LIVESTOCK GRAZING ON FEDERAL LAND 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS, 

AND LANDS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

RESOURCES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

H.R. 1713 

A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR UNIFORM MANAGEMENT OF LIVESTOCK 

GRAZING ON FEDERAL LAND, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

93-556 cc 

JULY 11, 1995--WASHINGTON, DC 

Serial No. 104-38 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1995 

For ~a e by the U.S. Gove rnment P•inting Oftice 

Supcnntendcnt of Documents. Congressional Sales Oftice. Washington. DC 0-10~ 

ISBN 0-16-052029-0 
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

KEN CALVERT, California 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona 

FRANK A. CREMEANS, Ohio 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

WES COOLEY, Oregon 

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho 

LINDA SMITH, Washington 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas 

RICHARD (DOC) HASTINGS, Washington 

JACK METCALF, Washington 

JAMES B. LONGLEY, Maine 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada 

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana 

GEORGE MILLER, California 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, Californi!J 

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

Rico 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

SAM FARR, California 

DANIEL VAL K.!SH, Chief of Staff 

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director 

DAVID DYE, Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LA.t~DS 

JAMES V. HA...""SEN, Utah, Chairman 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

,TQEL HEFLEY, Colorado NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California PAT WILLIAMS, Montana 

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Massachusetts ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, Americarc 

J.D. R.A..\IVORTH, Arizona Samoa 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachus~tts 

WES COOLEY, Oregon CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho Rico 

LINDA SMITH, Washington NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

ALLEN FREEMYER, Staff Director/ Counsel 

STEVE HODAPP, Professional Staff 

illJ 
CONTENTS 

Hearing held July 11, 1995 .......................................................... .......................... . Text of H.R. 1713 ............................................................................................. . 

Stat~~!~\~goftl!~b~r~.R. 1713 ........................................................................... . 

Cubin, Hon. Barbara, a U.S. Representative from Wyoming .. .................... . Hansen, Hon. James V., a U.S. Representative from Utah and Chairman, 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands .............................. . Herger, Hon. Wally, a U.S. Representative from California ........ ................ . Radanovich, George P., a U.S. Representative from California .................. . Richardson, Hon. Bill, a U.S. Representative from New Mexico ................ .. Skeen, Hon. Joe, a U.S. Representative from New Mexico .......................... . Vento, Hon. Bruce F., a U.S. Representative from Minnesota ...... .............. . Statements of witnesses: 

Barnes, Harvey, President-elect, Nevada Cattlemen's Association ............ .. Prepared statement ...... .......................... ..................................... ............. . Bay, Donald M., Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture .................................................................. . Prepared statement .. .............................. .................................................. . Breese, Doug, American Farm Bureau Federation, Oregon Farm Bureau 

Federation ...................................................................................... ............... . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Brouha, Paul, American Fisheries Society ................................................... .. 

Dom1:~k~rM1ke~~:~~t ni~~~t~~ :· 'i3~~~~. ~f. j~~;;d. M.'~·;;~g~·;;.;~;t :. ''li.'ii.'. D~~ partment of the Interior ............................................................................. .. Prepared statement .......................................................... .. .. .................... . DuBois, Frank A., New Mexico Secretary of Agriculture, National Association of State Departments of Agriculture .............................................. . Prepared statement ............................................................................ ...... . Fowler, John M., Agriculture Economics Department, New Mexico State 

University ...................................................................... ........... .. .................. . 

Gree~~ec~~~~~~~e1fe;d~~··vot~~ c~;;~~~~·tio~·Aiii~~~~· ·: :: :: ::::::::: ::::::::::: Prepared statement ................................ ................................ .................. . Hillier, Gerald, on behalf of Marsha Turoci, First district supervisor 

and Chair, San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors ...................... .. Prepared statement by Ms. Turoci ......................................... ............... .. Hughes, Elden, California Sierra Club ......................................................... .. Prepared statement .................................................................. ........... ..... . Julian, Truman, President, Public Lands Council ....................... ................ .. Prepared statement ............................................................................... ... . Lowry, Tim, on behalf of the Owhyee Cattlemen's Association and 

Owhyee County Land Use Planning Committee ...................................... .. Prepared statement ............................................................................... ... . Mendel, Joyce, New Mexico Wildlife Federation ......................................... .. 

obe~!~~r~~!ri~k~.:·-p~~r~~~~~:·o~~go~ .. st~~· ·u·ci~~·;~;t:y· :::::::::::::::::::: Prepared statement ................................................... ............................... . Peterson, Max, International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies .. .. Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Roberson, Emily, California Native Plant Society ....................................... .. Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Skinn~r, Robe~ !vf., Chairman, Public Lands Committee, Oregon Cattle- men s Assoc1abon ... ......................................................................... ............. . 

(III) 

Page 

1 

108 

201 

20 

1 

4 

17 

21 

2 

21 

42 

270 

10 

244 

54 

275 

70 

334 

6 

220 

34 

256 

92 

395 

75 

385 

38 

263 

72 

341 

60 

287 

36 

260 

77 

387 

89 

389 

94 

409 

74 

346 

56 
IV 

Statements of witnesses-Continued 

Skinner, Robert M., Chairman, Public Lands Committee, Oregon Cattle- men's Association-Continued 

Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Smit~, ~an, Chairman, Public Lands Committee, Utah Cattlemen's Assoclahon ................................................................................ ........................ . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Taliaferro, Linda, President, Wyoming Association of Counties ................. . Prepared statement ................................................................................. .. Thomas, Jack Ward, Chief, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; accompanied by Maitland Sharpe, Assistant Director for Planning and Assessment, Bureau of Land Management; and Tim Salt, 

Area manager, Bureau of Land Management, Las Cruces, New Mexico . Prepared statement .................................. ........................................... ..... . Williamson, Lonnie L., Wildlife Management Institute .............................. .. Prepared statement ................... .............................. ........... ...................... . Winter, Keith, President, Association of National Grasslands, chair of 

San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors .......................................... . Prepared stat.ement .. ................................................................................ . Additional material supplied: 

ELM and Forest Service, as requested by Hon. Vento: Analyses of the fee proposai contained in the Livestock Grazing Act .. Estimated costs of implementing the Livestock Grazing Act .............. .. Brouha, Paul: The American Fisheries Society's Position Statement ........ .. Dombeck, Mike, Bureau of Land Management: Dominant Use Analysis for the Livestock Grazing Act, as requested by Hon. Cubin ......... .......... .. Julian, Truman: The Livestock Grazing Act-A Compendium of Comments, preparec 

by the Public Lands Council ..................................................... ... ........ . Letter of July 13, 1994, to Mr. Julian from Chuck Wimmer of Uta." 

Credit Association ................................................................................ . . Kennamer, James Earl, National Wild Turkey Federation: Letter of Jul:· 10, 1995, to Hon. James V. Hansen ........................................................... . Roberson, Emih·: Brovin, Donald, wildlife biologist: Letter of June 29, 1995, to Se:-.. John lvicCain . ...... .......... ............................................... .......................... . l~i;'~!1er, mas L., Pr?fessor, Prescott College: Letter of July 8, .J.:;\-Io . to Ho;:L Larry Crrug .................................................................... . F'ieishner. Thomas L.: Ecological Costs of Livestock Grazing in West- ern North America, paper from Conservation Biology, Septembe:, 

199-'r .. ................................................................... ............... ......... ........... . Kauffman, J. Boone, Ph.D., Professor, Oregon State University: :Letter of July 9, 1995, to U.S. Senate ................ ..................................... . Ohma.rt, Robert D., Ph.D., Arizona State University: Letter of Jul; 

3, 1995, to 3en. John McCain .............................................................. . Werbeiow, Karen, Foundation for North American Wild Sheep: Statemen( 

to Hon. Don Young ... .. ... .. ....................... ..................................................... .. Winter, Keith, President, Association of National Grasslands: Letter a<. mentioned on page 69 of text, of July 6. 1995, to Jack Ward Thoma<:, Chief, Forest Service ............................ ... ..................................................... . 

Page 

278 

62 

331 

40 

267 

8 

206 

96 

415 

58 

281 

436 

443 ')~· 

U: 

425 

296 

33:: 

42:_ 

35S' 

36C 

38 

38<c 
LIVESTOCK GRAZING ON FEDERAL LAND 

TUESDAY, JULY 11, 1995 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS, COMMITTEE ON 

RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m. in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James V. Hansen 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES V. HANSEN, A U.S. REPRESENTA" 

TIVE FROM UTAH AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS 

Mr. HANSEN. The committee will come to order. 

This is the Committee on National Parks, Forests and Lands 

Subcommittee. We welcome you today. 

The legislation before the subcommittee today is a very important measure to assuring the continued health of the Federal 

rangelands as well as the economy of the West. I would like to congratulate Congressman Wes Cooley for all of the hard work he has 

put into this measure. 

The Livestock Grazing Act is a great step forward. It provides a 

viable, practical, and solid solution regarding the issue of grazing 

on Federal rangelands in the West. The measure before us would 

add some much-needed stability and certainty to the grazing program so that ranchers and their families can make a decent living 

and the banks that sort them can make good business decisions 

concerning lending money. 

Most importantly, this legislation will end the false criticisms 

that grazing is another public subsidy. This simply is not true, and 

I believe H.R. 1713 makes great strides in taking that claim away 

from opponents. The grazing fee contained in the bill will bring 

about a fair return to the Treasury for grazing on public lands. 

The ranchers in Utah and across the West are not looking for 

special treatment or government handouts. They expect to pay a 

fair price for the privilege of grazing livestock on public land and 

have worked to be good stewards of the ground. In return, they expect to be treated fairly by the Federal Government. This bill 

treats them fairly. 

Unfortunately, the Department of Interior and the Clinton Administration have introduced regulations that would destroy rural 

communities across the West. The proposed regulations would lead 

to uncertainty for permittees and the lending institutions that loan 

them money based on their long-term tenure on public lands. 

(1) 
2 

H.R. 1713 would reverse the Clinton Administration's onerous 

proposaL This legislation is a reasonable attempt to move away 

from heavy handed regulation and solve longstanding disputes over 

grazing fees, water rights, and the need to give grazing permittees 

the assurances they need to continue to operate on public lands. I also believe the bill brings some common sense to the NEP A 

process by requiring that grazing activities be conducted according 

to land use plans prepared under that Act and by not requiring 

NEPA review for each individual management decision or permit 

renewal. 

The livestock communities of Utah and the West have long had 

a cloud of uncertainty over them. H.R. 1713 gives us the opportunity to finally resolve this matter and to allow the ranchers of 

the West to continue to make a living and raise their families. 

Mr. HANSEN. I want to welcome each of our distinguished witnesses to the subcommittee and thank each and every one of them 

for their testimony and each person for being here. 

I will ask unanimous consent that I can call upon-without objection, no one is going to object. I can call upon Wes Cooley if he 

would like to give us some opening remarks. Then we will turn to 

our colleagues from New Mexico and California. 

Mr. CooLEY. No, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to thank you and 

your committee staff for all the work you have done on getting this 

on the schedule. 

We do have a very tight time line and I think it is very important that we proceed, and so I would like to get this thing underway, but I want to make it a part of the record that I really, truly 

want to thank you for all the work that you and your staff have 

done to make this possible. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 

I don't see anybody on the Minority side at this point. This is 

going to be an awfully busy day. We are going to be running in and 

out with a lot of votes. I apologize to everyone for that beforehand, 

but it will occur. 

We are grateful to have two of our distinguished colleagues here 

the gentleman from New Mexico and the gentleman from California. Joe, we will tum to you first and then to Wally Herger. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE SKEEN, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW MEXICO 

Mr. SKEEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Cooley. I appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this grazing public lands 

issue as well as appear before you today to offer my thoughts and 

comments regarding H.R. 1713, the Livestock Grazing Act of 1995. 

AB all of you know, this is a subject that is near and dear to my 

heart. My colleagues are well aware of my long and continuing interest in the grazing issue. It is about time that the Congress address this matter and resolve many of the public lands issues once 

and for all, and once we resolve this grazing issue, I believe this 

committee, Congress, and the Administration should begin to explore ways to return a good portion of public lands back to the 

western States. 

More than one-third of New Mexico is comprised of Federal lands 

and many of the ranches in the State depend on Federal leases to 
3 

provide a viable place for their livestock operations. However, I 

would like to point out that I purchased my Federal land many 

years ago, knowing that the Federal Government does not make a 

good business partner. I would like to see my neighbors have the 

same opportunity. 

The Livestock Grazing Act is a good bipartisan compromise 

which would at long last provide for the uniform management of 

livestock grazing on Federal lands. It is in the public interest to 

implement this legislation which codifies existing law and regulations. 

This bill would halt the efforts by some people who would like 

to drastically change the management practices on western grazing 

lands. This bill will promote, rather than thwart, our long-standing 

tradition of public grazing and stewardship. 

There is a great contrast between this bill and Secretary 

Babbitt's rangeland reform. First of all, while the Secretary's measure does not include an increase in fees, which is fine with me, this 

bill does accept an increase in fees. 

As many you know, I have fought against an arbitrary increase 

in grazing fees for many years. T:\lis legislation includes no such arbitrary and unfair increase. I can support this measure precisely 

because the fee increase is not capricious. At long last, this legislation would codify a formula for calculating grazing fees that ranchers could live with. This is a fair way to access the value of grazing 

on public lands and I believe this new formula would prevent economic disruption to the western livestock industry. 

Moreover, the Livestock Grazing Act extents permit tenure from 

10 to 15 years and includes a provision which will allow grazing 

operations to be handed down from one generation to another without an arbitrary penalty. This will add stability, equity, and continuity to ranchers and provides the opportunity for good, stable 

stewardship of the land. 

If Federal land is priced out of use, most operations will immediately go out of business. The remaining operators will be adversely impacted by the uncertainty and lack of security which will 

ensue. Lending institutions lend money based on the long-term tenure provided by a stable formula and they will call in their loans 

if that security is removed. Without the ability to finance a loan, 

livestock operators will not stay in business. 

This legislation accepts the idea of increasing grazing fees while 

knowing that there will be less oversight and regulation on the 

public lands users. This plan provides a reasonable alternative to 

Secretary Babbitt's proposal while promoting the economic beneficial use of public lands. Ranchers have played an integral part in 

our economy and this bill attempts to increase their opportunity to 

secure permanence with assured stewardship and responsibility. 

Finally, and in line with the Congress' new effort at returning 

control to the local level, this approach allows grazing guidelines to 

be set at the local level rather than the Federal Government's onesize-fits-all approach. This legislation represents months of work by many individuals 

in the western ranching community. I believe it is the best possible 

approach to resolving the long-standing differences that have sepa-
4 

rated certain environmental groups and lawmakers from the important western industry. Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to 

offer my thoughts and comments regarding the grazing issue and 

I look forward to returning to your committee so that we can talk 

about freeing up this public land for purchase or transfer. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Congressman Skeen. 

Mr. SKEEN. Thank you for considering this bill today. 

Mr. HANSEN. Congressman Wally Herger from California. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. WALLY HERGER, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to 

testify regarding the Livestock Grazing Act of 1995. The issues addressed by this legislation are of primary importance to many in 

my district. 

Mr. Chairman, I appear today on behalf of the farmers, ranchers 

and livestock owners in my northern California district. During my 

tenure in Congress, no class of Americans has borne a greater, 

more costly regulatory burden than these people. Over the past 

decade, they have helplessly watched their family farms and businesses slowly collapse under the increasing weight of environmental and land use laws, many of which move far beyond what 

is necessary to prevent the degradation of natural resources. 

This growing regulatory regime has progressively locked up public lands that generations of families have responsibly and successfully managed for multiple uses. The irony of this Federal 

micromanagement of public land use is that all too ofte n the government replaces common sense practices with procedurally intensive and often politically charged blanket policies which ultimately 

do more harm to our natural resources than good. Those who rely 

on public lands for their livelihood have a vested interest in keeping them healthy and productive for years and generations to come. 

Nevertheless, it seems that Washington always believes it has a 

better idea. Nowhere have Federal practices been more prolific or 

resulted in more absurdities than in the policies and regulations 

that govern our rangelands. I was appalled, for example, to learn 

earlier this year that over 225 grazing permits in California, including 85 in my district, were in jeopardy of expiring without renewal due to an unprecedented determination by the Forest Service that these permit renewals required full NEPA review prior to 

turn out. 

Although I was assured by Federal authorities that the required 

documents would be completed in a timely manner, I was dubious 

of their promise, given that only 43 such studies had been completed by the Forest Service for California permittees during the 

previous five years. 

Mr. Chairman, now we are faced with pending regulations, popularly known as rangeland reform, which when implemented will 

further erode private property and water rights, dilute the voice of 

ranchers regarding how public lands should be managed, require 

the Secretary's stamp of approval on local management plans, and 
5 

enforce excessive and unfair punitive measures against those who, 

even unknowingly, fail to fully comply with this new law. 

Mr. Chairman, what the Secretary touts as reform is nothing 

more than a thinly veiled attempt to end grazing on public lands. 

It is not right and we must stop it. The legislation that will be considered today is a common sense alternative to rangeland reform. 

It protects hard-earned private property and water rights and 

brings decisionmaking regarding the uses of public land back to the 

local level where it belongs without alienating or diluting the voice 

of those who are most affected by those decisions. It restores reasonable enforcement of grazing regulations and removes intimidation as a method of regulatory oversight. It also provides a longterm solution to the outrageous permit renewal problem which I 

described earlier. Mr. Chairman, as introduced, the Livestock Grazing Act is a tremendous step in the right direction. But we are not there yet. In 

order for this legislation to provide a fully workable plan for range 

management it must, wherever appropriate, apply the statutory directives outlined for BLM to those lands managed by the Forest 

Service. This is especially true with regard to the requirement of 

full NEPA review for the renewal of individual grazing permits 

which I described earlier. This will bring healthy uniformity to our 

rangeland laws and remove any interagency confusion regarding 

how public lands should be managed. 

Mr. Chairman, I again thank you and this committee for its dedicated work on this most important issue. I respectfully urge my colleagues here today to continue their efforts to make this bill one 

which will protect not only our rangeland, but also those who take 

the lead in preserving them for our posterity. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Congressman Herger. 

Mr. HANSEN. We appreciate the testimony of our two colleagues 

from New Mexico and California. We have five panels today. We 

have a lot of people here to hear from. Unless someone has a burning desire to question Congressman Skeen and Congressman 

Herger, we will excuse them and thank them for their testimony. 

Mr. SKEEN. Thank you Mr. Chairman. We will answer any burning questions that you might have. But we would just as soon burn 

ourselves out of here. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Joe. 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you. Mr. SKEEN. Thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. Our next panel, we are honored to have Jack Ward 

Thomas, Chief of the Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; and Mike Dombeck, Acting Director, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior with us. We also have 

Mr. Donald Bay with us. We appreciate the attendance of these 

distinguished gentlemen and if I may ask Mr. Dombeck and Mr. 

Thomas, how much time will your testimony take? 

Mr. DOMBECK. I will take maybe six to seven minutes. 

Mr. HANSEN. And Mr. Ward. 

Mr. THOMAS. Not more than five; probably about three. Mr. HANSEN. OK. Dawn, would you give Mr. Dombeck seven 

minutes and Mr. Thomas five minutes. You will see the green light 
6 

go on as you begin to talk. The yellow light will warn you to wind 

up. The red light will signal you to stop. Is that OK? I appreciate 

your cooperation .. Mr. Dombeck. 

STATEMENT OF MIKE DOMBECK, ACTING DIRECTOR, BUREAU 

OF LAND MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. DOMBECK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on H.R. 1713, the Livestock Grazing Act. I have 

with me today Maitland Sharpe, Assistant Director for Planning 

and Assessment of the Bureau of Land Management, and sitting behind me is Tim Salt, a past area manager in the BLM Las 

Cruces district in New Mexico which is one of the largest grazing 

programs we have should we need information on technical ques- tions. 

Let me start out by saying that the Act would change many provisions of existing law and essentially replace BLM's new coopera- tive relations and grazing administration rules. The Department 

would default on its responsibility to the thousands of western citizens who helped shape BLM's regulations if we did not voice strong 

opposition to the Act. The Act will turn the clock back on public rangeland management. 

Let me point out that we do not oppose livestock grazing. It is 

a traditional use of public lands. Over the decades, BLM has managed public lands for grazing along with other multiple uses such 

as recreation, hunting, fishing, logging, and mining. 

As stated many times, in many places, the public rangelands are 

in better shape today than they were 50 years ago. This is due in 

part to a deeper understanding of range ecology and improved grazing practices implemented by ranchers and the agencies that 

manage these public lands together. 

But we must do more to pass on sustainable resources to our 

children because: Millions of acres of public lands remain in poor 

condition; too many watersheds are not producing the full range of 

benefits; too many soils continue to lose fertility; the poisonous, exotic weeds problem is a ''biological nightmare" for all interests in 

the West; and too many streams and riparian areas are degraded. The BLM's strategy to improve rangeland health is built upon the collective wisdom of 60 years of applied science. It was shaped 

by over two years of public discussion. We have prepared a detailed 

comparison and analysis of BLM's old livestock grazing regulations, 

our new regulations, and the provisions of the Act that I am submitting as part of my written testimony. Our analysis makes clear 

our many strong objections to the bill. 

I would like to speak to two principle differences between the bill 

and ELM's healthy rangelands strategy. First, the Act focuses public rangeland management on the single use of livestock grazing, 

deemphasizing other uses and values of public land such as mining, hunting, recreation, and wildlife. 

Experience has proven that we cannot emphasize a single use of 

public land without compromising other uses. Where the Act concentrates exclusively on livestock production, our approach encourages collaborative management to sustain the land's overall productivity to meet the needs of not only public land ranchers, but 
7 

other public land users such as hunters, campers, and 

recreationists. 

Second, the bill would severely limit public involvement in the 

management of public lands. Over the past 20 years, it has become 

clear that the most effective stewardship is for all people involved 

in natural resource management to have a say. As Theodore Roosevelt said, "common solutions to common problems for the common good." 

We must move beyond public land users sitting at opposite ends 

of the table arguing over the use of shared resources, waiting for 

court-ordered solutions. The Act, as we see it, is a lawyer's dream, 

a recipe for polarization and litigation. If we regress to such management, the public lands and the people who depend upon them 

will suffer most. 

The Act limits the ability of anyone who does not graze livestock 

to have a say in public land management and planning. To deny 

citizens a seat at the table, a voice in the process, would be a major 

step backward. In contrast to the bill, our program focuses on improving public input and understanding of good ranching practices 

that many stewards practice. 

In order to bring all of those who use and care for public lands 

together, we have met with western governors or their staffs to select a model for creating diverse and balanced citizen advisory 

councils. We intend for local citizens to be in the lead. Our resource 

advisory councils are tailored to best meet the needs of all of those 

who use care and appreciate the public lands. 

Over time, our approach will restore the productivity and diversity of hundreds of thousands of acres of riparian habitat; bring an 

additional 20 million acres of uplands into properly functioning 

conditions; they will benefit plants, fish, and animal species, including livestock; they will enhance recreational opportunities such 

as fishing, hunting, hiking, tourism, and wildlife viewing. 

The health of our watersheds is ultimately what sustains livestock production in the West. BLM's healthy rangelands approach 

moves resource decisionmaking from Washington DC, to western 

rangelands. In contrast, the Act offers 93 pages of top-down direction to local managers and public land users. We believe those who 

live closer to the resources have a better understanding of how to 

manage the land to meet the people's needs. 

The bill is a departure from traditional multiple-use management in that it appears to elevate one use over other uses of public 

lands. It changes the standards the courts apply and creates the 

potential for disruptive litigation for years to come. 

We cannot allow lawsuits, judicial injunctions, and top-down 

remedies to impede our stewardship responsibilities. BLM's approach provides flexibility. Let me show an example of 

the complexity of the Act. We wanted to get a picture of how the 

various provisions of the Livestock Grazing Act fit together and 

how the bill would affect public land management. So we took as 

our starting point evidence of overuse of a riparian area on an allotment. We worked through the process dictated by the bill to see 

what steps would have to be taken and how long it would take to 

deal with this apparent problem. 
8 

AB you can see from the chart, it becomes a very long story. Five 

years of monitoring shows that the land is on the threshold of permanent damage. We then have to evaluate and implement all reasonable and viable alternatives to correct the problem. And if the 

first alternative doesn't work, we have to try the next. We may select a water development on the uplands to redistribute livestock. 

If the permittee protests, the full round of appeals take us to the 

year 2008. More monitoring to see if it works, new prescriptions because the problem wasn't solved. Another loop through the appeal 

cycle. Finally, we begin to implement stocking reductions phased in 

over five years. Finally, in 2018, reductions in livestock begin. 

Twenty-three years in time has elapsed. 

Let me summarize by saying, limiting public participation in 

public rangeland management would fail both the land and those 

who depend upon it. For these reasons, and those set forth in the 

analysis that I am submitting, the Department of Interior and the 

Bureau of Land Management strongly oppose the Livestock Grazing Act. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dombeck can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Dombeck, do you have small copies of the char: 

you just helci up? I don't, think any member of the committee coulC: 

read that; at leas~ I couldn't. You have eyes like a hawk. Mr. DOMBECK Yes, we do. 

Mr. HANSEN. \Ve would like to see that and we would. apprecia-c0 

if vou would. submit those to members o£' the committee. ThanL 

yoi:.. If we could have thoss. · Mr. Thomas. We welcome you here and turn the time to yot:c , si: 

STATEMEI'I'T OF JACK WARD THOMAS, CHIEF, FOREST SER\". 

ICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, ACCOMPANIEL 

BY :M:AITLA.."'ffi SHARPE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PLA~l\ . 

NING AND ASSESSMENT, BUREAU OF LAND M..A...l'IJAGEMEN': 

A .. l'lffi TIM SAL'.r, AREA MANAGER, BUREAU OF :LAND MANAGE 

MENT, LAS CRUCES, 1\I'EW MEXICO 

Mr. THONiAS. Ti.1ank you. I appreciate the opportunity to provi:ir_ the views of the Department of Agriculture concerning E .R. 1712. The Department of Agriculture does not suppor-.: enactment of E .I". 

1713 as it affectto this Departmen7.. 

Only two provisions in- this bill affect p:rograms under the uri~

diction of the Secretary of Agriculture. Title I, section 137, concerr--

ing grazing fees, and Title II, which would remove national grass- lancis from the National Forest System. 

However, we would have serious concerns should the provisions 

o:' Title I oe amended to include iands managed by the Forest Sen;-

ice. While we concur that the present system for determining grazing fees on Federal lands might he improved, it is not clear how 

this legislation would accomplish such improvement. If a change iE 

fee systems is made, we recommend that the eastern and southern 

regions of the Forest Service be excluded from such change and 

continue to be governed by provisions in 36 CFR 222. 

We object to the removal of the national grasslands from the National Forest System. The inclusion of the national grasslands in 
9 

the National Forest System in 1974 reflected the evolution of Federal conservation policy over many years. This gave the national 

grasslands equal status with the national forest and, at the same 

time, the original legislative intent which gave birth to the national 

grasslands was preserved. 

The national grasslands rose from the dust of worn out land and 

impoverished and abandoned farms. That the grasslands have 

largely recovered and become part of the National Forest System 

reflects a resounding success story in American conservation. The 

national grasslands are important public resources on a par with 

other Federal lands and worthy of the same protection and considerations as apply to the national forests. 

We remain committed to the principle that successful management requires a high degree of coordination and cooperation with 

individuals, organizations, local State and Federal agencies. 

We do not concur that present concerns over the prominence and 

effectiveness of national grassland management would be resolved 

by removing them from the National Forest System nor by changing management objectives. 

Title II would call for a program of dominant use management 

separate from that currently required by the National Forest Management Act. We are unable to discern a significant improvement 

or meaningful advantage to such approach. Creating separate, duplicative processes for grasslands does not appear to be cost-effective. While precise effects of Title II are difficult to determine because of ambiguous and undefined terminology, it is safe to say 

that these provisions would result in evermore debate, controversy, 

and litigation as to their meaning. Other serious unanswered questions remain, such as the effect 

on the oil, gas, and coal industries that are extremely important on 

many grasslands and to their surrounding communities. Implications for more than 300 grazing permit holders who are not members of grazing associations is unclear. 

Several unanswered questions and unresolved issues exist with 

the way the language is written. For example, some important 

terms such as "gross value of production" are not defined. We are 

also unable to determine how the connection between the fee to be 

charged and the data which would be required to be collected, or 

if the data applies to private and public grazing. \Ve are concerned 

that the language as written would lead to yet another grazing fee 

study, perhaps on an annual basis. 

Although in principle we agree with the approach of basing fees 

on value of production gain from grazing, it is not clear what the 

rationale is for charging a fee which is one-half of 1 percent of such 

value. 

It is not clear how well the legislation fits nearly 4 million acres 

of grasslands located in 12 different States scattered from Texas to 

North Dakota, and also located in California, Idaho and Oregon. 

Such questions need to be addressed. 

I would end by saying, if this applied to the national forest, we 

would have considerably more concern in terms of Title I. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Thomas. 
10 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thomas can be found at the enc 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. H&'l"SEN. Mr. Bay, do you have a statement~ 

STATEMEl\'T OF DONALD M. BAY, ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL 

AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

AGRICULTURE 

Mr. BAY. I am the administrator of the National Agriculture Sta- tistics Service in USDA. And my comments are toward the technical side of the bill and the fee schedule and section 137. If I couk 

have a minute or two, I would be happy. 

Mr. HA.c""l"SEN. How many minutes or two do you need? 

Mr. BAY. Just two. Mr. HM-TSEN. Give the gentleman three minutes. 

Mr. BAY. The determination of actual grazing fees should continue to rest with the organizations that administer the fee and 

manage the Federal land rather than have it rest with the National Agriculture Statistics Service or the Economic Research 

Service. NASS or ERS may be the proper organization to collect 

and publish certain data series which in turn would be used by the 

Forest Service or the BLM to determine the actual grazing fee. 

Currently the Forest Service and the BLM contract with NASS 

to collect certain data for determining grazing fees. The bill refers 

to total, gross value of production for livestock as determined by 

NASS. NASS does not determine such a figure. It is our understanding this actually refers to total gross value production per 

cow, which ERS provides. 

This has recently been discontinued by ERS due to funding reductions which cause them to do cost of the production service on 

only commodities that are required by law. However, this law is en- acted and ERS data series remains a key element. Funding would 

need to be available for collecting the necessary cow/calf cost production data to support this. 

The bill states that NASS should collect considerable additional 

data and make a determination on grazing fees and surcharges 

based on that information. This additional data would have no 

bearing on future grazing fees or the surcharge since the formula 

described under the basic fee and surcharge section are very specific and does not allow for any deviation based on the additional 

data being requested. We are concerned about the added burden on 

ranchers of answering a great deal of additional questions that 

would not really be used in determining the grazing fees. I realize these may seem to be very technical issues, but I hope 

you will agree that our concern about collecting only information 

that is needed and can be accurately reported by ranchers is important. 

I would be happy to answer any questions about this section. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Bay. We appreciatelour comment. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bay can be foun at the end of 

the hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. If I may state to the people that are here, it is a 

very warm day. Humidity is high. Feel free to take your coats off. 

Anything to make you comfortable. This a very warm situation. 
11 

I am going to recognize the members as they came into the room 

by order of their appearance. And we have five panels. I would like 

to caution everyone, five panels. There are going to be some 

refireworks on the Floor today. We are going to have a lot of votes 

coming up so we don't want to keep everyone here. 

If you could stay within the five minutes, I would appreciate it. 

If you want somebody to yield to you, that is fine. If you absolutely 

need more time, please call upon me and I would be happy to give 

you more time. Mr. Dombeck, I would just like to ask you one quick question and 

then we will move to the others. I notice in your written testimony 

and also the written testimony of some of the others, you all are 

concerned that there is no public interest. You turn to page 80 of 

the bill. Starting on line 18, it says, representation of interest. The 

members of the Resource Advisory Council shall be selected from 

among persons that represent historical use, multiple-use affected 

landowners, county social and economic interests, elected State and 

county officers, and the public at large. 

This seems to me that is rather all-encompassing. How do you 

say there is no public interest there? 

Mr. DOMBECK. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me say that our interpretation of the bill indicates that the Resource Advisory Councils 

have a macro role and they do provide that input. 

However, the real activity where the rubber meets the road and 

the objective-setting process is with the Grazing Advisory Councils 

that are very limited, so we see the bulk of the critical decisions 

being made at that level, and for us to determine standing of an 

individual or individuals will ultimately be determined in the 

court. 

So if we just follow the recommendations of a group dominated 

by permittees and ranchers, those that want to object will object 

and they will object to court, and the courts will determine whether 

an individual has standing in the process, and that is basically our 

interpretation of that dialog. 

Mr. HANSEN. So in the judgment of BLM, you put the Grazing 

Advisory Council in a much higher place than you do the advisory 

council; is that right? 

Mr. DOMBECK. Yes. 

Mr. HANSEN. What criteria do you base that on? 

Mr. DOMBECK. I will let Maitland answer that. 

Mr. HANSEN. Would you identify yourself for the record, please. Mr. SHARPE. My name is Maitland Sharpe. I am an assistant director of the Bureau of Land Management for Resource Assessment 

and Planning. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I can clarify this a little bit. 

When you read the provisions of the bill, you discover that you 

would grant to the Grazing Advisory Councils, for the first time, 

actual decisionmaking authority, and I quote, "the authority to set 

range improvement objectives". When you read the definition of range improvements, you discover that under the terms of the bill, range improvements encompass virtually everything that we normally call range management: 

vegetative manipulation; dealing with water; watershed values; 
12 

dealing with habitat; the full range of range management activities, if you will. 

All right. Under this combining of the two, we discover that the 

Grazing Advisory Councils are in fact given the authority to set the 

objectives and do the fundamental planning. They have the fundamental planning responsibility for allotment level management 

for everything having to do with the use and control of livestock 

on the ground. 

In our view, this is an extraordinary departure from the structure of FLPMA, a departure that really pushes range management 

back to the very early years under the Taylor Grazing Act when 

the grazing boards were in de facto control of the range rather than 

the Federal managers. We are deeply concerned that this would 

thoroughly bind the hands of the Federal managers and essentially 

prevent our field people from carrying out our statutory obligation 

to protect and enhance the fundamental underlying resource base 

on the public lands. 

That is the reason we are so concerned and, yes, you are exactly 

right, in our view, the practical effect of the bill would be to give 

to or award to the Grazing Advisory Councils the bulk of the most 

important duties, the most important decisionmaking capacity. 

Mr. HANSEN. I respectfully disagree with you, but my time is expired. Let me say, I think we all have our own interpretations. It 

is like the scriptures, we can interpret them any way we want to. 

But on page 83, it says, "Responsibilities: In general, a Resource 

Advisory Council shall have the responsibility of advising the Secretary and appropriate State officials on major management decisions while working within the broad management goals established for the grazin g district", which, to me, doesn't include them 

at all. But like I said, that is a matter of interpretation between 

us. And I know where you folks are coming from. 

Mr. Cooley, who has worked so diligently on this bill, I recognize 

you for five minutes. 

Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Dombeck, in your testimony-written and 

verbal-you talk about poor conditions. Would you tell me if you 

think poor conditions of our natural resources is overgrazing? 

What do you mean when you say poor condition? How do you 

classify that? 

Mr. DOMBECK. Let me elaborate a little bit on that. Number one, 

we all know that by and large the range condition is much better 

than it was at the turn of the century and the Taylor Grazing Act 

has been very effective in improving the health of particularly the 

uplands. I spend a lot of time out West in your State and all the western 

States. I have been in a pickup with permittees and others that 

say, you know, if I was managing that, it wouldn't look like that. 

And you can drive an hour-and-a-half in any direction and someone 

is likely to say that to you. The other important point is that the riparian areas, although 

not large in acreage, are the most important areas because of their 

important value to wildlife, to fishing, and to water quality in the 

West. Only 30 percent of the 100,000 miles of riparian area are in 

properly functioning condition. 
13 

Noxious weeds are a problem that is a concern for everyone. We 

estimate that some 2,300 acres a day are being infested by leafy 

spurge, white tops, and star thistle and other weeds. 

Productivity of the land ultimately is what will sustain grazing 

and, I think, help all of the interests. We have many success stories 

in every State where areas are being improved. 

Another important point about the condition of the land is to recognize that most operators are good stewards of the land and they 

are working with us to assure that the land continues to improve. 

What we see in this bill is it protects bad stewards and I don't understand why industry would want to protect bad stewards by 

binding the hands of resource managers from being able to deal 

with the problem. 

Mr. COOLEY. Well, let's get to the bad steward part of it. You do 

now have the authority to take care of bad stewards. Are you doing 

so? 

Mr. DOMBECK. Yes. We are making progress every year. 

Mr. COOLEY. How many years have you been in the process of 

making this progress? 

Mr. DOMBECK. Since the Taylor Grazing Act. 

Mr. CooLEY. Do you think curtailing grazing is going to improve 

the conditions of our rangelands? 

Mr. DoMBECK. In some cases, yes, but we have much documented 

evidence that grazing is compatible and we have areas where we 

implemented new restoration strategies and a variety of methods 

to redistribute livestock and allow vegetation at critical times of 

the year to sprout and develop the root mass that it takes to hold 

soil and preventing erosion. So there is progress being made every 

year. It is important that we continue that progress. 

Mr. CoOLEY. If you look at the legislation that is now pending, 

presented by the Secretary of Interior, do you think that this was 

a good legislation for the betterment of the industry and the use 

of the rangeland? 

Mr. DOMBECK. You are referring to the rule that is currently 

scheduled to be implemented in August? 

Mr. COOLEY. That is correct. 

Mr. DOMBECK. I am not sure I completely understood the first 

part of your question. 

Mr. COOLEY. I will make it real simple. If this legislation had not 

been presented-H.R. 1713-and we went into the rule that is now 

going to go into effect as presented by the Secretary of Interior, do 

you think that that rule will give you better control of the rangeland to the benefit of the public or do you think that H.R. 1713 

gives us a more liberal look at it, a more wide spectrum, a more 

user-friendly legislation? 

Mr. DoMBECK. I think the rule will allow us to move forward. And there is the concern about the paperwork thrust upon all the 

operators. In fact, the bulk of operators will have less paperwork 

because they are doing things right and we are not going to have 

to worry about them nearly as much. It is the operators, the 5 percent, or whatever the small percentage is, that are not doing a good 

job where our hands are going to be tied as in the 23-year example 

that I gave. 
14 

I have got to tell you there are not that many appeals. I asked 

my staff for a list of the appeals, the number of appeals that we 

have had on the thousands of grazing decisions over the years and 

I have got it tallied from 1986 to present. And it is, in most cases, 

less than a hundred, and I think that is a pretty good record. 

Mr. CoOLEY. My time is gone by. Let me close by saying, probably your appeal process is less than a hundred because people are 

frustrated with the system and feel that the appeal does not do 

them any good whatsoever. They lose anyway. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HAr'l"SEN. Thank you. Mr. Ensign. 

Mr. ENSIGN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would just like Mr. Dombeck to discuss a little bit about the 

range improvement objectives and Federal control versus more of 

a local control which this bill seems to, at least in your opinion, 

give. 

I was just recently in northeastern Nevada, up around the Elko 

area and it, I think through the most casual observer, has been a 

heavy rain year and a heavy snow fall year and there are a lot of 

grasses growing. It is very dense around there and the fear is that 

later in the summer there is going to be a tremendous fire danger. 

What provisions are present now for your agency to increase the 

number in the herds that would be allowed to graze the land to cut 

down on that fire danger? 

Mr. DOMBECK. I am not sure I can answer that directly. Let me 

ask Tim if he can provide a field perspective of that. 

Mr. SALT. There are provisions. 

Mr. HAJ.'-I"SEN. Would you identify yourself, please. 

Mr. SALT. I am Tim Salt. There are provisions both in the rules 

that are in effect now and the rule that would go into effect in August to provide for temporary, nonrenewable permits where, when 

additional forage is available on a temporary basis, that forage 

could be allocated. 

Mr. E~SIGN . Are those difficult to get? So basically any ranchers 

that would want to apply for it, it would be fairly easy to get this 

year is what you are saying? 

Mr. SALT. They are relatively easy to get. 

Mr. ENSIGN. That is not the experience the ranchers in the 

Northeast in Nevada have told me. As a matter of fact, that is one 

of the reasons that I think a lot of the ranchers have been calling 

for a little more local input and local control. 

And having grown up in Nevada and my family has been in Nevada since 1906, one of the problems I think the people from the 

West have with the whole idea of the Federal Government controlling the West is that most people in the Federal Government come 

from the East. And most people from the East don't understand 

what it is like living in the West. 

Nevada has 87 percent of its land controlled by the Federal Government. You have people who have grown up with the ways of life 

and they know the West and they appreciate the West and they 

want to take care of the land. Most of these lands and grazing 

rights have been passed down from generation to generation, and 
15 

a lot of neoole in the West feel that their wav of life is threatened 

by Fede;al bureaucrats. • 

Obviously, there is a lot of hostility out there toward Federal bureaucrats. I don't think that is something that they just created in 

their minds. There obviously has been something that has happened over the years to create that. 

To people in the West and when you are looking at this bill and 

you are looking, that you know the Federal Government knows 

best, you know, I guess the people in Nevada would disagree that 

they could not maintain their lands in a better light. 

That is really all I have, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HA..~SEN. Thank you. 

Mrs. Chenoweth. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. 

I want to first open my comments by thanking Senior Senator 

Larry Craig. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to 

thank Wes Cooley for putting together a bill that was extremely 

difficult to do. But we saw the leaders and sponsors of this bill 

work with the industry and with the agencies, and I am just very 

proud of seeing democracy work at its best. Truly, this is what our 

founding fathers envisioned in a good citizen government, good citizen input, and I just thank both you gentlemen very much for the 

hard work that I know you put into this bill. 

The gentleman who is sitting to the right of Mr. Dombeck, you 

mentioned that-what is your name? 

Mr. SHARPE. My name is Maitland Sharpe. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Sharpe, you mentioned that this is a 

sharp departure from FLPMA. 

Mr. SHARPE. Yes, ma'am. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. With regard to the grazing rights, let me read 

to you from FLPMA. FLPMA reaffirmed the concept of the Taylor 

Grazing Act in section 1752. You might make a note of it where 

it says "the holder of the expiring permit or lease shall be given 

first priority for receipt of the new permit or the lease". 

It again reaffirms in FLPMA the following. You might make a 

note of it, 1752(d). "If the Secretary concerned elects to develop an 

allotment management plan for a given area, he shall do so in careful and considered consultation, cooperation, and coordination with 

the lessees, permittees, and landowners involved." 

Furthermore, PRIA passed after FLPMA reaffirmed this concept 

in section 1901(a)(5) where it said Congress found that "to prevent 

disruption and harm to the western livestock industry, it is in the 

public interest to charge a fee for livestock grazing permits and 

leases on the public lands which is based on a formula reflecting 

annual charges in the cost of production." 

But FLPMA and PRIA cases involving the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals cases, Supreme Court cases, such as Shuffiebarger versus Commissioner IRS established in 1955 that the grazing permit 

has a value and an equity value and can be taxed. Pankey Land 

& Cattle Co. versus Hardin, 1970, in the Tenth Circuit Court of 

Appeals reaffirmed the preference in grazing rights. The Red Canyon Sheep Co. versus Ickes in 1938 reaffirmed the preference in 

grazing rights. And I would submit to you, sir, that the BLM is 
16 

moving from what has been historic law to a political position that 

is creating a situation in our western States. 

We will not only lose the strong economic base, but a cultural 

base that we are very, very proud of. We are very proud of our livestock industry and a whole body of law backs up their preference 

right. And I don't think that this law changes that. I think it opens 

up the public input. 

Mr. SHARPE. I understand that, Congresswoman. On the fundamental point, I want to assure you that we individually and as 

a bureau share their commitment, the commitment of the other 

people in this room, to maintaining a viable, healthy, vibrant livestock industry on these public lands. We share your commitment 

to the culture and the values of these ranching families and their ·~ · commun1..1es. We share your commitment to maintaining this economic underpinning of these important rural western communities. We share 

that. That is among our major goals. 

I do not believe that the policies of the bureau nor the provisions 

of the rule that was promulgated on February 22nd would in fact, 

in practice as played out over time, undermine those values at all. 

On the question of law, I am aware of the CCC provision. I am 

certainly aware of the preference provisions of the Taylor Grazing 

Act. But what neither FLPM..<\ nor PRIA did was give to Grazing 

Advisory Councils or the equivalent any authority, any decisionmaking authority, any planning authority. Grazing councils were 

advisory in nature, exclusively advisory and planning authority--

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I appreciate your answer. You have answered 

my question. 

I do want to ask Mr. Dombeck before my time is up or make a 

statement that the Levie spurge exotic plant we were having as 

much problem with in Idaho in private land as on public land, it 

is a very toxic plant. I would like to see the Federal Government 

and our State work together to resolve our problem, but this is not 

enhanced by the livestock industry. l do want to say that you referred to Teddy Roosevelt's statement 

before ·t.hat "we need common solutions for common problems to the 

common good," but I want to remind you that it was Teddy Roosevelt who signed the Executive order that created grazing as one 

of the preference rights in the forest. 

:\nd finally, I would like to ask you a question with regards to 

your policy regarding the community interest. For instance, let me 

present a scenario to you. If a house was burning and a juniper 

tree was burning down, where should your employee's interest be, 

in helping the people whose house is burning down or helping the 

juniper tree? 

Mr. DoMBECK. Weil, I think public safety is number one priority, 

of both employee safety and public safety. And, by the way, we are 

delighted to work with you on the noxious weed problem. We understand the tremendous complexity of that problem out there. Mrs. CHENOWETH. Especially the Levie spurge. Mr. DOMBECK. We are enhancing our capability to deal with that. 

1\1rs. CHENOWETH. I would look forward to that very much. 

And then Mr. Thomas, I appreciate your work and I want to say 

that out there in Idaho, if it weren't for grazing on our Forest Serv-
17 

ice lands, our fire hazards would even be greater, and I look forward to working with your agency on that, either through this bill 

or separate legislation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chainnan. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 

Mr. Radanovich. 

Mr. R.ADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chainnan. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA 

I want to make a couple of points, but mainly to say I appreciate 

the work that Mr. Cooley has contributed and I am glad to be a 

supporter. I want to make note that grazing fees are included in 

this bill. 

I have a concern regarding this legislation , as it does not apply 

to Forest Service land. In my district, which includes the Sierra 

National Forest, and we had a particular incident happen during 

this grazing season, and it kind of speaks to the fact that I would 

object to the gentleman's comments that they were respecting the 

economic underpinning of the region in the administration of Federal lands. This case is a perfect example of where that has not OC'-

curred. As you are aware, the Sierra National Forest. was subject to a 

lawsuit by aL environmental group called Cal Trout. which forcec 

NEPA require:::n ent!" on their grazing act permits. These peopis 

have been :running cows up ir. the Sierras fo!' 20 years. but ali o:A 

a sudden were subiected to a N.EPA nrocess tnz.t was the time allotments for appea~ an d. such. rar1 it ciear through the grazing se&-

SO!: 

:rviany peopie, rlecause they were subjecteC. to tn.e NEPA permi;: Dl'O Ceo; r~ Ior'('PQ f r1<> DOSSibilitv of' tnem fj11 «sino p r• f•nbre arazi n r ~ --~ ·.- --~:-~ \~.·~.;~~ ~ 6 "~ ·l;. 1 .. + ·;:-; L-~ ::.~ :~~ .- :._~~ __ r.; ~~~----c .,eason no tc" ""1~ :::ile .•.• a::. .• ~nc: , ,ortuna,.ec,:,, v.: __ \\ '~ " e o.w o;:. co !D ""'· -

ven.e ancr g.z·: tb.s.:- p rocess back. 0!1 track ~ but it. ~reate(~ 30!!18 seve-:.'? 

problerns 'vh.ers individuals \¥ere facing contra ct ~. ii"1. other areas t\ 

graze while this problem go c resolveci or her6. selJ-do'A·m, whic!:1 8T9 

sttb .. iect to ca ~;·;ai. gains, and !~ea1ly created severe losses fo:r· t:hes'? 

cattlemen. 

lVIr. RADANOVICFl. So I take issue with your connnen:. that ther0 

was respec: given to the economic underpinning of the area. D:C'-

cause in. that case it certainly was not. 

The other noint that I wanted to make \Vas that in thar case, Ni: 

Thomas, do you think it is accurate to say that all ranchers haY~ 

been mistreated. by the Forest Service in this manner? My maE. 

concern is that something like this does not occur, and that is wh:: 

I would like to see Forest Service lands brought under this grazinf 

bill. 

Mr. THOl\lf..AS. To answer that question, the point being, we go:. 

sued; we don't control Cal Trout. The judge said we should navs 

done NEPA We are struggling now to get through as much of tha:. 

as we can. We will be on time, I think. 

We have to obey the law, and I think the law makes good sense 

in many cases, but what we do is, we found out that we weren't 

in obedience to the law. Whether that is abusive or not is a matter 
18 

of a response to Federal law that was passed by this body. We 

merely enforce it. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. My point is that if a grazing board had more 

jurisdiction over this issue than our Federal administrator, that 

they would have seen the sense to allow grazing to occur while the 

NEPA permit was in the process. 

Mr. THOMAS. I suspect not, Congressman. I don't read this as 

overriding the Federal courts, and if that grazing advisory board 

gave advice that was contrary to the law and a Federal court 

popped you, I suspect the result would be exactly the same. 

Mr. HADA.NOVICH. The point is that whether it be an issue of the 

law or regulation of Forest Service lands, that should not occur. 

Now, if it means a change in the law, something like that simply 

does not respect the fact that people have been grazing cows there 

for 20 years and does not respect what has been defined as the economic underpinning of the area. 

