I see as a substantial problem because of not only the 

absence of the permit renewal, but the process and therefore the 

liability that grows. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I have spoken with nearly each 

of the regional foresters the last few days that have the bulk of this 

issue, and they are all very concerned with the ability to be where 

we need to be by 2008 or 2010. We are talking about different approaches and different ways to step up and try to do it, but it is 

a balance between what we have the capability to do right now and 

the processes that we are saddled with to go through across the 

board. And the diversions that are happening, as Ms. Kaiser said, 

with other priorities that seem to be ringing in. And obviously, 

even a number of our range people in the last few years are on 

overhead, fire crews, and get called off when we shut down basically everything in the agency for a month or 2. It is very difficult. 

It is a difficult time. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, we are going to continue to work with you 

and push you. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you. We look forward to working with the 

committee. 

Senator CRAIG. Jim, I want to talk about wild horses and burros 

for a moment. First, please explain what you mean by a holding 

facility. 

Mr. HUGHES. I think we have what I would call three types of 

holding facilities. First, we have corral facilities, where we bring 

the animals in from the field. They are looked over for which ones 

will be adopted and which ones may have health problems. We 

have vets look at them. 

From there, they may go to long-term holding facilities. Some 

people call them sanctuaries. We have several of those in the Midwest and elsewhere. I happened to visit one recently in the tall 

grass prairie country. We have seven of those. We have 2,000 head 

on each of those, and we are trying to contract for three more. 

Then we also have training facilities. 

Senator CRAIG. 2,000 head on how many acres? 

Mr. HUGHES. Ed? 

Mr. SHEPARD. These are approximately 15,000- to 20,000-acre 

ranches. 

Senator CRAIG. Ranches, not public land, but ranches that have 

been leased for this purpose? 

Mr. SHEPARD. Private land contracted out for this purpose. 

Senator CRAIG. How much are those ranchers getting per animal? 

Mr. SHEPARD. Depending on which contractor, it is between $1.22 

and $1.25 per day. 

41

Senator CRAIG. Per day. Sounds like a good business. 

Mr. HUGHES. And then we also have what we call our training 

facilities. We have six. Five are prison facilities and one is a private contract facility. They hold between 50 and 200 horses each. 

Typically at the training facilities, those horses are adopted directly 

right from the training facility. 

Senator CRAIG. What is the rate of adoption compared with 10 

years ago? 

Mr. SHEPARD. The average over time has been somewhere 

around 7,000 animals per year. We are down a little bit. Last year 

I think it was 6,100 and we are looking somewhere in that neighborhood again for this year. 

Senator CRAIG. What is the rate of increase in those that are not 

adopted out? Are you holding yourselves even? 

Mr. SHEPARD. No. 

Mr. HUGHES. No. 

Senator CRAIG. You are not. That is right. 

Does the BLM have any other means of dealing with managing 

horse populations other than gatherings, adoptions, and holding facilities? 

Mr. SHEPARD. About the only other method that we have is fertility control, and we are looking at that in a research capacity 

now. That is long-term, looking into the future. That does nothing 

to get excess animals off of the range now, but in the future, once 

we do get down to appropriate management levels, fertility drugs 

will help us keep the herds down and help us manage to stay within the appropriate management levels. 

Senator CRAIG. I understand and you have mentioned in your 

testimony you have reprogrammed money because you are running 

out of money for this purpose. 

Mr. HUGHES. That is correct. One of the problems we face, Senator, is if we do not get those numbers down, with the reproduction 

rate of the horses, we go back almost to base one. We are actually 

extremely close right now to getting to that break-even point, 

where if we can get these excess horses down to the appropriate 

management levels, then our adoption program, as well as our fertility control program, will keep that level in the out-years. We are 

probably as close as we have ever been to hitting that mark, but 

that may take us 2 or 3 more years of heavy removal of horses. 

Senator CRAIG. Excuse me. 

Mr. HUGHES. That may take us 2 or 3 years to get to that appropriate management level, but we are probably as close as we have 

ever been in this program since the passage of the act. 