Clearly then, it should not be the role of the Forest Service to 

be led by the threat of lawsuit in the development of their environmental policy, which is exactly what is going on in the Sierra National Forest. 

Mr. THOMAS. I disagree with that totally, sir. 

Mr. HADANOVICH. Well, sir, I disagree with you, because I am 

there, I have seen all of that. 

Mr. THOMAS. Sir, I have been there, too. Can I answer the question? 

Mr. RADANOVICH. Sure. 

Mr. THO:V1AS. Part of it is, we have to obey the law. We don't 

make the law. We responded to the law, and we lost in court. Now, 

whethe1· that was an appropriate override of the rancher's rights or 

not was not an agency decision. It would not have been a grazing 

advisory committee decision either. It would have been whether we 

were in obedience to the law, and the court said no. So we began 

to come into obedience as quickly as we possibly could, one, because that is what we are supposed to do and, two, to quickly proteet the rights of these permittees as fast as we possibly could 

under the circumstances. 

Mr. RADA.NOVICH. Yes, well, you know then, maybe you and I can 

work together to change the law. But it is my firm conviction that 

the Forest Service is administering policy under threat of lawsuit, 

not really what is best for the sake of the forests and Federal 

lands, and that is why I intend to introduce an amendment to include Forest Service land in there. 

Thank you. 

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, could I respond to that? 

Mr. HA."'i"SEN. Yes, go ahead. 

Mr. THOMAS. Of course, it is your prerogative. We would strongly 

object b that. And the second part of it is, I think there is confusion. We were not in obedience to the law. That is up to the courts 

to decide. You are laying a hit on the Agency that is not appropriate. Mr. DOMBECK. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one comment 

here, if I may. 

Mr. HA.NSEN. Go ahead. 
19 

Mr. DoMBECK. In response to your question, I think we have 

common objectives based on this dialog, and the way to move resource management decisions out of the courtroom is by building 

agreement at the local field level because that is what prevents 

these lawsuits. I think it is important that the livestock industry 

help educate skeptics that livestock grazing can be compatible with 

other uses and not protect the few bad players. 

By people sitting around, not in Washington, DC, but sitting 

around in the local community, looking at the land, talking about 

goals and objectives and how they can achieve consensus in educating all of the players is, I think, the way that we avoid the litigation. 

Mr. RADANOVICH. That is fine, and with respect to the Chairman's time request, I would like to conclude by saying that I don't 

see any reason why a grazing board can't deal with those that 

aren't good stewards or the bad users of permittee land just as 

much as a Federal administrator could. 

So, you know, if you can get the implementation of that down to 

the local level and let them-you know, there is such a thing as 

peer review-let them take care of this problem themselves. I see 

no reason why that can't happen, as opposed to that responsibility 

being given to a Federal administrator. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 

Mr. THOMAS. I need a clarification, Mr. Chairman. That is why 

you have staff with you. 

The particular case we are talking about was not a suit, you are 

correct. We settled out of court because our attorneys essentially 

told us we had no legal defense against the question. I apologize. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 

The gentlelady from Wyoming, Mrs. Cubin. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, I have a statement that I would like to have in the record. 

Mr. HANSEN. Without objection. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Barbara Cubin appears on page 

20.] 

It seems like a lot of discussion has taken place about public participation in the process, and that certainly is one of the criticisms 

of the LGA. 

On June 15th I attended and testified at a hearing where Secretary Babbitt also testified. Practically everyone at the hearing 

was opposed to Rangeland Reform '94. Then, I assume under the 

Secretary's orders, there were 49 meetings all across the country, all on the same day, and that was the input that there was on 

Rangeland Reform '94. Ninety-nine percent of those folks who live 

on the land and who work the land, who graze on the land, testified in opposition to Rangeland Reform '94. 

If it is true that this bill-and this is a quote from your testimony, Mr. Dombeck-if it is true that this bill would severely limit 

public involvement in the management of public lands, why do you 

think there are so many people out there that are opposed to this 

bill and that are opposed to Rangeland Reform '94? 
20 

Mr. DOMBECK. Let me respond first by saying the hearings that 

were conducted on the day that you mentioned-and in fact I attended the hearing in Casper that day-were only one of many forums to comment on the process. The process evolved over the two 

to two-and-a-half-year period in which, in total, we processed some 

98,000 oral and written comments. In fact, in my 20 years in government service, I do not believe I have seen a more extensive outreach process in dealing with any issue as we have had with this 

issue. 

I also might point out that many changes were made. For example, initially the resource advisory councils did not have a residency 

requirement. The people in the West told us that they didn't want 

somebody--

Mrs. CUBIN. But why are so many of the stewards of the landwhy are ~hey_ op~osed? And I mean it is prac~ically un,animous that 

the people who live on the land, who depena on the 1and to make 

their living-and your own testimony said 95 percent of them are 

good stewards-why are 95 percent good stewards opposed to 

Rangeland Reform '94 and in favor of our bill? How do you balance 

:hat out? 

Mr. DoMBECK. Well, I think, first of all, we are all skeptical of 

change, and in fact I see change. The change in the West is part 

of the controversy that BLM is in the middle of. There are extremes on both sides, and I think there is a strong central faction 

that we have got to get people to work with people and educate 

people, because this issue is not going to go away with the passage 

of this bill. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Do you think it will go away if Rangeland Reform 

'94 goes into effect when, you know, like I said, virtually everyone 

on the land is opposed to Rangeland Reform '94, and, even according to your testimony, 95 percent of them are good stewards? 

Mr. DOMBECK. I think it will. 

Mrs. CUEIN. Do you think it will go away under Rangeland Reform '94 and not under our bill when they favor this bill and not 

Rangeland Reform '94? 

Mr. DOMBECK. Well, I think it will get better under our BLM 

proposal, because it is an open process, and I think any time we 

exclude people and move back to a process where only the lessee 

has a say, the other interests in the public lands, whether they are 

miners or oil and gas developers or hunters or anglers, they want 

to have a say, too. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Well, I certainly am a proponent of multiple use. 

Rightly or wrongly, my concern is that it seems that grazing is 

being limited by the BLM and the allotment management plans 

and so on. 

Well, my time is up. I need to respect the Chairman's request. 

Mr. HANSEN. Go ahead. If you want to continue your train of 

thought, go ahead. 

Mrs. CUBIN. No, that is fine. Thank you very much. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA CUBIN, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM WYOMING 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing today on H.R. 1713, the Livestock Grazing Act of 1995. I appreciate the leadership that you and Congressman Cooley have shown on this issue which is so vitally important to the economy of every western State. 
21 

I will keep my comments short in order to hear from our impressive list of witnesses, including two from Wyoming. Truman Julian, president of the Public Lands 

Council, has been a voice of reason on this issue for years and has a particularly 

poignant story to tell about the stability of his own operation .... A story that is too 

often heard across the West. Linda Taliaferro speaks on behalf of all Wyoming coun- ties and I think sums up the situation very eloquently. 

I fully support the Livestock Grazing Act because this bill will lend stability to an industry which for too long has been subject to political whims. Secretary Babbitt 

took office with an agenda that was contrary to the best interests of the western 

culture. 

His efforts to force that agenda upon us has threatened the western way of life. 

The ramification of Babbitt's Rangeland Reform '94 extend far beyond simply forcing 

western livestock producers off the land. It would harm every bank, every feed and 

supply store, every farm implement dealer, grocer and store owner in our State. The 

impact would be devastating. 

Ironically, I believe that Rangeland Reform '94 would even prove detrimental to 

the environment. A couple hundred cows would tread much more lightly on Wyoming's scenic lands than the hundreds of ranchettes that would spring up when cer- tain ranchers are forced to subdivide. One of the reasons I came to Washington was to help return stability so that the 

West can continue to be a productive part of this Nation. That is why I so strongly 

support H.R. 1713. It is fair. It addresses the issue of grazing fees in a reasonable manner and it protects the States' primacy over water rights. In addition, it addresses how the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) will operate with re- gards to Federal rangelands. 

I thank the Chair for this opportunity to speak and I welcome all our witnesses. I look forward to hearing their testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Bill Richardson follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL RICHARDSON, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW MEXICO 

Mr. Chairman, grazing has become a perennial issue in the Congress. The issue has engendered strong feelings by those involved or affected by it. Today we will 

hear testimony on a new comprehensive grazing proposal. Simplicity is not one of 

the bill's virtues. H.R. 1713 is a detailed 93-page rewrite of the laws dealing with 

the grazing of livestock on public lands. Whether H.R. 1713 will form the basis for settling this issue or whether it will only inflame the controversy, remains to be seen. I do know that the grazing regulations that H.R. 1713 seeks to overturn were de- veloped over a 2-year period and involved over 50 public hearings or meetings and 

thousands of comments. H.R. 1713, by contrast, was introduced less than 2 months 

ago and this is its first House hearing. 

The House of Representatives has voted on a bipartisan basis several times in re- cent years to overhaul the grazing fee formula . In fact, less than 2 years ago, the 

House voted by a 314 to 106 margin to overhaul the entire public lands grazing program. It is obvious to me that H.R. 1713 goes in a different direction than the pre- vious House actions, so I will want to look closely at the bill and its implications, not only for the livestock industry, but for the public lands as well. I note that several of our witnesses today have testified at previous hearings on grazing. I appreciate all our witnesses who are here today to provide insight on this important issue. 

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Vento. 

Mr. VENTO. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE F. VENTO, A U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM MINNESOTA 

It is pretty surprising testimony, I think, from the chief and from 

the acting director of the BLM with regard to the impact of this 

legislation. I think that, you know, the issue of dollars raised obviously is one that is of less importance than what the impact is to 

the land. 

We look at what the costs are and how the management takes 

place with regard to grazing policy. Obviously a lot of acrimony has 
22 

occurred. I think part of the problem, Mr. Chairman-and I regret 

I wasn't here for an opening statement; I was detained and could 

not be here-this is a very important hearing on this bill and, as 

we are learning more about it, obviously very surprising. 

But I would say that the concerns that are raised go well beyond 

simply the dollar amounts that are put in. It is a question of vast 

stretches of these public lands and whether the permits and existing activities can work compatibly. I think from the testimony I have received from the director, he 

has pointed out that this would severely limit public involvement 

in the management of public lands. He knows we must move beyond public land users sitting at opposite ends of the table. This 

limits the ability of anyone who does not raise livestock to have a 

say in public land management and planning. I mean I don't know 

that that fits in with some of the goals that members have espoused here. 

This bill is a departure from the traditional multiple-use management in that it appears to help one use over other uses of public 

land. It changes standards that courts apply and creates the potential for disruptive litigation for years to come. 

Now I think that our colleague from California, Mr. Radanovich, 

was concerned about the litigation or whether an environmental 

impact statement was going to occur. But this seems to be actually 

a detour on the way to where we want to go. I know that that probably isn't the goal of the sponsors of this, and of course the Senate 

measure that is being marked up, modeled after this particular 

measure, apparently tends to not solve those problems, effectively 

eliminating a meaningful opportunity for anyone who does not 

graze livestock on public land to participate in grazing, planning, 

and management. 

It doesn't sound like multiple use to me, Mr. Dombeck. Am I 

reading this testimony right? 

Mr. DoMBECK. Yes, that is correct. You know, we talked about 

change, and we talked about some of the controversial things, and 

let me restate that I think it is very important that the vast majority of good operators need to bring people to the table and to demonstrate to people that we know how to do this right. 

Mr. HANSEN. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. VE0l"TO. Yes, I would be happy to yield. Mr. HANSEN. In effect, I think that is a red herring. You look at 

the bill, when all else fails, you say read the bill: Page 80, representation of interests; the last one is public at large, and it goes 

on to say that they would not make a major decision without this. 

So to me, the Clinton Administration is coming up with a red 

herring on this one. Come up with a better one than that one. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I don't know. The Senate defines affected interests as being for anyone who does not graze livestock. It will effectively eliminate it. It says grazing is conducted on--

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Dombeck, did you want to respond to that? 

Mr. DOMBECK. Well, let me point out, you mentioned the preliminary mark of the Senate bill, and we actually see that as moving 

further away from the mark than it already is by eliminating the 

definition of affected interests. 
23 

To disallow individuals a role until fairly well along the way ir: 

the appeals process, is moving away from the concept of open public participation in an open process. Allowing the rancher-domi- nated grazing advisory councils to set objectives is clearly a departure. 

Mr. VENTO. How is that going to fit in with the overall resource 

management plans? I mean here it is on page 85: A grazing advisory council shall set range improvement objectives, advise on the 

expenditure of range improvement funds. Of course, that is the 

money the BLM is spending. Plus, of course, they get back the 

money, part of the money already, to help themselves, and they 

pass that money on sometimes to themselves. These are the very 

people that are holding the permits, aren't they? There is no objectivity here necessarily. 

I mean normally we look for an arm's length, you know, relationship from people that are working here, but these are the same 

people that are actually grazing the cattle. They are permit holders, are they not? . Mr. DOMBECK. I believe so, and I think, again, we need an open, 

inclusive process to educate people and reduce the rhetoric and the 

controversy. 

Mr. VENTO. However you want to argue this, you understand 

there is more use; you look at the forests in terms of numbers of 

recreational use, the hunting use, the number of species that occur 

here that are important. All of that obviously, in a bill like this, 

seems to be moving in the opposite direction. 

I mean it isn't just a matter of trying to reconcile things. I think 

it really further polarized these types of activities, you know. 

When you consider, Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, that 2 percent of the forage for cattle comes from Federal lands, that is to 

say almost the 300 acres that are under grazing permit, if they are 

all being used, and all the problems that have ensued, you can't 

discount that the drought and the other factors that have occurred 

in the last decade especially have been severe, and then to take a 

bill and try to move in this direction seems to me to be wholly inconsistent with what is going on. 

I mean this seems like a war on the environment, to me, and a 

war on these public lands, and the condition of them, especially 

these hot desert areas, from all the studies we have seen, is not 

that good, it is in tough condition, and obviously I lament the fact 

that that causes some distress. 

But this legislation I can't believe is being portrayed in terms of 

prying, it is more top-down management from Washington, as is 

being stated in the testimony by the director and the chief. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. We are going to go another round with 

this group. 

Let me ask you, do you feel that the BLM and the Forest Service 

should have a right, everyone should have a right, on who cuts timber on a public land? Is a housewife in Washington, DC, to have 

an input on that? 

Mr. THOMAS. I didn't track the question. Mr. HANSEN. Do you say everyone in America, the 250 million, 

should have an equal right on everyone who cuts timber on land? 
24 

Mr. THOMAS. I think that everybody in the country has a right 

to talk about how their public lands are managed. Very obviously 

the question is, in actuality, they don't have equal rights because 

they are not there and participating on a daily basis. 

Certainly in theory, I believe that every citizen of the United 

States has a right to make input into how their public lands are 

managed. 

Mr. HANSEN. That is true. On the other hand, they also have a 

right to tell us how to run the military, but we leave it up to 

Shalikashvili in that area, and we support him, just like we support you, Chief, in running the Forest Service, just like I don't 

think everyone has a right to tell my wife how to clean the house. 

I am not saying that if they wanted to establish some standards 

they could, but I am just kind of concerned that we are carrying 

this thing on to an extreme application. 

I think you folks ought to get off this particular issue of having 

rights--the bill does give people the right to do these things-and 

get down to some of these other issues that probably have some. 

The vote is on the previous question on the foreign ops rule, and 

apparently we are going to have three or four votes on this. I don't 

know how we can avoid it. Probably a previous question, probably 

the rule; there may be a reconsideration in there. So I just ask your 

patience and appreciate you being here. 

Could we ask you if you could stay with us a while? I think we 

want to get another opportunity to talk to you folks again, if we 

could. I have a number of questions I would like to ask. 

Mr. VENTO. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. HANSEN. We may be a little while before we get back, so we 

will stand in recess for a while. 

Mr. VENTO. If the gentleman will just yield on his land point, if 

he will yield to me. 

Mr. HA:'l'SEN. I would be happy to. 

Mr. VENTO. I think the issue is obviously, whether it is a little 

old lady in tennis shoes in Minneapolis or wherever they are in 

tenns of what the impact is, I think the question is, as we begin 

to focus on this, you want to be very careful so you don't shut out 

people who do have a legitimate role and voice, to add that to the 

public process in terms of what is going on. 

I think the tendency of this bill is to do that. If that isn't the intention, I think it can be corrected. But obviously that is the reading of the director. I think he is a professional and that is their intent. I think that if that is not the intent, then that could be corrected. 

Obviously, the point is, where there are legitimate concerns, I 

think we failed with regards to the BLM multiple-use groups in 

any case, the advisory groups that we were supposed to establish 

in terms of the grazing advisory. I think the characteristic had 

been that they would be only made up of people that had an economic interest in what goes on. I think that has to be broadened. 

That shouldn't be the case today. That is a major issue with regards to some of this matter. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 

Reclaiming my time, let me say I think the BLM does do that. 

I think the public at large-! don't know how much broader you 
25 

could make it in this particular instance-the public at large would 

have input on this, just like I think the public at large should have 

input on backpackers and bird watchers and hunters and fishermen and all those things, and, to a certain extent, you folks made 

a big deal out of those who cut timber, put cattle on the range, and 

mine, and completely ignored these other folks. I don't think this 

Congress is going to do that. Everyone is going to be treated more 

equally, and I think that is what we all agree that we want to get 

to. 

Thank you. We are in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. CoOLEY [presiding]. Can I have this meeting come to order, 

please? I want to apologize for the last hour it took us to get over, 

but these are things that are a necessity. So we will get back under 

way. I am next up on the list. 

Mr. Dombeck, earlier in your testimony you said that the industry was a fairly good steward of the land and that maybe we should 

educate the public on the benefit aspects of grazing. We are trying 

to do that with a great lot of expense and personal time and loss, 

and I appreciate your comments in that area, and I hope that yoc: 

will also reflect this in comments and concern when you talk to the 

Administration about this. I think we are good stewards of th.s 

land. I think grazing has been beneficial, and I would like to see 

it continue. 

M:·. Thomas, in your earlier testimony you talked about the fee 

system and how you didn't think it was adequate, or you actualiymy interpretation-clio not appreciate the fee system that you fine 

in H.R. 1713. If you don't like this system in the fees, do you liKs 

the one we uresently have? 

Mr. THOMAS. No," sir, the point of it is, I didn't say I didn't like 

it, I merely said I have absolutely no understanding of it, and = 

nave not been abie to find anyone who can explain it to me:. 

Ordinarily, when we go thi;ough a fee-setting operation like th1s. 

then; is a very careful assessment of how this worK.r:., where you ge , 

thEo information, how it wouid. relate. a sensitivity anaiysis of how 

it would. adjust over time. l simply don't have that informatwn a. 

my disposal, so I don't know whether it is good or- bai . 1\~:- . CooLEY. OK. Have you had a chance to look at. the fee syE--

+err. ;.·r-, ·1•· 1. ~ 1'n t·n· o br" ll? rl~ a\'c. you ·na" a · an" 0 To revr·e"' t'na+" l,.o_,.;. _,:_ v _., ( -.t ;::;, ... ~ "'": ..... ~ \.1. '-• .1. '-''-" lJ Vf "-' • 

k::. THO!If.c.o\S. res, s1r. M::-. COOLEY. OK. Well, Mr. DuBois, from the Association of Stat:: 

Departments of Agriculture , in his testimony said he supports ths 

grazmg fee formula, and he raises no concerns ~bout this. In fac: 

he has no difficulty with it. He thought it was a good system. I 

think it is fairlv simple. It is not as complex as the one we presently have, and I th1nk it puts a fai:c and equitable value ori. the 

use o:" Federal lands, and I don't understand why it is so complicatec. 

Mr. THOMAS. It is not complicated, Congressman, it is very, very 

simple. It is just that I don't understand it. I have not seen a sensitivity assessment. 

Ordinarily when we would go through a formula that sets grazing fees, it would be peer reviewed, it would have a full cost/benefit 

assessment, where the information comes from, what the sensitiv-
26 

ity to the market would be, and how it would be applied. I simply 

have not seen that analysis. It may be wonderful, but I just haven't 

seen that. 

Mr. COOLEY. Well, the market sensitivity is what drives the formula. It is a market-driven formulation. 

Mr. THOMAS. I understand that is what is supposed to happen. 

I am merely saying, as a technical expert and the chief of an agency, I do not understand the formula, nor have I seen the information that led up to it. It may be fine. I just don't know. 

Mr. COOLEY. OK Mr. Bay, I will ask you the same question as 

I asked Mr. Thomas, the chief of the Forest Service. Are you aware 

of Mr. Frank DuBois' comments concerning the fee schedule as 

found in H.R. 1713? 

Mr. BAY. No, sir. No, sir, I was not. 

Mr. COOLEY. OK You have never had an opportunity to look at 

that fee schedule? 

Mr. BAY. No. We really feel that, as a statistical organization, we 

collect data that we are asked to collect to try to measure the economics and so forth. But we don't have a position on the fees. 

Mr. COOLEY. Well, in your statement you said that the bill could 

have a "pay as you go" implication. If you made that statement in 

your written statement, "pay as you go" implication, how can you 

make that statement and not be aware of the formula? 

Mr. THOMAS. He didn't make-did you make that? 

Mr. COOLEY. In his written statement. 

Mr. THOMAS. No. I think that was mine, Congressman. 

Mr. CooLEY. Mr. Bay's statement-OK, you both have it, yes. 

I am sorry, I didn't hear you, sir. 

Mr. BAY. No, I don't have any more to say on that. 

Mr. COOLEY. OK I was just concerned because of your written 

statement; you made that statement. 

Mr. THOMAS. Congressman, I will respond to it. It may have 

paygo implications. That should be very clearly spelled out if that 

exists or does not, and I don't want you to misinterpret my testimony. My testimony is that we simply do not understand the origin 

of the formula. We have not seen the sensitivity analysis, nor do 

we have any idea of what the paygo implications would be. We 

think, before you pass such a bill, that you would want answers to 

those questions. 

I\1r. COOLEY. Well, I imagine we will find answers to that question. We went through a long, grueling process here. We have been 

at this now for about eight to ten weeks. It has been no surprise 

or been a secret to anybody on this Hill, both on the Senate side 

nor on the House side, nor your department, BLM, nor the U.S. 

Forest Service, of what the formula has been. The formula has 

been set in place, been very well-known by everybody. In the next 

six to eight weeks, anybody who wanted to analyze this formula 

could have done so. 

Mr. THOMAS. Congressman, I would love to have somebody analyze it, and we have not been requested to do that. If we were, I 

suppose we would do that. 

Mr. COOLEY. My time is up. 

Mrs. Chenoweth. 
27 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes, I have a couple of questions, one for Mr. 

Thomas. 

Following up on what Mr. Radanovich was talking about, in 

Idaho we are having a lot of trouble with our grazing allotments, 

and I very quickly mention that as I go out into the forest and I 

see areas that are not being grazed, it appears to me--and I am 

not a professional forester at all-but it appears to me that the undergrowth which is no longer grazed is taking over to the point 

that it creates a greater fire danger. 

Another problem that we are having, Mr. Thomas, is that every 

rancher that wants to take advantage of his allotment that he has 

been grazing on, that his cows have been grazing on for years, has 

to go through a full EIS process and at great expense. 

You know, the United States Supreme Court has numerous 

times said that the expense and the responsibility of going through 

the NEPA process is that of the Agency's, it is not the responsibility of the individual. 

Now, I don't know what, you know, administratively you may 

come up with, but I know the Supreme Court has said it is a responsibility of the Agency's, and it is breaking the back of our 

ranchers in Idaho, who graze on forestlands, to have to go through 

the full court process of not only putting the EIS together, but then 

proving that it is sufficient. 

We have an agency that is operating out there that seems to be 

in direct contradiction with what the Supreme Court has interpreted NEPA to be. It is your responsibility, not the Agency's, and 

the reason the Supreme Court said that was that because it is your 

decisions, it is the Federal decisions that need to be analyzed. 

I hope, Mr. Thomas, that we can see some relaxation of that, because I know in the original creative act and everything that Teddy 

Roosevelt wrote about, and subsequent presidents, that it was their 

dream that the Forest Service would be there as local communities 

developed, and they specifically many times mention not just logging and not just recreation, but grazing, too. So for the health of the forest-and I have learned that you are 

a pretty wise man-but I hope that we will see a change out in 

Idaho and better cooperation, because it really is breaking the 

backs of those who really are good stewards of the land and really 

are working, and, honest to goodness, the results are good fire suppression techniques. 

Mr. THOMAS. Congresswoman, I sort of lost the rabbit there, but 

we are in violent agreement that I am a nice man. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. That is the rabbit you found? 

Mr. THOMAS. The point being, I certainly agree that any environmentai assessments are our responsibility. 

Now, I think there is just some confusion here. Nearly all of our 

grazing permits will probably be renewed based on environmental 

assessments, which means that is a very much lesser degree of assessment, which says, OK, there is no need to proceed to the full 

EIS. In some cases, particularly when we are dealing with a threatened species, we would probably move to that degree. But we are 

moving full bore ahead on that. 

Each one of the individual permits is not being assessed. Sometimes they are hatched, to the extent that we can do that, and the 
28 

last I heard-the day before yesterday-we were making good 

progress at meeting our time schedules. 

It is certainly our responsibility, but the reason that we take it 

on is not because we don't have other things to do, but, because of 

the circumstances, we think that that is the best thing to do to assure that our grazing permittees are in place with their permits intact, as time goes on. That is exactly why we are undertaking it. 

One other comment about the response about grazing and fire is, 

there is some truth to that, but I think in some of these discussions 

we simplify things too much. In the end we are interested in two 

things. One is caring for the land appropriately, under the law 

given to us by Congress, and second is serving people, and the care 

and feeding of our permittees is part of caring for people in the 

communities in which they live. I don't think you would find any 

disagreement between the U.S. Forest Service and you on those 

points. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Well, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Thomas, to bring 

the rabbit out and show you real clearly, I believe and am convinced the shoe is on the wrong foot with regards to who has the 

responsibility for carrying out and performing the environment assessment or the EIS, and I think that the Supreme Court has dealt 

with the fact that it is the responsibility of the Agency to perform 

the environmental assessments, not our ranchers. 

Mr. THOMAS. Absolutely. We are in absolute, total agreement. 

They have no responsibility to do an EA or an EIS. We do that. 

We need help from them sometimes in terms of information. But 

that is absolutely our responsibility, not theirs. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. OK I am glad that is on the record. 

Mr. THOMAS. And I will be in Boise this afternoon. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Good. I hope we can help clear that up. Thank 

you very much. 

Mr. THOMAS. I am sorry, the reason I lost the rabbit, I misunderstood the question. So you are very clear: Environmental assessment is absolutely the responsibility of the land management agency. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. But the permit is an ongoing equity right, and 

soMr. THOMAS. The Supreme Court thinks not, but I will leave it 

at this. We have interest in the renewal of those permits under the 

law and in a very effective and efficient process. Equity rights, the 

Supreme Court has some different ideas about that. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Do you believe, Mr. Thomas, that the water 

rights have an equity value? 

Mr. THOMAS. I believe that we follow the State law on water 

rights-! am not sure I am a lawyer enough to understand the equity question about water. But the grazing permits have been ruled 

by the Supreme Court to be a privilege and not a right. However, 

we do deal with renewal, and that is what we are dealing with. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And have you looked at the IRS cases in that 

case? 

Mr. THOMAS. No, ma'am. If we want to talk about the law, I'll 

have to talk to my lawyers. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Of course. I look forward to continuing this 

discussion. Thank you. 
29 

Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Ensign, you have no questions? 

Mrs. Cubin, you are next on the list. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Dombeck, would you agree with me if I made the statement 

that the rangeland is in better shape than it has been in this century? 

Mr. DOMBECK. In fact, in my testimony I indicated that. The low 

point in the health of the land was hit in the late 1800's and early 

1900's, and the fact is, the Taylor Grazing Act was passed and 

things have been on the up trend since then. Many areas are far 

from their full capability in what they can produce. 

I might cite the example of the riparian areas which, again, are 

small in acreage but very important, because these are the areas 

that recharge water tables, these are the areas that provide a wide 

variety of opportunities for anglers, for wildlife viewing, for supplying water, recharging streams, and increasing the length of flow in 

intermittent streams. 

In fact, the data that I have indicates that 21 percent are in 

nonfunctioning condition and 48 percent are functioning at risk, 

and it is in everybody's benefit to have the whole system function 

to its full capability. The rancher benefits, you have got an increased weight gain in livestock, better fishing, better hunting, increased water availability, and that basic premise I am glad we are 

in full agreement. Mrs. CUBIN. What specific provisions of the LGA do you feel will 

cause grazing to be the predominant use or the single use on the 

land? What specific part of the bill causes you to think that? 

Mr. DOMBECK. Number one, I think if you look at the whole 

thing cumulatively, the trend seems to be toward considering grazing to be the dominant use. We have been making progress fairly 

dealing with the variety of public land users over time, and I hope 

we can continue to make progress to improve the health of the 

land. 

Mrs. CUBIN. So you can't point to a specific area of the bill, it 

is just your general overall impression? 

Mr. DOMBECK. I don't have the bill in front of me at this time, 

but I would be happy to provide you with a written response, detailing our interpretations. 

Mrs. CUBIN. OK. I would appreciate that. That would be good. [The analysis for the Livestock Grazing Act supplied by Mr. 

Dombeck can be found at the end of the hearing.] 

Mrs. CUBIN. I wanted to address a question to Chief Thomas, 

and then I will be through. 

On page 7 of your testimony it says that title II would complicate 

compliance with statutes such as NEPA, the Endangered Species 

Act, Clean Water, and others. Now, when I read the bill, I can't 

find a single provision that would, you know, amend or repeal any 

part of that. Can you tell us how the legislation complicates compliance with these other laws? 

Mr. THOMAS. Not in five minutes. We have the prepared written 

response that we would be glad to provide you with. But basically 

it provides a different mechanism of making decisions outside of 

the NFMA process. It turns and says the overrider in this particular bill has to do with who gives advice, and the grazing board is 
30 

different than what we do now, and I suspect-correct me if I am 

wrong, but I suspect very strongly that we are going to also deal 

with title I as far as the Forest Service is concerned, are already 

dealing with that in the Senate mark. So I suspect we had better 

talk about it that way. 

It also says that NFMA's purpose suddenly becomes carrying out 

planning, county planning. That is not what it is now. That is very, 

very different. 

Those are two examples. There are a number of others. I will be 

happy to provide them in writing. 

Mrs. CUBIN. OK. That would be good. And also, I would like a 

little bit more explanation, if you would, please, on the rationale, 

because I don't exactly follow your rationale because there is a different board making some decisions, but that is all I have. 

Mr. THOMAS. Well, all right. I did have the answer. We take 

away the national grasslands from the National Forest System. 

Title II requires that they be managed under separate direction 

from other lands of the National Forest System, totally different. 

They are a management entity. And in administering those national grasslands, the Secretary would still have to comply with 

other laws like NEPA, ESA, Clean Water Act, and about half a 

dozen others. 

And compliance becomes fragmented. It is no longer part of the 

National Forest System; it is totally different and under separate 

rules. For example, if a project took place on lands that had both 

grasslands and other National Forest System lands and ESA was 

needed, under the current authority, that would be one consultation. If they are managed separately, they would be separate 

projects with separate consultations. That is just an example and 

I can go on at quite some length. 

I would like to make a point here. This bill is similar to a lot 

of others. We do have problems with the management of our Federal lands and it has to do with overlapping laws, one on top of another, with the differing regulations and with the court cases that 

come down to us that force us into an adjustment in how we do 

things. Fixing these things one at a time is very apt to cause considerably more problems than it is apt to cure. 

I would suggest that everybody just calm down and think their 

way through these things entirely. For example, we have got grazing advisory boards. Do we need hunting advisory boards, fishing 

advisory boards, timber advisory boards? These things do not add 

up to make real good sense, in my personal opinion, and I think 

in dealing with whatever the problems are perceived to be in such 

a way is apt to cause considerably more problems in the end than 

they solve. 

Mrs. CUBIN. But doesn't Rangeland Reform '94 also have an advisory board? 

Mr. THOMAS. [Presiding] There is a big difference between the 

Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. Ours do not. 

Forest Service doesn't have grazing advisory boards. 

Mrs. CUBIN. But the regulations overlap between BLM and the 

Forest Service. 

Mr. THOMAS. Some do, some do not. There are some separate 

mechanisms. Part of your bill is theoretically to bring those things 
31 

under the same regulation. Since we start from two different 

places, deal with a lot of different laws that apply to the Forest 

Service independently of BLM, I would be very careful with an 

analysis of what we are apt to produce in terms of conflict because 

the two agencies come from two very different evolutionary backgrounds in terms of law. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Vento. 

Mr. VENTO. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

I would request that the Forest Service and BLM provide to the 

record an analysis of the grade fee formula contained in this measure, H.R. 1713. I noticed staff had indicated that they thought that 

was appropriate. Also any estimates that they would have on the 

cost of implementing H.R. 1713 because these grazing advisory 

boards and the new role they are going to play, I don't know with 

or without professional staff. 

[The information from the Forest Service and BLM requested by 

Mr. Vento can be found at the end of the hearing.] 

I assume if they are into land use planning, that entails a certain 

amount of-how do you integrate that? How do you do an EIS or 

an EA in the absence when they are doing the planning? To me, 

it sounds like a lot of duplication at the very least. We need to have 

any cost estimates of this measure for the record. Obviously it is 

a large bill, a long bill. I understand that there has been some notice with regards to it. It is an important bill, obviously an impor- tant initiative on the part of our colleagues from Oregon and others. And I had a lot of questions about this. For instance, I notice 

we have Don Bay here from the Economic Research Service. Is that 

your role, Mr. Bay? 

Mr. BAY. I am actually from the National Ag Statistics Service. 

Mr. VENTO. But the point is, there are terms in this bill and conditions that are not defined that are, it seems to me, imprecise and 

confusing. I would be happy to yield to the sponsor if he could tell me what the total gross value of the production of livestock means, 

total gross value and production of livestock. 

Based on information produced on the bill, in other words, the 

example of how the fee would be calculated, it appears that Congress intends that the gross value in this measure be based on the 

Economic Research Service indicators of farm sectors cost of pro- duction. Major field crops and livestock-the data is collected by 

the National Agricultural Statistical Service but they don't have 

that particular information, do they, right now? 

Mr. BAY. You are correct. 

Mr. VENTO. They don't have the information. How can you calculate what the effect is on the bill? Another example is that they 

have a fee calculation but nobody seems to be able to determine 

what the basis is for the $1,420 that is in the bill. 

I would be happy to yield to anybody here that is a sponsor that 

can tell me why that is in the bill and what it means. I would be 

happy to yield to my colleague. 

Mr. COOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Vento. It reflects the three-year average of the carcass weight determined by the USDA. 

Mr. VENTO. I appreciate that they have not published any figures 

since 1992 documents three years ago. The Economic Research 
32 

Service can come close but it cannot duplicate the value by using 

the 1992 national gross value production estimates for beef-cow-calf 

enterprises. This includes all beef cattle all across the United 

States, incidentally. That includes in the Midwest, in the East, all 

over where they raise a lot more beef than you do. 

However, it is doubtful that Congress intends to use all beef cattle in the United States. That is what that particular formula does. I think that that is what it does. Furthermore, the term livestock 

is much too general to be useful. It could include sheep, dairy cattle, beef cattle, hogs, and so forth; is that correct, Mr. Bay? 

Mr. BAY. That is correct. 

Mr. VENTO. What I am trying to point out, I think whatever your 

feelings are about how you want to proceed with policy, what you 

don't need to do is write into law to codify something and have this 

go into a lot of litigation and a lot more uncertainty. I think the 

real fear here, and I think they testified to it, Mr. Chairman, is 

this could end up in endless studies that, obviously, would just 

bring to a grinding halt the implementation of what is intended, 

obviously, as a new policy path. 

I would yield briefly to the Chairman. 

Mr. CooLEY. Just to clarify what you are saying, Mr. Vento. 

Those figures from 1992, they have published the figures since 

1992. When we tried to look at the formula and tried to make a 

determination of what would be applicable for use of public lands, 

we use the entire country as an equitable base. There is no other 

way to really do it if you want to do it across the board. You take 

out a certain sector and the rate goes up or down. 

So we said to have the least amount of conflict, least amount of 

discussion, let's take the overall average of the entire United States 

would be fair for everyone and use that as a baseline. And that is 

what we did. 

Mr. VENTO. I think you are only dealing with 2 percent. You are 

dealing with much, much different circumstances than you have in 

Iowa and Minnesota and other parts where we raise , obviously, a 

lot of beef, so, I mean, I understand but I don't think there are current numbers for it and I understand that. 

Mr. COOLEY. Just remember, they don't have any public lands up 

there, either. 

Mr. VENTO. We do have public land, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Very little. 

Mr. VENTO. We have quite a bit in Minnesota, actually. 

Mr. COOLEY. Used for grazing? 

Mr. VENTO. Not extensively used for grazing, but we do have a 

lot of public land in Minnesota. The other question I wanted to get 

to is the fire issue, Chief, and I think obviously the suggestion by 

one of my colleagues that grazing has an impact in terms of suppression of fire, it has also an impact in terms of actually preparing 

the land for being more susceptible to fire, isn't it in terms of selective species of vegetation? We send up with sheep grass, tumble 

weed, mugo pine, other types of problems that are really damaging 

in terms of once fire does take place in these areas; isn't that correct? 

Mr. THOMAS. Congressman, you are saying this is a lot more 

complex than it seems superficially. Obviously, the best way to pre-
33 

vent fire is to put sheep on it and overgraze it so extensively we 

wouldn't have anything that would carry fire. Nobody is going to 

suggest that. So the point being range ecology, and why we manage 

range, and how we deal with plant succession, and what stage the 

vegetation is in is all part of that complex. A fire is only part of 

it. 

Yes, too much grazing can produce a vegetative complex that is 

even more susceptible to hot fire than bunch grasses that might be 

knocked out in the process, but that drives you into the specifics 

of different ecosystems, but the point being is that this is a lot 

more complex than grazing as a fire prevention mechanism. In fact, 

that would probably be one of the more minor aspects. 

Mr. VENTO. I know, but I just wanted to raise that particular 

point. One of the issues, Mr. Chairman, I know my time is expired, 

but I would ask the indulgence of my colleagues only for an instant. We talk about on page 37 of the bill, it says, private and 

State land. 

Private and State land shall be included in the allotment management plan with the consent or at the request of the person that 

owns or controls the land, so that is a basic extension of planning 

process that you would have to go through, in other words, how 

much land would there involve that you would now have to start 

providing integration of plans for that you do not do today? How 

many hundreds of millions of acres of private land? 

I mean, it obviously adjoins. You would have to cut it off someplace. This is a question but this would be an extensive expansion 

of the responsibility for BLM and the Forest Service, would it not, 

Mr. Dombeck? 

Mr. DOMBECK. Well, I certainly wouldn't want to guess at the estimate right here, but it would certainly be very, very large. 

Mr. VENTO. I think the intent of this, frankly, is they want to 

see cooperation in terms of working with adjacent and contiguous 

lands. I don't have any problem with that. In fact, I think it is a 

good idea. I suspect that you try to do that today where you have 

in-holdings within the national forest or the BLM lands or lands 

sensitive adjacent to it; do you not? 

Mr. DOMBECK. In fact the collaborative process that has evolved, 

based upon all the input we have had, our proposed rules indicate 

the more we get people together, the more we can integrate how 

land is managed results in the best product, but we are certainly 

not seeking the authority to dictate to people what they can do on 

private land. That is their business. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, on the definitions of allotment management plan, section 121, are these a codification of existing policies-clo you know this? For instance, it says, as specified, the limits of flexibility within which the permittee or leasee may adjust 

operations without prior approval of the authorized officer and provide for monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of management actions in achieving the specific multiple use management objectives 

of the plan. 

It seems to me they want benchmarks set up that you can actually hold this up against to see whether you are doing it-probably 

in theory a good idea but, in practice, I think it would be very dif-
34 

ficult to extrapolate and be that anticipatory in terms of what 

would be within the context of a permit. 

Doesn't this necessarily complicate the permit and permitting 

process? And then they are, of course, asking these permits to be 

extended to 15 years which seems to me if you are asking for this 

type of data, first of all, it is a tremendous amount of data. I think 

you have got to rethink how you are going about doing this. I appreciate the uncertainty and the concerns that folks have, 

but I don't apologize for the expansion of knowledge and information that we have. That is just the reality of where we are at today 

and we have to figure out a way of doing that. But this is, I think, 

putting a tremendous responsibility onto agencies beyond anyone's 

capability to do, and I think you are just setting yourself up for and 

setting the agencies up worse yet for problems in all candor. Mr. Dombeck. 

Mr. DOMBECK. Well, first of all, let me mention that the monitoring, a couple of things that are troublesome to us and one of those 

right now is, for the most part, our range conservationists working 

with the permittees, but for something like a trespass situation, to 

have to phone the permittee in advance to tell them that we are 

going to do an inspection on a trespass seems like it ties our hands 

in being able to deal with a problematic situation and the point you 

made on permanent tenure, the best tenure the livestock industry 

can have is to be good stewards. That is by far the best tenure, and 

it is interesting to note that the existing permit holder does have 

a preference at this time and will continue to have. 

Mr. VENTO. I understand the preferential right of renewal in 

terms of permits and, obviously, that is something in terms of way 

of life and culture and a variety of other things. Obviously, if you 

went to fair market value and you want to make this completely 

objective and so forth, you wouldn't do that, but nobody is suggesting we eliminate grazing from public lands. We, obviously, want it 

done in a way that is compatible and, obviously, this bill raises 

many questions, Mr. Chairman, which will need to be answered. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Vento. We will get those answers. 

I want to thank the panel. I appreciate your participation in this 

process. 

Mr. HANSEN. We would like to call up panel number two: Mr. 

DuBois, Tim Lowry, Linda Taliaferro, Gerald Hillier, and Harvey 

Barnes, increasing the panel by ones. I understand Mr. Barnes has 

to go someplace. You are first, Mr. DuBois. 

STATEMENT OF FRANK A. DuBOIS, NEW MEXICO SECRETARY 

OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. DuBOis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I am Frank DuBois, Secretary of Agriculture for the State of 

New Mexico. I am on the board of directors of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture and I am President of the 

Western Association. I appear before you today on behalf of the NASDA, which is the 

nonprofit association of public officials representing the commissioners, secretaries, and directors of agriculture in the 50 States. 
35 

I might add that our national president this year is Bruce Andrews from Oregon. 

NASDA supports establishing the State or regional standards 

and guidelines as found in section 105 in conjunction with the 

State Departments of Agriculture and the land grant universities. We also support the development of the allotment management 

plans as outlined in section 121, following the three Cs, consultation, cooperation, and coordination. We support that because it 

closely mirrors the same language that is in PRIA. 

Additionally, NASDA supports paragraph (e) of this section 

which is the section that exempts the issuing of grazing permits 

from NEPA. We support section 122 of the bill which outlines the 

process of determining ownership of structural range improvements. Section 123 of the bill which addresses water rights on Federallands is supported in its entirety by NASDA. 

Section 131, paragraph (c)(2) concerning the authorization of 

grazing use provides that an authorized BLM officer, when considering more than one application for the grazing use, shall not take 

into consideration the past practice or the rresent willingness of an 

applicant to allow public access to Federa land over private land. 

The association supports this paragraph but would suggest applying the language in the section to section 132 as addressing 

grazing permits or grazing leases. This would ensure that the BLM 

could not make the issuance, reissuance, or transfer of a term grazing permit or lease contingent upon public access across private 

land. 

NASDA also supports the issuance of term grazing permits or 

leases for the 15 years as specified in section 132. NASDA supports 

the grazing fee formula established by the bill. NASDA supports 

section 164 concerning the ability of permittee or leasee to appeal 

a final decision. As we read it, this section in effect would overturn 

Secretary Babbitt's full force and effect proposal. 

Section 176 concerning resource advisory councils is supported in 

concept by NASDA. 

Mr. Chairman, I do have three suggested changes to the bill that 

I would like to present to you today on behalf of NASDA. One, I 

would suggest that House bill H.R. 1713 in its entirety be applied 

as it is now written to the U.S. Forest Service. 

In the written testimony that I supplied to you, I provided quotes 

from the Federal Register where both the Forest Service and 

BLM were quoted as saying one of the premises of Rangeland Reform '94 was to bring their two agencies management of grazing to 

make them similar. I would suggest that you grant that wish and 

include the Forest Service in this bill. 

Second, I would request on behalf of NASDA that any and all inclusions of the term "affected interest" in relation to allotment 

management planning be removed from this bill. All interested 

parties should be and are allowed to participate in comment on and 

have standing to appeal resource management plans for the BLM 

and forest plans for the Forest Service with respect to livestock 

grazing and any other issues addressed in these plans. Site-specific planning such as AMPs, must be consistent with the 

existing land use plan of either the BLM or the Forest Service. As 

such, the development and subsequent adoption of AMPs is a final 
36 

document that is signed by the permittee or lessee and the land 

management agency. These two entities are exclusively bound by 

signature to any and all other requirements of the AMP as well as 

the consequence of the success or failure of implementing the very 

same AMP. 

Last, concerning grazing advisory councils as found in section 

171 of the bill, we would request on behalf of the NASDA that the 

membership of these councils be elected by the local permittees and 

lessees in an attempt to bring national politics out of the selection 

of these important entities. 

I would also like to speak to section 181 about reports. In there 

you have a report required by the agency that would address efficiencies in the administration of grazing. I would suggest that you 

either may want to add language or at least report language to ask 

the agencies to be very innovative when they provide this report 

because, under the current system where you have government employees following the dictates of Federal statute, Federal regulations and the Federal Courts writing government plans for government land you have a system, a model set up there that is fraught 

with inefficiencies, and I think it is time that we look at possibly 

some different models or other ways. Finally, I understand my time is up. Could I have 30 seconds to 

address one additional issue, sir? 

Mr. COOLEY. Yes. 

Mr. DuBoiS. There has been testimony today that this bill would 

create a dominant use on the public lands. And I just want to assert that that is certainly not our reading of this bill. I mean, after 

all, the sustained yield and multiple use act would still apply. 

FLP:MA, PRIA, and the Wilderness Act would still apply, itself. 

In our opinion, all this bill does is give management direction for 

a fair management agency on how they should manage one of the 

multiple uses on these public lands and we would not define that 

as creating a dominant use. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

Mr. HANSEN. [Presiding] Thank you, Mr. DuBois. [The prepared statement of Mr. DuBois can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Lowry. 

STATEMENT OF TIM LOWRY, OWHYEE CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION AND OWHYEE COUNTY LAND USE PLANNING COMMITTEE 

Mr. LOWRY. Mr. Chairman, representatives of the committee, my 

name is Tim Lowry. I am Chairman of the Owhyee County Land 

Use Planning Committee, a committee appointed by the county 

commissioners, and past president of the Owhyee County Cattlemen's Association. The comments that I am making today represent the views and the policy of the Owhyee Cattlemen's Association and the Owhyee County Land Use Planning Committee. 

I want to begin by expressing our deepest appreciation to Congressman Chenoweth for her very steadfast support in protecting 

her constituents' rights and the stability of the western livestock 

industry. And we know that there are others on this committee 
37 

who are committed to the same goals and we commend and thank 

them also. 

Last Sunday night, on July 9th, the subcommittees from the 

Cattlemen's Association and the County Planning Committee met. 

We reviewed revisions from the Senate bill and I would like to tell 

you that we were very pleased with the changes that have come 

out. 

The position of Owhyee County, that property rights and interest, due process rights and the stability of the western livestock industry must be protected has remained constant from the beginning of this pracess. This process with us began with a meeting 

with Representative Chenoweth the evening that we received a 

copy of the original bill. 

The next morning, Dr. Gibson, from the county, and myself flew 

to Albuquerque. We met with people from the New Mexico Public 

Lands Council. And from that meeting, an extensive list of suggested recommendations to the original bill was sent to our respective congressional delegations and some of those recommendations 

were incorporated into the bill that was introduced. 

After the bill was introduced, we met in Boise, Idaho with leadership from the Idaho, the Oregon, and the Nevada Cattlemen's Associations to review that bill, see what recommendations and changes 

additionally needed to be made. And those recommendations were 

presented to the Senate Subcommittee on Forests and Public Lands 

Management. 

As I said before, we were very pleased. It appears that around 

80 percent of our original recommendations have been accepted and 

most of the more important issues we feel have been resolved. I 

would like to bring to your attention for your consideration three 

sections that we think could still use a little bit of work. 

The first would be section 137(c)(3), and it is our feeling that to 

assess a surcharge for authorized pasturing of livestock owned by 

a person other than the permittee or lessee is discriminatory and 

punitive, that it will penalize those who could least afford it. And 

if the rationale for the surcharge is revenue enhancement, then the 

possibility I think is likely that it will probably have a negative effect; in other words, if a person is in a position for whatever reason 

that he can't afford to own his own livestock to fulfill the permit 

and has to run leased cattle and it is prohibitive, costwise, to do 

that, the allotment will be vacant and no revenue will be realized. 

If we are looking at vacant allotment as a result of the surcharge, we believe that will also run contrary to sound range management principles. We had an ecosystem management seminar in 

Caldwell, Idaho where one of the speakers, Dr. Wayne Burkhardt 

who is a renowned range scientist, talked at some length about 

grazing being a natural and necessary component of healthy and 

sustainable range lands. 

The second item I bring to your attention, Mr. Chairman, would 

be the establishment of standards and guidelines on a State or regional basis. And it would be our position that that is still too large 

of an area. And as pointed out in the hearings on range land reform by many range scientists, that standards and guidelines are 

detrimental when applied over a wide area, and I am sure it is this 

way everywhere, but in the State of Idaho on a statewide basis, 
38 

there is nearly as much difference statewide as there is between 

States throughout the West. And even when you get down to a 

county level, there is a lot of difference, so we think that standards 

and guidelines need to be applied at the largest level at the resource management area and preferably at the allotment management area. 

And third, I would just mention briefly on the fee section that 

we would respectfully request that suggestions that Owhyee County has sent in on the fee issue, that you take a sincere look at 

them. We are not going to oppose the fee section that is in the bill, 

but we do believe that there are some problems with it. We don't 

think that it will be the final solution and we would offer our suggestions as a simple and equitable solution. 

And I will conclude, Mr. Chairman, by again thanking Representative Helen Chenoweth, the rest of the committee, and thank 

you, Mr. Chairman, for this time. 

Mr. COOLEY. [Presiding) Thank you, Mr. Lowry. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lowry can be found at the end 

of the hearing.) 

Mr. COOLEY. We have about 20-some-odd people to testify. If we 

could try to hold to the five minutes, we would appreciate it because, otherwise, we are going to be here until the evening and we 

would like to try to get everybody to have an opportunity to testify. 

Mr. Hillier. 

STATEMENT OF GERALD HILLIER ON BEHALF OF MARSHA 

TUROCI, FIRST DISTRICT SUPERVISOR AND CHAIR OF SAN 

BERNARDINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

Mr. HILLIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Gerry Hillier. I am 

speaking on behalf of Ms. Marsha Turoci who is the Chairman of 

the Board of Supervisors for San Bernardino County. Thank you 

very much for allowing me to participate on her behalf. She was 

unable to attend today because of some pressing county business. 

I am joined here today by her field representative, Len Smith, 

who could also provide additional information on behalf of the 

county. Professionally, I have been involved in range management 

land management for a 38-year career, and currently serve as an 

advisor to San Bernardino County on public land issues. Thank you for the opportunity to address the subcommittee considering the reform and stability of this industry throughout the 

West. We have for too long fought over grazing issues on public 

lands. It is time to recognize that range livestock grazing, like all 

agricultural pursuits, has a continuing place in the economic 

scheme and fabric of the West and the United States, that it can 

and is managed under professional principles, and that we cannot 

afford to see any aspect of our economy and heritage reformed out 

of business simply because the ranchers use public lands for all or 

part of their operations and certain elements of society feel this is 

somehow wrong. Public lands are important to all people and they 

must continue to provide their values to all the public including the 

livestock industry. 

San Bernardino County is the largest county in the United 

States. It also has perhaps the largest area of public lands within 

any political subdivision, over 6 million acres under BLM adminis-
39 

tration and significant other areas administered by the Forest 

Service, National Park Service and Department of Defense. Public lands in the county are home to both cattle and sheep. 

Sheep utilize spring forage which is frequently abundant in our 

deserts as they have for over 100 years. Cattle are grazed from 

ranches in the county in surrounding mountains and foothills 

throughout the first district, which is the district Ms. Turoci represents. Again, this has been going on for over 100 years. 

Much of the history of grazing in the West has been colored by 

an initial history of nonregulated use. That era has passed. Contrary to the belief of some, we have the ability, will, and science 

to properly manage our natural resources. The BLM has been 

doing this for years in the absence of range reform and with the 

desert plan in 1980 provided conservation thresholds for turnout 

and a variety of other provisions to stabilize livestock and renewable resources within the county and the desert regions. 

Unfortunately, over the past 15 years, our ranchers have been 

bombarded with added problems associated with their use which 

should have been long ago resolved. Yet last year, our ranchers 

were faced again with range reform. We hope that this attempt by 

Congress will affirm that livestock do have a place in the public 

lands and that ranchers do have continuing recourse to appeal arbitrary and impractical decisions and have them stayed during the 

appeal and resolution process. These actions have included restrictions on livestock by Federal 

agencies under the Endangered Species Act, as it is currently being 

implemented, and enactment of the California Desert Protection 

Act, which placed over half the county's public land cattle grazing 

under National Park Service administration. I come before this subcommittee testifying in favor of the pro- posed legislation. It will bring renewed stability to public land 

grazing and send a message to administrators that the Congress 

has once again affirmed this historic and economically important 

use. It will eliminate or at least reduce the chances of management 

and administration of public land grazing being arbitrarily reformed under single use agendas. It appears to be a logical and 

natural evolutionary step in the progression of grazing regulation. It is sad that Congress must continue to revisi t this issue but 

perhaps each generation must reaffirm that which is important. 

And grazing use of public lands is still important to our ranch families and to our heritage. It establishes better balance on the resource advisory councils than those recently chart ered by the Secretary. 

It better assures that all parties with a stake in public land management issues can be at the table when decisions are made under 

basic range management and grazing allocations. It makes a clear 

statement regarding ownership of private investments and range 

improvements on public lands together with recognition of private 

holding of water rights under State law. This removes ambiguity 

regarding titles should public lands be transferred to another agency, and establishes a grazing fee formula which I hope will become 

the final word in this the matter. 

Too long have ranchers faced uncertainty regarding their own expenses in a market over which they have no control. It is important 
40 

that fees serve as rent, but they must also reflect the cost of operation, the lack of full security of tenure, the public nature of the 

land which is livestock share with a variety of other users, and 

that a portion of the fees continue to be returned to the county. 

We offer two proposals for inclusion within the act. One for the 

sake of consistency, we urge that the National Forest System be 

administered under this act. This will assure consistency between 

BLM and Forest Service on policies, administration, and fees. 

And, two, for the sake of San Bernardino County, we propose an 

addition to section 124 which will redress an issue which was created by the last Congress. We suggest the addition of a paragraph 

(c) in the inclusion of wording to the following effect that: Areas of 

public lands which Congress has designated to be units of the National Park System since January 1, 1994, and in which grazing 

was specifically authorized in the enactment to continue, shall be 

administered under the provisions of this act, including licensing 

and permitting by the former agency, setting of and deposit of grazing fees, installation and maintenance of range improvements, and 

title thereto, and retention of appeal rights to the Interior Board 

of Land Appeals under the Administrative Procedures Act. 

The above text is proposed for the purpose of amending section 

510 of the California Desert Protection Act which placed many of 

our cattle ranchers under the National Park Service within the 

newly created Mojave National Preserve. Their rules and regulations eliminated their appeal rights except for the Park Service. 

Hierarchical structure created ambiguity regarding ownership of 

existing range improvements, and has created uncertainty regarding coordination with the Fish and Wildlife Service regarding range 

management and desert tortoise habitat. 

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this hearing. I 

would be happy to expand on any of the points in the testimony 

or provide any additional details which the subcommittee might 

find helpful. 

Mr. HANSEN. [Presiding] Thank you, Mr. Hillier. [The statement as prepared by Ms. Turoci can be found at the 

end of the hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Ms. Taliaferro. 

STATEMENT OF LINDA TALIAFERRO, PRESIDENT, WYOMING 

ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES 

Ms. TALIAFERRO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Linda 

Taliaferro. I am President of the Wyoming County Commissioners 

Association. I am a commissioner from Sweetwater County, Wyoming. 

We have been involved with range land reform from the start. 

Many of my county commissions from around the western States 

and Wyoming have testified against it. The Wyoming County Commissioners Association as a body, all 23 counties, has taken a stand 

to oppose Rangeland Reform '94. Therefore, it is a great pleasure 

for me to be here today to visit with you about the Livestock Grazing Act, H.R. 1713. 

I am going to speak to you about what we believe this act will 

do to help keep Wyoming and other western States that have public lands headed in the right direction. We feel that it is time to 
41 

put this issue to rest and are hopeful that this act will help do 

that. 

As commissioners in Wyoming, we work, live, and socialize and 

are, in truth, the very people that this bill will effect. We believe 

it is time to let this industry have a stable environment to act 

within. Dealing with the market is bad enough, but to have to deal 

with the bureaucracy that you don't know from day to day or year 

to year what they are going to come up with next is asking too 

much. It is time to move this issue into the 20th century and, hopefully, be ready for the 21st century. 

As a commission, our goals are not much different than yours to 

keep a stable tax base. To do that, we have to keep all industry 

strong. The agricultural community offers so much for everyone: 

food, open spaces, the use of a product, range grass, that only benefits everyone concerned when used properly, to save a life-style 

that is very important to America, not any more important than 

any other, but just as important. 

The agricultural dollar that comes into a community 99 times out 

of 100 stays in that community. There are several counties in Wyoming and other western States that agriculture is the majority of 

their tax base. So when this issue is addressed and kicked around, 

you are talking about complete communities, not just about people 

that raise the sheep and the cattle. You are talking about schools, 

hospitals, car dealers, churches, grocery stores. Main Street Wyoming is being decided whenever this issue is discussed or written 

about. 

To go over some of the fundamentals of the act itself that are 

very important and that we agree with, having the standards and 

guidelines established on a State, preferably the State or regional 

level, is extremely vital. Letting the people that have to live with 

the situation put together the plans under which to operate and, 

I mean, involve all groups, local control and input is essential. 

Water rights should be controlled, maintained, administered in accordance with the State law. The 25 percent subleasing charge on 

everyone, unless the subleasee is an immediate family member, we 

believe that we can live with. 

We like the fact that the LGA accepts the proposal to establish 

resource advisory councils and that they be residents of th~ State 

and local community, requiring education, training, and experience 

in rangeland issues to be an excellent idea and extremely significant. 

The grazing fee formula. This formula would increase the 

amount of the AUM. None of us like the increase of the cost, but, 

that is a given, but the increase will help some to offset operational 

costs and hopefully will not hurt too many. This formula is much 

better than the one that we feel we operate under now and more 

understandable. 

One area of concern that we have is about the private property 

rights when lands are intermingled. As a commissioner, I deal with 

zoning issues on a regular basis. I have to be very careful when enacting new zoning regulations to consider all property that is adjacent and just what effect the new zoning will have on it. When regulations are written to govern a section of public land, that will 

have a direct effect on all the adjacent lands. 
42 

We in Wyoming are very proud of our public lands and we want 

to keep them as beautiful as possible and we do want to use them 

in the most proper way. I agree with the statement on page 3, that the Federal rangelands are in the best condition since they have been during this 

century and that their condition continues to improve. We have 

had wonderful moisture in the West this spring and summer and 

the rangeland is abundant with plant life. Again, I cannot express 

how I feel about this bill and that the local control is essential. 

We believe this act will move us all in the right direction. Thank 

you for your time and for your effort and all the work that you 

have put into this. 

Mr. HA.""l"SEN. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Taliaferro can be found at the 

end of the hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Barnes. 

STATEMENT OF HARVEY BARNES, PRESIDENT-ELECT, NEVADA 

CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION 

Mr. BARNES. My name is Harvey Barnes and I am from Jiggs, 

Nevada, and I am President-Elect of the Nevada Cattlemen's Association. The Livestock Grazing Act offers the opportunity for livestock 

grazing to continue on public lands using wise and sound management practices for the stewardship of those rangelands. The rural 

West needs this type of security for stability and its future . Cooperative public land management has caused vast improvements in range conditions over the past half century. The need exists for continued range improvement, solid resource manat;ement, 

and u se of this resource to care for our ever-increasing population. 

The Nevada range livestock industry supports the concept of this 

legislation. As this legislation has a direct effect on our industry, 

we have some points for your consideration. The 15-year tenure proposed in the bill is the highlight of the bill 

because it assures some long-term stability to the industry. Lack 

of tenure has been the major problem encountered in public land 

grazing. In Nevada, where 87 percent of our land is Federal, dependency on the use of those lands to make economic use of private 

lands is high. Therefore, changes in the policies for use of the public lands has a direct, immediate effect on private lands used for 

livestock production and local economies. 

Since the inception of public land grazing administration in 1934, 

we have not been able to obtain assurance of tenure, even through 

the permit system. We believe that with the improved condition of 

the ranges, the advancement of range sciences during the past two 

decades, and the necessity to stabilize the range livestock industry, 

reliable tenure must be provided. Such tenure will also allow financial institutions to provide adequate long-term loans for purchases 

and improvements on ranch and rangelands to enhance our rural 

economic stability and the environment. 

We feel that the Grazing Advisory Board Council proposed in sec- tion 177 of Senate bill 852 and H.R. 1713 is essential to effective 

management at the local level. For many years, the livestock industry had an elected grazing advisory board with mandatory meet-
43 

ings to consider all aspects of grazing management. People who 

participated in the process, both Federal employees and private individuals, felt that these boards provided a valuable service. 

We believe that the proposal should include the opportunity to 

resolve differences which arise from decisions of the authorized officer prior to the final decision. This can be accomplished by a mechanism in which the authorized officer and affected user would appear before the council which would hear both sides of the issue 

and then make a recommendation to the agency. All actions of the 

Grazing Advisory Council in this proposal and the bill should be by 

a two-thirds vote instead of unanimous as set forth in the bill. We 

believe also that this same vote should apply to the resource advisory councils. 

Standards and guidelines were first proposed by Secretary Babbitt in his rangeland reform. They appeared to remove any incentive for progressive range management and improvements. We support the establishment of regional and State standards and guidelines. However, we believe that standards and guidelines should be 

established with full consideration to forage production, soil betterment, watershed management, and coordination of the production 

capabilities of the private land dependent upon the public land 

grazing. 

Standards and guidelines must recognize the need for consumption of the renewable resource consistent with the production capabilities of public and private lands within the region of consideration. 

We wish to express our appreciation to this committee and the 

various representatives of the States who are making the tremendous effort to initiate legislation which will benefit not only the 

public lands but also the private sector which is directly affected 

by the decisions for public land administration. We believe the passage of this bill will begin to provide some 

basis of stability in public land grazing and, therefore, we support 

this concept. We very much appreciate the opportunity to comment 

before you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COOLEY. [Presiding] Thank you very much, Mr. Barnes. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Barnes can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. COOLEY. I want to remind my colleagues that we are trying 

to do a five-minute rule. Let's try to obey the lights if we can. I 

will start this off with Mr. DuBois. 

You made the statement about amending or deleting the inclusions of the affected interests in this bill. By doing this, do you feel 

that the bill would limit public input, as some people have stressed 

such concerns about, not allowing the public to be involved in this 

process? 

Mr. DuBOis. No, sir, I do not. Because where the term affected 

interest is used is in conjunction with AMPs. The public is allowed 

all accounts of input either through the resource advisory councils 

or through general comments on these land use plans or resource 

management plans, and it is in those plans where the issues are 

discussed. Do we have grazing or do we not? Should there be limi-
44 

tations put on grazing or not? To what extent does grazing impact 

wildlife recreation, coal leasing, et cetera? 

All those issues are addressed in the resource management plan 

or the land use plan and everyone has input into that and everyone 

has the right to appeal those. 

When you get down to the site-specific level, our argument is 

that there is a signed document between the Federal land management agency and the permittee. It puts obligations on the land 

management agency and the permittee and they are the ones that 

have to live under this document, and to include someone else at 

this point is unwarranted third-party inference. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 

Mr. Hillier, you have a lot of experience in public process and 

dealing with the public. Do you feel that the public participation 

under H.R. 1713 would be sufficiently apprehended or cut out of 

the process in such a way that you feel that the public would suffer 

under this particular bit of legislation with your vast experience in 

public policy? 

Mr. HILLIER. I don't think so at all. I would certainly echo what 

Mr. DuBois just said, that the time for public participation and in 

fact, in practice, when most of the public dialog and participation 

comes about is during the land use planning process, either the forest plan or the resource management plan, depending on whether 

it is Forest Service or BLM. 

And if the resource advisory councils are properly organized with 

the entire spectrum of interests and the meetings are open to the 

public which the bill provides for, that dialog and with all of the 

interests at the table takes place relative to the allocation, the levels, and the general tenor with which grazing management is going 

to take place on an area, you know, just as timber harvest and 

wildlife management activities and a whole array of multiple uses. 

And there is full public participation that takes place now and 

there is full public participation guaranteed under H.R. 1713. 

Again, relative to the details of how that is going to be implemented would take place at the allotment management planning 

level and there it is basically a contract between the rancher and 

the agency who is doing it. And it is the intricacies of whether the 

cattle are going to be moved June 1st or June 15th, it is the intricacies of how pipelines are going to be laid. 

And, frankly, to provide for reopening that public dialog and allowing basically those who may have argued against grazing allocations to reopen those debates simply prolongs and actually prevents 

and delays the implementation of modern and scientific range management. The public interest is certainly protected under the act 

and I have seen no diminution of that. 

Mr. CooLEY. I have time for one more. We will get around to the 

next pass. We will get everybody at least two opportunities. Mr. 

Ensign, you are next. 

Mr. ENSIGN. Thanklou, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, I woul like to welcome Mr. Barnes from my good 

State of Nevada to the panel. 

Mr. BARNES. Thank you. 

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Barnes, could you briefly explain the problems 

that the ranchers in Nevada are having with Federal agencies? 
45 

Mr. BARNES. Not briefly, no. But it seems to me as far as resource management, you know, we have gotten to the point where 

there isn't any. It seems like you are either in an office or shuffling 

papers or something. We are not getting it done where it should 

be and it seems like every obstacle is thrown in our faces to prevent any type of range improvements, AMPs, and so forth. And of 

course with our forestlands, I feel we have been good stewards. 

I don't know if you are familiar with the lawsuit that we have 

raised with the NEPA process with the Forest Service filed by the 

National Wildlife Federation, but it lists certain allotments. Our allotment is not in the suit. However, we are thrown in the same 

basket as the bad stewards which it was alluded to this morning 

that 95 percent of us are pretty good and the other five are not. 

Well, in this lawsuit we are thrown in the same basket with everybody else because, if we don't have our NEPA analysis done, we 

don't get a permit. And so there is some real justified apprehension 

out there. 

Mr. ENSIGN. So what people said this morning, you would disagree with their assessment that 95 percent are protected now? 

Will it be easier under Secretary Babbitt's new regulations coming 

out? 

Mr. BARNES. You are right, Congressman. I would strongly disagree with that remark because it is not in the reality. We are a 

family operation. We run on both BLM and Forest Service lands 

and--

Mr. ENSIGN. Could you also comment, earlier there seemed to be 

a little laughter in the background when I had asked them about 

the ease of getting permits for additional cattle in years such as 

this when there is a lot more and maybe of the other panelists 

would like to comment on that as well. 

There seems to be some disagreement from what I heard when 

I was in Elko last week from what I was hearing from this morning's panel. Would you like to comment on that? 

Mr. BARNES. Well, sir, the first thing, if you put an application 

in for temporary and nonrenewable, someone has to come out and 

look and they are always very busy, and sometimes it is physically 

impossible to get someone out there to look. And if they don't look, 

well, they will not grant the permit, so it isn't a slam-dunk by any 

means. 

Mr. ENSIGN. I would just suggest that anybody who is applying 

this year would take the testimony from this morning and put that 

back on their desks and say this thing is supposed to be an easy 

thing to do, especially in years like this, to maybe get through some 

of the bureaucracies. 

Maybe some of the rest of panel would also comment on some of 

what was talked about this morning. There seemed to be a pretty 

strong feeling from the panel this morning that they were afraid 

of taking the Federal Government oversight out of the management 

of the rangelands or at least limiting their control would be a bad 

thing. 

Would anybody else like to take a shot at that and how you feel 

about it? 

Mr. DuBOIS. I think this bill that we are discussing today brings 

back a pretty good balance between the authorities and duties of 
46 

a Federal land management agency and recognizing the expertise 

and the economic needs and so on of the permittees out there on 

the ground, and it also gives an opportunity for the local county, 

State government, these rural communities that are so dependent 

upon these Federal lands to have more of an input into the planning process, so I think it brings a good balance-it brings a balance back from where Secretary Babbitt was going to take it. 

Mr. ENSIGN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HANSEN. Mrs. Chenoweth. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to welcome Tim Lowry to the panel. You know, I just 

want to thank all of you for being here because I know the great 

sacrifice that it has taken for you to come and spend five lousy 

minutes to give your testimony and try to convince us not to destroy your life-style. We had the government in front of us for two 

hours and we limit you to five lousy minutes. 

I want to ask Mr. Lowry, how much did your plane ticket cost 

you? 

Mr. LOWRY. Congressman, it was 1,350 some-odd-dollars. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And you are missing three days of work? 

Mr. LOWRY. Yes, ma'am. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. When were you notified and asked to come to 

testify? 

Mr. LOWRY. It would have been Friday, I believe. Friday was the 

7th. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. So it was last Friday. 

Mr. LOWRY. Correct. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Well, I just, again, want to thank all of you 

for making the sacrifice to be part of the citizen government. Not 

only the sacrifice of being here to testify, but the sacrifice of the 

work that you have put in with Congressman Cooley in putting together this bill. 

Mr. Lowry, this question goes to the attitude of the Agency, not 

just with regard to the ranchers, but the community. The community's stability and protection of the community was something that 

our founding fathers and, of course, the western pioneers and those 

who formulated western law really saw a need for. 

Can you tell me about the incident that happened in your county 

with regards to the fire and the choice that BLM made? 

Mr. LOWRY. Yes, Congressman, I would be very happy to, because I was able to see that question answered in practice and not 

in theory. 

Last summer, one of our neighbors-and, understand, in Owhyee 

County a neighbor can be upwards of 50 miles away-but this particular neighbor, probably four or five miles from his closest neighbor, but it was during the middle of the summer, we were haying, 

we noticed the smoke up the country. And as we always do when 

we notice something wrong like that, neighbors all quit what they 

were doing and headed in that direction. 

And when we got there, a little fire was burning, and it was just 

getting started. It had got up to his house. It is an old two-story 

house in excess of a hundred years old, and he was fighting it with 

a garden hose. 
47 

By this time, it had burned the tool shed and lost the electricity, 

so we lost the water. So we were fighting it with shovels and dirt 

and running across the road and over into the barn lot where a 

spring fed a water trough and packing buckets of water back. The fire was getting away from us on the house. It was spreading out through the meadows toward his haystacks. It was being 

blown across the road on to the hillsides. 

We had people scattered out running pretty fast trying to keep 

things under control when we noticed coming up the road three 

BLM fire pumper trucks. We thought that that was their destination. They slowed down a little bit when they went past, because, 

as I said, we had people running across the road packing buckets 

of water. They drove on past because they had a report of a lightning strike up on Juniper Mountain and a tree was on fire. The 

result was that Con lost his house completely, lost everything that 

was in the house. And so that was the way we saw that question 

answered in practice. Mrs. CHENOWETH. So, Mr. Lowry, I think this incident points up 

the fact that we truly desire to have the BLM be a better neighbor. 

Mr. LOWRY. Congressman, if I could talk about that for just a 

second--

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous 

consent that his--

Mr. COOLEY. You may have the time. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. 

Mr. LOWRY. Now, understand, I am not trying to make my remarks cover the entire bureaucracy, because in particular where 

we operate we do have some permits in Oregon under the Vale district, and we have a pretty good working relationship. 

In Owhyee County, we are working under people who are intent 

on imposing their personal agenda, which does not include us. And 

you said, you would like to be better neighbors. We do not consider 

them neighbors. Because neighbors are people that work with you, 

that you try to get along, you try to help each other. And our relationship with the Federal agencies is not one of neighborliness. It 

is, unfortunately, a pretty adversarial one. We feel that-as if we 

are-and I hate to use this word under the political climate these 

days, but, essentially, we feel that we are under attack, that our 

rights and our existence are literally under attack. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Lowry, you as well as the other gentlemen 

and lady at this table have all worked very hard with Congressman 

Cooley, Senator Craig, various other people, in bringing this bill 

about. And it is a bill of great compromise and consensus. But if, 

by chance, this bill does not pass and it is vetoed by the White 

House, what is your alternative to Rangeland Reform '94? Are 

there any plans legally to make sure that Rangeland Reform '94 is 

not implemented? Are you prepared to file for injunctive relief? 

Mr. LOWRY. Congressman, in Owhyee County, as you know, we 

were working with a legal consultant when Rangeland Reform '94 

was initially released. We set the framework in the testimony for 

the legal arguments that will be made. Owhyee County is committed. If it is implemented, Owhyee County is committed to go to 

court in order to protect the rights of the citizens of Owhyee County. 
48 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. You are a member of the Executive Board of 

the Idaho Cattle Association? 

Mr. LOWRY. Correct. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And you do support this bill 100 percent? Or 

90 percent, with the exceptions that you mentioned? 

Mr. LOWRY. Congressman, as mentioned, the subcommittees from 

the County met Sunday. We went over this thing, and the recommendation of the subcommittees will be to support this bill. 

There are a few things we would like to see worked on, but if 

that doesn't happen our position is now that the thing has been 

corrected to the point to where we can make it work. And from the 

County's standpoint we will go back home, and we are going to do 

some things to strengthen the County land use plan to cover any 

weaknesses that still exist. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Lowry. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COOLEY. Thank you, Mrs. Chenoweth. 

Mrs. Cubin. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, I would like to thank Mrs. Taliaferro for coming from 

Wyoming, and, like Representative Chenoweth, thank all of you for 

all of the work that you have done. 

I want to make an observation. I made it after a hearing, I think 

it was last week or two weeks ago, that, you know, to me it is too 

bad that the first panel didn't stay to listen to what you have to 

say. I realize they leave staff to take notes and go over it with 

them, but I think it is so much more impressive when they can actually hear the witnesses themselves. So I will be requesting that 

from now on we have the administrators testify last so that they can hear the compelling testimony from the people that these laws 

actually affect. 

I do have a question for Mrs. Taliaferro. As a county commissioner and president of the County Commission Association, what 

in your view would be the consequences of not passing some version of H.R. 1713 but instead allowing Rangeland Reform '94 to go 

into effect? 

Ms. TALIAFERRO. I think the biggest impact that you will see on 

the counties is the farmers and ranchers will start selling off portions of their land to subdivisions, which causes a nightmare for 

any county, especially the-well, any county. When you deal with 

a subdivision, costs increase, you have roads, sheriffs, jails. Everything goes up. And you lose your open spaces. 

But I think that the biggest thing that you will see is-in fact, 

I have heard it all over Wyoming from different ranchers and different commissioners that have said I am tired of fighting. With 

Rangeland Reform '94 you will be removing everyone at the local 

level another step. We will never get heard. It does not bring anything closer. It is further away. Decisions will be made, and we will 

do it or not like it. And we are tired. We are just tired of having 

to continually fight. 

You will see more and more subdivisions and your loss of your 

open spaces; therefore, you lose wildlife and everything that goes 

with it. 

Mrs. ClJBIN. Thank you. 
49 

This is also for you, Mrs. Taliaferro. According to ELM's testimony, H.R. 1713 would-and this is a quote-severely limit public 

involvement in the management of public lands. 

I would, first of all, point out that the public in my opinion has 

been involved because, well, for one thing they elected all of us congressmen that are working on this. But I am amazed to see their 

sudden interest in public involvement. 

I know that you attended some of the public hearings last year 

that took place all across the West, and you gave Secretary Babbitt 

some very valuable input on behalf of Wyoming counties. Your testimony coincided with the vast majority of the testimony that was 

presented to the Secretary. What, in your view, was the result of 

all of the testimony and public involvement that Secretary Babbitt 

heard? 

Ms. TALIAFERRO. Nothing. I don't know how better to say it. We 

testified at each meeting. He would open the meeting by saying we 

are here to listen, we want your input, we want your valuable information, we know that you deal with it on a daily basis. And at 

the next meeting it was the same. And at the end result, it was 

like we never said a word. 

And when they stated this morning that 95 percent of the stewards of the land are good users, and they take care of it, and that 

the rangeland is in better shape than it has ever been, and then 

they turn right around and do not listen to us when we say rangeland reform will not benefit that and this act will, it will move this 

forward, and we will end up with something that is productiveand so I feel that after all these hearings that we never got off 

square one. We are still there. And, hopefully, this will do something. 

Mrs. CUBIN. I agree with you. I found the same phenomenon 

whenever I discussed the matter with the Secretary. 

Just a little comment. Last week, one of the members of the first 

panel was in front of us on a different issue. And we asked just 

directly, well, do you think that the States can't do this, that they 

have to have-it was on a different issue-that they have to have 

Federal oversight, you don't think the States can do it? And, yes, that is what he thought. And, you know, I just think it is too bad 

that some of our bureaucrats have that attitude. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. COOLEY. Thank you, Mrs. Cubin. 

Mr. Vento. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Lowry, are you aware there is a joint agreement--obviously, there are interagency fire agreements between all 

the agencies, the Federal agencies. Is there an agreement in 

Owhyee County as to what the Federal Government will do in 

terms of extinguishing fires on private property? 

Mr. LOWRY. Not that I am aware of, Congressman. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, what is the normal process for extinguishing 

fires? Don't you have an agreement with the Federal Government 

of some sort? Are you part of the interagency? Is your volunteer 

group part of that? You are not putting out any fires on public 

lands? 

Mr. LOWRY. No, Congressman. 
50 

Mr. VENTO. So it is your testimony, you just think they ought t~in other words, the Federal Government-there are jurisdiction 

lines in terms of fire and police. There are all sorts-whether you 

have got joint, sole jurisdiction between law enforcement, you can 

carry this to a lot of different conclusions depending upon whose 

responsibility it is. 

I agree with you that it would seem to me a house is more important than a field someplace, but it is one of the problems that we 

have with a lot of inholdings in terms of what our fire policies are 

with BLM. They have certainly tried to work with the State and 

everyone else. I don't know where we begin to draw the lines and 

how we can work out something like that. It certainly isn't a policy 

we have written. 

You know, here, the Director testified that if you had a trespass 

situation, before he could investigate it, he would have to get permission, I suppose, to do so, based on the bill that we have here. 

You know, this bill has been-the testimony before this committee 

this morning, that this actually complicates--

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. VENTO. No, not at this time. I won't yield right now. 

This actually complicates the issue. Did you hear that testimony 

from the Director? 

Mr. LOWRY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. VENTO. I yield, yes. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vento, Mr. Dombeck testified to the fact that it was their policy that human safety came 

first. That was part of the record that was established this morning. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, was someone's life at risk in terms of this 

house? 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The house burned down. Mr. VENTO. I know. Was someone's life at risk? That is property. 

That is different than a life, isn't it? 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I think the situation speaks for itself. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. VENTO. Well, I appreciate your insights, but I think the issue 

of course is, you know, do you have an agreement or don't you have 

an agreement with the Federal Government and where their responsibility lies. And I agree that it would seem to be that that 

type of flexibility would be desirable. But, in any case, is there anyone at the table that does not hold permits? You all hold permits? 

Mr. HILLIER. I don't. 

Mr. VENTO. Who does not? Do you hold a permit, Mr. DuBois? 

Mr. DuBOis. No, sir, I do not, but my family does. 

Mr. VENTO. Your family does? 

Mr. DuBOIS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. VENTO. You testified that the National Association of State 

Directors here support the fee formula contained in H.R. 1713. 

Mr. DuBois. That is correct. Mr. VENTO. Does any State currently use this formula? 

Mr. DuBOIS. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. VENTO. Did you hear my questions about the nature of this 

formula and the undefined terms? 
51 

Mr. DuBOIS. Yes, sir, I did. I can tell you, conceptually, we, as 

an association-and I personally find this grazing fee formula to be 

attractive. 

Mr. VENTO. I appreciate your insights into how attractive you 

find it. I just was wondering, what do you charge right now per 

AUM in New Mexico State's lands? 

Mr. DuBOis. $3.40 an AUM. 

Mr. VENTO. $3.40 an AUM, compared to something like $1.80 for 

us nationally-$1.60, OK. 

Mr. DuBOIS. That, however, is for a lease, not a permit. 

Mr. VENTO. OK, for a lease or a permit. Can you describe the difference between those? 

Mr. DuBOIS. Yes, sir. When you have a lease under the State 

land office, you actually lease the land from the government. You 

are not just getting the forage. 

Mr. VENTO. So you control the entire land? Nobody else can enter 

the land? 

Mr. DuBOIS. Yes. They since changed policy, but for many years 

that was not the case. Plus they use the permittee to help police 

the area and other things. So it is quite a different situation. Mr. VENTO. What is the length of those leases? 

Mr. DUBOis. Those leases are five years. Mr. VENTO. Five years, yes. One of the provisions here in this bill is, on page 56, is a payment prior to use and billing after the grazing season. If an allotment management plan provides for billing after the grazing season, a grazing fee shall be based on the actual grazing use and 

shall be due upon issuance. How would that be enforceable? Who 

would monitor that during the time, during the course of the issue? 

Could any of you explain that to me? I mean, this is--

Mr. DuBOis. Does one of the permittees want to respond? 

Mr. VENTO. You bill after the fact, isn't it logical if you have so 

many AUMs and they need to be used, obviously, you would charge on that particular basis as opposed to what is actually used. This 

seems to me that it would be impossible to administer. You would 

have to make a judgment, how many cows are on there, other factors that went into it. How would you possibly monitor it? 

Mr. DUBOIS. Well, you know, the permittees have to respond to 

economic and natural forces as they manage these allotments. Mr. VENTO. Well, I will tell you, if the permittees like this bill, 

they must love paperwork. Because you ought to take a look at 

page 53 through 54 in terms of the amount of paperwork that has 

to be completed in terms of this. I mean, I just think that some of 

this is wholly unworkable. 

You know, Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that here I 

assume that three out of four indicated that you have permits right 

now for leasing Federal lands. And most of the leases-actually, 10 

or 15 percent of the leases hold 57 percent of the acreage. Fiftyseven percent of the AUMs are held by 10 to 15 percent. 

These are not necessarily small companies. They are oil companies. They are boring companies. They are life insurance companies. They are breweries. 

I think that my colleagues ought to recognize-you think of the 

small operator and a way of life and so forth, but the fact of the 
52 

matter is that 50 to 60 percent of these permits are being held by 

those that have over 500 AUMs. I don't know. That is not my definition of what is large, but that is the definition that is being used 

here for the purposes of this. 

So, Mr. Barnes, how many AUMs do you lease or are you a permittee on? 

Mr. BARNEs. We have 2,132 AUM's BLM and 1,475 AUM's of 

Forest Service. 

Mr. VENTO. I see. 

Mr. BARNES. And that system that you referred to has been in 

effect in our district for a number of years, that if you have an allotment management plan you are allowed to wait and pay your 

fees at the end of the term. And I will assure you that not only the 

permittee turns in a form, but we are monitored by the Bureau. 

Mr. VENTO. Ms. Taliaferro? 

Ms. TALIAFERRO. I have no idea how many we hold, and I am 

going to tell you why. We have a family operation. I have brothersin-law and sisters-in-law. I am a county commissioner. I don't ask 

them where their AUMs-I know where they are, but I don't know 

how many we have, to be honest with you. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Lowry, do you know how many AUMs you permit? 

Mr. LOWRY. Yes, sir. Approximately 1,800. And could I point out 

one thing? 

Mr. VENTO. How many head of cattle is that? 

Mr. LOWRY. Four hundred cows. There are two families of us. So, 

essentially, what you have is about 200 cows to support a family. 

And, out of that, I draw $8,000 a year out of the operation to live 

on. My wife has to work out because there is no way in the world 

of making it on it. So I don't consider myself a large operator, sir. 

Mr. VENTO. No, I wouldn't consider you a large operator, either. 

But I think that the issue is, of course, that many others, as I have 

indicated, are in a different situation, and 400 or more---

Mr. DuBois, my time has run out, so my colleagues--

Mr. DUBOIS. I just want to say that my family has a 96-head 

permit with the U.S. Forest Service. It is so small and so uneconomical that, much to my family's consternation, I have to go be 

a bureaucrat to make a living. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, listen, a lot of us have had to leave the farm 

environment to do other things. So it is happening all over the inland area of the country. So it is not an unusual phenomenon. 

Again, I say we have no objection tcr-I think, obviously, we are 

looking at a much more complicated policy than it was in the 

1940's. I don't apologize for that. That is just the nature of the 

science that we are dealing with. 

Ms. TALIAFERRO. Mr. Vento, I have been thinking here, and I am 

going to wager a guess. There are five families that are on these 

AUMs that derive a living from this, and I think that we have between 14,000 and 15,000 AUMs. 

Mr. VENTO. Fourteen and fifteen thousand? 

Ms. TALIAFERRO. Yes. 

Mr. VENTO. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 
53 

Mr. CooLEY. I want to tell this side, the right side here, that I 

am allowing Mr. Vento some extra time since he is an individual 

on his own over here trying to carry on his part of the bargain. 

I want to make a statement to the panel. I want to tell you that 

it isn't the fact that you are here for five minutes. Your full testimony will be put into the record and be evaluated every bit of the 

time. Because of the way the system is set up, I know it is very 

hard on you to come here and spend a great deal of time and 

money and to be here, but I want to tell you that your participation 

is vitally needed in order for us to go forward with this legislation 

or any amendments to this legislation, and I do appreciate you 

coming here and spending your time. 

I might say just for the record that Mr. Lowry made a statement, 

I think it should be put to people who do not understand the cattle 

business. For 400 head of cattle, he needs 1,800 AUMs. For 400 

head he needs 1,800 AUMs. And the reason for that is, is that he 

can't graze on his land all the time and he has to keep moving 

them around in different allotments, which is also costly. 

Another thing for the record is that the reason we are down now 

to a very small percentage of the total amount held by a very small 

percentage of individuals, be it either individuals or corporations or 

families, is that because of the past policies of the Bureau of Land 

Management, U.S. Forest Service, as it relates to grazing permits, 

many of the small permittees found it just absolutely intolerable to 

continue on. They have gotten out of the business and/or they have 

just merely let their leases go back. And we are finding this all 

over the West. 

I just want everybody to be aware of what is happening. AB the 

bureaus become more restrictive, more punitive in their action, the 

smaller individuals have seen fit to get out of the business. And so, 

therefore, larger companies have come in, hopefully, that can carry 

the burden for this cost. 

So I want to make sure that that was in the record and not the 

idea that the big companies are gobbling up the little fellow. The 

little fellow is getting out because the bureaucracy is forcing the little fellow out of it. 

Can you imagine having 400 head of cattle and needing 1,800 

AUMs in order to run the 400 head? He pays not for 400 head, he 

pays for 1,800 head on the AUM basis. So I wanted to make that 

clear for the record. 

I want to thank this panel. 

Mr. Hillier, I see you would like to make a statement. We would 

like to get moving, but I will make it, if you please make it short. 

Because we have another 15 people wanting to testify, and it is almost 2 p.m., and we have another vote coming up, and that will 

be another 30 minutes. So could you make it brief, please? 

Mr. HILLIER. One minute. 

I just wanted to augment, people were saying there, you know, 

what the effect of this range reform was in the way the BLM was 

currently operating. Currently, even without range reform, BLM is 

implementing many of its decisions under full force and effect. And 

on June 12th, 1995, relative to a case that I have been involved in, 

in Nevada, we got the following letter that was signed by ABsistant 

Director Tipton. 
54 

It says, "At the hearing you referenced, the Interior Department 

presented information based on available science supporting affirmative grazing during the crucial spring growing season. This was 

a decision to eliminate spring grazing. The BLM did not hear any 

other data of substance to cause a reconsideration of our decisions." 

And then it goes on to say, "Basically, we will not rethink it." 

Unfortunately, they had heard two weeks of testimony that the 

ranchers had offered. Dr. Burkhardt was one of the witnesses, one 

of the expert witnesses, and they simply are implementing these 

things even in the absence of range reform. And that is why H.R. 

1713 is very, very much needed to correct and provide the ranchers 

an appeal where their professional testimony can be heard and listened to. 

Mr. COOLEY. Thank you very much. 

Thank you very much, panel, for coming. We really truly appreciate it. 

We will have the third panel come up now: Messrs. Breese, Skinner, Winter, Julian, Smith. 

Gentlemen, there is a vote on. I think it would be better if we 

break right now. So we will be in recess for about 15 minutes. 

Thank you very much. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. COOLEY. Thank you very much for waiting. We just voted on 

a foreign appropriations bill, and I wouldn't even want to tell you 

the numbers. It will scare you to death. We appreciate your time 

in waiting for us. 

Mr. CooLEY. We will start out with the first witness, Mr. Doug 

Breese. Glad to see you here, Doug. We appreciate you coming out. 

STATEMENT OF DOUG BREESE, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU 

FEDERATION, OREGON FARM BUREAU FEDERATION 

Mr. BREESE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is nice to be here and 

I appreciate being able to have the opportunity to speak to this 

committee. 

My name is Doug Breese. I am a fourth generation cattle rancher 

from Prineville, Oregon. I am President of the Oregon Farm Bureau Federation, and I am testifying today on behalf of both the 

American Farm Bureau Federation and the Oregon Farm Bureau 

Federation. 

Our ranch is a 400-head cow-calf operation that I run with my 

wife and children, who are the fifth generation on the land. I 

served 10 years on the Prineville BLM District's Multiple Use Advisory Council and two years on the National Public Lands Advisory Council until it was disbanded by the present Administration. 

Livestock from our operation use Federal lands managed by the 

Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service at various 

times of the year. These lands, in some cases, are intermingled 

with our private lands, and we must be able to use them to properly manage the land's resources and economically manage our 

ranching business. The use of Federal lands is an important and 

integral part of our ranching operation. 

Congress and the Federal agencies have been debating Western 

ranching livelihoods for decades and have been making piecemeal 

changes to policy over several years. Rangeland reform is the latest 
55 

and the most sweeping of these changes. The Farm Bureau believes the passage of H.R. 1713, the Livestock Grazing Act, will 

provide me and fellow ranchers across the West the certainty and 

stability that we need to continue operating in an economically viable manner. 

The bill is in no way intended to challenge or change the multiple use policies of the agencies managing Federal lands or weaken the ability of these agencies to manage the natural resources on 

those lands. The bill addresses the livestock grazing management 

processes and/or policies for these lands. Rangeland Reform '94 also 

addresses many of the same policy issues as the bill but does so 

in a way that makes it virtually impossible to manage and sustain 

productive rangelands and watersheds. 

As Federal land users, we recognize that we have a responsibility 

to take care of these lands and keep them productive for livestock, 

wildlife and other uses. Our livelihoods depend on the condition of 

those lands. Studies have shown that the Federal lands are in better condition now than at any time during the 20th century. 

Such improvement is particularly obvious where I live. Permittees, with the encouragement and support from some of the more 

creative agency land managers, have been able to overcome many 

of the policy and paperwork roadblocks to good management. These 

permittees have spent a great deal of time and money in successful 

efforts to improve their allotments, making changes that benefit 

livestock, wildlife, watersheds and the overall condition of the 

rangelands. 

Livestock permittees understand that the continued improvement of rangeland conditions depend on a partnership with the 

Federal agencies. The Livestock Grazing Act will foster and promote that partnership in a manner that is fair to both the permittee and the public. 

The Livestock Grazing Act addresses the problem of maintaining 

the integrity of NEPA while removing duplicative and burdensome 

paperwork requirements. It provides for the issuance of grazing 

permits or leases that are consistent with resource plans, therefore 

eliminating the need to implement a second round of NEPA review, 

therefore getting agency personnel into the field where they can 

perform good ranchland management. Rangeland reform attempts to develop standards and guidelines 

for rangeland management nationwide. It does not take into con- sideration the diversity of geography, geology, climate and plant 

communities found in different rangelands. Standards and guidelines are not the same thing, nor are they goals and objectives. 

Guidelines provide general policy that provides flexible directions 

to achieve general land use or management goals. Standards are 

more specific and are used to accomplish site-specific objectives in 

line with the goals. 

Rangeland Reform's use of standards and guidelines will in the 

end continue a process where specific land management decisions 

are made in Washington, DC, instead of on the ground by competent agency staff with input from the local land user. Rangeland 

reform will stifle adaptive management by creative peorle and instead lead to a form of cookbook management that wil doom our 

range resources. 
56 

The Livestock Grazing Act seeks to limit the use of one-size-fitsall standards and guidelines. It also directs their development to 

the State and regional level in conjunction with the State department of agriculture and other appropriate agencies or institutions. 

Amendments may be offered to more clearly define the standards 

and guidelines and how they relate to goals and objectives. 

These are only a few of the problems created by Rangeland Reform '94 that will be solved by the Livestock Grazing Act. The bill 

seeks to accommodate the concerns and the needs of both the livestock permittee and the general public that has entrusted us with 

stewardship over their lands. While there may be parts of the bill 

we might not totally agree with, the bill is fair. More important, 

the bill puts an end to the piecemeal and sometimes conflicting additions to grazing policy by comprehensively updating Federal 

lands grazing policy in a unified manner. 

But the ultimate yardstick for measuring the merits of the bill 

is whether it will continue to result in improvement of our Federal 

rangelands. It is clear from the few examples that I have cited that 

Rangeland Reform '94 will not work on the ground. In contrast to 

that, the Livestock Grazing Act will continue to forge the partnership between agency and permittee by providing the framework 

necessary for permittees to continue operating in a viable manner. 

At the same time, the Livestock Grazing Act will foster the continuing improvement of range conditions for the benefit of all. 

We wish to thank the chairman of this subcommittee for holding 

hearings on the bill, and we also wish to thank the sponsor and 

cosponsors of the bill for the time and energy spent in drafting the 

bill that provides a common sense grazing policy that benefits everybody. Thank you. 

Mr. CooLEY. Thank you, Mr. Breese. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Breese can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Skinner. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. SKINNER, CHAIRMAN, PUBLIC 

LANDS COMMITTEE, OREGON CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION 

Mr. SKINNER. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for this opportunity to talk to you today. It is very hard 

for a rancher such as myself who lives over 3,000 miles from here 

to grasp the fact that our destiny is determined here in Washington, DC. 

I am a rancher from southeastern Oregon, and our ranch currently leases about 6,500 AUMs from the Bureau of Land Management, primarily from April through mid-September. I am Chairman of the Public Lands Committee for the Oregon Cattlemen's Association. I also serve as a Public Lands Council delegate from the 

State of Oregon. 

The comments I am making today on H.R. 1713 are consistent 

with the views of the Oregon Cattlemen's Association members and 

the Public Lands Council leadership in the State of Oregon. Also, 

I feel it is important to remind you the livestock industry as a 

whole did sound a strong voice of support with the presidents of all 

Western States Cattlemen's Associations voting to support H.R. 

1713. 
57 

It is with a very strong commitment to the well-being of the 

lands, both public and private, that I talk to you today. My children are the sixth generation of Skinners to live and work on our 

ranch in Jordan Valley; and, needless to say, the well-being of the 

land is absolutely essential for us to survive over the long haul. 

We strongly support H.R. 1713 because in Oregon we landowners, especially those of us who hold Federal grazing permits, 

are literally under siege from special interest organizations that 

simply want all economic use of the land stopped at any cost and 

with little or no consideration for the people who are affected. I would also like to point out that in many cases scientific data 

is overlooked and disregarded. Many times rules, legal interpretations or just interpretations of the statute such as the Endangered 

Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wilderness, National Environmental Policy Act, are used to keep our 

industry in a constant state of turmoil, uncertainty and stress. 

With increasing frequency, ranchers, farmers and other property 

owners such as myself are forced into the stressful, expensive and 

uncomfortable position of defending our livelihoods in the courts of 

law, debates with the press and the legislative process such as this 

process today. 

Our people are fighting for their livelihoods, and I have seen 

families give until they simply have no more. People are having a 

hard time making ends meet financially. And when there is no 

more to give they are perceived by others as quitters and in retreat. And thus not only is a financial hardship expressed but, 

equally bad, a social hardship comes into play. Simply put, we need 

to legislate stability back into the rural West. Our lending institutions would also welcome a more stable atmosphere. 

We believe H.R. 1713 is the most significant piece of legislation 

to be introduced since the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 and will provide a much-needed stability for our people and industry. It is very ironic that I am speaking to you today about a bill that 

we hope will put stability into public lands grazing. Because just 

over 70 years ago, my grandfather and great grandfather were 

fighting the same battle. They were very active in trying to pass 

a form of legislation to provide stability as well as protection from 

the abuse of the public lands we were then and are today so dependent on. 

I have listened to my dad tell stories of the pre-Taylor Grazing 

Act days when his job as a youngster was to spend all day, day 

after day, keeping the bands of sheep out of our private ground. 

The only distance between these bands was what was necessary to 

keep them from mixing. The owners of these livestock in most 

cases owned no property. Therefore, they were motivated to get all 

they could while they could and move on. And due to the good management practices by grazers, the range has done a remarkable job 

of recovering from the abuse it endured around the turn of the century, and it continues that process now. 

Stability is essential. The land can't endure short-term gain. It 

is imperative that this Nation strive to provide as much tenure as 

is possible. Thus people will be motivated to improve the land and 

thus improve themselves. 
58 

And we fully realize the countless hours many congressmen and 

staff people have put into the LGA, and we would like to take this 

opportunity to thank all of you. The LGA is not all that the livestock industry wants, but we do trust you, our congressmen, to act 

in our best interests, which we sincerely believe is in the best interest of the land and of this Nation as a whole. 

Thank you. Mr. COOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Skinner. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Skinner can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Winter. 

STATEMENT OF KEITH WINTER, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF 

NATIONAL GRASSLANDS 

Mr. WINTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am Keith Winter, President of the Association of National 

Grasslands, a family rancher from Cartwright, North Dakota. I am 

honored to be here today and want to express as an individual and 

as a representative of the Association of National Grasslands my 

great appreciation for the efforts you and our own Representative 

Pomeroy and Senators Dorgan and Conrad have made to successfully resolve the western range problem. 

The Association of National Grasslands supports the legislative 

process designed to send, as quickly as possible, the Livestock 

Grazing Act to President Clinton for his approval. Today, I will 

limit my comments to Title II of that act and will summarize the 

submitted testimony. Title II, Grassland, as currently formulated, would remove the 

National Grasslands from the National Forest System and thereby 

from National Forest regulations. As President of the Association 

of National Grasslands, I am here to testify in absolute support of 

Title II and its purpose. 