Senator CRAIG. We really need to resurrect the image of—was it 

Wild Horse Mary or Annie? 

Mr. HUGHES. Annie. 

Senator CRAIG. She might become a friend of mine and a critic 

of yours because I do not think this was her vision, that all of a 

sudden you would grow into the business of warehousing horses, 

all in the romantic idea that somehow they were floating across the 

Western rangeland as this awesome image of great open spaces 

now that you are inventorying them on ranches and paying ranchers to warehouse them. 

42

Well, you are not to be criticized. We are for creating a silly law 

that has put you where you are with this. Maybe it is time we review this. I do not mind tackling it a bit. Probably the numbers on 

the open ranges ought to be reduced substantially too. 

One thing about a horse. It is more destructive to rangeland than 

a wildfire because they are there all the time, and just simply 

grind it into the ground and we know that. Now we are spending 

literally tens of millions of dollars a year warehousing horses. 

Well, I am not going to be critical of you, but I have been to your 

holding facilities. I have been to your corrals. I have seen a phenomenal waste of resource and good human talent simply to feed 

a bunch of hay-burners. That is really a public policy run amok. If 

we could resurrect the image of Wild Horse Annie, she would probably agree with me. She might not agree on the end result I would 

propose, but she might agree with me on the envisionment or at 

least the reality of the program to where it has taken us today. 

Well, enough of that. You have spent a good deal of time with 

us. I have got a couple of more questions that I will submit to you 

in writing. To all of you, thank you very much for taking time with 

us today. 

The issue of timely permit processing is not going to go away. We 

have got to get this work completed, and if we cannot complete it 

timely, then come to us and ask for resources and we will see if 

we cannot get there. I understand diversions. I understand fires. I 

understand the situation we have caused ourselves to be in with 

our forested lands and what we have tried to do through Healthy 

Forests to facilitate that. But draining resources away that ultimately create another liability that might put in jeopardy our livestock producers that are trying to do a good job out there is really 

not a way to run a business. I do believe you are in the business 

of marketing grass. I think that is a responsible part of resource 

management. 

Thank you all very much for being here today. We appreciate it. 

The subcommittee will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:37 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[The following letter was received for the record:]

THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, 

Washington, DC, June 25, 2004. 

Hon. PETE V. DOMENICI, 

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, 

DC. 

Hon. JEFF BINGAMAN, 

Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR DOMENICI AND SENATOR BINGAMAN: Attached is a copy of the comments submitted by The Wilderness Society to the Bureau of Land Management on 

March 1, 2004 regarding the Bureau’s proposed changes to 43 CFR Part 4100, published on December 8, 2003. 

We request that our comments on the BLM’s proposed grazing rules be incorporated into the hearing record of the Public Lands and Forests hearing on June 

23, 2004 regarding the livestock grazing programs of the USDA Forest Service and 

Bureau of Land Management 

Thank you for your attention to this request. 

Sincerely, 

DAVID ALBERSWERTH, 

Director. 

43

[Enclosure.] 

THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY, 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, 

Washington, DC, March 1, 2004. 

DIRECTOR, 

Bureau of Land Management, Eastern States Office, Springfield, VA.

Re: Proposed changes to 43 CFR Part 4100, proposed on December 8, 2003

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: These comments are submitted on behalf of The Wilderness Society. 

In general, we are not persuaded from the information provided by the Bureau 

of Land Management in either its ‘‘supplementary information’’ accompanying the 

above referenced proposal, or in the accompanying Environmental Impact Statement, that any of the changes proposed to the current livestock gazing rules are 

warranted. No demonstrable hardships on the beneficiaries of the BLM’s current 

grazing program are documented anywhere in the proposal. Nor is there any documentation that the current rules, adopted less than ten years ago, have been in 

place for a sufficient time to demonstrate verifiable progress toward meeting the 

goals of rangeland health which are articulated in the 1995 program. 