These lands are New Deal era land utilization grazing projects, renamed the National Grasslands through the Secretary of Agriculture's order in 1960. During the 1930's and early 1940's, many 

decades after the withdrawal and reservation of the national forests from the public domain, about 11.3 million acres of patented 

lands were acquired through purchase, condemnation and other 

procedures pursuant to FDR's submarginal land acquisition pro- gram. The purposes for which national forests were reserved are quite 

unlike the policy goals of the Depression era land acquisition program. While the 1897 Organic Act established timber production 

and watershed protection as the primary purposes of the reserved 

national forests, the LU lands are administered for the primary 

purpose of land use adjustment. There is virtually no commercial 

timber production in any national grasslands. 

The primary social policy objectives to the original land acquisi- tion program were to give stranded Depression era farm owners 

and tenants an opportunity to relocate and to restore the rainfall 

short, dryland-farmed, acquired lands to more suitable uses, especially sustainable livestock grazing, and to harmonize the uses of 

acquired and intermingled private land. 
59 

Thus, the acquired LU lands have as their primary purpose soil 

and water conservation, secure human occupancy and sustainable 

livestock grazing. 

The LU program objectives were codified with the BankheadJanes Farm Tenant Act of July 22nd, 1937. The primary public 

purpose objectives served by that act were to achieve social stability, to create the Farmers Home Administration, to promote more 

secure occupancy of farms and farm homes and to correct economic 

instability resulting from the present form of farm tenancy. 

These lands were administered by the Soil Conservation Office 

until 1954 when, by Secretary of Agriculture orders, the Forest 

Service became the administrating agency; and in 197 4 Congress 

added these lands to the National Forest System with one sentence 

in the National Forest Management Act. 

As a result of this history, each separate grassland is administered by a national forest and is subject to the same regulations, 

restrictions and management program requirements as the administering national forest. The local management system has changed 

from a cooperative, project-oriented management to more active, direct, process-oriented management. Grazing as a predominant land 

use is weakened, and nonuse is increasingly emphasized. 

The Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act has not been repealed, 

however, and in the meantime the human occupancy and economic 

stability objectives of the Forest Service land management has declined. 

Assuming the National Grasslands remain under Federal administration, cooperative Federal agency/grazing association management-a true working partnership----eoupled with the project-oriented approach to land and water improvement projects, could result in significant cost savings, including a reduction in direct 

agency costs and overhead. Local district boards could once again 

assume responsibility for improvements and their maintenance, as 

well as contracting with outside parties for archeological surveys, 

pasture and habitat monitoring, threatened and endangered species protection. The membership of these boards could be expanded 

to include representatives of other affected interests, as is being 

proposed on the BLM grazing in Title I. 

It seems consistent with the underlying body of law, administrative procedures, cost efficiency in government operations and user 

preferences to proceed now with the transfer of jurisdiction authority from the National Forest Service to the direct administration by 

the Secretary of Agriculture. The National Grasslands, after all, 

are acquired lands converted to perennial grass cover for sustainable grazing use. They are not national forests. 

Given the continued resistance on the part of the Forest Service 

to administer the former LU grazing projects for the purposes for 

which the lands were originally acquired or to treat them in the 

land planning process as entities different from the reserved and 

acquired national forests, an interagency transfer within USDA is 

entirely warranted. Laws like the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act, Clean Air and Clean 

Water would still apply. 

Without hesitation, the Association of National Grasslands encourages your support and passage of Titles I and II of the Live-
60 

stock Grazing Act. Thank you for giving us this opportunity to be 

heard here today. 

Mr. COOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Winter. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Winter can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. CooLEY. Truman Julian. 

STATEMENT OF TRUMAN JULIAN, PRESIDENT, PUBLIC LANDS 

COUNCIL 

Mr. JULIAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to address the committee. 

I am here today in my capacity as President of the Public Lands 

Council, which represents the interest of tens of thousands of Federal land ranchers who utilize over 270 million acres of ELM and 

Forest Service lands spread across 14 western States. The Public 

Lands Council coordinates the Federal lands policy for the National 

Cattlemen's Association, the American Sheep Industry and the Association for National Grasslands. My comments today reflect the 

views and concerns of all these organizations. 

Mr. Chairman, I am typical of the membership of the Public 

Lands Council. My family's income is derived solely from livestock 

and the products they produce. In addition, I use Forest Service 

and ELM lands for at least 60 percent of our operation. 

For those in Congress that think they do not have an impact on 

our lives, let me share part of a letter that I received from our 

banker with whom we have done business with for over 50 years. 

I quote: "The Utah Production Credit Association requested on 

November 19th, 1993, that you start considering different alternatives or options regarding your operation as we were concerned 

with the future viability of the sheep industry due to changes in 

the wool incentive program and range reform. 

"Again, Utah PCA is requesting you submit a letter outlining 

some alternatives or options you have considered." 

This letter sums up the woes of the western livestock industry. [The letter can be found at the end of the hearing.] 

Mr. JULIAN. Mr. Chairman, I am typical in other ways of the 

Federal lands rancher of today. I am besieged by governmental rules and regulations. I am not a rich person. I am besieged by government policy, rules, and regulations. Chief among my concerns 

are regulations promulgated by Secretary Babbitt known as Range 

Reform '94. 

The western livestock industry has had a rough ride in its partnership with the Federal Government the last few years. At this 

point, the livestock industry needs more than anything else to stabilize and maintain the industry infrastructure. The industry recognizes that the Livestock Grazing Act supplies a measure of stability and benefits to maintain that infrastructure. 

We applaud the free formula and the provisions increasing the 

permit tenure to 15 years for the increased certainty and stability 

they will provide ranchers and for the resulting savings in processing costs associated with permit reissuance. Range management is 

the art of long-term strategies and commitment. 

I am not suggesting the bill is perfect. Indeed, there are many 

in the industry who have submitted detailed comments as to how 
61 

the legislation might be improved. Still, ranchers have accepted 

that there will be change, and we are trying to formulate equitable 

change. It is time for the environmental groups to do the same instead of trashing all the options offered. 

It is very important that the Forest Service be brought under the 

same set of rules as the BLM. To that end, we strongly support the 

concept underlying the process set forth in the National Environmental Policy Act analysis. We want the public, ourselves included, 

to have a meaningful bite at the apple when it comes to planning 

and implementing the management of the Nation's land. That opportunity should be at the plan level, however, and not on individual grazing operations, operating plants, or even on individual 

grazing bills, as is now the case. 

Consistent with the long-term standing policy of Congress of deferring to the water laws of the various sovereign States, we agree 

that you should leave those decisions, including the questions regarding title to a specific water right for the specific purpose, to 

State law. 

A great deal of discussion has evolved over the past three years 

on the question of advisory boards. We support the establishment 

of both BLM and Forest Service resource advisory councils at the 

level of the local administrative unit. 

Mr. Chairman and committee members, I remind you again that 

your decisions on this legislation will dramatically impact the ability of my family and members of the western livestock industry to 

stay in the business of producing food and fiber for this Nation and 

the world. We do not want a handout from the Government; we 

want the opportunity to make a satisfactory living for ourselves 

and our families and the opportunity to continue producing and improving the quality and quantity of our livestock products, wool, 

lamb, and beef that we provide to the American consumer. Your decisions will determine our fate. 

Thank you, and, Mr. Chairman, I would like my entire written 

statement to be entered in the record. I also have a copy of the 

comments that have come in from the various organizations and 

various committees that I would like to submit to you, and this 

morning you were shown a chart on how long it is going to take 

for some proposed action by the agencies. 

I have a chart here that you might be interested in that is put 

out by the National Wilderness Institute that shows a similar process it will take the Secretary to come up with people for the RACs. 

You might be interested in this for the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Julian can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. COOLEY. We appreciate that. Make sure you submit those to 

the clerk, and we will get out copies to everyone on the panel, especially the chart, if we can get that shrunk down a little bit, is that 

possible, not now but later on, and get it to each one of us. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Julian. 

Allan Smith. 
62 

STATEMENT OF ALLAN SMITH, CHAIRMAN, PUBLIC LANDS 

COMMI'ITEE, ON BEHALF OF THE UTAH CA'ITLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chainnan. 

I am Allan Smith, a third generation rancher from northeastern 

Utah operating a cow-calf operation of some 350 head. The Federal 

ranges are a vital part of my total cattle enterprise. I summer my 

cows on part of the Uintah National Forest for some three-plus 

months. From mid-October through January, I use my improved 

private range, then transfer my stock to my BLM pennits until the 

end of February, at which time I return to my private ranges. Each 

one of these grazing units must be considered a part of the whole 

and are interdependent upon the other with little value on their 

own. 

I support the Livestock Grazing Act, and the vast majority of the 

western livestock industry supports it, with a few minor changes. 

In the recent summer meeting of the National Cattlemen's Association Western Regions V and VI at Park City, Utah, all western 

State Cattlemen's presidents signed a letter of support for this bill. 

The National Public Lands Council here in Washington also supports this bill in the most part. 

On behalf of the Utah Cattlemen's Association, Utah Fann Bureau, and the Utah Wool Growers Association, I urge passage of 

this bill for the following reasons. 

The proposed grazing fee, even though it is a 30 percent increase 

from this year's fee, provides a fair return to the United States for 

the forage utilized by livestock. It is simple to calculate. Based 

upon the gross return of the livestock, all data would be gathered 

by the Economic Research Service, and it is similar to the ways 

other user industries, such as mining and timber, are charged for 

public land user fees. The proposed fee measures the value of the 

Federal forage after it is converted into beef, wool, and lamb. 

My cash expenses, including past grazing fees on the Forest 

S3rvice, have been running at about $16 per AUM, not including 

any interest cost. Much of this high cost is due to fence building 

and maintenance and other Federal regulatory requirements. My 

BLM costs are somewhat lower. My cattle operation cannot sustain 

a much higher grazing fee. For this reason, I believe early passage 

of this bill is vital to the western rural economy. 

There has been a drastic reduction of rangeland improvements 

since Secretary Babbitt's Rangeland Reform '94 was announced, because those pending rules create so much uncertainty about the viability of our industry. The proposed 15-year tenn pennits will encourage future Federal rangeland improvements projects, once 

again allow the banking industry to support the western livestock 

industry, and provide a greater amount of stability. 

I recommend that any standards and guidelines be developed at 

the BLM district or forest level. There is too much diversity in 

range conditions even at the State level. 

I also suggest the proposed grazing advisory council members be 

allowed to serve on the councils of neighboring States wherever the 

permittees operate across State lines. This is very common in Utah. 

NEPA concerns have been addressed by this bill and should 

allow for better operation of the agencies and promote less paper-
63 

work and put more personnel back on the ground. Our industry 

welcomes constructive input from all disciplines in future management decisions in order to provide a sustainable forage base on 

which we depend. 

The Livestock Grazing Act is fair to all interests, and this issue 

needs to be decided now so we can go back to providing food and 

fiber for our consumers and so Congress can move forward with 

other issues facing our great Nation. 

Again, I thank this committee, and particularly the bill sponsors, 

for this opportunity to express my brief remarks, and I would be 

glad to answer any questions. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Smith. I appreciate your 

comments. 

Let me apologize. I have been speaker pro tern on a bill that has 

been around for a long time. We finally got that over with. But 

when you have that position, you have to go over there. 

Let me just ask the panel, where do you all come from on this 

bill we have in front of us right now? Are you supportive? I would 

assume, and I will look at what you put in the record, but are there 

any real hang-ups with it that any of you have? 

Mr. SMITH. I don't have any. 

Mr. HANSEN. It is either this or Mr. Babbitt's. There is no middle 

ground in this. I don't mean disrespect for the Secretary, but those 

are the two alternatives on the table right now. You will get either 

Mr. Babbitt's or you get this. So you would basically want this as 

a group. 

Truman, do you still want that road opened up in Sweetwater? 

Barbara wants to know, and so do I. 

Mr. JULIAN. Congressman, I think this bill is a very good bill. It 

is a well-balanced bill. I guess I am disappointed in the interpretation of it, and I had to start wearing glasses here about three 

months ago, and I am having a hard time with or without them, 

and I would think that maybe some people in the Administration 

that testified this morning should. They talked about this being a 

single use bill. 

To begin with, range reform is a grazing reform. This deals with 

one of the many issues, types of multiple use issues. But I went 

through the bill during their testimony, and I, for the record, am 

talking about the multiple use concept in two different areas of this 

bill, and, going along with other acts, it doesn't change anything in 

here. It doesn't interfere with other acts. And I mean, I can read 

them with my glasses. It is page 103, objective, and page 102, the 

application of the act, in which it lists all the acts it applies to. The 

Taylor Grazing, it doesn't change anything; it goes along with the 

multiple-use concept. That is on page 20. It talks about multiple 

use in here, and in grazing it is just one of the uses. Section 101-

06, principle of multiple use and sustained yield. So somebody is 

not interpreting this bill right, and it recognizes multiple use, and 

I just wanted to make that clear. Mr. HANSEN. Well, there are many sides on an issue such as 

this-that is why we have these hearings. You write it up the way 
64 

you think it ought to be, and we will surely take a good look at 

it. There is nothing perfect on any piece of legislation around here, 

as you well know, but if you feel it has a real discrepancy-! say 

that to every side of this issu~let us know so we have an opportunity to review it and see how we can work it out. 

You still didn't answer my question. Barbara Cubin and Jim 

Hansen, we have tried to open a road that we felt should be open, 

and half of the citizens of Utah and Wyoming and Idaho have 

talked to me. Since you run sheep in that area, do you still concur 

that road should be open? 

I have been talking to the district ranger, and we don't want to 

do something that isn't right and fair. On the other side of the coin, 

it seems the majority of the people do want some attention paid to 

that. 

Mr. JULIAN. Mr. Chairman, I would love to see the road open. I 

have three range improvements that they fly the parts in with helicopters, and I have no way of getting in there now except by 

Shank's mare or horseback ride in there about 10 miles to even utilize it. If something falls out, I can't afford to hire a helicopter to 

take the parts back in there, whatever I need to repair it. 

It allows me to do a better job of managing the allotment, and 

I would love to have it, but it has been going on four years now, and I have kind of given up the ship. 

Mr. HANSEN. You have got a new forest ranger there who used 

to be with the Park Service down at Bryce. She has talked to me 

and maybe to Mrs. Cubin, I think. We would like to hear what you 

have to say. 

I didn't mean to deviate. I apologize to all members, but I don't 

get a shot at Truman Julian very often. 

The gentleman from Oregon. Mr. CooLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Doug, I am certainly glad you had an opportunity to come here. 

It is good to see you now and then, except on the crime bill. When 

on the other side, we had one of our colleagues talking about this 

bill creating a tremendous amount of paperwork, I mean, like a voluminous thing. You indicated in your testimony that you thought that the LGA 

reduces, and in the case of range reform you have increased duplication of paperwork and the need for documentation for all permit 

decisions. Any comment on that for me, because everybody seems 

to misinterpret this legislation. Mr. BREESE. I think it is interesting that you have had several 

comments now since this morning's comments about the amount of 

paperwork that this new bill would create. We seem to interpret it 

quite a bit differently. But the NEPA process would take effect at 

one level and then give us the opportunity to work on down the 

line and then fulfill those contracts that we have as permittees 

with the Federal land agency on a one-to-one type basis where we 

can work with them. 

In many cases-and I know we have all been involved with 

projects on our permits that, once you bring a vast amount of public into that project, you don't have a project anymore because it 

becomes too complex, too time consuming, and too expensive to follow through on. I can think of two on my own situation. 
65 

I am sure everyone on the panel would concur with the fact if 

you don't have this flexibility to make those decisions on a contractual basis between yourself and your agent of the Federal Government that you are working with, the process becomes too cumbersome at that point. But we feel like the bill itself does address the fact that NEPA 

still exists, just on a district level or at least a higher playing level, 

and not on each allotment-by-allotment basis, which is what is happening to us right now. Mr. COOLEY. Thank you, Doug. I appreciate that. We have put 

a lot of hours on this. 

I don't see any problems with the increase in paperwork. I think 

what we are doing is, we are going to eliminate some of it hopefully 

and not increase the burden, the load, on everybody. 

Rob, I am glad to see you. You came out here from Oregon too, 

from the far eastern side of the State out there. Let me ask you 

something. 

In your testimony you said that the agencies have been neglecting to use some of the scientific data for their decisionmaking process. Can you provide this panel, this committee, with some information as to specifically what you know of as being out there on 

the ground, what type of information that they should be using, if 

they are not, that is adversely affecting the use of our rangelands 

properly? 

Mr. SKINNER. Yes, I can, Congressman. On two separate instances that come to mind right off, in the Malheur Forest-it 

would be just south of John Day, Oregon-there was an arbitrary 

reduction, 20 percent reduction, given to the permittees on that forest. They did appeal. There was absolutely no basis for the decision, and at that point the Forest Service knew they were in trouble. They moved their district ranger to another position, a lateral 

promotion, if you will. That basically freed them, and they were 

able to reinterpret what needed to be done, the acting ranger, and 

in that particular cas e the cattle were moved b a ck on the allotment. 

Closer to home, it happened on a BLM allotment where the cattle were removed because of a rare and endangered plaut. There 

was absolutely no data to back up any of their claims. That is still 

in appeal. I don't know. It is still in limbo. 

But yes, those two come to my mind right off. 

Mr. COOLEY. Well, thank you. We are going to have an opportunity to go again, sir, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. HANSEN. Pardon me. 

Mr. COOLEY. We are going to have an opportunity to go on? 

Mr. HANSEN. If you have additional questions, take it now. 

Mr. COOLEY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. 

The gentlelady from Idaho. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question 

for Bob Skinner. 

I appreciate you for coming 3,000 miles, and 3,000 miles is just 

half the trek when I have been on your ranch and I have flown 

over your ranch, and it takes a long time just to get down, Bob, 
66 

so I really appreciate you being here. But do you see the role of 

the advisory council in this bill as a drastic departure from previous roles at all? 

Mr. SKINNER. I absolutely cannot understand what they are 

countering, the other side is coming back at us on this, the people 

that are supporting it. 

I served on the district advisory council for six years. I was chairman of that council for two years before they were disbanded by 

the Administration. I basically think that that particular structure 

is somewhat the same that we had then. 

We have the multiple uses, which we absolutely support. We 

have always been a supporter. This industry has supported the 

multiple use concept from the very first, and therefore we absolutely welcome, you know, what the resource management plantheir input into the decisions on the land. Then you move closer to the allotment management plan where 

you actually carry out your objectives on the land. That affects the 

permittee, and it affects the land managers, and at that point it is 

just more of a hassle, more paperwork, more expense involved, and 

I really don't see why, as long as you are achieving the objectives 

under the land use plan, why other interests need to be involved 

in that process. 

So I really don't understand why the LGA, when it is a Livestock 

Grazing Act, will, as the other side says, elevate grazing over other 

uses when even the grazing board is basically designed to carry out 

those management objectives. Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Skinner, have you ever known of ranchers 

putting up gates on public roads to keep other multiple-use participants off your allotment? 

Mr. SKINNER. Yes, I have. It would take a long time to explain. 

In our own instance, yes. In just a few words, I will try to sum it 

up as best I can. In the land use plan, we have pasture in a three-pasture rotation. That was listed as Antelope Annex. It is abbreviated "Antelope AX." In the interpretation of the land use plan, our range concurred with this. Someone changed that or misspelled it to "Antelope EX," which is interpreted as "antelope enclosure." The cattle 

were removed, and we still have not gotten that resolved, and it 

has been six years. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. The cattle were removed by the BLM? 

Mr. SKINNER. Yes, ma'am. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Down in your area of southeastern Oregon 

and Owhyee County, about 20 years ago there was a great experiment that was begun with six breeding pairs of California bighorn 

sheep brought into that area. 

Now, I know in Idaho when I was working on the Idaho training 

range issue, they figured that the that herd had increased to about 

1,800, and over in your area, there are sheep all over those canyons, they say. 

Am I correct in assuming that in large part it is because of a 

partnership of interests with the wildlife managers and the ranchers down there? 

Mr. SKINNER. Correct. 
67 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And that is the reason why we were able to 

see the increase in that bighorn sheep population? 

Mr. SKJNNER. According to the wildlife biologists on the missions 

habitat, the habitat was perfect. The sheep were introduced. They 

have expanded past their wildest dream. Basically, wildlife in general, the big game population in southeast Oregon, western Idaho 

has exploded, and that is one thing that we have a very hard time 

with, since we feel like we are stewards of the range, and we are 

constantly bombarded by the fact that the range is in a deteriorating state and it is in a horrible shape and we need to get things 

back in order. If things are so horrible out there, I wish someone 

would explain to me why the big game population is exploding. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Skinner. 

Mr. SKJNNER. Thank you. 

Mr. HANSEN. The gentlelady from Wyoming, Barbara Cubin. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I wish to thank this 

whole panel for coming all this way to testify also. This is very important not only to you but to all of us. So thank you very much. I do have a couple of questions for Mr. Julian. 

The copy of the letter that you had distributed from your bank 

asking for an alternative plan in view of the fact that the wool incentive program was discontinued and in view of rangeland reform, 

I wondered if you did have any alternatives, or how did you respond to the bank? 

Mr. JULIAN. My mother didn't raise a dummy. 

Mrs. CUBIN. I believe that. 

Mr. JULIAN. I did not respond to it. Naturally, if I would have 

responded, they would have had something to hold me hostage 

with. I was able to hold them off. I don't have any options. Basically, I depend on public lands for my operation. I do have checkerboard land, which every other section is private, but here again, because it is mixed with the Federal, actually, the Feds are dictating 

how I use that checkerboard land. I don't have a say on that. So 

I can't even go on my private-Federal checkerboard land. 

It takes years to convert from one species of animal to another. 

I have a friend that has been working three years on checkerboard 

land, where he owns 50 percent of it, to convert from sheep to cattle, and he hasn't gotten it done in three years, and he even said 

that he would not go in the riparian areas, he would haul water 

and not even go in them. So I basically do not have any options. 

On Forest Service, most of my Forest Service allotments are 

higher. They are steeper slopes. There is no way they would even 

consider converting my forest permits, and I have got quite an investment there, and I would just be forfeiting that. That would be 

gone. So I essentially don't have any options. 

One of the options they said was: You could sell your sheep and 

buy cows. You could pay us back and have a few bucks left over 

to buy cows. Thank God I didn't do that now. I don't know if you 

have looked at the cow price lately. I don't have any options. Mine 

are sheep AUMs. There is a difference in the type of country they 

graze in. It is much steeper country, higher country, and I basically 

don't have any options. Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you. 
68 

Opponents of this bill have said that under the LGA range 

health will deteriorate. What is your opinion of that statement? 

Mr. JULIAN. I strongly disagree with that. The Federal agencies, 

I deal with the BLM and Forest Service, both. If Mr. Vento was 

here, I do have 15,000 AUMs. It is a family corporation with my 

dad, my mother, and my wife and three children. But they won't 

make a decision because they are afraid of being sued every time 

they turn around. 

Mr. Hansen talks about this four-year road that is going on. I finally told the ranger here a while back, I said, make a decision, 

one way or another. It has been going on four years, and he won't 

make a decision. They won't make decisions. 

I think it would expedite it, that you would get some decisions 

made. I have got a proposal that has been in I don't know how 

long, on BLM, on a private allotment that I own 50 percent of. I 

am willing-in fact, I have got the fencing material to fence it, put 

in a cattle guard, five miles of fence. When you figure out the construction, the materials, and everything, it is about $3,500 a mile. 

So it is five miles of fence, and by the time you figure everything 

else in, I am talking about roughly $20,000 of my own that I would 

put in. I can't get a decision on it. 

I am hoping that this will expedite the process that we could get 

some range improvements going at least under LGA. I am willing 

to invest my own money because I have a stake in it. Under range 

reform, I don't think you are going to get very many ranchers to 

invest their money, so I just don't buy that. 

Mrs. CUBIN. Thank you. My time is up. 

Mr. HANSEN. The gentleman from California, Mr. Pombo. 

Mr. POMBO. I have no questions at this time. 

Mr. HANSEN. We want to thank the panel. It is very kind of you. 

The gentleman from Oregon had two additional questions which 

the Chair will allow him to ask. 

Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Winter, when you were talking about the grassland issue, could you tell me again who was authorized, who controlled the grassland before 1974? 

Mr. WINTER. I sure could. They were administered by the Soil 

Conservation up until 1954 and then by the Forest Service until 

1974. But the real land managers were the grazing associations 

with the grazing leases that we had with the Secretary of Agriculture, and they gave almost all the responsibility to us but technical help from the Soil Conservation and originally from the Forest Service. That is the way our grazing leases read. After 1974, 

we went very active National Forest management. 

Mr. CooLEY. So up to 1974, you were primarily with the technical help from the Soil and Water Conservation. You actually 

managed with your own group of selected managers. 

Mr. WINTER. Federal agencies had one person in our county up 

until that time. Today they have 20-some permanent employees 

and a multitude of part-time. 

Mr. COOLEY. Could you tell me, what shape was the grasslands 

in at that period of time? 

Mr. WINTER. 1974? 

Mr. COOLEY. Yes, when you were basically doing it yourself with 

one person there and the Soil and Water Conservation people. 
69 

Mr. WINTER. I think the history in our county, the documentation-and we have permittees alive that would attest to that; our 

range scientists with the university system would-it was in very 

good shape. 

Mr. CoOLEY. Would you say it is comparable today? 

Mr. WINTER. Yes, except for noxious weeds. 

Mr. COOLEY. Except for the weeds, but otherwise it is comparable 

to today? 

Mr. WINTER. Yes. 

Mr. COOLEY. Thank you. 

Mr. WINTER. If I could make one more comment, we have quite 

an exception with the interpretation of the history of our area that 

the Forest Service has taken in their testimony that includes a lot 

of people in our county that are still alive from the purchase days, 

including government agencies, county commissioners, and several 

points that they say are a misinterpretation of our history, and we 

responded with a letter from one of our permittees. If possible, I 

would like to put that into the record. 

Mr. CooLEY. Is that OK, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. HANSEN. Without objection. 

Mr. WINTER. I have got several points to make but they are made 

in the letter right here. 

[The letter follows at the end of the hearing.] 

Mr. COOLEY. Thank you. 

One last thing. Truman, give me a little spiel on the seven-toone sheep allotment situation. We have had, not in this hearing 

yet, but maybe it will come on in our discussion with the people 

in the industry, both cattle, sheep, et cetera, this question has 

come up, and I would like you to clarify that for the record. 

Mr. JULIAN. Well, Congressman, basically it is for billing purposes on the seven-to-one, and there are documents to back this up, 

studies, that as the cattle population has increased in size that 

seven-to-one is realistic. There is scientific data to back that up. 

Basically, I think the intent is strictly for billing purposes. As 

you know, the sheep industry just went through a pretty tough period. Congress last year wiped out 24 percent of my income. 

Mr. COOLEY. Cattle are suffering, too. Congress passed a little 

law. 

Mr. JULIAN. It is your time. In fact, I am hoping that might stimulate the sheep industry. Bob has been hitting me up for buying 

some sheep now. But it is basically for billing purposes, although 

there is scientific data to back it up. That is about comparable on 

the diet about seven sheep to one cow now, adult cow. 

On the other hand, on the conversion rates, there have been 

some in Wyoming that were able to get converted from sheep to 

cattle, and that was at 17 to one, which depends on terrain and everything, but for the purpose of the LGA we want it for billing on, 

and I think that needs to be cleared up. 

Mr. HANSEN. The Chair will recognize Mrs. Chenoweth for additional questions. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman and members of the panel, I 

just have a small statement I would like to make, besides thanking 

this panel, too, for coming so far and working so hard to help us 

come to the right decisions. 
70 

But Mrs. Cubin and I were speaking with Steve Stockman, a fellow colleague, on the Floor a few minutes ago when we noticed that 

he lost about 30 pounds. We asked him how did this happen and 

he said, well, he is on a diet of all meat, Dr. Atkinson's new diet, 

and he is eating lots of beef. So I am going to be promoting and 

trying Dr. Atkinson's new diet. 

Mr. JULIAN. Isn't there any lamb in it? 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Lamb, yes. Lamb and even eggs and cheese 

and all those good things. 

Mr. HANSEN. The Chair will thank the panel. Thank you so very 

much for coming. We realize you have come a long distance, and 

you have been very patient, as you all have. Mr. HANSEN. We will recognize the next panel, panel number 

four: Paul Brouha of the American Fisheries Society; Gregory 

Green, New Mexico Voter Conservation Alliance; Elden Hughes, 

California Sierra Club; Joyce Mendel, New Mexico Wildlife Federation; and Emily Roberson, California Native Plant Society. Ms. RoBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I am afraid we are missing some 

people. People may have thought we were the last panel instead of 

second to last. 

Mr. HANSEN. We are grateful that you stayed with us. That is 

very nice of you. We apologize for keeping you waiting so long, but 

that is the way these things go. We look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. Brouha, we will start with you, sir. Is five minutes OK for 

everybody? 

Mr. BROUHA. That will be fine. 

Mr. HA."l"SEN. You heard the rules: Green, yellow, red. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL BROUHA, AMERICAN FISHERIES 

SOCIETY 

Mr. BROUHA. Thank you, sir. I apologize for having to leave as 

soon as I testify. My plane leaves soon, too. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to 

present the American Fisheries Society's views on H.R. 1713, the 

Livestock Grazing Act. AFS is an international, professional, scientific organization of 

nearly 9,000 fisheries managers and aquatic scientists, founded in 

1970, one of the oldest and largest educational organizations dedicated to strengthening the fisheries profession, advancing fisheries 

science, and conserving fisheries resources. We have chapters 

throughout North America, and especially in the West, working on 

aquatic habitat management. 

Domestic livestock grazing is permitted on 159 million acres of 

Federal land administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Fifty-eight percent of the BLM rangeland is in fair or poor 

condition. Despite what Mr. Dombeck indicated this morning that 

improvements have been made, 52 million acres of big game habitat, 100 million acres of small game and nongame habitat, and 

19,000 miles of sport fishing streams have declined in quality as 

a result of land management practices, including overgrazing. 

Now, these degraded habitat conditions also have negative implications for endangered and threatened species, especially in the 

Upper Columbia Basin, as you heard with respect to anadromous 

fish. 
71 

It is well known that livestock often spend a disproportionate 

amount of time in riparian areas, the areas adjacent to streams, especially in the hot seasons in rangelands in the arid and semiarid 

West. Unfortunately, in these areas overuse has resulted in considerable damage to riparian zones with resultant degradation of 

aquatic and riparian habitats. 

Specifically, stream vegetation has been reduced or eliminated, 

stream channels have been widened and aggraded, and erosion and 

head cutting has lowered water tables in some instances and reduced minimum stream flows. 

Now, the most apparent effects on fish habitat are reduction of 

shade, cover, and terrestrial food supply. The resulting increases in 

stream water temperature, the degradation of water quality, the 

changes in stream morphology, and the addition of fine sediments 

mean fewer fish can survive in such streams. 

Despite such degradation, we know that both resident and anadromous species subject to commercial, subsistence, and recreational 

fisheries are a tremendously valuable component of public lands. 

The good news is that with improved livestock management practices degraded fish habitats are restorable, and in fact there are 

some very good examples of such restoration in the rangelands of 

the West. 

The American Fisheries Society's position statement, The Effects 

of Livestock Grazing On Western Riparian And Stream 

Ecosystems, which I have attached to this testimony and submit 

for the record, details cooperative science-based strategies to accomplish such restoration. Please consider these ideas as you address rangeland management issues. 

Against this tableau of findings, against the knowledge of how to 

restore degraded streams, and against the increasing cooperative 

spirit to enhance overall productivity and achieve balanced multiple use on the part of public land users comes H.R. 1713. It proposes, in my opinion, to fracture the emergent cooperation between 

livestock grazers and other public land users by making livestock 

grazing a primary use on public lands--certainly below the land 

management planning level. 

It disenfranchises the public by permitting only narrowly affected 

interests to participate in rangeland management, especially at the 

allotment level. It exempts grazing permits from the purview of the 

National Environmental Policy Act. It creates more than 100 grazer-dominated advisory boards which have the sole authority to establish range improvement objectives and to make management decisions. It prevents anyone except a permittee or a lessee from appealing a decision made by one of these boards. It sets livestock 

carrying capacity at the maximum stocking rate possible-and I 

quote ... "without inducing permanent damage to vegetation or related resources". 

With this definition, at the same time H.R. 1713 provokes conflicts among present users, it also ensures that future generations 

of users will be battling over further degraded rangeland 

ecosystems. I could go into greater detail about the provisions of the bill that 

set public rangeland management back to at least the early days 
72 

of the Taylor Grazing Act, but much of that has been covered in 

testimony already presented here today. 

Suffice it to say, we oppose H.R. 1713 becoming law, and we 

strongly encourage you to endorse the new BLM regulations that 

have been arrived at through broad public participation throughout 

the West. They are not perfect, no. They do, however, focus on establishing rangeland health, on enhancing overall productivity for 

all rangeland users and for all rangeland resources, and they do 

this on a State or regional-based rangeland management system of 

standards and guidelines that would be arrived at through advisory 

committees, and especially by involvement of all interested parties. 

Further, they recognize scientific information and monitoring as a 

basis for cooperative, adaptive management of rangelands in case 

the advisory boards didn't get it right the first time. 

Finally, the new BLM regulations would do all these things with 

about 100 fewer advisory boards operating in a much less politically charged atmosphere. Simply put, while they aren't perfect, we 

think the BLM regulations are better, cheaper, simpler, and should 

be more effective than what is proposed in H.R. 1713. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brouha can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Brouha. I appreciate your testimony. You said you had a plane to catch. We certainly don't want 

to keep you here and have you miss your airplane. 

Mr. BROUHA. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. HANSEN. May I ask where your headquarters are? 

Mr. BROUHA. We are in Bethesda, Maryland, sir. Mr. HANSEN. Thank so much for coming. We certainly appreciate 

your attendance. Mr. Hughes, is five minutes enough time for you, sir? 

Mr. HUGHES. Say again? 

Mr. H&~SEN. Is five minutes enough time? 

Mr. HUGHES. Yes. 

STATEMENT OF ELDEN HUGHES, CALIFORNIA SIERRA CLUB 

I am Elden Hughes of South Whittier, California. I grew up on 

a cattle ranch that straddled the North Fork of Coyote Creek on 

the Los Angeles Plain. This was at a time when there were still 

cattle ranches on the Los Angeles Plain. And I served six years on 

the Bureau of Land Management Desert District Advisory Council. 

The BLM carries me as an affected interest on 58 grazing allotments. 

The Livestock Grazing Act, which we are addressing, is flawed , and in my comments I wish to address two of the flaws, the elimination of public participation and the formula for grazing fees. 

The Livestock Grazing Act eliminates public participation in the 

management of the public lands, and this is a mistake. I am going 

to give one example here. The BLM laid out a new fenceline range 

improvement. I discovered it while hiking, and I learned later that 

it was laid out based on a compass course from a bend in a back 

country road. This fence line would go directly through a major archeological site, Native American hunting blinds, and anthropomorphs-giant rock art carvings seven feet tall. 
73 

By alerting the BLM, the proposed fence line was resurveyed and 

moved a half mile to the south. The range management purposes 

were left, and an archeological resource remains unimpacted. This 

is the value of public participation. 

Growing up on a ranch, I accepted the grazing lands as normal 

and natural. Only as an adult and after much travel and looking 

at other lands do I now see how heavily we impacted the land, particularly the riparian areas of Coyote Creek. Thistles over my head 

should have been a clue, but I accepted them. 

Now I am watching the return of native grasses to the riparian 

areas of Kennedy Meadows in Tulare County, Wylie Creek in Los 

Angeles County, and Cedar Creek in Modoc County. Where there 

is improvement of the range, the public has been part of making 

it happen. The public has helped supply the vision and much of the 

volunteer labor. Now there is better fishing and hunting and all of 

the things that are a part of multiple use. Cattle still graze most 

of these areas, but they are moved in and out; they are not allowed 

to squat on the land and kill it. 

Like me as a boy, there are ranchers who have never seen really 

healthy rangelands. The stumps of the cottonwoods are a clue that 

the stream dried up but doesn't tell them that the grazing practices 

were responsible. Good range management can restore the streams 

as surely as bad range management can kill them. Good range 

management pays, but it is hard work and it takes a vision of what 

the land can be again. The public can be a part of that vision. 

A second flaw in the act is it represents an absolute retreat from 

marketplace forces. Using the sponsor's data, the formula produces 

a fee of $2.10 per AUM for 1992. The cost of the grazing program 

exceeded $3 in that year. This is a subsidy. The estimated fair market value of publicly-owned forage as defined and determined by 

the Departments of Agriculture and Interior in 1992 during the 

Bush Administration averaged $7.68 per AUM; $2.10 is a subsidy. 

The $2.10 AUM is below what most State grazing fees are; $2.10 

is a subsidy. This is far below what permittees are subleasing for 

and far below capitalized permit values. It is clear that the new formula, just like the old, is cowboy welfare, and we oppose it. Federal permittees should not have the advantage over the vast majority of livestock operators. Taxpayers 

should not underwrite a fee that allows permittees to profit at the 

expense of Treasury through subleasing. Federal lands should not 

be welfare lands, and the bad fee structure perpetuates overgrazing 

and grazing of marginal lands. It encourages livestock operators to 

resist reductions in authorized numbers. It takes us down the 

wrong road for all the wrong reasons. Let's give the marketplace more than lip service. Let's look at 

real costs and real values. The public lands are enormously valuable and enormously productive. The Livestock Grazing Act is not 

the route to get us there. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hughes can be found at the end 

of the hearing.) 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Hughes. I appreciate your testimony. 
74 

I will now turn to Emily Roberson of the California Native Plant 

Society. Thank you. You are recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF EMILY ROBERSON, CALIFORNIA NATIVE 

PLANT SOCIETY 

Ms. ROBERSON. Thank you very much. Thank you for the opportunity to come here today and testify on the Livestock Grazing Act 

of 1995. I am senior land management analyst for the California Native 

Plant Society. I have degrees in soil science and plant ecology as 

well as a Ph.D. in microbiology from the University of California, 

and I have more than 10 years of research experience in California 

ecology. · 

The California Native Plant Society is a nonprofit scientific and 

conservation organization and a national leader in rare plant re- search and conservation. We have participated for many years at 

all levels in the management of BLM lands and national forests. 

I would like to start by emphasizing that the California Native 

Plant Society is not anti-grazing. We are against poor grazing management that damages our public lands and resources, and we 

work to promote grazing management practices that are compatible 

with the health of native plant communities and with the proper 

functioning of ecosystems. 

Unfortunately, as we have heard, many public rangelands today 

are experiencing serious and widespread damage due to past and 

to present poor grazing management. This damage is costing taxpayers millions of dollars each year in restoration and administration costs. One of the reasons for this ongoing damage to our public lands 

is the continuing polarization of the debate around public lands 

grazing. These days it seems that we only hear about the two most 

extreme positions in that debate: Those on one side who would like 

public lands grazing with few or no restrictions and those on the 

other who want to throw livestock off the public lands altogether. 

That view of the debate is inaccurate, and it is extremely counterproductive. What it leaves out is the fact that in many places 

there are people working to solve grazing-related environmental 

problems without eliminating livestock from all public lands. 

Now, it is true that some public lands are simply unsuitable for 

grazing because the resources they contain are too fragile or sensitive or because of conflicts with other uses, but there are many 

places where improved management can make a real difference. 

In California, for example, in places like the Colusa Plain in the 

Central Valley, livestock operators, the BLM, and conservation 

groups are working cooperatively to use specialized controlled grazing management to try to restore native plant communities. In 

other places we are working with the agencies to adjust stocking 

rates and managed season of use to protect riparian and recreation 

values on public lands. 

We are concerned that this kind of cooperation, innovation, and 

good public land stewardship would be discouraged under the Livestock Grazing Act of 1995. For example, the bill would eliminate 

review analyses under the NEPA, but NEPA reviews perform sev-
75 

eral extremely valuable functions. It allows the agencies, livestock 

operators, and all interested parties to review past management 

and to evaluate new scientific information and new management 

techniques, and it allows the public, the taxpayers who are the 

owners of our public lands, to have input into how their property 

is managed. 

It is important to remember that NEPA doesn't require any management activity on the ground, it only mandates civic analysis, 

public disclosure, and discussion, all useful activities in our modern 

democracy. 

Besides curtailing public and scientific review through NEPA, 

the act would make it more difficult for the agency and for ranchers to improve management of public lands. For example, the act 

would make it difficult, if not impossible, for the agencies to correct 

overstocking even in the face of obvious resource damage, the act 

would prohibit livestock operators from voluntarily resting their allotments to protect resources, and the act would prevent the agencies from requiring the most basic resource protection measures in 

grazing permits. Good grazing management benefits everyone. It benefits livestock 

operators because it improves the land's ability to produce forage 

and livestock, and it benefits the public by preserving valuable resources and uses on publicly owned lands. In places like California, 

where recreational use of public landa is big business, conservative 

management of public lands is critical to our economy. 

Two of the things we are most proud of in this country are our 

democratic ideals and our tradition of leadership in science and innovation, and the one place we should expect to see those traditions most strongly expressed is in the management of public 

lands. That means it would be a mistake to begin excluding certain 

activities like grazing from public input and public scrutiny, and it 

means that our public land management should be held to the 

highest standard of the latest and best science. 

Mr. Chairman, members, this bill does not meet those standards, 

it is not in the best interests of our public lands, and it is not in 

the best interests of American taxpayers, and we urge you not to 

pass H.R. 1713. 

Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. Roberson can be found at the 

end of the hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you for your comments. We appreciate your 

statement. 

We have been joined by Gregory Green and Joyce Mendel. 

We appreciate you both being with us. What we will do is we will 

recognize you each for five minutes. Is that sufficient enough time 

for you to give your testimony? Your written testimony will be included in its entirety in the record. 

Mr. Green, we will turn to you now. 

STATEMENT OF GREGORY GREEN, NEW MEXICO VOTER 

CONSERVATION ALLIANCE 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Gregory 

Green from the New Mexico Conservation Voters Alliance. 
76 

The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for managing 

over 270 million acres that belong to the United States. Under ex- isting law, they must assess the impacts of different uses of public 

lands on their use and users and determine how to balance these 

competing demands on resources provided on public lands. The 

main goal of the management program is to restore and maintain 

the health of our lands for the. public today and for the generations 

of our future. This land can support many uses and provide those 

uses in a sustainable way that do not destroy the land and its resources. As a person who grew up on a ranch in Oklahoma, I cannot even 

think of leasing out land under the Livestock Grazing Act as it is 

pending before this subcommittee, and that is what we are talking 

about. We, the public, are the owners of this land, and you are proposing to lease out this land under the conditions in this act. 

Would you lease out land that you could no longer hunt, fish, backpack, or drive on? 

Today millions of Americans visit our land from around the 

world to explore and enjoy the diversity of the resources that are 

to be found on our BLM lands. They are available in a wide variety 

of uses including hunting, fishing, backpacking, bird watching, and 

off-road vehicles. They should have every right to use this land, the 

same right as the livestock industry should have in making its 

profits. 

The Livestock Grazing Act would change the way these public 

lands are managed, even resulting in keeping some public off some 

lands. Access to these lands in many areas depends on rights-ofway which are granted by private landowners across private lands 

adjacent to these public domains. The bill raises questions about 

the future of these right-of-way agreements. Would you lease land 

on which you had little or no say? 

Under the proposed bill, only affected interests will be given the 

opportunity to comment on grazing decisions. Under the restricted 

decisions of affected interests, ordinary citizens who use and care 

about these lands may not even have the opportunity to be heard 

unless they can prove through substantial evidence that they are 

affected by livestock grazing. In no other branch of this Administration that I know of are you required to meet this kind of burden 

of proof before you can receive information and express opinions. 

Would you lease out land if you could only have a say if you are 

seeking consensus solutions? 

Under this act, no person may serve on an advisory council unless he or she has determined a commitment to seeking consensus 

solutions to resource management issues. This seems to fly in the 

face of the First Amendment rights in keeping people that have 

varied interests on these councils. 

I would only lease out land to good stewards. According to the 

Environmental Protection Agency, streamside or riparian zones are 

in the worst shape in this century due to poor grazing practices. The majority of the public lands remain in unsatisfactory ecological 

condition due to past centuries of abuses. 

Under the Livestock Grazing Act, the BLM would be unable to 

make changes in grazing practices because the bill limits what 

kinds of decisions managers can make regarding grazing even 
77 

when the resource damage due to grazing is occurring. It would 

take years of expensive monitoring before changes in grazing management could even be considered under the Livestock Grazing Act. 

The BLM does not have these systems on all public lands, and 

therefore no action could be taken in many situations. 

Would you lease out land where protecting quality of riparian 

areas, habitat, and ecological sites would be limited? The Livestock 

Grazing Act states that the only stocking rates changes that could 

be made must be supported by rangeland studies. Rangeland studies are limited to measures such as utilization, trend, and production that indicate the conditions of the livestock forage resources. 

The impacts of grazing on other resources are not reflected in these 

studies and therefore cannot be considered for reducing stocking 

rates. 

There are many things in these bills as a landowner that I would 

not even think or consider using on leasing out my own land. The 

proposed legislation would deny owners of public land, you and I, 

that right to enjoy their land. It is my opinion that this bill is not 

in the public's interest, the owner's best interest. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Livestock 

Grazing Act. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Green can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Green. I appreciate your testimony. 

Joyce Mendel, I recognize you for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JOYCE MENDEL, NEW MEXICO WILDLIFE 

FEDERATION 

Ms. MENDEL. Good afternoon. My name is Joyce Mendel, and I 

represent the New Mexico Wildlife Federation. Thank you for the 

opportunity to testify before the subcommittee about the Livestock 

Grazing Act, H.R. 1713. 

The New Mexico Wildlife Federation was formed in 1914 because 

people of our State were concerned about the loss of our wildlife. 

We promote multiple use management for the public lands, with a 

place for wildlife habitat, livestock raising, and other public land 

uses. I am here to say that the Livestock Grazing Act should not 

be adopted by Congress. 

Currently, the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service lands constitute about a third of New Mexico's land area and 

support a large part of the wildlife-related activity in our State. 

These activities generate $750 million annually. 

The New Mexico Wildlife Federation wants the public lands managed for wildlife, as well as for livestock, and to provide recreation 

for hikers, photographers, wildlife observers, anglers, and hunters. 

The New Mexico Wildlife Federation is concerned about the impact of the Livestock Grazing Act on wildlife on the public lands. 

We are involved with conservation projects to promote wildlife 

habitat on public lands. While we are working to improve conditions for wildlife on public lands, the Livestock Grazing Act would 

undermine these efforts by making livestock grazing the dominant 

use of the land. The BLM would be limited in managing for uses 

other than livestock, which could harm the wildlife that reside on 
78 

public lands or limit the manager's ability to protect sensitive 

areas. 

In addition, the legislation could have significant long-term impacts for the public lands. The 1994 Rangeland Reform Draft Environmental Impact Statement projects a long-term decline in riparian and wildlife habitat and recreation opportunities on BLM lands 

under current grazing management. If the Livestock Grazing Act 

is passed, that decline could accelerate. At best, current levels of 

grazing use would be mandated under the bill, maintaining the 

current rate of decline. 

The public's role in grazing management on public lands also 

would be severely limited if this bill were enacted. The public 

would no longer be able to participate in decisions about grazing 

permits or decisions about grazing allotments. The grazing advisory councils, which are given authority to decide how the lands 

will be managed, will include no members of the public who do not 

have grazing interests. As the demand for many uses for the public 

lands continues to grow, now is the time to broaden public participation, not to restrict it. 

Our ability to use the public lands in the future is at risk as well. 

The bill would waive any consideration of a rancher's willingness 

to provide access to public lands when the BLM grants a permit. 

Access to public lands could become more restrictive. 

The bill also would waive consideration of major wildlife protection laws for ranchers. The current regulations require that ranchers comply with the Bald Eagle Protection Act and the Endangered 

Species Act, or jeopardize their grazing privileges on public lands. 

But the Livestock Grazing Act deletes these laws from consideration. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present our views on this legislation. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Mendel can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. HANSEN. Contrary to our last panel, this panel is entirely 

against the particular piece of legislation we are looking at. Let me 

just throw a couple questions out, if I may. 

Question number one is you folks have all talked about the cattle 

people on the ground. Of course we could expand that to timber, 

we could expand that to mining, those who pay something for use 

of the public ground. Do you feel that everyone who uses a public 

ground should pay something? Keep in mind that this government 

that you own subsidizes the use of the public on the ground to the 

tune of $1.3 billion a year. That is a subsidy regardless of where 

you put it. 

Twenty percent of the use of the public ground are the three I 

just mentioned, so 80 percent are people like me. I backpack. I fish. 

I hunt. I camp. My kids all ride mountain bikes, all that kind of 

stuff. Should I pay as well as the three I talked about? Somebody 

want to respond to that? Mr. Hughes. 

Mr. HUGHES. I would draw a couple distinctions. It is like asking 

should wildlife pay AUMs in one sense. 
79 

Mr. HANSEN. You mean on the Pittman-Robinson bill? Excuse 

me, I didn't hear you, sir. 

Mr. HuGHES. Where is that coming from, anyway? I mean, it is 

like asking should wildlife pay AUM fees to exist, is kind of on the 

periphery of what you are asking. 

Another thing is, if a resource of the people is being used for economic benefit, which certainly the grazers are and the mining companies are, and ski lifts and other like things where they are using 

it for economic benefit to ask a fee is a very reasonable thing to 

do. Now should everyone whoever stepped--

Mr. HANSEN. Your criteria is if you are using it for--

Mr. HUGHES. I am drawing the distinction of economic benefit. 

Mr. HANSEN. Physical benefit, medical benefit, peace of mind 

benefit, do they count? 

Mr. HuGHES. Also turning a profit with the use of it. 

Mr. HANSEN. Anybody who turns a profit should get a use out 

of it. 

Mr. HUGHES. They are more reasonable to ask a fee of those people. 

Mr. HANSEN. What about the outfitter? 

Mr. HUGHES. Of which? 

Mr. HANSEN. Outfitter. 

Mr. HUGHES. They do pay fees. 

Mr. HANSEN. Some do. 

What about the bird watcher who organizes a group of people 

and takes a bunch of scouts in and mom and dad pay the guy 25 

bucks for each kid, should he pay? 

Mr. HUGHES. I would draw a line at the boy scouts, probably 

shouldn't pay a fee, take the kids out there. There are some things 

that should be there as a public benefit. 

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. What about the people like in Grant 

County, Utah, who use the public ground and turned it into the 

best biking and biggest biking place there is in America, should 

those people pay for use of the public ground? 

Mr. HuGHES. If they are there for economic benefit, I would 

think to ask a fee is reasonable. 

Mr. HANSEN. That is your criteria, which is kind of a hard line 

to draw sometimes, I would assume. 

Anyone else want to comment on that question? Joyce Mendel, 

you wanted to comment, please. 

Ms. MENDEL. Well, I can't comment on that for the New Mexico 

Wildlife Federation. I don't know that they have a position on that. 

But I know with regard to State lands, a lot of the bird watchers 

and hikers were in favor of something where they would pay to go 

on to State lands, because it would enable them to get on some 

lands that they had been having trouble getting on to. 

Mr. HANSEN. This committee is trying to figure out how to pick 

up the billion three that we are in the hole on as we are taking 

care of the Jim Hansens of the world who like to fish, hunt, and 

camp. Because that is a free gift to me. I get it free. 

Deer hunting in the State of Utah is a big deal. People come 

from all over and it is big, big money to southern Utah and northern Utah. That is to the sportsmen and the gas stations and the 

convenience stores, people like that. 
80 

The question that constantly comes up, I don't mean this disrespectfully to anyone, please don't take it that way, but we found 

a lot of people that like to use the public ground but they don't 

want to pay, and they are always talking about the low cost cattlemen on there. It is true, I agree with you, Mr. Hughes, he does get 

an economic benefit. 

But I think as far as benefits go, you would make quite an argument. Certain benefits accrue to a lot of people who go out and use 

it, or why do they go use it? I mean, that is a great thing. My family would rather go backpacking and boating than about anything 

in the world, and it is a great benefit to my family. Maybe we don't 

see it on an accounting sheet. We surely see it other ways. 

My time is up, and you all heard those noises go off. And those 

two lights in the back, which I think you are probably now all experts on this sitting here all day, mean that we have a vote on. 

And I have another obligation that leadership has asked me to do, 

so I will ask Mr. Cooley if he will take the chair when he comes 

back. 

And again I will apologize. I would like to recognize Mr. Max Peterson, past Chief Peterson. I hope the members of the committee 

realize that this was a chief of the Forest Service for many, many 

years, an extremely outstanding person. We are very grateful to 

have you in our presence. 

We will now go vote and Mr. Cooley will take over when he gets 

back. I really feel I am missing out because I find this very interesting and I would like to have another opportunity, but I do want 

to thank the members of this panel and the next panel that is coming and those who have been here; you have been very gracious to 

wait as long as you have. And believe me, everything you have said 

we will weigh in detail. Thank you. We will stand in recess for just 

a few minutes. 

[Brief Recess.] 

Mr. CooLEY. [Presiding.] I call the hearing back to order. 

I want to apologize to the panel, but when you get a 15-minute 

vote and they tell you to wait around because you have one in 10 

minutes, it takes you 10 minutes to walk back. So we were a little 

bit longer than we should have been, and I want to apologize for 

that. I appreciate your indulgence in sticking around. I am it, so 

let's go. 

I think the first panelist, his questions were to Mr. Hughes, 

right? 

Mr. Hughes, you made in your comment when you were talking 

about things that-changing a fence line and doing things like 

that, you really don't believe that the people in the grazing or the 

cattle industry would deliberately destroy archeological value 

things just for a fence line because they wanted to destroy this. 

Don't you really feel that the people in the cattle industries are 

basically good stewards of the land that would like to preserve the 

natural resources as well? Because by your testimony, I felt like 

you felt that the cattle industry was maybe willy-nilly about our 

assets and about the value of the American heritage. Do you really 

think that we would like to destroy an archeological site? 

Mr. HUGHES. Of course, I don't think that the average rancher 

or family out there wants to destroy the archeological resources, no, 
81 

clearly not. But they may not be aware of them. They may inadvertently do it, and that is what the BLM was doing. I don't know 

that the allottee, Roy Hunter, would know of that particular site. 

I know on other sites there, his cattle have sat pretty heavy on the 

springs. So having input, public input, is a valuable thing even on 

the allottee level, allotment level. 

Mr. CooLEY. That is the point I was making. I just wanted to 

bring that out, is that really I felt that in your testimony, that you 

were implying, maybe you didn't mean to, but I took it as that we 

in the cattle business were not really good stewards and we did not 

really concern ourselves with the natural environment around us 

and I wanted to make sure that we both understood each other. 

When you talked about the costs per AUM and you thought that 

this was a subsidy to the people using the Federal lands and you 

didn't like the formula, does the Sierra Club have a formula that 

they think was more equitable, would better represent the use of 

public lands? 

Mr. HUGHES. I think in this process it should look more at the 

values involved. Do we have a formula? No. But whatever formula 

should look more at the values and comparable values and marketplace values and not be arbitrarily low. That is all. 

Mr. CooLEY. OK. Do you feel that the formula now in use and 

the one presented in H.R. 1713 is abnormally low? 

Mr. HUGHES. Yes, I think they subsidize ranching. Now that is 

something Congress can decide to do, but I think it should call it 

that if it does it. 

Mr. COOLEY. Well, because you heard the Chairman speak before 

he left, maybe we are, maybe we are not, but are we subsidizing 

other uses of Federal land in other areas? You do agree that Federal lands should be used in multiple use, right? I mean, does the 

Sierra Club believe that? 

Mr. HUGHES. Yes, I agree with multiple use. 

Mr. COOLEY. OK. Because in the past, if you look at some of the 

past testimony by individuals of certain groups, they really felt 

that possibly multiple use was not the ideal thing for Federal 

lands, as you probably know. It is on the record that many times 

they felt that certain uses of Federal lands probably should be restricted, if not eliminated. But so now the Sierra Club is in a position that they should be multiple use lands and grazing is part of 

the use of multiple uses? 

Mr. HUGHES. Well, clearly there are places that some uses 

shouldn't occur. 

Mr. COOLEY. Well, no. No, I know that there are specific areas. 

I agree, nobody in the cattle business will disagree with you. But 

as a concept, would you feel that the Sierra Club philosophically 

feels that in multiple use, part of the multiple use is grazing? 

Mr. HUGHES. Absolutely. 

Mr. COOLEY. OK. I appreciate that very much. Mrs. Roberson. 

Ms. ROBERSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. COOLEY. Were you here this morning? Were you able to be 

here when Mr. Dombeck spoke this morning? 

Ms. RoBERSON. Yes. 
82 

Mr. COOLEY. Did you hear him make the statement that the 

rangelands today were in better shape than they have been in 

many years? 

Ms. ROBERSON. Yes. 

Mr. COOLEY. Well, in your testimony you seemed to feel like the 

rangelands were in worse condition and yet the Agency says they 

are in better condition. 

Ms. ROBERSON. No, what I said is there is continuing damage. 

Those two are not mutually exclusive, and I think Mr. Dombeck, 

in fact, addressed that point. At the turn of the century, it is welldocumented in the Agency's literature and the scientific literature 

that the damage to western rangelands was at its height. 

Mr. COOLEY. You mean 1900? 

Ms. ROBERSON. Around the turn-yes, exactly. 

Mr. CooLEY. I don't think any of us that are in this business 

would probably not agree that there were some areas that were not 

properly managed. But we have had 94 years since that time. What 

do you think of the shape we are in today? 

Ms. ROBERSON. I think that we have made some progress. I think 

there is much more progress that can be made and should be made. 

There are areas that are still being damaged by poor grazing management. 

Mr. CoOLEY. OK So you don't think that Mr. Dombeck's statement was totally valid. It has some credibility but not totally valid? 

Ms. ROBERSON. That is how I recall his testimony, was that at 

the turn of the century, conditions were worse than they are now, 

that progrPss has been made, but that there is still progress that 

can and should be made, that there are still areas that are in need 

of improvement. That is how I recall his testimony. But I could be 

mistaken. 

Mr. CooLEY. Well, if I recall properly, he said about 95 percent 

of the rangeland now was in improved condition, and probably 

about 5 percent was not, and that there were about 95 percent 

good users and there were still about 5 percent bad users or people 

who are not, let's say, doing things that would benefit the rangeland themselves. 

I was encouraged by his statement and I didn't seem to have any 

of the other people in the Administration say that what he was 

saying was not true. I think it was a positive for the grazing industry. I don't think any of us will deny that there are bad hombres 

in every society, and I am not going to sit here, nor would anybody 

in the industry tell you that we are not going to have people who 

are going to be abusive. Hopefully, we can correct that system and 

make sure that it doesn't happen. But I just wanted a recognition 

from your group to understand that we are better off than we were 

in the 1900's and that we are improving our good stewardship of 

the land and hopefully through H.R. 1713, even though you don't 

agree, we can do a better job. But we will get around to that when 

we get down to the discussion. 

I want to say one other thing, too, is that I know in your testimony you talked about the taxpayer and the benefits to the taxpayer of America, and I also want to say to you, and I know that 

the grazing industry will tell you that they are taxpayers as well, 

as they contribute quite a bit in taxation, and I think that the Fed-
83 

eral lands were really developed or set aside for the beneficial use 

of all, meaning grazing as well. 

Ms. RoBERSON. We agree on that point, sir. 

Mr. CooLEY. I think if you look at H.R. 1713, you will realize 

this isn't just grazing, it addresses other issues. I know people are 

concerned, but really basically it addresses one part of it and there 

are other multiple uses involved in the process. 

Mr. Green, I don't know if you read the bill or not, but I have 

read the bill because I was one of the main contributors to the bill. 

And we have been very, very careful to make sure that we did not 

prohibit people from using public lands when there were grazing 

permits on that. And in your statement, you said this bill prohibited public use of grazing lands. That is not true. We really don't 

prohibit that. Another thing that this bill does not get rid of, NEPA. It simply 

says that the land use, first use plan, not permitted by permit. 

NEPA was not meant to apply to permits, and we wanted to clarify 

that, even though it has been something that has sort of floated 

around in that area. And we have had a lot of discussion with the 

agencies as well, and they basically agree with this, but right now 

it is not defined. So we tried to define that. 

Now, you know, you can probably find objections to that, and 

that should be your right and I appreciate that. But I want to tell 

you that it does not get rid of NEPA, just so you didn't misunderstand it. NEPA is still there. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I understand that NEPA still would 

apply in certain cases. But I think that we are very much for that 

in certain cases where there is good rangeland, that when these 

permittees come back up, that not always will we have to go ahead 

and do a full-blown NEPA advisory. I mean, if they can look at 

these lands, see they are in good condition, see they are continuing 

along those lines, that we are still fine with that. 

Mr. COOLEY. Well, it only applies to major actions, I know that. 

The one thing I wanted to tell you, I wish that the agencies were 

here and especially Mr. Thomas, is that we understand the predicament he has himself in as far as NEPA is concerned and reissuing 

permits. We understand that. We are very appreciative of that 

problem. 

I think that the frustration you heard today, if you were here 

earlier, and also by Congressman Ensign, is that, number one, is 

without any action by themselves, meaning the leasees, the permittees, without any action themselves, they are having a problem reissuing permits because the NEPA reports were not done. 

Here is the Federal Government over here not complying with 

the law, affecting the use by the permittees over here, when they 

had nothing to do with the problem. And I think in all fairness, no 

matter who you are in this, on what side of the spectrum you are 

in, with no land use and with multiple use, government should not 

penalize those who have no control over what government does 

when the government does not perform what it is supposed to do. 

This part of this problem with the last lawsuit and then the eventual compromise involved in the process, is because government did 

not comply and the people and the permittees or the grazing community were adversely affected. I think in all fairness you would 
84 

say as well, that that should not be the role of government. Government should be here to make sure that things are complied 

with, but also make sure they do not respond to the law, that the 

permittees are not penalized. Yet in reality that is what is happening in the current--

Mr. GREEN. I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, that there are some 

problems with some of the processes. I am afraid we are going to 

throw the baby out with the bath water. 

Mr. CooLEY. I hope that H.R. 1713 will, when you take a real 

look at it, listen to the testimony, feel a little more comfortable 

with the issue. And I think that, as said earlier, this is probably 

not perfect. I mean, there is no such thing as perfect here. But I 

think that if you look at it objectively, really truly as good stewards 

of the land, we have tried to address the problems involved in the 

urocess and listen to the West. - Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, to back up to your earlier statement 

about access to the land and to the multiple use, the other feeling 

is that, reading through this bill, that that part is pretty much almost absent in this bill; that it puts grazing and livestock interests 

:ar above most of the multiple use interests, or so I feel as I read 

:hrough this bill. 

Also, in section 141, it eliminates some of the right-of-way as a 

violation. There are different areas where as you start reading 

through it from a multiple-use standpoint and from a ranching 

standpoint, because I kind of have a little bit of background in 

both, I see that it seems to be very heavy on one side and very 

light on the other. 

Mr. COOLEY. Of course I don't agree with your interpretation, but 

that is why we are in this process. 

Ms. ROBERSON. Mr. Chairman, may I briefly address the NEPA 

point that you raised? 

Mr. COOLEY. The what? 

Ms. RoBERSON. The NEPA point that you raised a moment ago, 

just very briefly. 

Mr. COOLEY. Yes, you may. 

Ms. ROBERSON. Just one of the concerns that we have is that the 

process under H.R. 1713, the process that has been in place would 

be changed. And I spend a lot of time participating in NEPA at all 

levels and have commented on a lot of land use plans for both BLM 

and Forest Service. And when we participate in that, we do it 

under the understanding that a lot of the site-specific detailed 

grazing issues will be dealt with at a later date at the allotment 

level. And it would be almost a breach of a commitment that has 

been made between the public and these agencies to change that 

at this point, after 30 many of these plans have been out for public 

comment on that basis. That is one of our big concerns. 

Mr. COOLEY. Well, that will address the question I am going to 

ask Ms. Mendel, when she talks about the public, and she uses 

that term quite extensively in her testimony, which I really did appreciate that. I thought that maybe she might have an opportunity 

to check page 80 of the bill. 

In the last paragraph it talks about representation of interest 

and it talks about multiple users, affected land holders, counties, 

social and economic interests, selected State and county officers, 
85 

and public at large. Now that of course is on the Resource Advisory 

Council. Then if you turn over to page number 85, where we talk 

about the Grazing Advisory Council, and representative of interests 

there, you talk about permittees, leasees, affected landowners, 

county, social and economic interests, and elected State and county 

officers. Now, I think that this is a pretty good cross-section of, "the 

public". 

Where in your association do you find some flaw with the selection of these committees? I would appreciate some kind of recognition here. Did we make a mistake somewhere? What did we leave 

out? I mean, should we have said, and I am being facetious of 

course, but should we have said, Mrs. Jones from New York City, 

or what did we leave out here that you feel that we are depriving 

you of a proper representation? I am interested. 

Ms. MENDEL. Well, on those two different councils, there is a difference in their responsibilities. It says the Resource Advisory 

Council shall have the responsibility of advising the Secretary and 

appropriate State officials on major management decisions. Whereas the Grazing Advisory Council, which consists of those with 

ranching interests, shall set range improvement objectives. 

Mr. COOLEY. OK. But where do you feel that the public is deprived here? I want to know where you feel that, so I can take a 

look at this and see your criticism, I would like to know where it 

is. 

Ms. MENDEL. The public is advising. 

Mr. COOLEY. State officials and county officers are not public? 

Part of the representation interest, permittees, leasees, affected 

landowners, county, social and economic interests, elected State 

and county officers? I don't know where we left out. I mean, what 

would you have liked to have seen in there that would have made 

you more comfortable with this selection? 

Ms. MENDEL. Just an ordinary citizen who isn't a State or county 

officer. 

Mr. CooLEY. County, social and economic interests. Social, is 

that not part of your criteria? 

Ms. MENDEL. OK. If it includes those who have environmental 

interests, if that is what you are calling a social interest. 

Mr. CoOLEY. Yes, what I am trying to say to you I guess, and 

I don't mean to be confrontational or to make you feel like I am 

being a bully or anything, is that we honestly sat down for many, 

many hours and tried to write a piece of legislation that we 

thought would look out for your interests, the public interests, as 

well as the industry's interests, as well as the State interests and 

elected officials' interests. 

The thing is, is that is what is so important about these public 

hearings; to hear your input and to ask you how you feel that we 

have maybe not addressed your concerns I think is what this process is really about. And I want you to go away from here knowing 

that we are here to represent everybody, not just the grazing interest, and not just "environmental interests" if that is what you want 

to say it is. But to represent everybody, to put a bill together that 

is acceptable, generally speaking, for everybody on both sides of the 

issue. 
86 

As Chairman Hansen said to you, nothing is going to be perfect. 

I wish we could do that. We are just human beings and we have 

some problems. But trying to address all of the issues and make 

sure that everybody receives fair representation is really our goal. 

So when I look at this and I hear the comments, I start saying to 

myself, what did we do wrong that makes you feel that we have 

cut you out? And that is what I would like to have-your input. 

Ms. MENDEL. OK Also, even if that includes an environmental 

group in social interests, it is restricted to people in that county, 

whereas, in Bernalillo County, well, there is a lot of land on the 

west side of Albuquerque, but a lot of our interests are perhaps in 

another county, on the Rio Puerco, for example, which is BLM 

grazing land. 

So you are restricting this to people within a particular county, 

and maybe the people in other counties have a lot of use on that 

land and have an interest in that land. Also, the public is cut out 

in other areas of this bill, such as it makes it harder to be called 

an affected interest. In fact, in the Senate bill, they are cutting out 

affected interests. 

Mr. CooLEY. Well, in this bill, though, it is not cut out, it is 

there. 

Ms. MENDEL. It just makes it more difficult to be considered. 

Mr. COOLEY. I am just saying it is in this bill. 

Ms. MENDEL. Yes, it is. 

Mr. COOLEY. Now, we have not had the privilege of going on on 

the other side of the building, and we really don't know, honestly, 

I am not trying to tell you any stories, we don't know what is happening over there. We have to wait and see what comes across and 

take a look at it. 

I guess what I am really trying to say to you is that we want 

a fairness on both sides, and we need to come to a joint agreement 

on both sides for the best utilization of public lands, both for the 

environmental community and for the grazing community. And I 

think that in the past that most of the grazing community has 

shown good stewardship and concern for the environment. 

As you know, in my part of the State, we are fencing riparian 

areas and we are doing other things without even being mandated. 

People are starting to pick up on things that they feel should be 

done. So I think that a lot of your concerns, and our concerns as 

well, are being taken care of. I just want you to understand that 

in H.R. 1713, we tried, it is not perfect, to address everybody's concerns. And I think we have done a good job. You probably could 

nitpick here and there, and I understand that, and that is your 

right and privilege and I am glad you are doing that, because it 

gives us an opportunity to take a look at it, too. As you know, this 

is not concrete, and it has some flexibility in that process. 

Ms. MENDEL. One other place it cuts out the public, besides making it more difficult to be called an affected interest, is in permit 

decisions. The public would not be informed of those decisions. And 

every once in a while we comment on some of those decisions and 

to comment, we need to be informed of them. 

Mr. COOLEY. OK Well, let me address one thing and then I will 

go on to Mr. Hughes, and then I have my fellow colleague here who 

would like to ask a few things, too. 
87 

I guess philosophically we probably have a very wide difference 

here. When I think of the public concern, I think of people directly 

affected by laws, legislation, and decisions at a local community 

level. We have a problem, I guess; many of us now in Congress feel 

that the Federal Government should turn over more control to the 

local level, and I think that this is a philosophy that we are carrying out. 

I think that you know, and being your group, your community, 

better what you want your community to look like than somebody 

who may be 3,000 miles away who has never been there. So I think 

that probably our philosophy is different there. I don't object to 

your objection, but I think that we would like to see more local control and more input from the local people. And I think that is what 

we are trying to do under this bill. Mr. Hughes. 

Mr. HUGHES. Just on page 85, on the representation of interests 

on grazing advisory councils-! am presently carried as affected interest on 58 allotments in the California desert. This wording 

would exclude me. 

Mr. CooLEY. Why would it exclude you? You are not part of the 

county, social and economic interest? 

Mr. HUGHES. Represents permittees, leasees, affected land holders, county, social and economic interests, and elected State and 

county officials. I am an elected official in a different county. 

Mr. CooLEY. But you have members that have your same views 

within that county; do you not? 

Mr. HUGHES. I said it would exclude me. 

Mr. CooLEY. Oh, maybe you personally, yes. 

Mr. HUGHES. Yes. 

Mr. CooLEY. Yes, it probably would, if you are not in that county, that is correct. 

Mrs. Chenoweth, would you care to ask a few questions? 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, I first wanted to speak with Mr. Green with regard 

to the NEPA process. Knowing that the permit goes with the place, 

and the judgment that is made about the permit is how many 

AUMs for how long on what part of ground are we going to operate. 

So the permit goes with the place. And so to make the minor adjustments that need to be made in the decisionmaking process by 

the Bureau of Land Management or the Forest Service does not 

constitute a major Federal action requiring an EIS. And I think 

that is part of what we were trying to get across, that the EIS process is one that is incumbent upon the Agency to perform. And the 

length of time that it takes and the money expended in human energy is so redundant because decisions were made so long ago and 

the most important thing is that the Bureau of Land Management-and even Bruce Babbitt's staff will say that the range is in 

a better condition today than it ever has been. 

So I just think that NEPA can work very well for us. I happen 

to be a proponent of NEPA, oddly enough, because I think that it 

gives us the opportunity for all of us to sit down on a scientific and 

biological basis and understand what we are dealing with. But I 

think that is a different kind of situation. 

I wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, that I wish Mr. Brouha were still 

here because I had some questions to ask him. Mr. Brouha, from 
88 

the American Fisheries Society, had to catch an airplane. He is executive director of the American Fisheries Society out of Maryland. 

He mentioned that domestic livestock grazing is permitted on 

159 million acres, administered by the BLM; 58 percent of the 

BLM rangeland is in fair or poor condition; 52 million acres of big 

game habitat, 100 million acres of small game and nongame habitat, and 19 million acres of sports fishery streams have declined in 

quality. And, Mr. Chairman, there is not one source to back this 

statement up, not one iota of documentatinn. from the gentleman 

from Maryland. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, Representative, I can provide you 

with that documentation. In fact, I have some here. I am not sure 

if he was quoting from this resource, but I do understand what he 

was talking about, that we have had major improvements since the 

1900's on some of these upper level areas, but several of our riparian areas are still in very poor condition. And we need to address 

those issues. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Well, Mr. Green, Mr. Chairman, even the Department of Interior will admit that the vast rangelands are generally improving. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, Representative, I wouldn't disagree 

with that at all. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Hughes, you are a member of the California Sierra Club? 

Mr. HUGHES. Yes. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And are you an employee of the Sierra Club? 

Mr. HuGHES. I am a volunteer. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. You are a volunteer. And do you give testimony like this often? 

Mr. HUGHES. I have testified once before on grazing. I have testified for the California Desert Protection Act, also. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Here in Washington? 

Mr. HUGHES. Yes. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Did someone help you with your testimony? 

Mr. HUGHES. No, I wrote it. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. You wrote it, good. Did they help pay your 

way here? Since you are------

Mr. HUGHES. I hope I will get reimbursed out of the volunteer 

funds for the ticket that got me here, but basically the costs are 

mine. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. But you will be submitting a voucher for reimbursement? 

Mr. HUGHES. No, I go out and try to raise the money, get some 

others to help. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I hope so. Because in 1992, the Sierra Club 

took in $41,716,044. And that is a whole lot more than the National Cattle Association operates on. And that is just a whole heck 

of a lot more than Mr. Lowry makes. Mr. Lowry said he took in 

a little over $8,000 last year. And, you know, I bring this up, sir, 

because on the one hand I have to applaud your dedication, I really 

do. And your testimony was very well constructed. However, you 

were concerned about the economics and people making profits. 

And I just wanted to remind you of Mr. Lowry's--
89 

Mr. HUGHES. No, I am a volunteer activist. And over the years 

I have paid lots of my costs to do what I am doing. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. In the organization that in 1992 took in nearly $42 million, that is just one year. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CoOLEY. Thank you, Mrs. Chenoweth. 

I want to thank the panel for their time and patience and our 

running back and forth to voting, and the panel is excused. 

Mr. COOLEY. And the next panel come up, panel number five. Mr. 

Obermiller, Professor, Oregon State University; Doctor John M. 

Fowler, Agriculture Economics Department, New Mexico State University; Max Peterson, International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies; and Lonnie Williamson, Wildlife Management Institute. 

I want to thank all of you gentlemen for your patience. I know 

it is 5:10 p.m. and most of you have been here since 10 a.m. I hope 

you had a little lunch. We had peanuts, a cup of coffee. But I really 

do appreciate you coming here and being willing to testify on this 

important bill. And I think your testimony will be very valuable in 

the final consideration. So without any further ado, Doctor 

Obermiller, I appreciate you starting off. 

STATEMENT OF FREDERICK W. OBERMILLER, PROFESSOR, 

OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY 

Mr. OBERMILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman 

Cooley, Congresswoman Chenoweth. It is a pleasure to be here. It 

is an honor to be here. 

I am Fred Obermiller, a professor at Oregon State University. I 

am going to skip the credentials other than to say that I have done 

this type of testimony as an academic specialist 9 or 10 times before. I am going to start by deviating from my written testimony. 

I hope it appears in its entirety in the record. I want to respond 

to some points that have been raised earlier. 

Before I do that, I want to quote from and expand on the news 

release issued by Franklin D. Roosevelt June 28th, 1934. "The Federal Government by enacting this law has taken a great forward 

step in the interest of conservation, which will prove of great benefit not only to those engaged in the livestock industry, but also to 

the Nation as a whole." And he was of course referring to the Taylor Grazing Act. 

I think in large part the Taylor Grazing Act succeeded beyond 

the wildest expectations of those who supported it and certainly 

shocked those who did not support it. Unfortunately, as time goes 

by, people tend to forget, and now we have reached the point where 

we have to reconfirm the statutory commitments made during the 

Great Depression of the United States to again bring stability to 

the public domain western livestock industry and associated communities. That was the purpose of the Taylor Grazing Act. Its policy objective, and I quote, is "to stop injury to the public grazing 

lands by preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration, to provide 

for their orderly use, improvement, and development, to stabilize 

the livestock industry dependent upon the public range". 

History repeats itself. That preamble is essentially replicated in 

section 103 of the Livestock Grazing Act of 1995, which in my opin-
90 

ion is a reconfirmation of the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, and will 

again accomplish the objectives that Franklin Delano Roosevelt set 

forth in his press release 61 years ago. 

I do want to say a few things about the nature of grazing permits 

and leases as established under the Taylor Grazing Act and also 

as reflected in the administration of Forest Service grazing permits. 

We have both permits and leases. They are either rights or they 

are privileges, depending upon the perspective of the person or the 

lawyer in question. They are tied to the specific use of identified 

parcels of Federal land at certain times of the year under certain 

tenns and conditions. They require the ownership of commensurate 

base property, either land or water, the purpose of which is to ensure stability and to confirm customary and traditional patterns of 

private/public land use for grazing purposes. The reason that this was done in 1934 and by the Forest Service 

30 years earlier was to assure that the structure of the industry, 

as it evolved over time under trappings that closely resemble the 

prior appropriations doctrine in water law, that those patterns be 

preserved for the purpose of stability. 

The Taylor Grazing Act was a great success, but the original administering agency was a great failure. That agency was called the 

Grazing Service. It grew prolifically in budget and in personnel. It 

came under increasing protest by the ranching community in the 

western United States; litigation grew by leaps and bounds. It was 

criticized on the Floor of both the U.S. House of Representatives 

and the Senate as "arrogant, dishonest and spendthrift". In 1946, the appropriations were reduced by one half. The direct or was relieved of his duties. Over two-thirds of the staff was laid 

off and the BLM was recreated from the ashes of the Grazing Service. I am a finn believer in lessons of history, and I think we had 

best not forget that one. 

Now, turning to some points that have been raised here earlier. 

The Administration repeats that the new regs in the fonn of 

Rangeland Reform '94 would affect only bad apples. They are not 

after the good operators, just the bad apples. I don't agree with that at all. I believe that Rangeland Reform 

'94 is top-down regulation of an embattled industry for primary 

purposes which do not include the promotion of domestic livestock 

grazing. Grazing is viewed merely as a means to an end, vegetation 

manipulation and enhanced environmental quality. So I don't agree 

that the purpose of Rangeland Reform '94 is just to get rid of bad 

apples. Second, the Administration said this morning that Rangeland 

Reform '94 would promote a healthy livestock economy with virtually no adverse economic impact. That is not true. The final environmental impact statement states that livestock AUMs will be reduced by 20 percent under Rangeland Reform '94. That is not a 

marginal impact. That is a major impact, particularly when there 

are no alternative sources of forage available; and that impact does 

not even consider any increased livestock costs associated with 

compliance with the new regulations. 

Others have said today that the livestock advisory councils would 

be setting range management objectives. That is not true. The 
91 

Livestock Grazing Act says that they will set range improvement 

project objectives; and range improvements are defined in the definition section of the bill precisely as they are defined in the glossary of the Society of Range Management which includes structural 

and nonstructural improvements and not manag~ment practices. 

Another comment, as an economist, deals with this argument 

that only commodity uses of the public land should be forced to pay 

a fee because only those items which generate a profit should be 

charged. Economists can't buy that. 

We treat profit the same as utility. Everybody tries to maximize 

their own satisfaction or welfare. It might be in the form of profit 

or it might be in the form of enjoyment. It might be monetary or 

it might be nonmonetary, but they are both valued. And the BLM, in their publication "Public Land Statistics", reports net economic 

values per day of deer hunting of $60; elk hunting, $70; small game 

hunting, $30; migratory waterfowl, $50. These are all highly valued 

activities. But they are free, not priced, even though the underlying 

law states all uses of Federal resources generating special benefits 

to defined parties, according to the Office of Management and 

Budget, should be priced but these are not. I don't buy the argument for a moment that only the commodity uses should be priced. It is wrong. 

One other thing, there has been a lot of talk about-and I appreciate the fact that I am allowed to go over my time limit-there has 

been a lot of talk about how an extensive public hearing process 

was conducted and these considerations were taken into account in 

developing the Rangeland Reform '94 rules and regulations. I attended and commented at two of those hearings, and in both hearings 90 to 100 percent of the public comment was in opposition to 

Rangeland Reform '94. 

I know many of you have read this, but I am going to read it 

anyway for the record once more, because I think it is revealing. 

The publication date is June 23rd, 1993, two months before the initial draft regulations were published. This is a memo from Kevin 

Sweeney of the Department of the Interior Secretary Babbitt and 

to BLM director Jim Baca. 

"Item two, we need to sell these regs in advance." (This is two 

months before the initial regulations were released.) 

"We have not yet done enough to sell the public and the media 

on what will be coming out in the regs. We should work to identify 

what is in the regs before they actually come out. There are two 

major changes which will come out in the regulations, and we 

should construct a few events"--(construct a few events!) that help 

to justify those changes. 

For example, riparian protection: ''We should have one or two 

field trips to focus on riparian zone protection. Our own statistics 

can be used to show the range is in better shape than at any point 

in this century. With that in mind, we must make deliberative and 

public attempts to prove how bad the conditions are in many riparian areas." If that is good science, I am not a scientist. 

Thank you. 

Mr. COOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Obermiller. I appreciate your comments, and we will get into questions and answers later. 
92 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Obermiller can be found at the 

end of the hearing.] 

Mr. COOLEY. Dr. Fowler. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN M. FOWLER, AGRICULTURE ECONOMICS 

DEPARTMENT 

Mr. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, distinguished committee members, 

I greatly appreciate the opportunity to be here. 

We have heard many references today about the Taylor Grazing 

Act. There were several key ingredients to the Taylor Grazing Act 

that made it successful. They were assigned responsibility, skillfully crafted incentive packages, peer review, and defined agency 

responsibility. 

Permittees were recognized as key players in the Taylor Grazing 

Act. Historically, Federal and private partnerships were actively 

pursued. They were jointly funded and the benefits were disbursed 

in mutually agreed-upon patterns. 

I provided for you a figure in the presentation that shows the 

private land contributions and investments in the Federal lands 

that peaked in 1985, and it has forebodingly declined for a decade. 

That demonstrates explicitly that the partnership is not continuing. 

We need that partnership, Mr. Chairman; we need the trust that 

we used to have in agency's responsibility. And what is a cornerstone and key to the future is responsible production. 

Necessary for responsible production are longer tenure of these 

permits, ownership of improvements on a percentage basis to the 

dollars afforded, recognition of long-term caring capacity where 

temporary adjustments-temporary, nonrenewable increases, as 

well as decreases---can be made for resource enhancement. 

We need accelerated on-the-ground monitoring in the trenches, 

on the ground; and we also need the livestock industry to police its 

own ranks. These are all essential for the future. 

I would like to concentrate the rest of my time on the grazing 

fee itself. Mr. Chairman, there is no perfect fee. Any fee we come 

up with will overcharge some and undercharge others. And the 

third given is that private lands are not directly comparable to 

Federal lands in computing and determining a fair market value 

for Federal forage. 

We look to the Taylor Grazing Act and we see value-laden terms 

such as "reasonable". PRIA refers to equitability "to prevent economic disruption and harm to the western livestock industry"; 

FLPMA, "equitable to the United States and to the permittee". 

Both refer to "costs of production" as critical elements in the determination. These value-laden terms do not lead themselves well to 

theories of economic efficiency, so I do not believe we are in charge 

here of maximizing net present value to the government, or eliminating all consumer surplus in the purchase of the permit. 

This is a much wider array for our fee formula to be fair. 

PRIA, the old formula, mentioned costs of production, ability to 

pay. The orientation was consistent with sound economics and 

sound business where they got down to the net values. I would like 

to encourage you to look at the Economic Research Service's publications for the last 21 years and see that the net return has been 
93 

negative all 21 years. You know, it is very easy to see why young 

people and capital are not being attracted into this industry. We 

go to a different bottom line and just cover the cash costs, and even 

12 of the last 21 years, it was negative. 

I want to go one step further and say that it is not rational to 

say that the grazing fee should be negative. It should not be a residual factor, but it would lead us to believe that the net should 

not be the basis for the fee. Now, there is economic precedence for 

the concept of using our final value product as a derived demand 

for the value of the factor and that is called the derived demand. The formula that has been presented in the Livestock Grazing Act 

for 1995 uses this concept of a derived demand. 

It also uses the concept of net turnoff. It recognizes the cow is 

the production factory; all the other classes of livestock are ancillary, strictly part of that cow production. That is a reasonable approach. The formula as presented has some very interesting little 

formats; it is very simple to compute, divided by 12 regardless of 

time during the year and you come up with a return per month. 

Multiply that times a factor of 0.06 and you come up with a fair 

rate of return for the factor of production, i.e. Federal forage. 

Is there a basis for this? Absolutely yes, Mr. Chairman. The Economic Research Service used exactly the six-month T-bills in an ef- fort to justify the 0.06. That is exactly the same that the ERS uses. 

Six-month T-bills are also what the Federal Government is paying 

for their capital. That rate happens to be a 10-year average of 5.9. 

The discount rate, what the Federal Government is earning on 

their capital, 10-year average is 5.51. This rate is in line, Mr. 

Chairman, with those figures. 

Very quickly, there are some strengths of this formula. It is a 

three-year average that keeps it current. It is not nearly as volatile 

as a one-year change. It is simple and it is based on market value. In contrast to what we heard in some of the earlier testimony, it 

is based on the gross value receipts on the cow, and it is published 

by an independent Federal agency. 

There are some weaknesses. The major weakness is that the data 

have lagged nearly three years. We can correct that very readily; 

the data exists. Will I also be given an extra minute? 

Mr. COOLEY. Yes. . Mr. FOWLER. The key to the enhanced performance of the grazing fee formula, as we see it, is capturing the current price trends 

and recognizing that the greatest variability that we are having in 

the receipt side is the price, not the livestock classes being shown. That lets us concentrate on only one factor of formula, the price. 

The National Ag Statistical Service collects that data currently. On February of each year, February of 1995, that data is available 

for the Economic Research Service to make their calculations. I 

would strongly suggest that we allow the Economic Research Service to forecast November and December of the previous year to 

allow us 34 months of actual price data and two years of forecast 

data so we can use 1993, 1994, and 1995 in the calculation of the 

1996 grazing fee. It doesn't take any new data; it is the same data 

that is used in the beef cattle price index as collected by NASS and 

evaluated by the Economic Research Service. This is very doable. 
94 

I would like to summarize and be very succinct. The Livestock 

Grazing Act of 1995 is a comprehensive package of incentives to 

promote long-term resource stewardship and continued improvement of our Federal range conditions. The grazing fee approach is 

a gross receipts tax approach, and it is defendable and it has precedence. The 6-percent rate of return reflects a fair return to the factor 

of production as evidenced by both the Federal earnings and the 

rate paid for borrowed capital. The impact of the Treasury will be 

positive because of the increase in grazing fees and only the most 

heavily federally dependent, highly leveraged operator will be 

forced out of business. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your time. [The prepared statement of Mr. Fowler can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. COOLEY. Thank you, Dr. Fowler. I appreciate your comments, and of course, I am very pleased that you support the formula. We have had a lot of criticism on that. 

We feel, as you do, that it is defendable, and we have always 

turned to those who are critics and said, show us something better. 

We have had only criticism, and no real positive, different formulations when we go through the process, the same as you did, with 

the tax rates and different discount rates and how we put the formula together. So I appreciate your observation of that very much. Mr. Peterson. 

STATEMENT OF MAX PETERSON, INTERNATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES 

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have my testimony. If you will accept it for the record, I will try to brief it in 

the interests of time. 

Mr. Chairman, I testify today on behalf of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, which is not a new organization. It was created in 1902 in the western part of the United 

States to enhance cooperation between State fish and wildlife agencies. At that time, there were market hunters or poachers that 

were moving across State lines and were thereby immune from 

prosecution. 

Since that time, we have worked on a variety of things involving 

fish and wildlife, including the 1937 Pittman-Robinson Act, which 

was referred to earlier, where hunters and fishermen help pay, 

through excise taxes, for fish and wildlife restoration on all kinds 

of lands; and the Wellop-Breaux Program, which does likewise for 

spot fish restoration. 

Mr. Chairman, I was somewhat reluctant to testify on this bill 

because I understand the motivation of those trying to write this 

bill. I also understand your objective of trying to provide more stability for grazing permittees. Unfortunately, I believe, though, that 

this bill will repolarize a lot of the issues that we have had over 

the last 10 years or so between different users of public lands. As Chairman Hansen indicated, I am a former Chief of the Forest Service. I spent a lot of time trying to get different users of public land to work together to share that public land, as it belongs 

to all of us. And I think there has been a lot of progress made over 
95 

the years. In fact, one of the things that I have done in my current 

job is to look at how we can bring different competing interests to 

the table to cooperate. 

For example, along with Lonnie Williamson of the Wildlife Management Institute here to my left, we brought together livestock 

and wildlife interests to seek common ground. This included a livestock-big game symposium of actual on-the-ground people who are 

out there working the land to address how we can work better together. That went along pretty well. As Mrs. Chenoweth has indicated, when you get people out there on the ground who are looking at the same piece of land and can see the same thing, you find 

that a lot of the animosity that may be there in theory sort of disappears. And I think we made substantial progress. 

I am concerned, though, that this bill, in my view, and I may be 

one of the few people around long enough to have actually been 

here when the Multiple Use Act was passed and have some history 

of that act, I think this act does substantially move livestock to a 

rather dominant position in multiple use. And I don't think that 

you intended to do that, but I think it does because it addresses 

only grazing and not the mix of multiple uses, and it places the 

permittee in a rather dominant position. 

For example, we discussed a few minutes ago the grazing advisory boards. By the law itself, grazing permittees must be a majority on the grazing advisory committee. I think also by singling out 

the carrying capacity of the range as the number of livestock that 

can be grazed ignores a lot of other critters out there besides livestock. The carrying capacity of the range must account for other 

critters that are out there-different kinds of wildlife, fish in the 

stream and so on. You can't say that the carrying capacity is the 

maximum number of livestock that can be grazed without permanent deterioration. 

So throughout the bill, I read it as primarily a bill that elevates 

livestock grazing above other uses. That is the only way I can read 

it; I have to be honest with you. I think in doing so, the bill is 

going to repolarize the debate that is out there. 

You remember the slogan "cattle free in ninety-three", and all 

those other things that were really detrimental to improved understanding of each other out there on the range. I think this bill has 

the potential of doing that, too. I think we can work with you on 

making some changes with it that maybe would reduce that, but 

as written now, I believe the bill does in fact elevate grazing use 

above all the other uses. 

I think we ought not to pat ourselves on the back that those 

grazing lands are in better shape then they were. Brouha was actually quoting a General Accounting Office study, which is attached 

to his statement, which says a substantial part of the riparian area 

of the ranges is in poor condition. Even though the range itself may 

be in good condition, that may not apply to riparian areas on the 

same range. 

As a person who grew up with livestock and spent a lot of time 

in land management, I know that 95 percent of a range can be in 

good condition but the 5 percent that may represent the most important riparian areas may be in deplorable condition; if you took 

people out there and looked at the range, they would all agree that 
96 

is a factual statement. So I think we have got to be careful in using 

those statistics to sort of pat ourselves on the back. 

There are also some real problems in the bill. Look at section 121 

and section 136, section 121 says, an allotment management plan 

will have all kinds of requirements in it, it will specify grazing 

practices and all kinds of management direction. When you come 

over to section 136 of what can be put in the permit, can't put any 

of that direction in the allotment management plan in the permit 

itself. 

So the question is, how do you enforce the provisions in the allotment management plan, which is not an enforceable document? 

How do you enforce plan requirements if you are prohibited from 

putting them in a permit? 

I don't really think you meant to do that, but that is structurally 

the way I read the bill right now. It says you cannot put anything 

in the permit except the number of livestock, period of use, and a 

couple of other things. You can't put anything else in the permit. For example, if there is agreement in the plan that a certain part 

of an allotment should not be grazed during a certain part of the 

year and the cattle should be moved during a certain part of the 

year, that cannot be reflected in the permit. I don't really know 

why the bill says that. 

I am not going to get into grazing fees because I spent a good 

part of my life worrying about grazing fees and realize there is no 

perfect fee, as has been indicated here. I do gratuitously say to you, 

I think all users of public land ought to pay. I don't think it should 

be just economic interests, because there is a lot of value to all 

kinds of people for the use of public lands. Thank you, Mr. Chairma n . I hit my testimony rather lightly. I 

hope that summary is useful to you. Mr. CooLEY. Thank you very much, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Peterson can be found at the end 

of the hearing.] 

Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Williamson. 

STATEMENT OF LONNIE L. WILLIAMSON, WILDLIFE 

MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE 

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

If the Chair pleases, I was given a statement by Dr. James Earl 

Kennamer, who is the Vice President of the National Wild Turkey 

Federation. He asked if I would request that the committee enter 

it into the record. I will do that at this time for the committee's 

pleasure. 

Mr. CoOLEY. Thank you very much. It will be placed in the 

record. [The statement of Mr. Kennamer can be found at the end of the 

hearing.] 

Mr. WILLIAMSON. I am Lonnie L. Williamson, Vice President of 

the Wildlife Management Institute, which is headquartered here in 

Washington. We were established in 1911, and the organization is 

staffed by trained and experienced wildlife managers and scientists 

located across the country. We agree, Mr. Chairman, with some of the findings in this bill. 

We have agreed for decades that we have a vast interest in main-
97 

taining a healthy livestock industry on our public lands. Our interests are tied together in many, many ways, one being that the private lands that these operators own and use for ranching purposes 

are vital for some of the wildlife that inhabit variously the private 

and public lands. In the West, we cannot afford, if we are going to 

maintain viable populations of a lot of our wildlife, to let these 

ranches go into developments or other kinds of uses that are not 

compatible with wildlife. 

On the other hand, we view this bill, simply because it appears 

to disenfranchise us from having a say-so in what is going on on 

the Federal rangelands, to be very divisive, to be something that 

will drive a wedge between the livestock and the wildlife conservation interests and hurt some of the great progress that we have 

made in the past 20 or 25 years in solving the problems out there 

on those lands in an equitable manner that will maintain the livestock industry and at the same time help wildlife to a great degree. 

I would like to point out that the economic interests of, the livelihoods of a lot more people than just livestock people depend upon 

those public lands. The industry that supports my organization and 

has for the past 84 years, gets more than 80 percent of its business 

from hunting provided by healthy wildlife populations, which 

makes the Federal lands, as well as other State lands, very, very 

important to it. It is a big business nationwide. 

I would say that instead of pursuing H.R. 1713, Mr. Chairman, that the committee should seriously consider taking a strong lead 

in supporting, pushing, encouraging, promoting what Max just referred to as the "seeking common ground" effort that has been 

going on for quite some time now in the U.S. Forest Service and 

Bureau of Land Management and supported by quite a few agricultural, livestock and conservation groups. We are having tremendous success. 

I would point to the booklet that is attached to my statement 

here and show some of the projects that we have completed. This 

approach, which is a local approach using local people and people 

from other areas that may be making investments in the project, 

get together. They figure out what one another needs, how we can 

get it, what the compromises are going to be; and then everybody 

chips money into the pot. 

Some of the things that have worked out are quite interesting. 

There is one area in Colorado I believe that is called Owl Mountain. One of the permittees was having a heck of a time with elk 

raiding his alfalfa; they were doing all kinds of damage. To solve 

the problem, all it took was a relatively inexpensive air application 

of fertilizer to the public lands that increased the forage production 

and the desirability of the forage and kept elk off the private land. 

You will notice in here the Upper Muddy Creek Rim Project 

going on in Wyoming covers 290,000 acres, mostly private land. 

Everything that needs to be there for wildlife-the land, the 

water-and livestock is being done in a cooperative manner and 

there is absolutely no reduction in AUMs on any of the public lands 

involved, none whatsoever. 

And so, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that instead of frightening 

us with not being able to play in this arena, as we should, as people who use public lands and get our living from public lands, that 
98 

the committee would look at promoting and somehow helpin? grow 

the Seeking Common Ground program. I don't think you wou.d find 

anyone in the livestock industry that would speak against it that 

has had experience with it. There is a lot of success there. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. COOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Williamson. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Williamson can be found at the 

end of the hearing.] 

Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Obermiller, of course, I have known about your 

expertise for many, many years and appreciate your wisdom and 

the knowledge you have put forth in this whole effort. We in the 

West admire you very much and respect your opinion very deepiy; 

I will tell you that right now. Even though we don't always agree, we really still respect it; and a lot of people admire your stance on 

many issues. I want to know if you think there is any justification for the BLM 

or Forest Service statement that the riparian areas are in such 

horrible condition through your experience and your expertise of 

traveling over the western United States and consulting with many 

of the grazing people. Mr. OBERMILLER. I think there is very little justification. I think 

reliance on the General Accounting Office report as your basic data 

source is-well, it certainly wouldn't be publishable in an academic 

journal. Outside of that, there are isolated cases of overgrazing in 

the riparian areas-but you know, you have to put it in perspective. 

Twenty years ago riparian areas were called sacrifice zones, and 

they were all beat up; they are no longer called sacrifice zones and 

they are no longer all beat up and most of the ranchers that I know 

are making a very aggressive effort to regrow and rebuild and rejuvenate their riparian zones, and they are doing so successfully. And 

I am personally involved in several research projects along those 

lines, and I can testify here to the fact that they are successful in 

those regards. 

I, as a scientist, don't think that it is appropriate for Congress 

to make decisions based on nondocumentable nonevidence, and I 

think much of what has been given to you with regard to the deplorable state of riparian zones is, in fact, nonscientific. 

Mr. COOLEY. Thank you very much. You have had an opportunity 

and participated in some of the writing of this particular piece of 

legislation where we have made some amendments in our early 

stages from some of your comments. We keep hearing from everybody that these predominantly public lands would fall under the 

grazing use of public lands under this document. 

Do you really feel, as an expert in this area, that maybe sometimes on the other side of the issue that is actually predominantly 

going to take public lands into grazing? 

Mr. OBERMILLER. Absolutely not. As I was trying to indicate in 

my written testimony, I see the Livestock Grazing Act as an attempt to establish a framework within which grazing will occur 

and will be regulated. 

It is a Livestock Grazing Act. It does nothing to repeal or amend 

the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act or the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act or those portions of the Public Rangeland Im-
99 

provement Act that are still in effect, or NEPA or the Endangered 

Species Act or the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act or any 

other acts that assure the multiple uses of public lands. I think the 

declarations to the contrary at best are misleading. 

Mr. COOLEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Fowler, number one is, I really want to thank you, as well 

as the rest of the people on the panel, but as being a cow-calf operator myself, I know what you gave up to come here. I do appreciate 

that branding is a difficult process. I know what you did when you 

came here, and I do appreciate it; and I think that other people appreciate your comments and testimony. 

Let me ask you something. Since you addressed the grazing fees 

so extensively in your presentation, do you think the 6 percent 

seems to be too high since Congress is debating a 3-percent return 

on Federal Government for those who are mining on Federal lands? 