The 1995 rules provide a balanced management framework for the grazing of livestock on the public lands, while assuring that grazing occurs only under conditions 

that protect the ecological integrity of those lands. On the other hand, the proposed 

rule changes taken together appear to: (1) weaken the BLM’s commitment to ensuring the restoration of healthy range ecosystems by lengthening the timeframes and 

opportunities for range improvement initiatives to be implemented, and apparently 

raising the evidentiary burden on the BLM to verify the necessity of management 

changes that are required to insure rangeland health; (2) give away one of the 

public’s most valuable assets occurring on the public rangelands—water—to the 

beneficiaries of the grazing program; (3) open the door to future ‘‘takings’’ claims 

by permittees by allowing the private ownership of permanent range improvements 

on public lands; (4) cut the public out of important decision-making opportunities 

in a variety of ways; and, as a consequence of these proposed changes, (5) unnecessarily raise controversies over livestock grazing policies which were settled to the 

satisfaction of the federal courts in Public Lands Council v. Babbitt, 929 

F.Supp.1436. Our specific comments on several aspects of the proposal follow. 

Timeframes for decision making and monitoring—4180.2(c)—Under the proposal, 

it appears that the BLM cannot mandate any changes in management practices for 

2 years after it is determined that changes are needed to comply with rangeland 

health standards. Subsequently, adjustments in grazing use must be phased in over 

a 5-year period. In addition, it appears that the BLM has unnecessarily raised the 

burden of proof on itself to justify management changes by requiring years of monitoring data before management changes can be mandated. 

The history of restoring damaged public rangelands as a consequence of abusive 

grazing practices has been characterized by its glacial pace. For decades the Bureau 

has recognized that far too much of the BLM’s rangelands and ecological values 

therein have not recovered from the damaging effects of grazing practices that took 

place many decades ago, as well as at the present time. For example, the EIS accompanying the proposed rule documents the disappointing results of the Bureau’s 

efforts to date with regard to meeting the 1990 Riparian Wetland Initiative goal of 

having 75 percent of these areas in proper functioning condition by 1997. According 

to the EIS, only 42 percent of the BLM’s ‘‘lotic’’ areas were classified as in proper 

functioning condition as of 2001 (BLM, Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations 

for the Public Lands, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, DES 03-62, p., 3-20, 

December 2003.). One might expect from these disappointing results that the BLM 

would propose measures to accelerate the improvement of these critically important 

areas of the public lands, rather than proposing, as it does here, a relaxation of its 

program to assure the restoration and proper management of these key ecological 

values. 

The 1995 rules struck a balance between the need to manage livestock grazing 

in a manner that led to the restoration and maintenance of healthy range ecosystems, while mitigating the impacts on permittees who depend on their BLM 

grazing permits to maintain their livestock operations. Unfortunately, that balance 

is now being upset, and the impact of the changes proposed here will be to slow 

down and diminish any progress that can be made in improving the condition of 

public rangelands since the current rules went into effect. 

Moreover, as a consequence of the insertion of new language and the deletion of 

existing language at 4180.2(c), the BLM has made it more difficult for itself to mandate changes in management to secure range condition improvement. Under the 

44

new formulation, the BLM can take action only ‘‘through standards assessment and 

monitoring’’. Does this mean that in instances where contemporaneous and immediate photographic documentation demonstrates clearly that the cause of degradation to a particular area—say, for example, a spring or riparian area—was caused 

by livestock (i.e., heavy trampling, denuded vegetation, excessive amounts of cattle 

excrement, bloated or desiccated livestock carcasses, etc.), that the BLM must rely 

instead on extensive ‘‘monitoring’’ data gathered over a lengthy period of time in 

order to justify remedial or corrective action? 

In summary, these changes will lead to unnecessary delays in the restoration of 

range and riparian ecosystem health, and we ask that the BLM reject the proposed 

changes and stick with the present program. 

Water Rights—Sec. 4120.39 proposes to remove the requirement that water rights 

for livestock grazing on the public lands be held exclusively by the United States, 

and allow instead those rights to be acquired by the permittee. The proposal is analogous to allowing a tenant of a private ranch to acquire the water rights to that 

ranch (without compensation to the property owner!), and concurrently prohibiting 

the owner of the ranch from establishing water rights on her property. 