I think it is serious since we are in this economic discussion here. 

Mr. FOWLER. I have considered the 3-percent rate and felt there 

was a distinct difference in the equity required and capital of two 

different industries, and as I compared and went through the different alternatives, that a risk-free rate of return of 6 percent was 

well within the limit of the fair market value. And I believe that 

the 3 percent with that much higher equity is a totally different 

ball game, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COOLEY. Thank you. 

What about the alleged allegation, by some in writing, at least, 

we have heard that grazing fees, low grazing fees lead to 

overgrazing and overuse of the land? As a user of allotments or 

permits, do you think this really is valid criticism of this? 

Mr. FOWLER. Well, I think it has raised itself as one of the greatest fallacies known to man. There is absolutely no connection between grazing fees and current long-range caring capacity. Those 

are set administratively. Those are based on resource conditions 

and the grazing fee has absolutely no correlation. 

Mr. COOLEY. Thank you. 

Since there are only two of us, I am going to override my time 

with your permission, Congresswoman, and we will let you do the 

same. I want to get two more questions out, and then I will go on. 

Mr. Peterson, we all respect your expertise and your long service 

to the public as the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service; and I think 

that we all admire you for all the work you have done. 

What I think we should look at here-as you look at House bill 

H.R. 1713, why did we introduce House bill H.R. 1713? We introduced it because the Secretary of Interior decided to introduce the 

Range Reform bill of 1994. Now, if everything was-how shall we 

say-perfectly equal and nobody was having any problems and 

there was cooperation between the grazers, multiple use people and 

the agencies, then why did the Secretary feel compelled to introduce his legislation, which truly prompted the LGA because of the 

necessity to counteract what most people, in the West anyway, felt 

was legislation that, let's say, was more restrictive, less cooperative, less inducive to cooperation between permittees and the agencies? 

I mean, can you give me some insight on that since you have 

long experience in this area? 
100 

Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I am not an author of that reform 

proposal. 

Mr. COOLEY. No, I am sorry, I didn't mean to imply you were. 

But I imagine you are aware of that legislation as well as this. 

Mr. PETERSON. Oh, yes. In fact, I had some serious problems 

with some of it because I think it did shift the focus, maybe inadvertently, in some cases away from what Mr. Williamson and I 

both consider the most important thing, and that is to get people 

out there on the land cooperating. And I think, inadvertently 

maybe, some of those reform provisions did the opposite. 

The concern I have though is, if the bill will set some other forces 

in place in the other direction that may be just as serious to handle. 

Let me also beg to differ with some of my colleagues here. This 

bill does change current law. Make no mistake about it. For example, it specifically said, NEPA doesn't apply to certain activities. It 

defines the livestock-carrying capacity to be just the number of 

livestock on an area that can be sustained. It also sets up grazing 

advisory committees and that says the majority must be permittees. That and other provisions make a whole lot of changes to existing law. 

Although I respect the members of this panel who have scientific 

capability, when they say this doesn't change existing law, that 

simply is not true. It does change existing law substantially, and 

any attorney will tell you that it does change existing law. 

So my concern, Mr. Chairman, is that I think we were making 

some good progress in bringing people together, particularly the 

wildlife and livestock areas, in really working together on how they 

could improve the range for the benefit of everybody. The permittee, more than anyone else, really is the person that wants that 

range to be in good condition. He wants help in causing that to 

happen, and we would like to help that process. 

I am afraid that this bill, as now written, does not help that 

process. In fact, I think it is counterproductive in some respects. 

Mr. Chairman, I would certainly be glad to pledge to you my 

willingness to work with you and others to see if we can fix some 

of the things that I think are a problem; and I am very serious 

about that. 

Mr. COOLEY. I understand that, and I appreciate your concern. 

But given the circumstances that we face today, I think you can 

understand why this all came about and why we have so much 

time and effort trying to-we think we are trying to write it up to 

the center, and of course, there is a difference in here and we understand that. 

Mr. PETERSON. Maybe we should just say, time out for a while. 

Mr. COOLEY. You should talk to the Secretary of the Interior on 

that. We appreciate that. Because, as you know, we are in a glide 

path now that is running to a time line that we just have no 

breathing room. 

Mr. PETERSON. I think that is unfortunate, really. 

Mr. COOLEY. I think so, too. 

This really is, as you know, only a grazing bill, so when you say 

it forces the grazers, that is true; it does when you read "to provide 

for uniform management of livestock grazing on Federal lands and 
101 

for other purposes". We are not circumventing anything else, only 

public lands, but this is to be directed at grazing, and so when you 

read it and you say that this looks like it is only grazing, basically 

it is grazing, but with the stipulation in there that we realize that 

there are other uses involved in it. 

And I know your comment, you feel that we have taken away the 

right of certain individuals to overgraze without any input by the 

Administration. If you check page 31, section 114(d)(1), you can see 

in there the Decrease in Authorized Grazing Use, Temporary Suspension. So I think if you read that with your comment and you 

match those two together, we have made provisions in here which 

the Administration can enforce which will circumvent your concerns. 

See, there is adequate control by the Administration for pennittees, and so I think that that one comment that you made-we 

have covered that section-! would appreciate maybe if we could 

correspond, or by phone or whatever, if you would take a look at 

that and see if you find something in that section that you do not 

feel covers your concerns, because I think it does, and I think it 

will help you. 

Mr. PETERSON. I did look at that section. It is restricted though 

to drought, fire or other natural events, or maintenance or modifications of range improvements. Mr. COOLEY. But does that mean overgrazing, installation of 

maintenance modification of range improvements? That is so encompassing, in fact, we might have made it too broad and gave the 

agencies too much latitude. 

Mr. PETERSON. My concern, if you read the next part of the bill, 

it says you have got to have all kind of data that have been developed. Mr. COOLEY. Shouldn't we be managing by science and not by 

the seat of our pants? I guess that is a tenn that we should not 

use, but we should look at this. Mr. PETERSON. I am all for good science, but I can walk outand you can, too-<>n a range allotment with a pennittee and other 

people; and generally you can reach agreement that this range is 

either in good condition or is not in good condition. And you look 

back at what the situation was five years before, and you can detennine what the trend has been, whether it is improving or not. 

Now, whether you have got scientific data that has been peer reviewed on that range is another question. That is a very expensive 

process to have scientific, peer-reviewed data on that specific allotment. Mr. COOLEY. I don't think we state that. 

Mr. PETERSON. OK. But what I am saying is, you have got to 

have judgment somewhere in the process. And that judgment has 

to be applied to hundreds of situations out there. The bill is very 

data-driven in tenns of requiring data and saying, if you have got 

to make an adjustment, it has got to be made over a five-year period of time unless the pennittee happens to agree. 

Mr. COOLEY. OK, well, the thing is, Mr. Peterson, what I think 

that we are trying to accomplish in this respect is that-! am going 

to speak on the positive side. 

Mr. PETERSON. Sure. 
102 

Mr. COOLEY [continuing]. As a cow-calf operator and one who has 

had permits in the past-! do not have any presently-! was very 

careful about making sure that the rangeland which I had a permit 

under was in good shape. I wanted to come back there next year. 

I wanted to be able to utilize the land. 

If I am not a good steward of the land, I degrade it to a pointto where, the next season, it is not there--now, I know I am not 

going to try to say that everybody might look at this the same way, 

but I think that the majority, the great, vast majority looks at the 

Federal lands in the same way. We allocate how much feed we are 

going to need for our livestock. We look at range and the conditions, and we say to ourselves, if we are not good stewards, when 

we come back next year, it is not going to be here. So sometimes 

we have a tendency to be even more cautious than the people who 

are administering the land. 

But what I am saying is, when you have confrontation, when you 

maybe have a person on the agency's side that may be overcautious, it gives the opportunity for the permittee to at least have 

some recourse in the decisionmaking process, whereas, right now, 

we have no recourse. 

Mr. PETERSON. I agree with you. I agree with everything you 

said. In fact, I think the majority of permittees, in my experience, 

are just like you; they want to do their job. They are willing to do 

a good job, and the question is, what do you do with that small percentage that give grazing a bad name because they are not good 

operators. 

I think this bill erects a whole lot of problems in dealing with 

a problem permittee. And I am not sure--I think that is really 

counterproductive to the livestock industry. Because the livestock 

industry, as I think Dr. Fowler says here, needs, to themselves, 

apply peer pressure and other things to get that poor operator to 

straighten up. 

Mr. CooLEY. Right. That is why we put those local committees 

in there. 

Mr. PETERSON. I am all for that kind of involvement of those 

boards. But I think it would make those groups even more creditable if there were some nonlivestock interests sitting on those 

boards and involved in that effort. 

Mr. COOLEY. Well, that is why we put in there, social and Stateelected officials. 

Mr. PETERSON. Let me point out the word "elected" may be a 

problem there. You see, in many States, by the constitution of that 

State, wildlife, for example, is handled by a commission. They are 

not elected; they are appointed. So that says nobody can sit on 

that--{)nly the governor in some States is an elected official--{)r 

someone at the county level. 

So these are the kinds of things, Mr. Chairman, that we would 

like to work with you on to make this-I guess, get broader support 

for some of the things you are trying to do. But using the word 

"elected" there, I think is a problem. 

Mr. CooLEY. It says "elected State and county officers" on the 

grazing advisory council, but on the advisory council, it says the 

same thing, and public at large. So I think on one of them, we have 

covered it; maybe on the other, it should be looked at. 
103 

Mr. PETERSON. On the one, you said public at large; on the other 

you restrict it to elected officials. I would like to point out that that 

grazing advisory group makes all kinds of advisory opinions on a 

lot more than just range improvement. It also says management practices. I think you get more credibility with the good work that is going on out there if you have some 

other people that are participating in the process that are more 

credible to the public at large. 

For example, I can tell you for a fact, and not to brag on my 

neighbor, Lonnie Williamson, when he comes and speaks to a group 

and says, I have been out there on those ranges and I have looked 

at them and these people are doing a good job. That means a lot 

more than if a permittee says that, because he is considered detached enough to be more objective. Or if somebody from a university says it. 

I think we need to build in credibility in this process so it doesn't 

look like the range is being managed by and for permittees, alone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COOLEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Williamson, I mentioned this before, and I would just retalk 

about it. The reason for this legislation is that we really have a 

problem now, and we have a problem between those who are not 

involved in the process and those who are on the land; and that 

is what has actually increased this friction or this confrontation 

that we are going through. 

You know, we in the West talk about the war in the West. I 

think that sometimes that describes what is happening out there. We have a problem now; we need to correct that problem. We think 

H.R. 1713 is going to help us correct that problem. And hopefully 

this will help. 

It would be nice if we had agencies, that represent the Administration, or personnel that were evenhanded across the board; and 

we find that we hear all the time about stories of uneven-handedness by agencies toward permittees, and I imagine you hear the 

other side of this issue as well. 

What we try to do in this legislation is to bring back, as it says 

in the first thing, uniform management across the country, especially on the public lands sector involved in the grazing on these 

lands. And we hope that people on the other side of the issue will 

take a look at this and see the good things involved in this process, and point out probably some of the things that you are not too 

happy with. 

But I think that overall you look at this legislation and we have 

very, very diligently tried to attempt to look at all sides of the issue 

so we could come to some common ground to the benefit of all. 

So the criticism here about splitting this wider, I am not sure it 

could be any wider than we have today and hopefully this will 

bring us back to some kind of neutral ground where we have a uni- form management system for the West on public lands; and that 

was the attempt that we are trying to do with this and it was accelerated, of course, by the recent announcement of the enforcement of the Rangeland Reform Act of 1994. So I hope your group 

appreciates what is going on here and has some empathy for our 

problems as well. 
104 

Thank you, gentlemen. Mrs. Chenoweth. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chainnan. 

Mr. Peterson, because of my respect for you, and because you 

made the comment that Mr. Brouha's statement contained a GAO 

report that backed up--

Mr. PETERSON. I believe so; in a document that is attached to his 

statement, he referred to a 1988 GAO report. I am just guessing 

that is where his numbers came from. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I just wanted you to know that what is attached to his report is an article out of a fisheries magazine that 

is authored by a Carl Annor, who is an aquatic ecologist at the 

U.S. National Biology Survey at Fort Collins and who is an aquatic 

ecologist of the U.S. Forest Service, and Wayne Elmore is a national riparian field manager for the Bureau of Land Management. 

So I just wanted that in the record. I do not find here any GAO report. 

Mr. PETERSON. Look over at the last page on the list of citations. 

On the last column, there on the right, it says, "U.S. GAO 1988 

Public Rangeland, Some Riparian Areas Restored" but widespread 

improvement is slow. I happen to be familiar with that report. I 

don't agree with all of it. It is not peer reviewed. Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Peterson, that is what he drew upon, 

these three authors, to write this article that appeared in Fisheries 

Magazine, so it is not a GAO report; it is an article that appeared 

in Fisheries Magazine. The GAO report is one of fifteen references. 

Mr. PETERSON. You were just wondering where he got some of 

the percentages from, and the only place I know he could get the 

percentages from probably was that GAO report. The only one that 

I know of; I am just trying to help you understand where he may 

have gotten those numbers. 

I was Chief of the Forest Service up until 1987, and I didn't always agree with GAO reports either; but I think that one did attempt, as best they could, to categorize the rangelands as good, 

fair, poor and so on, based on data from the field, from Forest Service and BLM people who gave that kind of an evaluation, and also 

from some other studies. And whether those numbers are right or 

not, I don't know. 

I was trying to help you understand, I think that is where he got 

the numbers. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, and I do want to say that, in all 

sincerity, I wish we had more timber sales going out like we did 

when you were head of the Forest Service. I wish the state of our 

forest was in the condition. It has been deteriorating for quite a 

while, but the Forest Service is under test now by the Congress 

and I am sure that you are almost glad you are not chief any 

longer. 

I do want to say that in paragraph 4 of your testimony-you 

didn't testify to this, but you referred to it again, and I think it is 

an incredibly important point-and you said, while the habitat on 

the public grazing lands is managed by the BLM or the U.S. Forest 

Service, under multiple use laws, the States retain the responsibility for ensuring proper conservation stewardship of the fish and 

wildlife resources on those lands. 
105 

And I think, hallelujah. You are so right, because we jealously 

guard out in the West the fact that the States own from high-water 

mark to high-water mark the beds and banks of streams, all 

streams, and they own the river and the streams and the standing 

bodies of water unless it is allocated to a permit holder. 

Mr. PETERSON. You will be happy to know that I believed that 

when I was Chief of the Forest Service, also. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I hope you still do. 

Mr. PETERSON. I tried to practice that then, and I believe it now. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And so in putting together the partnerships, 

I appreciate your calling the attention of this committee to the fact 

that it is the States that retain the responsibility; even in Idaho, 

it is a constitutional thing. 

It is a constitutional responsibility they maintain the responsibility for the fish and the wildlife. And my hat is off to you; I thank 

you for saying that. 

I do want to also brag a little bit about our ranchers over the 

last eight years. We have been going through an incredible drought 

out there in the West, and yet, as Mr. Obermiller stated, in the report that he gave out of Mr. Baka's report, that the state of the 

rangeland is continuing to improve, and I want to also say that 

when it comes to honest people, honest talk, straight thinking, I 

really feel I can ask my cattlemen and get a good straight answer. 

Mr. PETERSON. I think that is true. I would like to, as I said earlier, call a time out on the whole business and say, look, we are 

making some progress out there, why don't you leave things alone, 

let us make some progress, and maybe Congress turn their attention to something else; maybe the Administration, too. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I would love it if you could use your great influence to persuade Mr. Babbitt of that, because, as Mr. Cooley 

said, that is what precipitated-this is the only answer we could 

come up with. 

Mr. PETERSON. I promise you I will try and see what I can do. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Would you? OK. 

Mr. PETERSON. But I am not a miracle worker. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Williamson, I am so impressed with what 

you are doing out there. This is the first time I have really come 

across your program. Why don't you have Idaho listed in here? But 

you have some great organizations that you are working with, and 

this is what we all like to see. 

Mr. WILLIAMSON. It is the only approach. I remember the first 

time I sat at this table. The occupant of the chair was Mr. Aspinall 

from Colorado. That is more than 25 years ago. And as I sat here 

today, I heard the same arguments, the same groups saying the 

same things. But there is one little difference, the rangeland has 

gotten a little better. 

So we have made some progress, and the way we have done it 

is not with what has been done here in Washington, per se. I have 

less than abundant belief that laws are what we need to improve 

range management or anything else as far as natural resource 

management is concerned. What you have got to get is trust out 

there among the various groups. I don't want my friends in the livestock industry telling me they 

have a right out there. I don't think they do. I don't have one; they 
106 

don't either. That is our land. But I am going to do everything I 

can to understand what their needs are. I am going to be compromising so that they can keep their land, so that they can make 

a living, or make more than a living if they want to, and it is to 

my benefit for them to do that, and I will argue with anyone who 

wants to throw them off. 

Unless we can sit down at the table out there at the local level 

and trust each other, we are not going to get anything done. We 

had the Owl Mountain thing, I remember, the ranchers involveC:, 

the U.S. Extension Service, the Forest Service, BLM, all of the omside groups involved were very much behind that project; but we 

couldn't get the local county commission to go along; and so ths 

rancher says, fine , we will do it without you, so long. About a week 

later the county commission says I think we ought to be involve::'. 

in this. But those ranchers had enough confidence in the people that 

were interested in what was going on on the public land that they 

used, that they weren't too concerned about their local officials not 

being involved. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Well, I am interested in what you are doing, 

but I do know the 12 most dangerous words today are: "Trust me, 

I'm from the Federal Government," and "I'm here to help you." So 

we have a long way to go to build that trust. But I thank you fo:r 

the efforts that you are doing. Mr. Chairman, I know I am over my time, but I have one question I want to ask Mr. Obermiller. Mr. COOLEY. You may have extended time, whatever you would 

like. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you. 

I understand that you have been involved with this act from the 

very beginning, and I appreciate all the work that you have done 

with Mr. Cooley on this act. But you wrote an article for a newspaper called the Capital Press on June 16th of this year, and in 

that article you stated that there were several areas that needed 

improvement, which included frivolous and emotion-laden interests 

from the planning administration and management of public domain livestock grazing. 

You further stated that rangeland planning standards and guidelines need to be localized to the maximum possible extent and that 

the surcharge arrangement for subleases could be improved. The 

Livestock Grazing Act may give too much power to the BLM and 

too little room for appeal to permittees. The grazing fee provision 

of the bill results in a reasonable fee level, although there are questions about the formula. 

As the bill stands today, do you believe the concerns you have 

raised in your article of June 16th have been adequately addressed 

with the changes that you have seen in Mr. Cooley's version and 

the Senate version? 

Mr. OBERMILLER. Short answer, collectively, the Senate plus Mr. 

Cooley's, yes. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. COOLEY. Well, thank you, Mrs. Chenoweth. 

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That ends my 

questions. 
107 

Mr. COOLEY. I want to thank the panel for its indulgence. It is 

6:15 p.m. and you have been here since 10 a.m. I want to compliment each and every one of you for your perseverance, and we 

really truly appreciate your input. I think we all benefited by your 

testimony, and I just want to thank you very much, and hopefully 

we can take a look at this legislation, H.R. 1713, and have cooperation by everybody to see that this will be beneficial to all of concern. 

Thank you very much, and this meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 6:19 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, and 

the following was submitted for the record:] 
108 

104TH COXGRESS H R 1713 1ST SESSION 

• • 

To provide for uniform management of livestock grazing on F ederal land, 

and for other purposes. 

Il\' THE HOUSE OF REPRESEN"TATIVES 

MAY :25, 1995 

I 

~'lr ·. COOLIW (for· himself, ?vir·. YOU :-!G of Alaska, :l'lr-. rLI:->SE:\, :VIr. H OBEHTS, 

'lr. HEHGt: H, :\Ir. DOOLITTLE, !\tr. STDIP, 1Ir. C.IL\lmT, :llr. E>!EHSOX, ~l r. IL\Y\\'OBTIT, ~l r. T,\YLOH of.:'iortlr Carolina, :llr. ::\ETI!Em'l'TL 

:l!r. S HAilE<;G, :VIr. Lt:\\'IS of California, :V Ir. RIGGS, :\Ir-. Be:-.::-~ of Oregon, }1r. SKEJ>:-> , }!r. OCK~!AN, :Vlr. H tSrER, ~'l . BREWSTEH, :l'lrs. 

C t 'Bl "<, ~h. RADA:\0\'WH, :VIr. <'H ~IEA."\ S, :VIr-. CRAPO, ~lr . H EFLE Y, :.\lr. 

ALL.I.lm, a nd :lfrs. YtT AX01'1C'II) introduced tir e folloll'ing bill. ll'lri.:lr '"as 

refcn ed to tir e Committee on Hcsources, and in addition to the Committee 011 A:.,.,·ieulturc, fo1· a pe riod to be subsequently determined b.v the 

Speaker, in each cas<• for consideration of such proYisions as fall \l'ithin 

the jlll·isdic-t ion of t lw t'ornmittcl' concerned 

A BILL 

To provide for uniform management of livestock gTazingon Pedcral land, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and H ouse of R epresenta2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

4 (a) SHORT TITLE.-This Act may be cited as the 

5 "Livestock Grazing Act". 
109 

2 

1 (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.-The table of contents of 

2 this Act is as follows: 

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents. 

Sec. 2. Effective date. 

TITLE I-MANAGEMENT OF GRAZING 01'< FEDERAL LAND 

Subtitle A-General Provisions 

Sec. 101. Findings. 

Sec. 102. Application of title. 

Sec. 103. Objective. 

Sec. 104. Definitions. 

Sec. 105. l<' undamentals of rangeland health. 

Sec. 106. Land u~e plans. 

Sec. I 07. Rule of constntction. 

Subtitle B-Qualifications and Grazing Preferences 

Sec. Ill. Mandatory qualifications. 

Sec. 112. Acquired land. 

Sec. 113. Grazing preferences. 

Sec. 114. Changes in grazing preference status. 

Sec. 115. Changes in F ederal land acreage. 

Subtitle C-Grazing Management 

Sec. 121. Allotment management plans. 

Sec. 122. Range improvements. 

Sec. 123. Water rights. 

Sec. 124. Management of grazing 011 land under the jurisdiction 

partments and agencies. 

Subtitle D-Authorization of Grazing Use 

Sec. 131. Applications. 

Sec. 132. Grazing permits or grazing leases. 

See. 133. Free-use grazing permits. 

Sec. 134. Other grazing authorizations. 

Sec. 135. Ownership and identification of livestock. 

Sec. 136. Terms and conditions. 

Sec. 137. Fees and charges. 

of other deSec. 138. Pledge of grazing pennits or grazing leases as security for loans. 

Subtitle E-Civil Violations and Failures of Compliance 

Sec. 141. Civil violations and failures of compliance. 

Subtitle F-Unauthorized Grazing Use 

Sec. 151. Liability for damages. 

Sec. 152. Notice and order to remove. 

Sec. 153. Settlement. 

Sec. 154. Impoundment and sale. 

Subtitle G-Procedure 
See. 161. Proposed deeisions. 

See. 162. Protests. 

See. 163. Final decisions. 

Sec. 164. Appeals. 

110 

3 

Subtitle H-Advisory Committees 

Sec. 171. Purpose. 

Sec. 172. Objective. 

Sec. 173. Rela tion to other law. 

Sec. 17 4. Policy. 

See. 17 5. General provisions. 

Sec. 176. Resource ad,isory councils. 

Sec. 177. Grazing ad,~sory councils. 

Sec. 178. Meetings. 

Sec. 179. Conforming amendment and repeal. 

Subtitle !-Reports 

Sec. 181. Reports. 

TITLE II-GR.ASSLA.'W 

Sec. 201. lkmoval of grasslands from 1\ational For·est system. 

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.-This Act and the amendments 

3 and repeals made by this Act shall become effective on 

4 March 1, 1996. 

5 (b) INTERIM PROVISION.-Until the effective date 

6 specified in subsection (a), management of livestock graz7 ing on Federal land shall be conducted in accordance with 

8 the law (including regulations) in effect on May 18, 1995. 

9 TITLE I-MANAGEMENT OF 

10 GRAZING ON FEDERAL LAND 

11 Subtitle A-General Provisions 

12 SEC. 101. FINDINGS. 

13 (a) FINDTNGS.-Congress finds that14 (1) through the cooperative and concerted ef15 forts of the Federal rangeland livestock industry, 

•HR 1na m 
111 

4 

1 Federal and State land management agencies, and 

2 the general public, the Federal rangelands are in the 

3 best condition they have been in during this century, 

4 and their condition continues to improve; 

5 (2) as a further consequence of those efforts, 

6 populations of big game and vvildlife are increasing· 

7 and stabilizing across vast areas of the West; 

8 ( 3) further efforts to assist in developing and 

9 nurturing that cooperation at all levels of govern1 0 ment arc important, and those efforts will provide 

11 long-term benefits to the Nation's rangelands and 

12 their related resources; 

13 ( 4) to promote the economic, cultural, and so14 cia! well being of western States, rural communities 

15 in the western States, and the western livestock in16 dustry, it is in the public interest to charge a fee for 

17 livestock grazing permits and grazing leases on Fed18 eral land that is based on a formula that19 (A) reflects a fair return to the Federal 

20 Government and the true costs to the permittee 

21 or lessee; and 

22 (B) promotes continuing cooperative stew23 ardship efforts; 

24 (5) opportunities exist for improving efficiency 

25 in the administration of the range programs on Fed-
112 

5 

1 · era! land, and those opportunities should be pursued 

2 with goals of3 (A) reducing planning and analysis costs 

4 and their associated paperwork, procedural, and 

5 clerical burdens; and 

6 (B) refocusing efforts to the direct man7 agcment of the resources themselves; 

8 (6) in order to provide meaningful review and 

9 oversight of the management of the public range1 0 lands and the grazing allotment on those rangelands, 

11 refinement of the reporting of costs of various com12 ponents of the land management program is needed; 

13 (7) incentives for greater local input into the 

14 management of the public rangelands as well as in15 centivcs to encourage private investment in improve16 ment of the public rangelands will assist in those ef17 forts and are in the best interests of the United 

18 States; 

19 (8) the western livestock industry that relies on 

20 Federal land plays an important and integral role in 

21 maintaining and preserving the social, economic, and 

22 cultural base of rural communities in the western 

23 States and further plays an important and integral 

24 role in the economies of the 16 western States in 
113 

6 

1 which rangelands managed by the Secretary are 

2 situated; 

3 (9) maintaining the economic viability of the 

4 western livestock industry is essential to maintaining 

5 open space and habitat for big game, wildlife, and 

6 fish, but currently there are pressures to sell the 

7 base property of the Federal land ranches for sub8 division or other development, which would reduce or 

9 remove the available open space and fish and vrildlife 

10 habitat; and 

11 (10) since the enactment of the Federal Land 

12 Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 

13 1701 et seq.), the Secretary has been charged with 

14 developing land use plans that are consistent with 

15 land use plans adopted by State, local, and tribal 

16 governments, but to date the planning efforts have 

17 not produced land use plans for Federal land that 

18 is in fact consistent with State, local, or tribal plan19 mng. 

20 (b) REPEAL OF EARLIER FINDINGS.-Section 2(a) of 

21 the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 ( 43 

22 U.S.C. 1901(a)) is amended23 (1) by striking paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and 

24 (4); 
114 

7 

(2) by redesignating paragraphs (5) and (6) as 

2 paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively; 

3 (3) in paragraph (1) (as so redesignated), by 

4 adding "and" at the end; and 

5 (4) in paragraph (2) (as so redesignated)-

6 (A) by striking "harrassment" and insert7 ing "harassment"; and 

8 (B) by striking the semicolon at the end 

9 and inserting a period. 

10 SEC. 102. APPLICATION OF ACT. 

11 Except as provided in section 137(d), this Act applies 

12 to13 (1) the management of grazing on Federal land 

14 by the Secretary of the Interior under15 (A) the Act of June 28, 1934 (commonly 

16 known as the "Taylor Grazing Act") ( 48 Stat. 

17 1269, chapter 865; 43 U.S.C. 315 et seq.); 

18 (B) the Act of August 28, 1937 (commonly 

19 known as the "Oregon and California Railroad 

20 and Coos Bay Wagon Road Grant Lands Act of 

21 1937") (50 Stat. 874, chapter 876; 43 U.S.C. 

22 1181a et seq.); 

23 (C) the F ederal Land Policy and Manage24 ment Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); 
115 

8 

1 . 

2 

3 

(D) title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm 

Tenant Act (7 U.S.C. 1010 et seq.); and 

(E) any other law; and 

4 (2) the Secretary on behalf of the head of an5 other department or agency under a memorandum 

6 of understanding under section 124. 

7 SEC. 103. OBJECTIVE. 

8 The objective of this Act is to achieve9 (1) orderly use, improvement, and development 

10 of Federal land; 

11 (2) enhancement of productivity of Federal land 

12 by conservation of forage resources and reduction of 

13 soil erosion and by proper management of other re14 sources such as by control of woody species invasion; 

15 (3) stabilization of the livestock industry de16 pendent on the public rangeland; 

17 ( 4) performance of an inventory and categoriza18 tion of public rangelands on the basis of range con19 ditions and trends; and 

20 (5) consideration of wildlife populations and 

21 habitat, 

22 consistent with land-use plans, multiple-use, sustained 

23 yield, environmental values, and economic and other objec24 tives stated in the Acts cited in section 102. 

•HR 1713 1H 
1 SEC. 104. DEFINITIONS. 

116 

9 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.-In this Act: 

3 (1) ACTIVE USE.-The term "active use" 

4 means the amount of authorized livestock grazmg 

5 use that is being made at any time. 

6 (2) ACTCAI, USE.-The term "actual use" 

7 means the places at which, the number and kinds or 

8 classes of, and the length of time that livestock 

9 gTaze on an allotment. 

10 (3) ACTFAL liSE REPOH'l'.-The term "actual 

11 use report" means a report of the actual livestock 

12 grazing use submitted by a permittee or lessee. 

13 ( 4) A}'l~ECTED INTEREST.-The term "affected 

14 interest" means an individual or organization that15 (A) has e:ll:pressed in writing to an author16 ized officer concern for the management of live17 stock grazing on a specific grazing allotment 

18 and has provided substantiated evidence that 

19 the management of the public lands will affect 

20 the individual or organization; and 

21 (B) has been determined by an authorized 

22 officer to be an affected interest. 

23 (5) ALLOTME:'\T.-The term "allotment" means 

24 an area of designated Federal land that includes 

25 management for grazing of livestock. 
117 

10 

1 (6) ALLOTMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN.-The 

2 term "allotment management plan"-

3 (A) means a documented program that ap4 plies to livestock grazing on an allotment; and 

5 (B) includes such a documented plan that 

6 rs included in an activity plan that governs 

7 grazing as well as other activities on Federal 

8 land. 

9 (7) ANIMAL UNIT l\IONTH.-

10 (A) S'l'ATE DEFINITION.-With respect to 

11 grazing on Federal land in a State that charges 

12 a fee for grazing on State land based on a for13 mula in which 1 of the factors is an animal unit 

14 month, the term "animal unit month" has the 

15 meaning established under State law. 

16 (B) NO STATE DEI•'INITION.-

17 (i) IN m~NERAL.-Subject to clause 

18 (ii), with respect to grazing on Federal 

19 land in a State other than a State de20 scribed m subparagraph (A), the term 

21 "animal unit month" means 1 month's use 

22 and occupancy of range by23 (I) 1 cow, bull, steer, heifer, 

24 horse, burro, or mule, 7 sheep; or 7 

25 goats, each of which is 6 months of 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

118 

11 

age or older on the date on which the 

animal begins grazing on Federal 

land; 

(II) any such animal regardless 

of age if the animal is weaned on the 

date on which the animal begins grazing on Federal land; and 

(III) any such animal that ·will 

become 12 months of age during the 

period of use authorized under a gTazing permit or grazing lease. 

(ii) LIVES'l'OCK NOT COUN'l'ED.-

There shall not be counted as an animal 

unit month the use of Federal land for 

grazing by-

(I) an animal that is less than 6 

months of age on the date on which 

the animal begins grazing on Federal 

land and is the natural progeny of an 

animal on which a grazing fee is paid 

if the animal is removed from the 

Federal land before becoming 12 

months of age; or 

(II) an animal that is progeny, 

born during the period of use author-
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

1 1 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

119 

12 

ized under a grazing permit or grazing lease, of an animal on which a 

grazing fee is paid. 

(8) AUTHORIZED OFFICER-The term "authorized officer" means a person authorized by the Secretary to administer this title, the Acts cited in section 102, and regulations issued under this title and 

those Acts. 

(9) BASE PROPI<JRTY.-The term "base property" means-

(A) land that has the capability of producing crops or forage that can be used to support 

authorized livestock for a specified period of the 

v vear· , and 

(B) water that is suitable for consumption 

by livestock and is available to and accessible by 

authorized livestock when the land is used for 

livestock grazing. 

(10) CANCEI.J; CANCELLATION.-The terms 

20 "cancel" and "cancellation" refer to a permanent 

21 termination, in whole or in part, of22 (A) a grazing permit or grazing lease and 

23 grazing preference; or 

24 (B) a free-use grazing permit or other 

25 grazing authorization. 
120 

13 

(11) CLASS.-The term "class", in reference to 

2 livestock, refers to the age and sex of a group of 

3 livestock. 

4 (12) CO.:\SCL'l'ATIO:\', COOPERA'l'IO.:\, AND C0-

5 ORDINATIO:\'.-The term "consultation, cooperation, 

6 and coordination" has the meaning stated in section 

7 402(d) of the Federal Land Policy and Management 

8 Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1752(d)), as amended. 

9 (13) CO:\'THOL.-The term "control", in ref10 erence to base property or Evestock, means respon11 sibility for providing- care and management of base 

12 property or livestock. 

13 (14) :F'EDERAL LA:\'D.-The term "}'ederal 

14 land"-

15 (A) means land or an interest in land out16 side the State of Alaska that is owned by the 

17 United States and administered by the Sec18 retary of the Interior, acting through the Dircc19 tor of the Bureau of Land Management; but 

20 (B) does not include land held for the ben21 e5t of Indians. 

22 (15) GRAZI~G DISTRICT.-The term "gnzing 

23 district" means the specific area within which Fed24 era! land is administered under section 3 of the Act 

25 of June 28, 1934 (commonly known as the "Taylor 
121 

14 

1 Grazing Act") ( 48 Stat. 1270, chapter 865; 43 

2 u.s.c. 315b). 

3 (16) GRAZING FEE YEAR.-The term "grazing 

4 fee year", for billing purposes, means a 12-month 

5 period that begins on March 1 of a year and ends 

6 on the last day of February of the following year. 

7 (17) GRAZING LEASE.-The term "grazing 

8 lease" means a document authorizing use of Federal 

9 land outside grazing districts under section 15 of the 

10 Act of June 28, 1934 (commonly known as the 

11 "Taylor Grazing Act") (48 Stat. 1275, chapter 865; 

12 43 U.S.C. 315m), for the purpose of grazing live13 stock. 

14 (18) GRAZING PEHMI'l'.-The term "grazing 

15 permit" means a document authorizing use of the 

16 Federal land within a grazing district under section 

17 3 of the Act of June 28, 1934 (commonly known as 

18 the "Taylor Grazing Act") (48 Stat. 1270, chapter 

19 865; 43 U.S.C. 315b), for the purpose of grazing 

20 livestock. 

21 (19) GRAZING PREFERENCE.-The term "gTaz22 ing preference" means the number of animal unit 

23 months of livestock grazing on Federal land as adju24 dicated or apportioned and attached to base prop25 erty owned or controlled by a permittee or lessee. 
122 

15 

(20) LAND BASE PROPERTY.-The term "land 

2 base property" means base property described in 

3 paragraph (9)(A). 

4 (21) LAND USE PLAN.-The term "land use 

5 plan" means6 (A) a resource management plan; or 

7 (B) a management framework plan that is 

8 in effect pending completion of a resource man9 agement plan, 

10 developed in accordance with the F ederal Land Poll I icy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 

12 et seq.). 

I 3 (22) LIVESTOCK.-'l'he term " livestock" 

14 mcans15 (A) a species of domestic livestock, includ16 ing cattle, sheep, horses, burros, and goats; and 

I 7 (B) a member of such a species. 

18 (23) LrvESTOCK CARRYI:\G CAPACITY.-'l'he 

19 term "livestock carrying capacity" means the maxi20 mum sustainable stocking rate that is possible with21 out inducing permanent damage to vegetation or re22 lated resources. 

23 (24) MONITORING.-The term "monitoring" 

24 means the periodic observation and orderly collection 

25 of data to evaluate-
123 

16 

1 (A) effects of management actions; and 

2 (B) effectiveness of actions in meeting 

3 management objectives. 

4 (25) RANGE IMPROVEMENT.-The term "range 

5 improvement"-

6 (A) means an authorized activity or pro7 gram on or relating to rangeland that is de8 signed to9 (i) improve production of forage; 

10 (ii) chang·e vegetative composition; 

11 (iii) control patterns of use; 

12 (iv) provide water; 

13 (v) stabilize soil and water conditions; 

14 or 

15 (vi) provide habitat for livestock, wild 

16 horses and burros, and wildlife; and 

17 (B) includes structures, treatment projects, 

18 and use of mechanical means to accomplish the 

19 goals described in subparagraph (A). 

20 (26) RANGELA.t\ID STUDY.-The term "range21 land study" means a method of study for collecting 

22 data on actual use, utilization, climatic conditions, 

23 other special events, production trend, and range24 land condition and trend to determine whether man25 agement objectives are being met, that-

•HR 1713 m 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

124 

17 

(A) uses physical examination of measurements of range attributes and does not rely on 

a cursory visual scanning of land unless the 

condition to be assessed is patently obvious and 

requires no physical examination; and 

(B) is accepted by an authorized officer. 

(27) SECH-ETARY.-The term "Secretary" 

8 means the Secretary of the Interior. 

9 (28) SEH-VICE AREA.-The term "service area" 

10 means the area that can be properly gTazed by live11 stock watering at a certain water. 

12 (29) STOCKING RATE.-The term "stocking 

13 rate" means the number of animal unit months au14 thorized under a grazing permit or grazing lease 

15 from year to year. 

16 (30) St:BLEASE.-The term "sublease" means 

17 an agreement by a permittee or lessee that18 (A) allows a person other than the permit19 tee or lessee to gTaze livestock on Federal land 

20 without controlling the base property support21 ing the grazing permit or grazing lease; or 

22 (B) allows grazing on Federal land by live23 stock not owned or controlled by the permittee 

24 or lessee. 
125 

18 

(31) SUPPLEMENTAL FEED.-The term "sup2 plemental feed" means a feed that supplements the 

3 forage available from Federal land and is provided 

4 to improve livestock nutrition or rangeland manage5 ment. 

6 (32) SUSPEND; SUSPENSION.-The terms "sus7 pend" and "suspension" refer to a temporary with8 holding, in whole or in part, of a gTazing preference 

9 from active use, ordered by the Secretary or done 

10 voluntarily by a permittee or lessee. 

11 (33) TREND.-The term "trend" means the di12 rection of change, over time, toward or away from 

13 a desired management objective. 

14 (34) UTILIZATION.-The term "utilization" 

15 means the percentage of a year's herbage production 

16 consumed or destroyed by herbivores. 

17 (35) WATER BASE PROPERTY.-The term 

18 "water base property" means base property de19 scribed in paragraph (9)(B). 

20 (b) CONSULTATION, COOPERATION, AND COORDINA21 TION.-Section 402(d) of the Federal Land Policy 

22 and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1752(d)) is 

23 amended24 (1) by inserting a comma after "cooperation" 

25 each place it appears; and 
126 

19 

1 (2) by adding at the end the following: "As 

2 used in this subsection, the term 'consultation, co3 . operation, and coordination' means engagement in a 

4 good faith effort to reach consensus on issues, plans, 

5 or management actions from6 "(1) other agencies, permittees or lessees, and 

7 affected interests involved in an activity with respect 

8 to which consultation, cooperation, and coordination 

9 are required under this title; 

10 "(2) resource advisory councils established 

11 under section 177 of the Livestock Grazing Act; 

12 "(3) any State having land within the area to 

13 be covered by an allotment management plan; and 

14 " ( 4) additional affected interests (as defined in 

15 section 104(a)(4) of the Livestock Grazing Act).". 

16 SEC. 105. FUNDAMENTALS OF RANGELAND HEALTH. 

17 (a) STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES.-The Secretary 

18 shall establish standards and guidelines on a State or re19 gional level in conjunction with the State department of 

20 agriculture or other appropriate agency and the land-grant 

21 university or other appropriate institution of higher edu22 cation of each interested State. 

23 (b) RULE Ol<' CONSTRUCTION.-Nothing in this Act 

24 or any other law implies that a minimum national stand25 ard or guideline is necessary. 
127 

20 

1 SEC. 106. LAND USE PLANS. 

2 (a) PRINCIPLE OF MULTIPLE USE AND SUSTAINED 

3 YIELD.-An authorized officer shall manage livestock 

4 grazing on Federal land under the principle of multiple 

5 use and sustained yield and in accordance with applicable 

6 land use plans. 

7 (b) CONTENTS OF LAND USE PLAN.-A land use 

8 plan shall9 (1) establish allowable resource uses (singly or 

10 m combination), related levels of production or use 

11 to be maintained, areas of use, and resource condi12 tion goals and objectives to be obtained; and 

13 (2) set forth programs and general manage14 ment practices needed to achieve management objec15 tives. 

16 (c) APPLICATION OF NEPA.-A land use plan shall 

17 be developed in conformance with the requirements of the 

18 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 

19 4321 et seq.). 

20 (d) Co:--rFORMANCE WITH LAND USE PLAN.-Live21 stock grazing activities and management actions approved 

22 by the authorized officer23 (1) may include any such activities as are not 

24 clearly prohibited by a land use plan; and 

25 (2) shall not require any consideration under 

26 the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
128 

21 

1 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in addition to the studies sup2 porting the land use plan. 

3 SEC. 107. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. 

4 Nothing in this title shall be construed to reduce or 

5 otherwise limit the levels of livestock grazing that were 

6 authorized to be permitted as of August 1, 1993. 

7 Subtitle B-Qualifications and 

8 Grazing Preferences 

9 SEC. 111. MANDATORY QUALIFICATIONS. 

10 Except as provided under sections 112, 114, and 

11 134(c), to qualify for grazing use on Federal land an ap12 plicant shall13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

( 1) be engaged in the livestock business; 

(2) own or control base property; and 

(3) be-

(A) a citizen of the United States or a person who has properly filed a valid declaration of 

intention to become a citizen or a valid petition 

for naturalization; 

(B) a group or association authorized to 

conduct business in the State in which the grazing use is sought, all members of which are persons described in subparagraph (A); or 
129 

22 

1 (C) a corporation authorized to conduct 

2 business in the State in which the grazing use 

3 is sought. 

4 SEC. 112. ACQUIRED LAND. 

5 With respect to land acquired by the Secretary 

6 through purchase, exchange, Act of Congress, or Execu7 tive order under the terms of which the Secretary is re8 quired to honor an existing grazing permit or grazing 

9 lease, the permittee or lessee shall be considered qualified 

10 for grazing use on that land. 

11 SEC. 113. GRAZING PREFERENCES. 

12 (a) BASE PROPERTY.-

13 (1) CRITERIA.-An authorized officer shall find 

14 land or water owned or controlled by an applicant 

15 for a grazing permit or grazing lease to be base 

16 property if the land or water17 (A) serves as a base for a livestock oper18 ation that utilizes Federal land within a grazing 

19 district; or 

20 (B) is contiguous land, or noncontiguous 

21 land if no applicant for the grazing permit or 

22 grazing lease owns or controls contiguous land, 

23 used in conjunction with a livestock operation 

24 that utilizes Federal land outside a grazing 

25 district. 
130 

23 

1 (2) SPECIFICATION OF LENGTH OF TIME.-

2 After appropriate consultation, cooperation, and co3 ordination with the applicant only, an authorized of4 ficer shall specify the length of time for which land 

5 base property shall be considered to be capable of 

6 supporting authorized livestock during the year, rel7 ative to the multiple use management objective of 

8 Federal land. 

9 (3) SUBMISSION BY APPLICANT.-An applicant 

10 shall11 (A) provide a legal description, or plat, of 

12 the base property; and 

13 (B) certify to the authorized officer that 

14 the base property meets the requirements under 

15 paragraphs (1) and (2). 

16 (4) LOSS OF OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL.-

17 (A) IN GENERAL.-Except as provided m 

18 subparagraph (B), if a permittee or lessee loses 

19 ownership or control of all or part of the base 

20 property, the grazing permit or grazing lease, to 

21 the extent it was based on the lost property, 

22 shall terminate immediately, without notice 

23 from the authorized officer. 

24 (B) EXTENSION OF TERMINATION DATE.-

25 If, prior to losing ownership or control of the 
131 

24 

1 base property, the permittee or lessee requests 

2 in writing that the grazing permit or grazing 

3 lease be extended to the end of the grazing sea4 son or grazing year, the authorized officer, after 

5 consultation with the new owner or person in 

6 control, may grant the request. 

7 (C) AVAII"ABILITY FOR TRANSFER.-When 

8 a grazing permit or gTazing lease terminates be9 cause of a loss of ownership or control of a base 

10 property, the gTazing preference shall remain 

11 with the base property and be available for 

12 transfer under subsection (c) to the new owner 

13 or person in control of the base property. 

14 (5) ISOLATED OR DISCONNECTED FEDERAL 

15 LAND.-An applicant that owns or controls base 

16 property contiguous to or cornering on a tract of 

17 Federal land outside a grazing district that consists 

18 of an isolated or disconnected tract embracing 760 

19 acres or less shall, for a period of 90 days after the 

20 tract has been offered for grazing lease, have a pref21 erence right to graze the tract. 

22 (b) SPECIFYING GRAZING PREFERENCE.-

23 (1) IN GENERAL.-A grazing permit or grazing 

24 lease shall specify a grazing preference that in25 eludes-
132 

25 

1 (A) a historical grazing preference right; 

2 (B) active use, based on the amount of for3 age available for livestock grazing established in 

4 the land use plan; 

5 (C) suspended use; and 

6 (D) voluntary and temporary nonuse. 

7 (2) ATTACHMENT OF GRAZING PREFERENCE.-

8 A grazing preference identified in a grazing permit 

9 or grazing lease shall attach to the base property 

10 supporting the grazing permit or gTazing lease. 

11 (3) ATTACHMENT OF ANIMAl, UNIT MO~THS.-

12 The animal unit months of a grazing preference 

13 shall attach to14 (A) the acreag·e of land base property on a 

15 pro rata basis; or 

16 (B) water base property on the basis of 

17 livestock forage production within the service 

18 area of the water. 

19 (c) TRANSFER OF GRAZING PREFERENCE.-

20 (1) IN GENERAL.-A transfer of a grazing pref21 erence, in whole or in part, may be made in accord22 ance with this subsection. 

23 (2) QUALIFICATION OF TRANSFEREE.-A trans24 feree shall meet all necessary qualifications for a 

25 grazing preference under this title. 
133 

26 

1 (3) APPLICATION.-An application to transfer a 

2 grazing preference shall evidence assignment of in3 terest and obligation in range improvements author4 ized on Federal land under section 122 and mainS tained in conjunction with the transferred pref6 erence. 

7 (4) ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION OF TERMS AND 

8 CONDITIONS.-A transferee of a grazing preference 

9 may elect to accept or reject the terms and condi1 0 tions of the terminating grazing permit or gTazing 

11 lease and of any related cooperative agTeement or 

12 range improvement permit or to accept those terms 

13 and conditions with such modifications as the trans14 feree may request and the authorized officer approve 

15 or with such modifications as the authorized officer 

16 may require. 

17 (5) APPLICATION FOR GRAZING PERMIT OR 

18 GRAZING LEASE.-A proposed transferee shall file 

19 an application for a grazing permit or grazing lease 

20 to the extent of the transferred grazing preference 

21 simultaneously with the filing of a transfer applica22 tion. 

23 (6) TRANSFERS.-

24 

25 

(A) TRANSFERS ON SALE OR GRAZING 

LEASE OF BASE PROPERTY.-lf base property is 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

134 

27 

sold or leased, the transferee, not later than 90 

days after the date of sale or grazing lease, 

shall file with the authorized officer a properly 

executed transfer application that-

(i) identifies the base property; and 

(ii) states the amount of grazing preference being transferred in animal unit 

months. 

(B) TRANSFER FROM BASE PROPERTY TO 

BASE PROPERTY.-

(i) IN GENERAL.-lf a grazing preference is being transferred from 1 base 

property to another base property, the 

transferor shall own or control the base 

property from which the grazing preference 

is being transferred and file with the authorized officer a properly completed transfer application for approval. 

(ii) CONSENT OF OWNER OF LEASED 

BASE PROPERTY.-lf the transferor leases 

the base property, no transfer shall be allowed without the written consent of the 

owner and of any person or entity holding 

an encumbrance of the base property from 

which the transfer is to be made unless the 
135 

28 

1 transferor is a lessee without whose live2 stock operations the grazing preference 

3 would not have been established. 

4 (7) TERMINATION.-On the date of approval of 

5 a transfer, the existing grazing permit or grazing 

6 lease shall terminate automatically and without no7 tice to the extent of the transfer. 

8 (8) ACQUISITION OF BASE PROPERTY BY PER9 SON NOT QUALIFIED.-

10 (A) NO EFFECT FOR 2 YEARS.-For a pe11 riod of 2 years after an unqualified transferee 

12 acquires rights in base property through oper13 ation of law or testamentary disposition, the 

14 transfer shall not15 (i) affect the grazing preference or 

16 any outstanding grazing permit or grazing 

17 lease; or 

18 (ii) preclude the issuance or renewal 

19 of a grazing permit or grazing lease based 

20 on the base property. 