As stewards of the public trust, the BLM should not allow this policy to go forward. Water is a precious natural resource, especially in the arid and semi-arid regions of the western U.S. where livestock grazing on the public lands takes place. 

The owners of these lands—U.S. citizens—as a matter of policy should maintain the 

sole right to establish rights to water on these lands. The establishment of federal 

rights to water on the federal lands does not preclude the use of that water by livestock permittees. But BLM, as stewards of this public trust, should not adopt a program that allows this resource to be acquired by those who do not own these lands. 

The establishment of private water rights on public rangelands will complicate 

the BLM’s ability to manage these lands in the future, especially in situations 

where it becomes necessary to take enforcement actions against permittees who are 

not in compliance with permit terms, by providing such permittees an opportunity 

to assert their belief that their acquisition of a water right on these lands has effectively vested them with a property right to the lands themselves. We are unaware 

of any State government that allows state livestock permittees to acquire water 

rights on State lands. Nor does the USDA Forest Service. The United States government should not allow this practice on lands managed by the BLM, either. 

Ownership of Range Improvements—The BLM has proposed at 4120.3 that permittees may be granted ownership of permanent range improvements. As with the 

proposal to allow water rights to vest with permittees, this ownership of permanent 

range improvements by permittees is a ‘‘foot in the door’’ to the conveyance of public 

lands into private hands. The ownership of temporary improvements to facilitate the 

handling of livestock is not a problem. But if permittees are allowed to acquire title 

to permanent improvements such as stock tanks, fences, corrals, etc., the BLM is 

placing itself in an awkward situation in cases where violations of range management rules and statutes by a permittee who has acquired the water rights and owns 

permanent improvements argues that his eviction from the allotment warrants compensation for the ‘‘taking’’ of his property. The BLM should drop this proposal. 

Public Participation—The 1995 rules provided for important opportunities for the 

public—that is, the landowners—to participate in key management decisions regarding grazing on the public lands. Unfortunately, the proposed rule eviscerates these 

opportunities for public participation in range management decisions. Ironically, 

this comes at a time when Secretary of the Interior Norton seldom misses an opportunity to express her ‘‘policy’’ that public land management should be guided by the 

‘‘4 C’s’’: ‘‘Consultation, Cooperation, and Communication in the cause of Conservation.’’ According to the Supplementary Information, however, the BLM will no 

longer be bound to offer the public opportunities to comment on: (1) adjustments to 

allotment boundaries; (2) changes in grazing preference; (3) emergency closures; (4) 

renewal or issuance of permits and leases; (5) modifications to permits and leases; 

(6) the issuance of temporary and non-renewable grazing permits. We strongly urge 

that the BLM reconsider its proposal to so severely constrain the opportunities for 

Americans to participate in these decisions. We are especially concerned that the 

public will not be afforded opportunities to participate in decisions involving changing in grazing preference, renewal and issuance of permits and leases, and modification to permits and leases. 

Conservation use—Finally, a word about the removal of any reference to the concept of ‘‘conservation use’’ in the proposed rule. We understand that the courts have 

ruled against the legality of the ‘‘conservation use’’ program, as articulated in the 

1995 rule. However, the BLM has missed an opportunity to put forth a legally viable alternative proposal to allow the voluntary purchase of animal unit months for 

purposes of their permanent retirement. Such arrangements, where permittees willVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:35 Nov 10, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\96667.TXT SENE3 PsN: SCAN
45

ingly sell their AUMs to conservation organizations or individuals who wish to retire them, can have substantial economic and environmental benefits for all the parties involved in such transactions, including the BLM. Since the BLM missed the 

opportunity here to offer alternatives to the ‘‘conservation use’’ provisions of the existing rule, we recommend-that the BLM convene a forum representative of permittees, conservationists, and agency representatives to explore regulatory options that 

may be considered in order to take facilitate ‘‘willing seller/willing buyer’’ grazing 

permit retirement opportunities when they arise. 

Sincerely, 

DAVID ALBERSWERTH, 

Director.

Æ