21 (B) CANCELLATION.-lf an unqualified 

22 transferee fails to qualify for a transfer under 

23 this section within the 2-year period described 

24 in subparagraph (A), the grazing preference 

25 shall be subject to cancellation, but the author-
136 

29 

1 ized officer may grant extensions of the 2-year 

2 period if there have been delays solely attrib3 utable to probate proceedings. 

4 (9) FAILURE TO COMPLY.-Failure of a trans5 feree or transferor to comply with this subsection 

6 may result in rejection of the transfer application or 

7 cancellation of the grazing preference. 

8 (d) . ALLOTMEKTS.-Mter consultation, cooperation, 

9 and coordination with permittees or lessees, an authorized 

10 officer may designate and adjust allotment boundaries. 

11 SEC. 114. CHANGES IN GRAZING PREFERENCE STATUS. 

12 (a) IN GENERAL.-An authorized officer shall peri13 odically review the stocking rate specified in a grazing per14 mit or grazing lease and may make changes in the status 

15 of the stocking rate. 

16 (b) SuPPORT.-A change in a stocking rate shall be 

17 supported by monitoring, as evidenced by rangeland stud18 ies conducted over time, and as is specified in an applica19 ble land use plan or as is necessary to manage, maintain, 

20 or improve rangeland productivity. 

21 (c) INCREASE IN ACTIVE USE.-

22 (1) IN GENERAL.-Any additional forage that 

23 becomes available may be apportioned to a qualified 

24 applicant for livestock grazing use, consistent with 

25 multiple-use management objectives. 
137 

30 

1 (2) TEMPORARY AVAILABILITY.-Any additional 

2 forage that becomes temporarily available for live3 stock grazing use (including forage that is tempo4 rarily available within an allotment because of a 

5 change in grazing use under section 131(b)) may be 

6 apportioned on a nonrenewable basis. 

7 (3) AVAILABILITY ON SUSTAINED USE BASIS.-

8 (A) IN GENERAL.-Any additional forage 

9 that becomes available on a sustained yield 

10 basis for livestock grazing use shall be appor11 tioned in satisfaction of grazing preferences to 

12 the permittees and lessees authorized to gTaze 

13 in the allotment in which the forage is available 

14 before being apportioned to other persons under 

15 subparagraph (B). 

16 (B) APPORTIONMENT TO OTHERS.-After 

17 consultation, cooperation, and coordination, ad18 ditional forage on a sustained yield basis avail19 able for livestock grazing use exceeding the 

20 amount of grazing preferences of the permittees 

21 and lessees in an allotment may be apportioned 

22 in the following priority to23 (i) permittees and lessees m propor24 tion to their contribution or efforts that re25 suited in increased forage production; 
138 

31 

(ii) permittees or lessees in proportion 

2 to the amount of their grazing preferences; 

3 and 

4 (iii) other qualified applicants under 

5 section 131. 

6 (d) DECREASE IN AUTHORIZED GRAJ.;ING USE.-

7 (1) TEMPORARY SUSPENSION.-

8 (A) IN GENERAL.-Active use may be sus9 pended in whole or in part on a temporary basis 

10 to facilitate11 (i) recovery from drought, fire, or an12 other natural event; or 

13 (ii) installation, maintenance, or modi14 fication of range improvements. 

15 (B) lMPLEMENTATION.-If an authorized 

16 officer determines that the soil, vegetation, or 

17 other resources on Federal land ·require tem18 porary protection because of conditions such as 

19 drought, fire, flood, or insect infestation, after 

20 consultation, cooperation, and coordination with 

21 affected permittees or lessees and other affected 

22 interests, action shall be taken to close allot23 ments or portions of allotments to grazing by 

24 any kind of livestock or to modify authorized 

25 grazing use. 
139 

32 

(2) PERMAJ>IENT SUSPENSION.-When monitor2 ing shows that active use is causing an unacceptable 

3 level or pattern of utilization or exceeds the livestock 

4 carrying capacity, as determined through monitorS ing, an authorized officer, after evaluating and im6 plementing all reasonable and viable management 

7 practices or alternatives, shall reduce active use if 

8 necessary to maintain or improve rangeland produc9 tivity only if the authorized officer determines that 

10 a change in management practices would not achieve 

11 the manag·ement objectives. 

12 (3) PERIOD OF SUSPENSION.-When active use 

13 is reduced, the active use shall be held in suspension 

14 or in nonuse for conservation and protection pur15 poses until the authorized officer determines that ac16 tive use may resume. 

17 (e) IMPLEMENTATION OF CHANGES IN AVAILABLE 

18 FORAGE.-

19 (1) PHASING-lN.-A change in active use in ex20 cess of 10 percent shall be implemented over a 5-

21 year period, unless, after consultation with the af22 fected permittees or lessees and other affected inter23 ests, an agreement is reached to implement the in24 crease or decrease over less than a 5-year period. 

25 (2) SUSPENSION OF' GRAZING PREFERENCE.-
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

140 

33 

(A) IN GENERAL.-After consultation, cooperation, and coordination, a suspension of a 

grazmg preference shall be implemented 

through a documented agreement or by decision 

of an authorized officer. 

(B) DATA · AVAILABLE.-If acceptable 

range analysis data are properly gathered, analyzed, and reviewed by the authorized officer, 

an initial decrease shall be taken on the effective date of the agreement or decision and the 

balance taken in the third and fifth years following that effective date, except as provided in 

paragraph (1). 

(C) DATA NOT AVAII,ABLE.-If data acceptable to the authorized officer to support an 

initial decrease are not available-

(i) additional data shall be collected 

through monitoring and in coordination 

with the land-grant university (or other appropriate institution of higher education) 

and department of agriculture of the State; 

and 

(ii) adjustments based on the additional data shall be implemented by agree-
1 

141 

34 

ment or decision ·that will initiate the 5-

2 year implementation period. 

3 SEC. 115. CHANGES IN FEDERAL LAND ACREAGE. 

4 (a) INCREASES IN LAND ACREAGE.-lf land outside 

5 a designated allotment becomes available for livestock 

6 grazing7 (1) the forage available for livestock shall be 

8 made available to a qualified applicant at the discre9 tion of the authorized officer; and 

10 (2) grazing use shall be apportioned under sec11 tion 131. 

12 (b) DECREASE IN LAND ACREAGB.-

13 (1) IN GENERAL.-If there is a decrease in 

14 Federal land acreage available for livestock gTazing 

15 within an allotment16 (A) grazing permits or gTazing leases may 

17 be canceled, suspended, or modified as appro18 priate to reflect the changed area of use; and 

19 (B) grazing preferences may be canceled or 

20 suspended in whole or in part. 

21 (2) EQUITABLE APPORTIONMENT.-A cancella22 tion or suspension determined by the authorized offi23 cer to be necessary to protect Federal land-
142 

35 

1 (A) shall be apportioned as agreed among 

2 the authorized users and the authorized officer; 

3 or 

4 (B) if no agreement is reached, shall be eq5 uitably apportioned by the authorized officer 

6 based on the level of available forage and mag7 nitude of the change in Federal land acreage 

8 available. 

9 (3) DISPOSITION OR USE FOR PUBLIC PUR10 POSE.-

11 (A) IN GENERAL.-If Federal land is dis12 posed of or devoted to a public purpose so as 

13 to preclude livestock gTazing, the Secretary 

14 shall, except in a case of emergency such . as 

15 need to satisfy a national defense requirement 

16 in time of war or a natural disaster, provide 

17 permittees and lessees 2 years' notice prior to 

18 cancellation of grazing permits, grazing leases, 

19 and grazing preferences. 

20 (B) WAJVER.-A permittee or lessee may 

21 unconditionally waive the 2-year prior notifica22 tion required by subparagraph (A). 

23 (C) RIGHT TO COMPENSATION.-A waiver 

24 under subparagTaph (B) shall not prejudice a 

25 permittee's or lessee's right to reasonable com-
143 

36 

1 pensation at (but not in excess of) the fair mar2 ket value of the permittee's or lessee's interest 

3 in authorized permanent range improvements 

4 located on Federal land. 

5 Subtitle C-Grazing Management 

6 SEC. 121. ALLOTMENT MANAGEMENT PLANS. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.-An allotment management plan 

8 shall be prepared in careful and considered consultation, 

9 cooperation, and coordination with permittees and lessees, 

10 landowners, the grazing advisory council for the grazing 

11 district, and any State having land within the area to be 

12 covered by the allotment management plan. 

13 (b) CONTENTS.-An allotment management plan 

14 shall15 ( 1) include the terms and conditions described 

16 in section 136; 

17 (2) prescribe the livestock grazmg practices 

18 necessary to meet specific multiple-use management 

19 objectives; 

20 (3) specify the limits of flexibility within which 

21 the permittee or lessee may adjust operations with22 out prior approval of the authorized officer; and 

23 ( 4) provide for monitoring to evaluate the effec24 tiveness of management actions in achieving the spe25 cific multiple-use management objectives of the plan. 
144 

37 

1 (c) PRIVATE Al"'D STATE LAND.-Private and State 

2 land shall be included in an allotment management plan 

3 with the consent or at the request of the person that owns 

4 or controls the land. 

5 (d) INCORPORATION IN GRAZING PERMITS Al"'D 

6 GRAZING LEASES.-An allotment management plan shall 

7 be incorporated into the affected grazing permits and 

8 grazing leases. 

9 (e) SATISFACTION OF REQUIREMENTS OF OTHER 

10 LAWS.-The issuance of a grazing permit or grazing lease 

11 that is consistent with a land use plan shall not be consid12 ered to be a Federal action requiring the conduct of any 

13 study or assessment under the National Environmental 

14 Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) or any other 

15 law. 

16 SEC. 122. RANGE IMPROVEMENTS. 

17 (a) RA.l"'GE IMPROVEMENT COOPERATIVE AGREE18 MENTS.-

19 (1) IN GENERAL.-The Secretary may enter 

20 into a cooperative agreement with a permittee or les21 see for the construction, installation, modification, 

22 maintenance, or use of a permanent range improve23 ment or development of a rangeland to achieve a 

24 management or resource condition objective. 
145 

38 

1 (2) COST-SHARING.-A range improvement co2 operative agreement shall specify how the costs or 

3 labor, or both, shall be shared between the United 

4 States and the other parties to the agreement. 

5 (3) TITLE.-

6 (A) IN GENERAL.-Subject to valid exist7 ing rights, title to an authorized permanent 

8 range improvement under a range improvement 

9 cooperative agreement shall be in the name of 

I 0 the permittee or lessee and of the United 

II States, respectively, in proportion to the value 

I2 of the contributions (funding, material, and 

I3 labor) toward the initial cost of construction by 

I4 the United States and the permittee or lessee, 

I5 respectively. 

16 (B) VALUE OF FEDERAL LAND.-For the 

I7 purpose of subparagraph (A), only a contribuI8 tion to the construction, installation, modificaI9 tion, or maintenance of a permanent rangeland 

20 improvement itself, and not the value of Fed2I eral land on which the improvement. is placed, 

22 shall be taken into account. 

23 

24 

25 

(C) MA.INTENANCE.-Maintenance of 

range improvements in the form of time as 

labor or monetary expenditures shall be applied 
146 

39 

1 to the value and percentage of ownership pro2 portionate to the value of the contribution by a 

3 party to the cooperative agreement. 

4 ( 4) NONSTRUCTURAL RANGE IMPROVES MENTS.-A range improvement cooperative agree6 ment shall ensure that the respective parties enjoy 

7 the benefits of any nonstructural range improveS ment, such as seeding, spraying, and chaining, in 

9 proportion to each party's contribution to the im10 provement. 

11 (5) INCENTIVE.-A range improvement cooper12 ative agreement shall contain terms and conditions 

13 that are designed to provide a permittee or lessee an 

14 incentive for investing in range improvements. 

15 (b) RANGE IMPROVEMENT PERMITS.-

16 (1) APPLICATION.-A permittee or lessee may 

17 apply for a range improvement permit to construct, 

18 install, modify, maintain, or use a range improve19 ment that is needed to achieve management objec20 tives within the permittee's or lessee's allotment. 

21 (2) FUNDING.-A permittee or lessee shall 

22 agree to provide full funding for construction, instal23 lation, modification, or maintenance of a range im24 provement covered by a range improvement permit. 
147 

40 

1 (3) AUTHORIZED OFFICER TO ISSUE.-A range 

2 improvement permit shall be issued at the discretion 

3 of the authorized officer. 

4 (4) TITLE.-Title to an authorized permanent 

5 range improvement under a range improvement per6 mit shall be in the name of the permittee or lessee. 

7 (5) CONTROL.-The use by livestock of stock 

8 ponds or wells authorized by a range improvement 

9 permit shall be controlled by the permittee or lessee 

10 holding a range improvement permit. 

11 (c) STAl~DARDS, DESIGN, AND STIPULATIONS.-A 

12 range improvement cooperative agreement under sub13 section (a) and a range improvement permit under sub14 section (b) shall specify the standards and design, con15 struction, and maintenance criteria for the range improve16 ments. 

17 (d) AsSIGNMENT OF RANGE lMPROVEMENTS.-An 

18 authorized officer shall not approve the transfer of a graz19 ing preference under section 113(c) or approve use by the 

20 transferee of existing range improvements unless the 

21 transferee has agreed to compensate the transferor for the 

22 transferor's interest in the authorized improvements with23 in the allotment as of the date of the transfer. 

24 (e) REMOVAL AND COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF 

25 RANGE IMPROVEMENTS.-
148 

41 

1 (1) PROHIBITION OF REMOVAL.-A person shall 

2 not remove a range improvement from Federal land 

3 without authorization by the authorized officer. 

4 (2) REQUIREMENT TO REMOVE.-The authorS ized officer may require a permittee or lessee to re6 move a range improvement on Federal land that the 

7 permittee or lessee owns if the improvement is no 

8 longer helping to achieve land use plan or allotment 

9 goals and objectives or if the improvement fails to 

10 meet the standards and criteria of subsection (c). 

11 (3) CANCELLATION OI<' GI~ING PERMI1' OR 

12 G~ING LEASE.-

13 (A) IN GENERAL.-If a grazing permit or 

14 grazing lease is canceled in order to devote Fed15 era! land covered by the grazing permit or graz16 ing lease to another public purpose, including 

17 disposal, the permittee or lessee shall be enti18 tied to receive from the United States reason19 able compensation for the value of the permit20 tee's or lessee's interest in authorized perma21 nent range improvements purchased by the per22 mittee or lessee or placed or constructed by the 

23 permittee or lessee on Federal land covered by 

24 the canceled grazing permit or grazing lease. 
149 

42 

1 (B) FAIR MARKET VALUE.-The value of a 

2 permitee's or lessee's interest under subpara3 graph (A) shall be equal to the fair market 

4 value of the terminated portion of the permitS tee's or lessee's interest in the permanent range 

6 improvements. 

7 (C) SALVAGE AND REHABILITATION .-ln a 

8 case in which a range improvement is author9 ized by a range improvement permit or range 

10 improvement cooperative agreement, the perIl mittee or lessee may elect to salvage materials 

12 and perform rehabilitation measures rather 

13 than accept compensation for the fair market 

14 value. 

15 (4) CANCgLLATION (H' RANGE LVIPROVEMENT 

16 PEltMIT OR COOPERATIVE AOREEl\lENT.-If a range 

17 improvement permit or range improvement coopera18 tive agreement is canceled, the permittee or lessee 

19 shall be allowed 180 days after the date of cancella20 tion in which to salvage material O\med by the lessee 

21 or permittee and perform rehabilitation measures 

22 necessitated by the salvage. 

23 (i) CoNTRIBUTIONS.- An authorized officer may ac24 cept contributions of labor, material, equipment, or money 
150 

43 

for administration, protection, and improvement of Fed2 era! land necessary to achieve the objectives of this title. 

3 (j) TRANSVIm Ol<' 0WNEHSIIIP OF lMPROVEMEl\TS.-

4 (1) MEDIATIO:\.-An authorizecl officer mayS (A) mediate a dispute regarding reasonable 

6 compensation in connection with a transfer of 

7 ownership of a range improvement; and 

8 (B) following consultation with the inter9 ested parties, make a determination concerning 

10 the fair and reasonable share of operation and 

11 maintenance e::-..'})enscs and compensation for use 

12 of authorized range improvements. 

13 (2) No A<a{EE:\IE:\'1'.-If an agreement on the 

14 amount of compensation cannot be reached, the au15 thorized officer shall issue a temporary gn1zing au16 thorization, including appropriate terms and condi17 tions and the requirement to compensate the permit18 tee or lessee for the fair share of operation and 

19 maintenance, as determined by the authorized 

20 officer. 

21 SEC. 123. WATER RIGHTS. 

22 (a) I)i GE:\EID\L.-No water rights shall be acquired, 

23 perfected, owned, controlled, maintained, administered, or 

24 transferred in connection vvith livestock grazing manage25 ment unless authorized in accordance with State law con-
151 

44 

1 cerning the use and appropriation of water within the 

2 State. 

3 (b) STATE LAw.-In managing livestock grazing on 

4 Federal land, the Secretary shall follow State law with re5 gard to water ownership. 

6 (c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.-Nothing in this title 

7 shall be construed to create an expressed or implied res8 ervation of water rights in the United States. 

9 SEC. 124. MANAGEMENT OF GRAZING ON LAND UNDER THE 

10 JURISDICTION OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS 

11 AND AGENCIES. 

12 (a) IN GENERAL.-In the case of land under the ad13 ministrative jurisdiction of the head of another entity in 

14 the department or of another department or agency on 

15 which grazing is managed by the Secretary on behalf of 

16 the head of that entity, department, or agency, the Sec17 retary shall enter into a memorandum of understanding 

18 setting out the terms and conditions under which grazing 

19 will be managed on that land. 

20 (b) APPLICATION OF TITLE.-This title shall apply 

21 to management of grazing under subsection (a) except to 

22 the extent that the Secretary, in consultation with the 

23 head of the department or agency with jurisdiction over 

24 the land, in view of the needs of the other department 
152 

45 

or agency or the applicability of other law, requires appli2 cation of different rules. 

3 Subtitle D-Authorization of 

4 Grazing Use 

5 SEC. 131. APPLICATIONS. 

6 (a) I?'\ GENERAL.-An application for a grazing per7 mit or grazing lease authorizing active use and nonuse, 

8 a free-use grazing permit, or other gTazing authorization 

9 shall be filed with the authorized officer at the local Bu1 0 reau of Land Management office having jurisdiction over 

11 the Federal land that is the subj ect of the application. 

12 (b) CHA?'\GES IN GRAZING USE.-

13 (1) IN GENEHAL.-In the case of any gTazing 

14 fee year, an application for a change in gTazing use 

15 should be filed with the authorized officer before the 

16 billing notice for the affected gTazing use has been 

17 issued for the gTazing fee year. 

18 (2) LATE FILING.-An application for a change 

19 in grazing use filed after a billing notice for the af20 fected grazing use has been issued that requires the 

21 issuance of a replacement or supplemental billing no22 tice shall be subject to a service charge under section 

23 137(d). 
153 

46 

1 (3) AUTHORITY TO GR.A."'T.-An authorized of2 ficer may grant an application for a change in graz3 mg use. 

4 (c) CONFLICTING APPLICATIONS.-

5 (1) FAC1'0HS TO BE CONSIDERED.-If more 

6 than 1 qualified applicant applies for livestock graz7 ing use of the same Federal land or if additional for8 age for livestock or additional acreage becomes avail9 able, an authorized officer may authorize grazing 

10 use of the Federal land or use of forage11 (A) as provided in section 114(c); or 

12 (B) on the basis of any of the follovving 

13 factors: 

14 (i) Historical use of Federal land. 

15 (ii) Proper range management and 

16 use of water for livestock. 

17 (iii) General 11eeds of the applicants' 

18 livestock operations. 

19 (iv) Topography. 

20 (v) Other land use requirements 

21 unique to the situation. 

22 (2) l'1

ACTOH NOT TO BE CONSIDEHED.-ln au23 thorizing gTazing use or use of forage under para24 graph (1), an authorized officer shall not take into 

25 consideration the past practice or present willingness 
154 

47 

of an applicant to allow public access to F ederal 

2 land over private land. 

3 SEC. 132. GRAZING PERMITS OR GRAZING LEASES. 

4 (a) SPECIF'ICATIO~ OF' TER~I S A:'\D CO:'\DITIO:'\S.-

5 A grazing permit or grazing lease shall specifY terms and 

6 conditions as required by section 136. 

7 (b) TER:\1.-A grazing permit or grazing lease shall 

8 be issued for a term of 15 years unless9 (1) the land is pending disposal; 

10 (2) the land will be devoted to a public purpose 

11 that precludes gTazing prior to the end of 15 years; 

12 or 

13 (3) the Secretary determines that it would be in 

14 the best interest of sound land management to speei15 fy a shorter term, if the decision to specify a shorter 

16 term is supported by appropriate and accepted re17 source analysis and evaluation. 

18 (c) RENEWAL.-A permittee or lessee holdin g a graz19 ing permit or grazing lease shall be given first priority 

20 at the end of the term for renewal of the b'Tazing permit 

21 or grazing lease if--

22 (1) the land for which the grazmg permit or 

23 gn1zing lease is issued remains available for domes24 tic livestock grazing; 
155 

48 

1 (2) the permittee or lessee is in compliance with 

2 this title and the terms and conditions of the grazing 

3 permit or grazing lease; and 

4 (3) the permittee or lessee accepts the terms 

5 and conditions included by the authorized officer in 

6 the new grazing permit or grazing lease. 

7 SEC. 133. FREE-USE GRAZING PERMITS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.-A free-use grazing permit may be 

9 issued, consistent with the Act, cited in section 102, to 

10 an applicant11 (1) whose residence is adjacent to Federal land 

12 within a grazing district; 

13 (2) who needs Federal land to support domestic 

14 livestock owned by the applicant; and 

15 (3) whose products or work related to livestock 

16 grazing are used directly and exclusively by the ap17 plicant and the applicant's family. 

18 (b) CONFLICTING APPLICATIONS.-The issuance of a 

19 free-use grazing permit is subject to section 131(c). 

20 (c) TERM.-A free-use grazing permit shall be issued 

21 for a term of 1 year. 

22 (d) NO TRANSFER OR AsSIGNMENT.-A free-use 

23 grazing permit may not be transferred or assigned. 

24 SEC. 134. OTHER GRAZING AUTHORIZATIONS. 

25 (a) EXCHANGE-OF-USE GRAZING AGREEMENTS.-
156 

49 

1 (1) IN GENERAL.-An exchange-of-use grazing 

2 agreement may be issued ·to any applicant that owns 

3 or controls land that is unfenced and intermingled 

4 with Federal land when use under such an agree5 ment would be in harmony with the management ob6 jectives for the allotment. 

7 (2) EXTENT OF' CSE.-An exchange-of-use 

8 grazmg agreement may authorize use of I<,ederal 

9 land to the extent of the livestock carrying capacity 

10 of the land offered in exchange-of-use. 

11 (3) No FEE.-No fee shall be charged for graz12 ing use under an exchange-of-use agreement. 

13 (b) NONRENEWABLE GRAZI:\'G PERMITS AND GRAZ14 lNG LEASES.-A nonrenewable grazing permit or grazing 

15 lease may be issued on an annual basis to a qualified ap16 plicant when forage is temporarily available if grazing use 

17 under the grazing permit or grazing lease18 ( 1) is consistent with multiple-use objectives; 

19 and 

20 (2) does not interfere with other livestock oper21 ations on the Federal land concerned. 

22 (c) CROSSIXG PERMITS.-An applicant showing the 

23 necessity for crossing Federal land or other land under 

24 control of the Secretary with livestock for proper and law25 ful purposes may be issued a crossing permit on such 
157 

50 

1 terms and conditions as the authorized officer considers 

2 necessary to achieve the objectives of this title. 

3 {d) SPECIAL GRAZING PERMITS OR GRAZING 

4 LEASES.-

5 (1) IN GENERAL.-A special grazing permit or 

6 grazing lease authorizing grazing use by privately 

7 owned or controlled indigenous animals may be is8 sued at the discretion of the authorized officer, con9 sistent with multiple-use objectives. 

10 (2) TERM.-A special grazing permit or grazing 

11 lease shall be issued for such a term as the author12 ized officer considers to be appropriate, not to ex13 ceed 10 years. 

14 (e) No PRIORITY; No TRANSFER OR ASSIG:-iME!\T.-

15 An exchange-of-use grazing agreement, nonrenewable 

16 grazing permit or grazing lease, crossing permit, or special 

17 grazing permit or grazing lease shall have no priority for 

18 renewal and may not be transferred or assigned. 

19 SEC. 135. OWNERSifiP AND IDENTIFICATION OF LIVE20 STOCK. 

21 (a) IK GENEH.AL.-A permittee or lessee shall own 

22 or control and be responsible for the management of the 

23 livestock that graze the Federal land under a gTazing per24 mit or grazing lease. 
158 

51 

1 (b) COMPLIANCE WITH STATE REQUIREMENTS.-An 

2 authorized user shall comply with the requirements of the 

3 State in which Federal land is located relating to brand4 ing, marking, or tagging of livestock, breed, grade, and 

5 number of bulls, health, and sanitation. 

6 (c) MARKING OR TAGGING.-An authorized officer 

7 shall not impose any marking or tagging requirement in 

8 addition to the requirement under State law. 

9 (d) FILING OF CONTROL AGREEMI<JNT AND 

10 BRAND.-A permittee or lessee that controls but does not 

11 own the livestock that graze Federal land shan · file with 

12 the authorized officer13 ( 1) the agreement that gives the permittee or 

14 lessee control of the livestock; and 

15 (2) the brand and other identifying marks on 

16 the livestock. 

17 SEC. 136. TERMS AND CONDITIONS. 

18 (a) IN GENERAI,.-

19 (1) SPECIFICATIOl'\S.-An authorized officer 

20 shall specify in a grazing permit or grazing lease the 

21 kind and number of livestock, the periods of use, the 

22 allotments to be used, and the amount of use (stated 

23 in animal unit months) for each grazing permit or 

24 grazing lease. 
159 

52 

1 (2) A:vrm: NT OF t:SE.-The amount of livestock 

2 grazing use that is authorized in a gTazing permit 

3 or grazing lease shall not exceed the 'livestock carry4 ing capacity of the Federal land concerned, as deterS mined through monitoring and adjusted as necessary 

6 under section 114. 

7 (3) CA:\CELIJJ\TIO:\, SCSPE:\SIO:\, OR :'IIODI8 FICATIO~ -A grazing permit or grazing lease shall 

9 be subject to cancellation, suspension, or modifica1 0 tion for any violation of this title or of any term or 

11 condition of the grazing permit or grazing lease. 

12 (b) No SPECIAl, TERMS Al\"D CO~DI'l'IONS.-An au13 thorized officer shall not impo~e any term or condition in 

14 a gn1zing permit or grazing i.~ase other than a term or 

15 condition described in subsection (a). 

16 (c) lVIODWil'i\TJO:>.-Followiug careful and c.;ousid17 ercd consultation, cooperation, and coordination "ith per18 mittees, lessees, and other affected interest~ , an author19 ized officer may modify the terms and conditions of a 

20 gTazi ng permit or gnlzing a~c if monitoring data show 

21 that the grazing use is not meeting the ]all(! u~e plan or 

22 management objeetiYcs. 

23 SEC. 137. FEES AND CHARGES. 

24 (a) GRAZIN<; PEES.-
160 

53 

1 (1) BASIC FEE.-The basic fee for each animal 

2 unit month in a grazing fee year shall be equal to 

3 the 3-year average of the total gross value of pro4 duction for livestock, as determined by the National 

5 Agricultural Statistics Service of the Department of 

6 Agriculture in accordance with paragraph (2) on the 

7 basis of economic data published by the Service in 

8 the June Agricultural Survey for the 3 years preced9 ing the grazing fee year, multiplied by .06 and di10 vided by 12. 

11 (2) CIU'I'l<JRIA.-

12 (A) IN GENERAL.-The National Agricul13 tural Statistics Service of the Department of 

14 Agriculture shall make a determination under 

15 paragraph (1) based on the following informa16 tion gathered from livestock grazing operators, 

17 with respc~t to the largest single grazing lease 

18 of each operator (in terms of dollars): 

19 (i) Whether the operator charged20 (I) per acre; 

21 (II) per head per month; 

22 (III) per pound of gain; 

23 (IV) per hundredweight of gain; 

24 

25 

or 

(V) by another measure, 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

161 

54 

and the rate charged. 

(ii)(I) The estimated average pounds 

gained per season for the grazing lease. 

(II) The total dollar amount estimated 

to be realized from the grazing lease. 

(III) Grazing lease acreage. 

(IV) The State and county where the 

grazing lease is located. 

(iii) The classes of livestock grazed. 

(iv) The term of the grazing lease. 

(v)(I) Whether grazing lease payments 

are paid if no grazing occurred. 

(II) Whether the grazing lease contains a take or pay provision. 

(vi) Whether responsibility for the 

grazing lease is ensured by daily livestock 

care, water supply, or other factors. 

(B) PRIVATE NATIV}~ RANGELAND.-For 

the purpose of determining rates for grazing 

leases of private native rangeland, rates for irrigated pasture, crop aftermath, and dryland winter wheat shall be excluded. 

(3) SURCHARGE.-

(A) IN GENERAL.-A surcharge shall be 

added to the gTazing fee billings for authorized 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

162 

55 

grazing of livestock owned by a person other 

than a permittee or lessee unless-

(i) the grazing use is made by livestock owned by a spouse, son, daughter, 

grandson, or granddaughter of the permittee and lessee; or 

(ii) the operator is unable to make full 

grazing use, as authorized by a grazing 

permit or grazing lease, due to the age or 

death of the primary operator. 

(B) PAYMENT II\ ADVA.."\'CE.-A surcharge 

shall be paid prior to grazing use. 

(C) LIVESTOCK OWNED BY OTHERS.-A 

surcharge for authorized pasturing of livestock 

owned by a person other than a permittee or 

lessee shall be equal to 25 percent of the difference between the current year's Federal 

grazing fee and the prior year's private grazing 

land lease rate per year for the appropriate 

State, as determined by the National Agricultural Statistics Service in accordance with paragraph (2). 

(4) PAYMENT.-
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

163 

56 

(A) DeE DATE.-A grazing fee shall be 

due on the due date specified in the billing notice. 

(B) PAY:\IE:\'T PHIOH TO USE.-A gTazing 

fee shall be paid prior to grazing usc. 

(C) BILLIXG AFTI<JR GRAZING HEASOJ\'.-lf 

an allotment management plan provides for billing after the grazing season, a grazing fee shall 

be based on actual gTazing use and shall be due 

upon issuance. 

(5) RI<WC:\'DS.-

(A) IN GENERA!;.-A grazing fee may be 

refunded if an application for change in grazing 

use and related refund is filed prior to the period of use for which the refund is requested. 

(B) FAILURE TO :'11AKE GRA?:I\'G CSE.-

(i) Ix GE:\'1<~1\AL.-Except as provided 

m subparagraph (B), no refund shall be 

made for failure to make grazing use. 

(ii) RA\'GI<~ DEPLETIO\' OR DI~­

EASK-During a period of range depletion 

due to drought, fire, or other natural 

cause, or in case of a general spread of disease among the livestock that occurs during the term of a grazing permit or graz-
164 

57 

1 ing lease, an authorized officer may credit 

2 or refund a grazing fee in whole or in part 

3 or postpone fee payment for as long as the 

4 emergency exists. 

5 (b) OTHER FEES A.c"-'"D CHARGES.-

6 (1) CROSSING PERMITS, TRA.~SFEH.S, AND BILL7 ING NOTICES.-A service charge shall be assessed 

8 for each crossing permit, transfer of grazing pref9 erence, and replacement or supplemental billing no1 0 tice except in a case in which the action is initiated 

11 by the authorized officer. 

12 (2) AMOUNT OF FLPMA r'EES AND CHARGES.-

13 The fees and charges under section 304(a) of the 

14 Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

15 (43 U.S.C. 1734(a)) shall reflect processing costs 

16 and shall be adjusted periodically as costs change. 

17 (3) NOTICE OF CHA?\GE.-Notice of a change 

18 in a service charge shall be published in the Federal 

19 Register. 

20 (c) REPEAL AND SUPERSEDuRE.-

21 (1) REPEAL.-Section 6(a) of the Public 

22 Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 

23 1905) is repealed. 
165 

58 

1 (2) SUPERSEDURE.-This section supersedes 

2 Executive Order 12548 (43 U.S.C. 1905 note) effec3 tive March 1, 1996. 

4 (d) APPLICATION OF SECTION.-This section applies 

5 to the management of livestock grazing on Federal land 

6 by the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief 

7 of the Forest Service, as well as to the Secretary. 

8 SEC. 138. PLEDGE OF GRAZING PERMITS OR GRAZING 

9 LEASES AS SECURITY FOR LOANS. 

10 (a) REI'-:EWAI •. -A grazing permit or grazing lease 

11 that has been pledged as security for a loan from a lending 

12 agency shall be renewed by the authorized officer for a 

13 period of not to exceed 15 years if14 (1) the loan is for the purpose of furthering the 

15 permittee's or lessee's livestock operation; 

16 (2) the permittee or lessee has complied with 

17 this title; and 

18 (3) renewal would be in accordance with other 

19 applicable laws. 

20 (b) EFFECT OF PLEDGE.- The pledging of a grazing 

21 permit or grazing lease as security for a loan from a lend22 ing agency shall not exempt the grazing permit or grazing 

23 lease from this title. 
166 

59 

1 Subtitle E-Civil Violations and 

2 Failures of Compliance 

3 SEC. 141. CIVIL VIOLATIONS AND FAILURES OF COMPU4 ANCE. 

5 (a) SCOPE OF SECTION.-

6 (1) IN GENERAL.-This section states all of the 

7 violations and failures of compliance that pertain 

8 specifically to livestock grazing on Federal land that 

9 may result in imposition of a sanction described in 

10 subsection (c) against a person in the person's call pacity as a permittee, lessee, or applicant for a graz12 ing permit or grazing lease. 

13 (2) OTHER VIOLATIONS.-A permittee, lessee, 

14 or applicant for a grazing permit or grazing lease 

15 that commits a violation relating to Federal land 

16 under a law that applies to all persons generally 

17 shall be subject to penalty under that law. 

18 (b) IN GENEHAL.-A person that does 1 of the fol19 lowing shall be subject to a civil sanction under subsection 

20 (c): 

21 (1) Fails to make substantial grazing use as au22 thorized by a grazing permit or grazing lease for 2 

23 consecutive fee years. 
167 

60 

(2) Places supplemental feed on land covered by 

2 a grazing permit or grazing lease without authoriza3 tion. 

4 (3) Fails to comply with a term, condition, or 

5 stipulation of a range improvement cooperative 

6 agreement or range improvement permit. 

7 ( 4) Enters into an unauthorized sublease. 

8 ( 5) Allows livestock or another privately owned 

9 or controlled animal to graze on or be driven across 

10 Federal land11 (A) without a grazing permit, grazmg 

12 lease, or other grazing use authorization; 

13 (B) in violation of a term or condition of 

14 a grazing permit, grazing lease, or other graz15 ing use authorization, including a provision 

16 stating the number of livestock covered by the 

17 authorization; 

18 (C) in an area or at a time different from 

19 that authorized; or 

20 (D) if the livestock IS not identified m 

21 compliance with section 135. 

22 (6) Installs, uses, modifies, or removes a range 

23 improvement on Federal land without authorization. 

24 (7) Damages or removes Federal Government 

25 property from F ederal land without authorization. 
168 

61 

(8) Molests livestock authorized to graze on 

2 Federal land. 

3 {9) Interferes with a lawful grazing use or law4 ful user. 

5 (10) Knowingly or willfully makes a false state6 ment or representation in a base property certifi7 cation, grazing application, range improvement per8 mit application, cooperative agreement, or actual use 

9 report, or an amendment thereto. 

10 ( 11) Grazes livestock on Federal land not sub11 stantially in compliance with State livestock require12 ments relating to13 (A) branding, marking, or tagging of live14 stock; 

15 (B) breed, grade, or number of bulls; or 

16 (C) health or sanitation. 

17 (c) PENALTIES.-

18 (1) II\ GENERAL.-In a case of a violation or 

19 failure of compliance described in subsection (b), an 

20 authorized officer may21 (A) withhold issuance of a grazing permit 

22 or grazing lease for a period of time; 

23 (B) suspend the grazing use authorized 

24 under a grazing permit or grazing lease for a 

25 period of time, in whole or in part; or 
169 

62 

1 (C) cancel a grazing permit or grazing 

2 lease and grazing preference, or a free-use graz3 ing permit or other grazing authorization, in 

4 whole or in part. 

5 (2} SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT WILLFUL VIOLA6 TIO~.-In a case of a second or subsequent willful 

7 civil violation described in subsection (a), an authorS ized officer shall9 (A) suspend the grazing use authorized 

I 0 under a grazing permit for a period of time, in 

11 whole or in part; or 

12 (B) cancel a grazing permit or grazing 

13 lease and grazing preference, in whole or in 

14 part. 

15 (3) CONSIDERATION OF SEVI<JHITY.-A deter16 rnination of the length of time that a grazing permit 

17 or grazing lease will be withheld or suspended or 

18 that a grazing permit or grazing lease \Viii be can19 celed shall reflect the severity of the violation or fail20 ure of compliance. 

21 (4) REFERRAL l<'OR ACTIOK UNDER SUBTITLE 

22 F.-If a person other than a permittee or lessee vio23 lates subsection (a)(5), and the person has not made 

24 satisfactory settlement under section 153, the au25 thorized officer shall refer the matter to proper au-
170 

63 

thorities for appropriate legal action by the United 

2 States against the violator under subtitle F. 

3 (5) SUBI;EASES.-

4 (A) I:\ GE:\ERAL.-A person who violates 

5 subsection (b) ( 4) shall be required to pay to the 

6 United States the dollar equivalent value, as de7 termined by the authorized officer, of all com8 pensation received for the sublease that is in ex9 cess of the sum of the established grazing fee 

10 and the cost incurred by the person for the in11 stallation and maintenance of authorized range 

12 improvements. 

13 (B) FAILCRE TO PAY.-If the dollar equiv14 alent value is not received by the authorized of15 ficer within 30 days of receipt of a final deci16 sion, the grazing permit or grazing leas~ shall 

17 be canceled. 

18 (C) ADDITIONAL PENAIJTY.-Payment 

19 under this paragraph shall be in addition to any 

20 other penalties the authorized officer may im21 pose under this subsection. 

22 (6) FAILURE TO USE.-After consultation, co23 operation, and coordination, the authorized officer 

24 may cancel a grazing preference to the extent of fail25 ure to use when a permittee or lessee has failed to 
171 

64 

make substantial grazmg use as authorized for 2 

2 consecutive years. 

3 Subtitle F -Unauthorized Grazing 

4 Use 

5 SEC. 151. LIABD..ITY FOR DAMAGES. 

6 (a) Ix GE:\"ERAL.-A person who commits a violation 

7 described in section 141(a)(5) shall be liable in damages 

8 to the United States for9 (1) the value of forage consumed by the live1 0 stock of the person; 

11 (2) injury to Federal property caused by unau12 thorized grazing use; and 

13 (3) expenses incurred in impoundment and sale 

14 of the person's livestock. 

15 (b) No LlABILITY.-In no circumstances shall a per16 son be liable in damages to the United States for expenses 

17 incurred in impoundment or sale of the person's livestock 

18 if the person did not commit a violation of section 

19 141(a)(5) or if the impoundment or sale was not con20 ducted in accordance with State law. 

21 SEC. 152. NOTICE AND ORDER TO REMOVE. 

22 (a) K'<owx OWNER.-

23 (1) SERVICE.-When it appears that a violation 

24 described in section 151 has occurred or is occurring 

25 and the owner of the unauthorized livestock is 
172 

65 

known, an authorized officer shall serve written no2 tice of unauthorized use and· an order to remove live3 stock by a specified date on the owner (or the own4 er's agent of record) by certified mail or personal 

5 delivery. 

6 (2) 0PPORTU~ITY TO RESPOND.-Written no7 tice under paragraph (1) shall allow a specified time 

8 from receipt of notice for the livestock owner to9 (A) show that there has been no violation; 

10 or 

11 (B) make settlement under section 153. 

12 (b) U:\KNO~ OWNER.-When it appears that a vio13 lation described in section 151 has occurred or is occur14 ring and neither the owner of the unauthorized livestock 

15 nor an agent of the owner is known, an authorized officer 

16 may immediately proceed to impound the livestock under 

17 section 154. 

18 SEC. 153. SETILEMENT. 

19 (a) DETERMINATION OF WILLFULI'<ESS.-An author20 ized officer shall determine whether a violation described 

21 in section 151 is a nonwillful, willful, or second or subse22 quent willful violation. 

23 (b) SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT WILI;FUL VIOLA24 TIONS.-ln the case of a second or subsequent willful vio25 lation, the authorized officer shall-
173 

66 

(1) suspend the grazing use authorized under a 

2 grazing permit or grazing lease, in whole or in part; 

3 or 

4 (2) cancel a grazing permit or grazing lease and 

5 grazing preference, or a free-use grazing permit or 

6 other grazing authorization, in whole or in part. 

7 (c) SETTLEMENT AMOUNT.-Except as provided m 

8 subsection (e), the settlement amount in the case of a vio9 lation described in section 151 shall include10 (1) the value of forage consumed as determined 

11 under subsection (d); 

12 (2) the full value for all damage to Federal land 

13 and other property of the United States resulting 

14 from the violation; and 

15 (3) all reasonable expenses incurred by the 

16 United States in detecting, investigating, and resolv17 ing the violation, and livestock impoundment costs. 

18 (d) VALUE OF FORAGE.-

19 (1) NONWILLFUL VIOLATION.-ln the case of a 

20 nonwillful violation, the value of forage consumed 

21 shall be the product of22 ·(A) average monthly rate per animal unit 

23 month for pasturing livestock on privately 

24 owned land (excluding irrigated land) for the 16 
174 

67 

western States as published annually by the De2 partment of Agriculture; and 

3 (B) the period of the violation. 

4 (2) WILLFUL VIOLATIONS.-ln the case of a 

5 willful violation, the value of forage consumed shall 

6 be twice the value determined under paragraph ( 1). 

7 (3) SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT WILLFUl, VIOL.A8 TIOl'\S.-In the case of a second or subsequent will9 ful violation, the value of forage consumed shall be 

10 3 times the value determined under paragraph (1). 

11 (e) NON:\WNETARY SETTLEMENT.-An authorized 

12 officer may approve a nonmonetary settlement of a case 

13 of a violation described in section 151 if the authorized 

14 officer determines that each of the following conditions is 

15 satisfied: 

16 (1) No FAULT.-Evidence shows that the unau17 thorized use occurred through no fault of the live18 stock operator. 

19 (2) lNSIGNIFICANCE.-The forage use is insig20 nificant. 

21 (3) No DAM.AGE.-Federal land has not been 

22 damaged. 

23 ( 4) BEST IKTERESTS.-Nonmonetary settle24 ment is in the best interests of the United States. 
175 

68 

1 (f) EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT.:-Payment of a settle2 ment amount under this section shall not relieve the viola3 tor of any criminal liability under Federal or State law. 

4 (g) No GRAZING USE.-A person who is found to 

5 have committed a violation described in section 151 shall 

6 not be authorized to make grazing use until any settle7 ment amount found to be due under this section has been 

8 paid. 

9 (h) OTHER SANCTIONS.-An authorized officer may 

10 cancel or suspend a grazing authorization or deny ap11 proval of an application for grazing use until a settlement 

12 amount found to be due under this section has been paid. 

13 SEC. 154. IMPOUNDMENT AND SALE. 

14 (a) IN GENERAL.-Subject to section 152(b), unau15 thorized livestock remaining on Federal land after the date 

16 specified in a notice and order under section 152(a) may 

17 be impounded and sold by the authorized officer, acting 

18 in conjunction with the State Livestock Board. 

19 (b) NOTICE OF INTENT To IMPOUND.-

20 (1) KNOWN OWNER.-

21 (A) SERVICE.-A written notice of intent 

22 to impound shall be sent by certified mail or 

23 

24 

personally delivered to the livestock owner (or 

the owner's agent). 
176 

69 

(B) COl\TENTS.-The written notice shall 

2 state that unauthorized livestock on specified 

3 Federal land may be impounded any time after 

4 10 days follo·wing delivery of the notice. 

5 (2) UNKNOWN OW~ER.-

6 (A) PUBLICATIOl\ AND POSTING.-If the 

7 livestock owner and owner's agent are unknown, 

8 or if both a known owner and the owner's agent 

9 refuse to accept delivery of notice, a notice of 

I 0 intent to impound shall be published in a local 

II newspaper and posted at the county courthouse 

12 and a post office near the Federal land conI3 cerned. 

14 (B) Col\TENTS.-The notice shall state 

I5 that unauthorized livestock on specified Federal 

I6 land may be impounded any time after 10 days 

I7 following publication and posting of the notice. 

I8 (c) IMPOUNDMENT.-After 10 days following delivery 

I9 or publication and posting of a notice under subsection 

20 (b), the notice shall become effective, and unauthorized 

21 livestock may be impounded without further notice any 

22 time within the 12-month period following the effective 

23 date of the notice. 

24 (d) NOTICE OF PUBLIC SALE.-
177 

70 

1 (1) IN GENERAL.-Following the impoundment 

2 of livestock under this section, the livestock may be 

3 sold by the authorized officer or, if a suitable agree4 ment is in effect, turned over to the State for sale, 

5 in accordance with subsection (f). 

6 (2) NOTIFICATION.-Any known livestock 

7 owner (or owner's agent) shall be notified in writing 

8 by certified mail or by personal delivery of the sale 

9 and the procedure by which the impounded livestock 

10 may be redeemed prior to the sale. 

11 (e) REDEMPTION.-An owner (or owner's agent) or 

12 lienholder of record of impounded livestock may redeem 

13 . the livestock in accordance with State law, prior to the 

14 time of sale upon settlement with the United States under 

15 section 153 or adequate showing that there has been no 

16 violation. 

17 (f) SAI .. E.-If livestock are not redeemed on or before 

18 the date and time fixed for sale, the livestock shall be of19 fered at public sale to the highest bidder by the authorized 

20 officer under State law, or by the State. 

21 Subtitle G-Procedure 

22 SEC. 161. PROPOSED DECISIONS. 

23 (a) PROPOSED DECISIONS ON GRAZING PERMITS OR 

24 GRAZING LEASES.-
178 

71 

1 (1) SERVICE ON APPLIC.fu'\TS, PERMITTEES, 

2 LESSEES, AND LIENHOLDERS.--,.-In the absence of a 

3 written agreement between an authorized officer and 

4 any applicant, grazmg permittee, lessee, or 

5 lienholder, the authorized officer shall serve, by cer6 tified mail or personal delivery, a proposed decision 

7 on any applicant, permittee, lessee, or lienholder (or 

8 agent of record of the applicant, permittee, lessee, or 

9 lienholder) that is affected by10 (A) a proposed action on an application for 

11 a grazing permit, grazing lease, or range im12 provement permit; or 

13 (B) a proposed action relating to a term or 

14 condition of a grazing permit, grazing lease, or 

15 range improvement permit. 

16 (2) CONTENTS.-A proposed decision described 

17 in paragraph ( 1) shall18 (A) state reasons for the action, including 

19 reference to pertinent provision of this title or 

20 other applicable law (including regulations); and 

21 (B) state that any protest to the proposed 

22 decision must be filed not later than 15 days 

23 after service. 

24 (b) PROPOSED DECISIOl'\S 01'\ ALLEGED VIOI.ili25 TIONS.-
179 

72 

1 (1) SERVICE.-If the authorized officer deter2 mines that a permittee or lessee appears to have vio3 lated any provision of this title, the authorized offi4 cer shall serve a proposed decision on the permittee 

5 or lessee (or permittee's or lessee's agent) by cer6 tified mail or personal delivery. 

7 (2) CONTENTS.-A proposed decision shall8 (A) state-:---

9 (i) the alleged violation and refer to 

10 the specific provision of this title that is al11 leged to have been violated; 

12 (ii) the reasons for the proposed deci13 sion; 

14 (iii) the fee due under section 137(a) 

15 or settlement amount due under section 

16 153; and 

17 (iv) any civil penalty to be imposed 

18 under section 141; and 

19 (B) state that any protest to the proposed 

20 decision must be filed not later than 15 days 

21 after service. 

22 SEC. 162. PROTESTS. 

23 An applicant, permittee, lessee, or other affected in24 terest may protest a proposed decision under section 161 
180 

73 

1 in person or in writing to the authorized officer within 

2 15 days after service of the proposed decision. 

3 SEC. 163. FINAL DECISIONS. 

4 (a) No PROTEST.-ln the absence of a timely filed 

5 protest, a proposed decision shall become the final decision 

6 of the authorized officer without further notice. 

7 (b) RECONSIDJ<JRATION.-If a protest is timely filed , 

8 the authorized officer shall reconsider the proposed deci9 sion in light of the protestant's statement of reasons for 

10 protest and in light of other information pertinent to the 

11 case. 

12 (c) SERVICE.-After reviewing the protest, the au13 thorized officer shall serve a final decision on the parties 

14 to the proceeding. 

15 SEC. 164. APPEALS. 

16 (a) IN GENEHAL.-ln the case of a final decision of 

17 an authorized officer vvith respect to which a protest under 

18 section 162 was timely filed, a permittee, lessee, or af19 fected interest may appeal the final decision for the pur20 pose of a hearing before an administrative law judge by 

21 filing a notice of appeal in the office of the authorized 

22 officer within 30 days after the service of the final deci23 sion. 

24 (b) SUSPENSION PE:\'DING APPEAL.-
181 

74 

(1) IN GENERAL.-An appeal of a final decision 

2 shall suspend the effect of the decision pending final 

3 action on the appeal unless the decision is made ef4 fective pending appeal under paragraph (2). 

5 (2) EFI!'ECTIVENESS PENDING APPEAL.-

6 (A) IN GENERAL.-A District Manager of 

7 the Bureau of Land Management may order 

8 that a decision on a grazing permit application 

9 shall remain in effect during an appeal of the 

10 decision if it is determined that imminent and 

11 irreversible damage to land resources would be 

12 likely to result from delay of effectiveness of the 

13 decision. 

14 (B) BASIS OF ORDER.-An order under 

15 subparagraph (A) shall be made in accordance 

16 with17 (i) state-of-the-art science; 

18 (ii) information and opinions offered 

19 by State land grant universities; and 

20 (iii) the preponderance of evidence 

21 gathered in the proceeding. 

22 (c) EXPEDITIOUS DISMISSAl, OF NONMEIUTORIOUS 

23 APPEALS.-The District Manager shall24 ( 1) examine each appeal as soon as practicable 

25 after it is filed; and 
182 

75 

(2) expeditiously dismiss an appeal that does 

2 not raise a substantially meritorious issue. 

3 (d) AUTHORITY.-A final decision of an appeal shall 

4 be issued by a District Manager. 

5 Subtitle H-Advisory Committees 

6 SEC. 171. PURPOSE. 

7 This subtitle contains standards and procedures for 

8 the establishment, operation, and termination of advisory 

9 committees to advise the Secretary on matters relating to 

10 grazing on Federal land and resources under the adminis11 trative jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management. 

12 SEC. 172. OBJECTIVE. 

13 The objective of an advisory committee established 

14 under this subtitle is to provide to the Secretary e}..--pert 

15 recommendations of concerned, knowledgeable citizens 

16 and public officials regarding17 ( 1) the formulation of operating guidelines; and 

18 (2) the preparation and execution of plans and 

19 programs for the use and management of Federal 

20 land, the natural and cultural resources on Federal 

21 land, and the environment. 

22 SEC. 173. RELATION TO OTHER LAW. 

23 Except to the extent that the following laws may be 

24 inconsistent with this subtitle, the following laws shall 
183 

76 

1 apply to an advisory committee established under this sub2 title: 

3 (1) The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 

4 U.S.C. App.}. 

5 (2) The Federal Land Policy and Management 

6 Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). 

7 (3) Section 2 of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 

8 1950 (5 U.S.C. App.). 

9 SEC. 174. POLICY. 

10 (a) IN GENERAL.-After consultation, cooperation, 

11 and coordination with State and local government officials, 

12 the Secretary shall establish advisory committees rep13 resentative of major citizens' interests to advise the Sec14 retary regarding policy formulation, program planning, 

15 decisionmaking, attainment of program objectives, and 

16 achievement of improved program coordination and econo17 mies in the management of Federal land and resources. 

18 (b) OPTIMAL EMPLOYME~T.-The Secretary shall 

19 ensure that20 (1) advisory committees are optimally utilized; 

21 and 

22 (2) the number of advisory committees is lim23 ited to the number that is essential to the conduct 

24 of the public's business. 
184 

77 

SEC. 175. GENERAL PROVISIONS. 

2 (a) CIL\H'I'EH:S.-

3 (1) I:\' GEI\ERAL.-F'or each advisory committee 

4 established by the Secretary, the Secretary shall5 (A) prepare a charter describing the advi6 sory committee's stmcture and functions; and 

7 (B) file the charter with the Committee on 

8 Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate 

9 and the Committee on Resources of the House 

10 of Representatives. 

11 (2) A.\IE:\D.\IE:\1'.-Except for the correction of 

12 errors and other minor changes, a charter filed 

13 under parahrraph ( 1) shall not be amended >vithout 

14 authorization by an Act of Congress. 

15 (b) CALL8 I<'OH N0.\11:\ATI0:\8.-Candidates for ap16 pointment to an ad>isory committee shall be sought 

17 through public calls for nominations made through publi18 cation in the Federal Register and through media releases 

19 and systematic contacts with State and local government 

20 officials and indi>iduals and organizations interested in 

21 the use and management of Federal land and resources. 

22 (c) COMPO:SITI0:\.-

23 (1) STHlTTCRE.-An mhisory committee shall 

24 be structured25 (A) to provide fair membership balance 

26 (geographic and interest-specific) in terms of 
185 

78 

1 the functions to be performed and points of 

2 view to be represented, as prescribed by the ad3 visory committee's charter; and 

4 (B) to provide representative advice about 

5 Federal land and resource planning, retention, 

6 management, and disposal. 

7 (2) NO DISCRIMINATION.-No person shall be 

8 denied an opportunity to serve on an advisory com9 mittee because of race, age, sex, religion, or national 

10 ongm. 

11 (3) QUAI;IFICATIONS.-A person shall be quali12 fied to serve on an advisory committee if13 (A) the person's education, training, or ex14 perience enables the person to give informed 

15 and objective advice regarding an industry, dis16 cipline, or interest specified in the committee's 

17 charter; 

18 (B) the person has demonstrated e:xperi19 ence or knowledge of the geographical area 

20 under the purview of the advisory committee; 

21 and 

22 (C) the person has demonstrated a com23 mitment to seeking consensus solutions to re24 source management issues. 

25 (d) AVOIDANCg OF CO!\FIJICTS OF 1:'\TEREST.-
186 

79 

(1) PAH'l'ICIPATIO.\" I:\ DELIBEHATIO.\"S.-An 

2 advisory committee member shall not participate in 

3 deliberations or vote on any matter if the decision of 

4 the matter would, on its face or as applied, affeet 

5 only an interest held by that member and not the in6 terests of permittees, lessees, or other affected inter7 ests generally. 

8 (2) DmcwscRE <w I.\"TERESTs.-

9 (A) I~ GENERAL.-Each member of an ad10 visory eommittee shall be required to disclose 

11 the member's direct or iudirect interest in gTaz12 ing leases, liceuses, permits, contracts, or 

13 claims aud related litigation that iuvolve lands 

14 or resources administered by the ::)eeretary. 

15 (B) DEFINITIO:\ .-In this parag-raph, the 

16 term "indirect interest" ineludes holdings of a 

17 spouse or dependeut ehildren of a nwmber. 

18 (e) TERMI NATION OJ<' SEI{VWE.-The Secretary may, 

19 after written notice, terminate the service of a member 

20 of an advisory c~ommittee if21 (1) the member22 

23 

24 

25 

(A) no longer meets the requirements 

under which elected or appointed ; 

(B) fails or is unable to pmtieipate regularly in committee work; or 
187 

80 

1 (C) has violated Federal law (including a 

2 regulation); or 

3 (2) in the judgment of the Secretary, termi4 nation is in the public interest. 

5 (f) COMPENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT OF Ex6 PENSES.-A member of an advisory committee shall not 

7 receive any compensation or reimbursement of expenses 

8 in connection with the performance of the member's duties 

9 as a member of the advisory committee. 

10 SEC. 176. RESOURCE ADVISORY COUNCILS. 

11 (a) RESOURCE ADVISORY COUKCIL FOI~ EACH GRAZ12 lNG DISTRICT.-The Secretary, after consultation, co13 operation, and coordination with the State and affected 

14 counties, shall appoint not fewer than 9 nor more than 

15 15 persons to serve on a resource advisory council for each 

16 grazing district. 

17 (b) MEMBERSHIP.-

18 (1) REPRI<~SENTATION 01<, 111\TERESTS.-The 

19 members of a resource advisory council shall be se20 lected from among persons that represent historical 

21 use, multiple uses, affected landowners, county social 

22 and economic interests, elected State and county of23 ficers, and the public at large. 
188 

81 

(2) PERMITTEES AND LESSEES.-Permittees 

2 and lessees may be appointed to serve on a resource 

3 advisory council. 

4 (3) RESIDE:'\CY.-Members of a resource advi5 sory council shall be residents of the State in which 

6 the grazing· district is situated. 

7 ( 4) TEIUIS.-

8 (A) 1:-;- GE:-<E!u\L.-A member of a re9 source advisory council shall serve a 3-year 

10 term, except that as nearly as possible one-thin) 

11 of the initial members shall be appointed for a 

12 1-year term and one-third of the initial mem13 hers shall be appointed for a 2-year term. 

14 (B) MEMBERS ~:x OFFICIO.-On the de15 parture from elective office of a member of a 

16 resource advisory council who was appointed on 

17 the basis of the member's status as an elected 

18 official of general purpose government serving 

19 the people of the grazing district for which the 

20 resource advisory council is established prior to 

21 the end of the member's term, the newly elected 

22 official shall serve the remainder of the mem23 ber's term. 

24 (C) VACA:'\CIES.-A vacancy occurring by 

25 reason of removal, resignation, or death of a 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

189 

82 

member of a resource advisory council shall be 

filled for the balance of the member's term 

using the same method by which the member 

was appointed. 

(D) REAPPOIKTMENT.-

(i) SECO:'\D CONSECUTIVE TER:VI.-A 

member of a resource advisory council who 

has served a 3-year term on a resource advisory council may be reappointed to a second consecutive 3-year term. 

(ii) SUBSEQUEl'iT TERM.-A member 

of a resource advisory council who has 

served 2 consecutive 3-year terms may be 

subsequently reappointed no earlier than 3 

years after the member's last date of membership on that resom·ce advisory council, 

except that the Secretary may reappoint 

the member to a 1-year term if the Secretary determines that the member's continued or renewed service on the resource 

advisory council is in the public interest 

and is critical to the effective functioning 

of the resource advisory council. 

(E) DATE OF APPOI:'\T:VIE:'\'1'.-For the 

purpose of eligibility for reappointment under 
190 

83 

subparagraph (C) or (D), an appointment shall 

2 be considered to be mad~ on January 1 of the 

3 first year of the term to which a member is ap4 pointed regardless of the date on which the ap5 pointment is actually made. 

6 (c) RESPONSIBILITIES.-

? (1) IN GENERAL.-A resource advisory council 

8 shall have the responsibility of advising the Sec9 retary and appropriate State officials on major manI 0 agement decisions while working within the broad 

II management goals established for the grazing disI2 trict. 

13 (2) ! .. AND mm PLANS.-A resource advisory 

14 council shall advise the Secretary regarding the 

I5 preparation, amendment, and implementation of 

16 land use plans for Pederal land and resources within 

17 the grazing district. 

I8 (3) ALLOCATIO:\ A:\D EXI'E:\DITUU; Ql<' 

I9 FUXDS.-Except for the purposes of long-range 

20 planning and the establishment of resource manage21 ment priorities, a resource advisory council shall not 

22 provide the Secretary advice regarding23 (A) the allocation or expenditure of funds; 

24 or 

25 (B) personnel actions. 
191 

84 

(d) DISHEGAHD OF ADVICE.-

2 (1) REt,!CEST t'Ol{ RESPO~SE.-If a resource 

3 advisory council becomes concerned that its advice is 

4 being arbitrarily disregarded, the resomce . adYisory 

5 council may, by unanimous vote of its members, re6 quest that the Secretary respond directly to the re7 source advisory council's coucerns within 60 days 

8 after the Secretary receives the request. 

9 (2) EFI•'ECT ()!<' IUJSPO:'\TSE.-'l'he response of 

10 the Secretary to a request under para!,.•Taph ( 1) shall 

11 not12 (A) constitute a decision on the merits of 

13 any issue that is or might become the sul~ject 

14 of an administrative appeal; or 

15 (B) be subject to appeaL 

16 (e) AD:\II~l:-iT!tATIVE St"PPOWI'.-AJministratin~ sup17 port for a resource advisory couneil shall be provided by 

18 the office of Hw authorized officer. 

19 SEC. 177. GRAZING ADVISORY COUNCILS. 

20 (a) GHAZI~<: ADvrsoHY Cm: :-.:<'IL FOH EACIT (ituz21 1:\G DtsTBIC'T.-The Secretary, iu consultation \Vith the 

22 State and affcetecl counties, shall appoint not fewer than 

23 5 nor more than 9 persous to serve on a gTazing advisory 

24 council for eaeh gntzing district. 

25 (b) MK\IBI.;HSIIIP.-
192 

85 

(1) REPRESENTATION 01<' INTI<JRESTS.-The 

2 members of a grazing advisory council shall be se3 lected from among persons that represent permit4 tees, lessees, affected landowners, county social and 

5 economic interests, and elected State and county of6 fleers. 

7 (2) PER:VIITTimS AND LESSEES.-Permittees 

8 and lessees shall constitute the majority of the mem9 bership of a grazing advisory council. 

10 (3) Hr~SIDE:\<'Y.-Members of a grazing advi11 sory council shall be residents of a community within 

12 or adjacent to the grazing district. 

13 (4) TERMS.-An appointment to a grazing ad14 visory council shall be for a 2-year term. 

15 (5) REAPPOI:\TME:\''1'.-A member of a grazing 

16 advisory council may be appointed to additional 

17 terms. 

18 (c) RESI'O:\SIBILI't'IES.-A grazing advisory council 

19 shall set range improvement objectives, advise on the ex20 penditure of range improvement funds under the Public 

21 Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (43 U.S.C. 1901 

22 et seq.), advise on grazing management programs and im23 plementation, and address range management decisions 

24 and actions at the allotment management plan level or 

25 permit management plan level. 
193 

86 

(d) DISHEGAHD OF ADVICE.-

2 (1) REQCES'l' FOH HESI'O:-\SE.-lf a gTazing ad3 visory council becomes concerned that its advice is 

4 being arbitrarily disregarded, the grazing advisory 

5 council may, by unanimous vote of its members, re6 quest that the Secretary respond directly to the 

7 gntzing advisory council's concerns within 60 days 

8 after the Secretary receives the request. 

9 (2) EJ:<'I•'EC'l' OF HJ.;SPOI\81<}.-The response of 

10 the Secretary to a request under paragTaph (1) shall 

II notI2 (A) constitute a decision on the merits of 

I3 any issue that is or might become the subject 

I4 of an administrative appeal; or 

I5 (B) be subject to appeal. 

16 SEC. 178. MEETINGS. 

I7 (a) b: GE:-\EHAL.-All meetings of an advisory comI8 mittee and associated field examinations shall be open to 

19 the public and news media. 

20 (b) NO'l'ICJ<; <W MEE'l'I:-\GS.-

21 (1) IN <mKEHAL.-A notice of a meeting of an 

22 advisory committee shall be published in the Federal 

23 Register and distributed to the news media at least 

24 30 days in advance of the meeting. 
194 

87 

(2) UHGE:'\T :\1ATTEHS.-If an urgent matter 

2 arises, a notice of a meeting of an advisory commit3 tee shall be published in the ~..,ederal Register and 

4 distributed to the news media at least 15 days in ad5 vance of the meeting. 

6 (3) CONTEKTS.-A notice of a meeting of an 

7 advisory committee shall state the date, time, and 

8 place of the meeting and describe the topics or Is9 sues to be discussed at the meeting. 

10 (c) APPEAH..A:'\CES.-Any person may appear before 

11 or file a statement with an advisory committee regarding 

12 matters on the meeting agenda. 

13 (d) SCHEDl"LI:'\G.-The scheduling of meetings of an 

14 advisory committee and the preparation of agenda shall 

15 be done in a manner that encourages and facilitates public 

16 attendance and participation. 

17 (e) EXTE:'\810:'\ OI<' TniE.-The amount of time 

18 scheduled for a meeting of an advisory committee may be 

19 extended if an authorized officer considers it necessary to 

20 accommodate all who seek to be heard regarding matters 

21 on the agenda. 

22 (f) AUTHORITY To SCHEDULE.-An advisory com23 mittee shall meet only at the call of the Secretary or of 

24 an authorized officer. 
195 

88 

(g) ATTE:\DA:\CE BY Al"'l'IIOHIZED 0FFH'EH.-No 

2 meeting of an advisory committee shall be held in the ab3 sence of an authorized officer or designee of an authorized 

4 officer. 

5 (h) AGE:\DA.-A meeting of an advisory committee 

6 shall be conducted with close adherence to the agenda ap7 proved in advance by an authorized officer. 

8 (i) .ADJOCH:\m~:\1'.-An authorized offieer may ad9 journ a meeting of an advisory committee at any time if10 (1) continuance would be inconsistent with the 

11 purpose for which the meeting was called m· \vith the 

12 rules established for the conduct of the advisory 

13 committee; or 

14 (2) adjoumment is determined to be in the pub15 lie interest. 

16 (j) RECORD~.-

17 (1) 1:\ GE:\ERAL.-Dctailed records shall be 

18 kept of each meeting of an advisory committee. 

19 (2) REQUIHEME:\TS.-The records of a meeting 

20 of an advisory committee shall include, at a mini21 mum22 (A) the time and place of the meeting; 

23 (B) copies of the Federal Register and 

24 other public notices announcing the meeting; 
196 

89 

(C) a list of members of the advisory com2 mittee and of Federal employees (in the capac3 ity of :B'ederal employee) present; 

4 (D) a list of members of the public 

5 present, and a description of the interest rep6 resented by each member; 

7 (E) the meeting agenda; 

8 (F) a complete summary description of 

9 matters discussed and conclusions reached; 

10 (G) a list of recommendations made by the 

11 advisory committee; 

12 (H) copies of all reports received, issued, 

13 or approved by the advisory committee; and 

14 (I) a description of the nature of public 

15 participation. 

16 (3) CgRTIFICATIO:'\ HY CHAIRPEH80:\.-The 

17 Chairperson of an advisory committee shall certify 

18 the accuracy of the records of the advisory commit19 tee. 

20 (4) AVAILABILITY FOR I:\SPECTIO:'\ AXD COPY21 ING.-All records, reports, transcripts, minutes, rec22 ommendations, studies, working papers, ~nd other 

23 documents prepared by or submitted to an advisory 

24 committee shall be available for public inspection 
197 

90 

and cop)'lng m the Federal office responsible for 

2 support of the advisory committee. 

3 (k) SuBCOMMITTEES.-Each of the requirements of 

4 this section that applies to an advisory committee applies 

5 to any subcommittee of an advisory committee. 

6 SEC. 179. CONFORMING AMENDMENT AND REPEAL. 

7 (a) AlviEND:'IIE;-;'r.-The third sentence of section 

8 402(d) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

9 of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1752(d)) is amended by striking "dis10 trict grazing advisory boards established pursuant to sec11 tion 403 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

12 (43 U.S.C. 1753)" and inserting "grazing advisory coun13 cils established under section 177 of the Livestock Grazing 

14 Act". 

15 (b) REPEAL.-Section 403 of the Federal Land Pol16 icy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1753) is re17 pealed. 

18 Subtitle 1-Reports 

19 SEC. 181. REPORTS. 

20 (a) 1::\' GE:\"ERAL.-Not later than March 1, 1997, 

21 and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to 

22 Congress a report that contains23 (1) an itemization of revenues received and 

24 costs incurred directly in connection with the man25 agement of grazing on Federal land; and 
198 

91 

1 (2) recommendations for reducing administra2 tive costs and improving the overall efficiency of 

3 Federal rangeland management. 

4 (b) ITEMIZATION.-If the itemization of costs under 

5 subsection (a)(1) includes any costs incurred in connection 

6 with the implementation of any law other than a statute 

7 cited in section 102, the Secretary shall indicate with spec8 ificity the costs associated with implementation of each 

9 such statute. 

10 (c) SUSPE:-.<SION OF IMPLEMEXTATIO:-.< OF OTHER 

11 LAW IN ABSEXCE OF REPOR'l'.-During any period in 

12 which a report due to be submitted under subsection (a) 

13 has not been submitted in accordance with the require14 ments of this section, the Secretary shall conduct livestock 

15 grazing management on Federal land without regard to 

16 any law other than a statute cited in section 102. 

17 TITLE II-GRASSLAND 

18 SEC. 201. REMOVAL OF GRASSLANDS FROM NATIONAL FOR19 EST SYSTEM. 

20 (a) FI:\"DI:"\GS.-Congress finds that the inclusion of 

21 the National Grasslands {and land utilization projects ad22 ministered under title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm 

23 Tenant Act) within the National Forest System constrains 

24 the Secretary of Agriculture in managing the National 
199 

92 

Grasslands as intended under title III of the Bankhead2 Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C. 1010 et seq.). 

3 (b) A.lVIENDMENT OI<' TI-m FoH.EST AND RA.:\'GELAND 

4 RE:\EWAI3LE Ri<JSOURCES PI..A...'\:\1:\G ACT OF 1974.-Sec5 tion ll(a) of the Forest and Rangeland Henewable Re6 sources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)) is 

7 amended in the second sentence by striking "the national 

8 grasslands and land utilization projects administered 

9 under title III of the Baukhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act 

10 (50 Stat. 525, 7 U.S.C. 1010-101 2),". 

11 (c) A\IEND:\1ENT OJ:<' TilE BANKIIEAD-JOI'\ES FARM 

12 TE:\A:\'1' AcT.-Section 31 of the Bankhead-Janes Farm 

13 'renant Act (7 U.S.C. 1010) is amended by adding the 

14 following-: 

15 "SEC. 31. LAND CONSERVATION AND LAND UTILIZATION. 

16 "(a) PROUHA.\1.-

17 " ( 1) I. <H~NEiv\L.-To accomplish the purposes 

18 of the Livestock Grazing Act, the Secretary shall de19 vclop a progntm of land conservatiou and utilization 

20 as a basis for grassland agriculture, to promote se21 cure occupancy and economic stability of farms, and 

22 thus assist in controlling soil erosion, preserYiug nat23 ural resources, proteeting fish and wildlife, devclop24 ing and protecting recreational facilities, mitigating 

25 flood damage, preventing impairment of dams and 
200 

93 

reservoirs, developing energy resources, protecting 

2 the watersheds of navigable streams, conserving sur3 face and subsurface moisture, and protecting· public 

4 land, health, safety and welfare. 

5 "(2) LIMITATION.-In carrying out paragraph 

6 (1), the Secretary shall not build an industrial park 

7 or establish a private industrial or commercial enter8 prise. 

9 "(b) Livg::>TOCK GHAZI:'Ii'G LI~ASES.-The Secretary, 

10 in cooperation and coordination with grazing associations, 

11 shall issue renewable livestock grazing leases to achieve 

12 the land conservation and utilization goals of this sec13 tion.". 

14 (d) Co:-;~gHVATIO:-: PHOGHA.\Ii::i.-Iu managing li\·e15 stock grazing on National Grasslands under title I, the 

16 Secretmy of the Interior may continue to establish and 

17 implement conservation programs authorized by title III 

18 the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C. 1010 et 

19 seq.). 

0 
201 

BRIEFING PAPER ON H.R. 1713 

LIVESTOCK GRAZING ACT 

SUI\IIMARY 

H.R. 1713 was introduced by Representative Wes Cooley along with Chairman Young, Mr. 

Hansen , Mr. Roberts, Mr. Herger, Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Stump. Mr. Calvert, Mr. Emerson, 

Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Taylor of North Carolina, Mr. Nethercutt, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Lewis of 

California, Mr. Riggs, Mr. Bunn, Mr. Skeen, Mr. Stockman, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Brewster, 

Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Radanovich, Mr. Cremeans, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Hefley, Mr. Allard, and 

Mrs. Vucanovich. 

BACKGROUND 

On March 25 , 1994, the Department of the Interior published proposed regulations governing 

grazing on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (58 Fed. Reg. 14314). 

The proposed rules were the subject of an initial 120·day comment period that was scheduled 

to close on July 28, 1994. The comment period was extended to run through September 9, 

1994. Numerous public meetings were held by the Department on the proposed regulations. 

No House hearings were held, but a series of Senate hearings were held by the Senate 

Comminee on Energy and Natural Resources on the proposed regulations in Washington, 

D.C. on April 20, 1994; in Albuquerque, New Mexico on May 14, 1994; in Twin Falls, 

Idaho on July 8, 1994; in Richfield, Utah on July II, 1994; and in Casper, Wyoming on 

July 15 , 1994. 

Final grazing regulations were promulgated by the Department on February 22, 1995. As a 

result of an informal agreement reached with several members of Congress, the regulations 

will not take effect until August 21 , 1995. 

Summary of Grazing Regulations 

Major elements of the Administration 's grazing regulations are summarized below. 

Resource Advisory Councils 

Public involvement in the rangeland management process is allowed through Resource 

Advisory Councils (RACs}, to be created under the rules to seek input on land use planning 

and public lands management issues. The RACs will consist of 10-15 members, appointed 

by the Secretary from three categories: I) public land users, such as ranchers and miners; 2) 

environmental or conservation group members; and 3) locally elected officials, academics, 

Indian tribe members, and the public at large. The RACs must operate on the basis of 
202 

consensus. Even though holders of grazing permits and leases can be RAC members, no 

member can participate in a specific issue in which he or she has a direct financial interest. 

On a related matter, the regulations change the term "affected interest" to "interested public" 

to allow any interested party or person to participate in the decisionmaking process for the 

management of livestock grazing on the public lands. 

Hearing and Appeal Procedures 

Under the final rules, the decision of an authorized officer must be appealed within 30 days. 

Appellants wishing to stay a decision pending appeal must file a petition for a stay along with 

the appeal. The Office of Hearings and Appeals will have 45 days following the 30 days to 

grant or deny the stay . If a stay is granted , the decision is stayed until the appeal is 

determined . Authorized officers have the authority to make final decisions and have them 

take immediate effect because of unusual circumstances (e.g. , drought, fire, flood , insect 

infestation or continued grazing that poses an imminent likelihood of significant resource 

damage.) 

Standards and Guidelines 

The rules require State or regional standards and guidelines to be developed to provide 

specific measures for rangeland health and to identify acceptable or best management 

practices. The rules establish fundamental principles regarding rangeland health , such as 

those relating to watersheds, wetlands, soil and plant conditions, and water quality and 

quantity; ecological processes, including the hydrologic and nutrient cycles; and maintenance 

and restoration of threatened or endangered plant or animal habitat. These wiU be developed 

with the participation and in consultation with the RACs, Indian tribes, and responsible 

federal agencies. 

Grazing Pennits or Leases 

Grazing permits will be issued for I 0-year terms, which is current law. 

Grazing Fees 

The proposed rule included increased in the grazing fee and modifications to the fee formula. 

However, fee increases and changes were not included in the ftnal rule, and the 

Administration has not made budget assumptions for FY 1996 for grazing fees under the 

regulations. 

Water Rights and Range Improvements 

The final regulations do not purport to establish any new federal reserved water rights and do 

not affect valid existing rights. However, to the extent allowed by State law, new water 

rights on public lands for livestock watering on such lands will be acquired, perfected , 

maintained and administered in the name of the United States. This will apply to future 
203 

filings. The regulations allow co-application and joint ownership of water rights on BLM 

lands for livestock watering, to the extent consistent with State law. 

After the effective date of the regulations, the United Stated will retain title to permanent 

range improvements on BLM lands, such as fences, stock tanks, pipelines and water 

improvement projects, and the permittee or lessee will hold title to removable range 

improvements such as corrals, feeders, and loading chutes, and to temporary improvements 

such as troughs for hauled water. Title improvements authorized prior to the effecti ve date 

of the regulations will not be affected. 

Conservation Use and Suspended Nonuse 

The regulations enable grazing permittees and lessees to use all or a portion of their 

allotment for conservation use, so long as it is consistent with BLM's land use plans. 

Grazing fees will not be charged on allotments devoted to conservation use; however, 

permittees and allottees will be required to maintain existing improvements so they will be in 

good working order when the allotment is returned to actual use. 

Subleasing 

The rules provide for a surcharge to be assessed for authorized pasturing agreements, i.e., 

the situation where a permittee pastures another person's livestock on federal lands. The 

surcharge will be 35 percent of the difference between the federal grazing fee and the private 

grazing rate in the applicable State. A permittee's children will be exempt from the 

surcharge. 

Puroose and Provisions of H.R. 1713 

Based on concerns with the sweeping nature of the new Interior Department grazing 

management regulations put forward by Secretary Bruce Babbitt, several Western members 

of Congress undertook the preparation of legislation that would codify previous BLM grazing 

regulations, as well as elements of the new rules, into law. Key elements of this "hybrid" 

approach as embodied in H.R. 1713, are as follows. 

Resource Advisory Councils 

H .R. 1713 would retain many of the features of the grazing regulations regarding RACs, but 

make several changes, including: setting membership at 9-15 members; requiring RACs for 

each grazing district; having members come from persons representing historical use, 

multiple uses, affected landowners, county social and economic interests, elected State and 

local officials, and the public at large. The bill would also require the creation of grazing 

advisory councils or each grazing district , with each council consisting of 5-9 members. 
204 

Appeals 

Although H. R. 1713 as introduced, allowed final decisions to be appealed to the BI.M 

District Manager, it is the intention of the Committee to change the bill prior to mark-up to 

accomplish the following : I) allow appeals of decisions regarding grazing on BI.Madministered lands to be taken to the Interior Department's Office of Hearings and Appeals 

(OHA); 2) require that a hearing be conducted according to the Administrative Procedure 

Act; 3) allow interested citizens the opportunity to appear as "amici curiae" (friends of the 

coun), if deemed appropriate; and 4) require the District Manager to quickly forward an 

appeal to OHA and OHA to promptly decide whether the District Manager's decision should 

be stayed pending appeal. 

Standards and Guidelines 

The bill would require the Secretary to establish standards and guidelines on a State or 

regional level in conjunction with the State department of agriculture or other agency . The 

bill also makes clear that minimum national standards or guidelines are not necessary. 

Livestock grazing is to be managed under multiple use principles and in accordance with land 

use plans, which are to be prepared according to the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) . Grazing activities and management actions will not require consideration under 

NEPA in addition to NEPA documentation supporting a land use plan. Only land use plans 

would need to comply with NEPA. 

Grazing Permits and Leases 

The bill would extend the term for grazing permits and leases from 10 to 15 years. 

Grazing Fees 

The bill would establish a gross return grazing fee formula based on a three-year rolling 

average of the total gross value of production of livestock, as determined by the National 

Agricultural Statistics Service, multiplied by 6 percent and divided by 12. For 1992, the 

gross valued equaled $431. Thus, the fee would be calculated as follows: $431 x .06 = 

$25.86; $25.86 f 12 = $2.16. The grazing fee per animal unit month (AUM) for 1993 

would be $2.16. 

Because of concerns raised in the Senate hearing on the LGA, the Committee intends to 

direct the Economic Research Service of the Department of Agriculture, and not the National 

Agriculture Statistics Service to collect the data on gross value of production . 

The definition of "animal unit month" for billing purposes and not stocking rates has been 

changed from sheep-cow ratio (5 : I) to a sheep-cow ratio (7: 1). 
205 

Water Rights and Range Improvements 

H.R. 1713 provides that no water rights can be acquired, perfected, owned, controUed, 

maintained, administered or transferred in connection with livestock grazing except in 

accordance with State law concerning use and appropriation . The bill does not create a 

federal reserved water right, and requires the Secretary to follow State law with regard to 

water ownership. 

As for range improvements, H. R. 1713 authorizes the Secretary to enter into cooperative 

agreements with permittees and lessees for the construction, installation, modification, 

maintenance, or use of permanent range improvements, on a cost-sharing basis with the U.S. 

Subject to valid existing rights, title to permanent improvements is proponional, depending 

on the contribution to initial costs. 

ADMINISTRATION POSITION 

The Administration is opposed to this bill. Mike Dombeck, Acting Director of the BLM 

and Jack Ward Thomas, Chief of the Forest Service testified in opposition to the S. 852, the 

Livestock Grazing Act in the Senate. The overriding reason given for their opposition is that 

they feel the bill limits public involvement in the management of the public lands. 

STAFF CONTACT: Bill Simmons, x67736 
206 

STATEMENT OF 

JACK WARD THOMAS, CHIEF 

FOREST SERVICE 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Before the 

Committee on ~esources 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands 

United States House 

Concerning H.R. 1713. Uniform Management of Livestock Grazing 

July 11, 1995 

MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE: 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide the views of the 

Department of Agriculture concerning H.R . 1713, a bill to provide 

for uniform management of livestock grazing on federal lands. 

The Department of Agriculture does not support enactment of 

H.R. 1713 as it affects this Deparcment. 

Only two provisions in this bill affect programs under the 

jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture: Title I, Section 

137, concerning grazing fees, and Title II, Section 201, which 

would remove national grasslands from the National Forest System. 

We defer to the Secretary of the Interior concerning other 

provisions of the bill. However, we would have serious concerns 

should the provisions of Title I be amended to include lands 

managed by the Forest Service. 
207 

Graziuq Pee formula Revisiop 

Title I, Section 137, would replace the current grazing fee 

calculation formula and require the National Agricultural 

Statistics Service to collect certain data and calculate grazing 

costs. 

While we concur that the present system for determining grazing 

fees on federal lands might be improved, it is not clear how this 

legislation would accomplish such improvement. 

The bill as written would include National Forest System lands in 

our Eastern and Southern Regions. These regions currently have a 

fee system which is separate from that used in the 16 western 

states. Changing the fee system for the Eastern and Southern 

Regions would unnecessarily disrupt a system which has been 

successfully used for many years, and may have unintended PAYGO 

implications . 

Such a change would also negatively affect the ability to fund 

needed range improvements in these regions since they do not have 

access to range betterment funds as do the 16 western states. If 

a change in fee systems is made, we recommend that the Eastern and 

Southern Regions be excluded from such change and continue to be 

governed by provisions in 36 CFR 222, Subpart C. 

-2-
208 

We defer to the National Agricultural Statistics Service and 

Economic Research Service concerning the technical aspects of fee 

determinations in H.R. 1713. 

National Grasslands 

Title II, Section 201(b) would remove the national grasslands and 

land utilization projects (LUPs) from the "National Forest System" 

as that term is defined in the Forest and Rangeland Renewable 

Re sources Planning Act of 1974 . 

Section 201(c) would amend Section 31 of the Bankhead-Janes Farm 

Tenant Act (BJFTA) by requiring that the Secretary develop a 

program of land conservation and utilization •as a basis for 

grassland agriculture, to promote secure occupancy and economic 

stability of farms ... "which would in turn assist in reaching a 

number of other resource management objectives. 

Section 20l ( c ) would also require the Secretary to issue renewable 

livestock grazing leases in •cooperation and coordination with 

grazing associations" in order to achieve the land conservation 

and utilization goals of section 31 of the BJFTA. 

Finally, Section 20l(d) would authorize the Secretary of the 

Interior to continue to establish and implement conservation 

programs in administering livestock grazing on national grasslands 

under Title I. 

-3-
209 

We object --to the removal o-f the national grasslands and LUP' s from 

the National Forest System. The inclusion of the national 

grasslands in the National Forest System in 1974 reflects the 

evolution of federal conservation policy over many years. This 

action gave the national grasslands equal status with the national 

forests. At the same time, the original legislative intent which 

gave birth to the national grasslands was preserved. CUrrent 

Department regulations require that "the National Grasslands shall 

be a part of the National Forest System and permanently held by 

the Department of Agriculture for administration under the 

provisions and purposes of title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm 

Tenant Act." 

The national grasslands had their origin in the "Dust Bowl" era of 

the 1930's. These native grasslands were homesteaded and farmed 

under previous federal policy which encouraged such use, but 

ultimately proved unsustainable. The unintended consequences of 

massive soil erosion and deterioration of the grasslands led to 

passage of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act. This act provided 

for the retirement of submarginal land and required the Secretary 

of Agriculture to develop a program of land conservation and 

utilization to correct maladjustmen~s in land use. Since then, 

federal agencies, in close partnership with livestock producers in 

particular, have worked to improve grassland productivity for a 

variety of multiple uses. 

-4-
210 

The national grasslands rose from the dust of worn-out land and 

impoverished and abandoned farms. Due to the natural resiliency 

of the grasslands and federal agency stewardship, the land again 

supports healthy ecosystems with diverse wildlife and other 

values. This represents the healing of a near environmental 

disaster. That the grasslands have recovered and become part of 

the National Forest System reflects a resounding success story in 

American conservation . 

As the condition of the grasslands has improved and more coherent 

landownership patterns have developed through land adjustment 

programs, their value as public resources has increased along with 

public interest in their management. The national grasslands 

provide many natural resources, including wildlife habitat, 

outdoor recreation opportunities, and minerals, as well as 

important l ivestock forage. 

The national grasslands are important public resources on par with 

other federal lands, and worthy of the same protections and 

considerations as apply to the National Forests. They do merit 

spe cial management approaches and techniques, some of which vary 

from those employed on the national forests. A number of those 

differences are already recognized in current agency direction. 

We believe it is timely to thoroughly explore current approaches 

t o administering the grasslands to see if changes need to be made 

to fit today's circumstances . The fact that we are discussing 

-5-
Title II of the bill before us today is a clear indication of the 

need to take this look. 

A key part of considering any changes is close. involvement of 

those most. directly affected by national grassland management. 

We remain committed to the principle that successful management 

requires a high degree of coordination and cooperation with 

individuals, organizations, and local, state, and federal 

agencies. 

This process has started with a review of options for grasslands 

administration that was undertaken earlier this year. Several 

options were outlined and recommendations were made to me, but 

final determinations have not been made. We would be pleased to 

work with the Committee to ensure that concerns you may have are 

addressed as we consider these recommendations. 

We do not concur that present concerns over the prominence and 

effectiveness of national grasslands management would be resolved 

by removing them from the National Forest System or changing 

management objectives. We are taking steps to make full use of 

existing administrative authorities and processes to address these 

concerns. For example, the coordinated plan revision process 

initiated by three Forest Service units in the northern Great 

Plains is one such step. 

-6-
212 

Title II would call for a program of "dominant-use• management 

separate from that currently required by the National Forest 

Management Act (NFMA) . We are unable to discern a significant 

improvement or meaningful advantage to such an approach. In fact, 

such a change may undercut the integrated planning approach and 

opportunities for public involvement under NFMA. Title II would 

complicate compliance with statutes such as the National 

Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, 

and others that would still apply. Additionally, creating 

separate, duplicate processes for grasslands does not appear 

cost-effective. 

While the precise effects of Title II are difficult to determine 

because of certain ambiguous and undefined terminology, e.g., 

•promote secure occupancy and economic stability of farms," and, 

•cooperation and coordination,• it is safe to say that these 

provisions would result in ever more debate, controversy, and 

li~igation as to their meaning . 

Other unanswered questions remain, such as the effect on the oil, 

gas, and coal industries which are extremely important on many 

grasslands and to their surrounding communities. Implications for 

the more than 300 grazing permit holders who are not members of 

grazing associations are unclear. 

- 7-
213 

It is not clear how well the legislation fits nearly 4 million 

acres of grasslands located in 12 _different states scattered from 

Texas to North Dakota, and also located in California, Idaho, and 

Oregon. Such questions need to be addressed . 

Mr . Chairman, that concludes my prepared statement and I would be 

pleased to respond to questions from the subcommittee. 

- 8 -
214 

Several unanswered questions and unresolved issues exist with the 

language as written. For example, some important terms, such as 

•gross value of production• are not defined. We are also unable 

to determine the connection between the fee to be charged and the 

data which would be required to be collected, or if the data apply 

to public or private grazing. We are concerned that the language, 

as written, would lead to yet another grazing fee study, perhaps 

on an annual basis. This would lead to additional debate on the 

validity of studies, much as has been the case in the past. 

There may also be a need to clarify agency responsibilities to 

avoid duplication. As written, the National Agriculture 

Statistics Service (NASS) would be responsible for collecting the 

specified data, but the Economic Research Service (ERS) currently 

determines Costs of Production estimates, which includes estimates 

of value of production per unit, but only for beef cattle. No 

federal agency currently collects such value of production per 

unit data for horses, sheep, burros, or goats as would be required 

under the legislation. Conducting the additional surveys that 

would be required would be quite expensive and difficult to 

accomplished within the t~me frame specified in the legislation. 

In addition, we have concerns about the costs of obtaining a 

statistically reliable sample to determine broad, absolute data 

such as "total gross value of production," especially at the state 

or local level. In short, the data specified to be collected are 

-9-
215 

much more statistically demanding than a measure of price or 

change in-base rate as currently collected, and would be more 

costly to collect. 

Although in principle we agree with the approach of basing fees on 

value of production gain from grazing, it is not clear what the 

rationale is for charging a fee which is 1/2 of 1 percent of such 

value. Finally, to determine the fees to be charged requires that 

data be collected for the previous three-year period. Since the 

estimates as currently done by ERS and NASS are rarely less than 

two years behind the current year, projections for at least two 

years would be required to meet the "three years preceeding• 

requirement in the legislation. 

-10-
Jack Ward Thomas, Chief 

Forest Service, USDA 

PO Box 96090 

Washington DC 20090-6090 

Dear Chief Thoms: 

216 

Cartwright, North Dakota 

July 6, 1995 

I have been a lessee or permittee on what are now the Nat~onal Grasslands for 45 years, eight of those years in Nebraska, the remainder in 

Sorth Dakota. I have known many of those who were here in the beginning 

and helped to organize the first grazing associations. As a youngster 

in the 1930's, I well remember the conditions then. I have visited and 

am familiar with almost all of the Grasslands on both the Northern and 

Southern Great Plains. In the interest of accuracy and to correct 

the record, I feel I must respond to several of the statements made 

by you to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcomittee on Forests and ~atural Resources on June 22, 1995. 

I would like to refer you to a document entitled Land Utilization 

ProJect McKenzie County, North Dakota (LU-ND-1) (E. A. Aicher and S. M. 

Linge, Institutional Adjustments Survey, USDA Soil Conservation Service 

Region 7, Institutional Adjustments Division, February 1941). A few 

years ago I presented a copy to your predecessor Dale Robertson so it 

should be in your files. If not, it is in the historical files at the 

Soil Conservation Service headquarters. While specific to McKenzie 

County, this document describes conditions typical to other areas in the 

Northern Great Plains which were targeted for LU projects. It most 

certainly does not verify the very imaginative and self-serving version 

of events and conditions in that era that the forest service would lead 

the Congress and others to believe. 

The greatest amount of National Grasslands are located in the Northern 

Great Plains, outs1de the "Dust Bowl" in Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas. 
217 

Only a small portion of the acquired lands here had been cultivated, and 

the most of those in order to comply with homestead requirements. The 

balance remained in grass, in units too small to sustain families. 

While t~e 1930's drought produced an acute water shortage, in no case 

was there "massive soil erosion and deterioration". There was, however, 

severe social and economic disruption, and much hardsh'ip involved. 

Government programs i~itiated in the early 1930's such as the Resettlement Act were designed to aid people and lessen this disruption. Most 

land purchases were complete at the time the Bankhead-Janes Farm Tenant 

Act. (The goal of the New Deal was to purchase 15 million acres of land 

each year for five years -a total of 75 million acres -.and in the 

words of an _assistant secretary at USDA, "emmulate the Grand Experiment 

now in progress in the Soviet Union".). 

Most of the acquired :ands in the northern plains were not cultivated. 

LU projects were primarily land too rough or otherwise unsuited for 

farming and have not "rose from the dust of worn out land ••• ". If this 

had been the case, what of the adjacent lands that remained in private 

ownership apd were cultivated much more extensively? If "federal agency 

stewardship" averted a "near environmental disaster" then the private 

lands should have been damaged beyond repair. The combination of 

drought, economic depression and the New Deal created what became the 

National Grasslands. The efforts of the people who remained on the 

land plus the ending of those three 1930's plagues resulted in what 

greeted the Forest Service when they came in the 1950's; productive 

grazing lands, secure ranching operations, vibrant communities, expanding wildlife populations, as well as the essential accomplishment of the 

other goals in the Bankhead-Janes Farm Tenant Act. 

The excellent conditions which existed on the Land Use Projects in the 

Northern Plains when the forest service arrived in the early 1950's 

were due to the efforts of the people living there and their Soil 

Conservation Service advisors. Now, just as then, the people on the 

land, still relying on the best technology and advice from a variety of 

sour·ces are responsible for the abundance that is the National Grasslands. Yet it is maintained that we would ruin and destroy the environment and our livelihood, exterminate wildlife, exclude the public, and 

commit a long list of other irrational acts without the forest service 

to police and control. 
218 

You stated in your testimony that you believe it is now "timely to 

thoroughly explore current approaches to administering the grasslands 

to see if changes r.eed to be made to fit today's circumstances." Since 

1974 ~e have repeatedly requested that the different mission and goals 

of the National Grasslands be defined i n the 2200 manual, or more 

appropriately, in a separate Grasslands manual. The forest service 

reaction has been to delete almost a ll reference to the Grasslands in 

regulations and in the 2200 manual. The laws, regulations and mindset 

of the forest service is to prevent human occupancy on the national 

forests, •hile the original laws, regulations and goal for the Land Use 

Projects and the Soil Conservation Service were to keep people on the 

land - just the opposite. Thus it is not difficult to understand why 

the forest service cannot and will not, no matter how many studies and 

evaluations, past, p~esent or in t he future, agree the Grasslands 

should be managed different from the national forests. Indeed, in your 

testimony you "do not concur that present concerns .... would be resolved 

by ..... changing management objectives." It would be very unrealistic 

for we on the Grasslands to expect any reversal of forest service 

attitudes or policy. ~lore likely we could look forward to continued 

efforts to diminish the authority of the grazing associations. The 

forest service has an overwhelming need to prevail in what they percieve 

to be a power struggle. This does not bode well for the associations. 

Your fear that Title ll would lead to what you refer to as a program of 

"dominant use" is in reality a fear of Section 32 (b) of the BankheadJanes Farm Tenant Act which states the Secretary is authorized "to 

protect, develop, and administer any property so acquired and to 

construct such structures thereon as to adapt it to its most beneficial 

use." That livestock grazing and grassland agriculture were the most 

beneficial use and essential in carrying out the purposes of this Act 

were never questioned before the advent of the forest service. It is 

curious that you have difficulty with "promote secure occupancy and 

econor.1ic stability of farms" as it is part of the preamble of the BJITA, 

under ~hich the f orest service is charged to administer the Grasslands, 

and more curious still with the term "cooperation and coordination" used 

in both the Federal Land Policy and ~1anagement Act and the Public Lands 

Improvement Act. 

T-: :- :: :::; s : -: r t-1-. f'- 1110 '.!!""DZinQ r:- rr'it l: c l Ce !"s would e positive. They 
219 

would be free to form grazing associations, or could be issued· leases 

by the Secretary similiar to those grazing Section 15 BLM lands. I am 

sure the oil, gas and coal interests will protect their interests, which 

in any case do not conflict with the BJFTA or Title 11 of this act. 

' The National Grasslands now administered by the forest service in the 

12 states would "fit" very nicely . .nder the provisions of the BJFTA as 

intended by law. 

Because of misrepresentation by the forest service of the history of 

the National Grasslands, because of indifference and lack of concern 

by the forest service for the well-being of the people who live on the 

land and i~ the dependant surrounding communities, because of too much 

conflict and disagreement, we have reached the point of no return . 

There is too much difference in adn.inistrative and ~anagement 

philosophy for the forest service to be willing or comfortable as a 

partner with the grazing associations in the appropri ate management of 

the National Grasslands, nor would the grazing associations at t his 

point, Given the history of our past relationship. 

Dale Green~o ood 

HC2, Box 11 

Cartwright, ~orth Dakota 58838 
220 

STATEMENT OF 

MIKE DOMBECK, ACTING DIRECTOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

H.R. 1713, The Livestock Grazing Act 

House Resources Committee 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 

July II, 1995 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify on H.R. 1713 , the Livestock Grazing Act. 

H.R. 1713 would change many provisions of existing law and essentially replace the BLM's new 

cooperative relations and grazing administration rules. The Department would default on its 

responsibility to the thousands of Western citizens who helped to shape BLM's regulations, if 

we did not voice strong opposition to H.R. 1713 and support of BLM's "healthy rangelands" 

strategy. 

However, H.R. 1713 would tum back the clock on public rangeland management. Livestock 

grazing is a traditional use of the public lands. Over the last several decades, BLM has managed 

the public lands for grazing along with other multiple uses such as recreation, hunting, logging, 

and mining. 

As stated many times by the BLM, in many places the public rangelands are in better shape 

today than they were fifty years ago. This is due, in part, to a deeper understanding of range 

ecology and improved grazing practices implemented by ranchers and the agencies that manage 

these public lands. 

But, we must do more to pass on sustainable resources to our children, because: 

• Millions of acres of public land remain in poor condition; 

• Too many watersheds are not producing their full range of benefits; 
221 

• Too many soils continue to lose fertility; 

• Poisonous, exotic weeds are a "biological nightmare" that reduce the land's ability to 

sustain itself; and 

• Too many streams and riparian areas are still degraded. 

The BLM's strategy to improve rangeland health is built on the collective wisdom of 60 years 

of applied science. It was shaped by over two years of public discussion. Our program will 

improve rangeland health through a balanced and practical approach that demonstrates how 

collaborative stewardship can meet the basic needs of both people and nature. 

We have prepared a detailed comparison and analysis of BLM's old livestock grazing 

regulations, our new regulations, and the provisions of the Livestock Glazing Act, H.R. 1713 

that I am submitting as part of our written testimony. Our analyses make clear our many strong 

objections to the bill. I am also including in the written record a piece entitled "Just the Facts, • 

to clarify the effects of our new regulations. 

I would like to spe:alc to two of the principal differences between the bill and BLM's healthy 

rangeland strategy. 

First, the grazing bill 

• focuses public rangeland J1Ullla&ement on the sjngle use of livestock grazing - deemphasizing other uses and values of the public lands such as mining, hunting, recreation 

and wildlife. 

In comparison, our strategy focuses on maintaining the health and productivity of all public land 

resources and values. Experience has proven that we cannot emphasize a single use of the 

public lands without compromising other uses and values. 

2 
222 

Where H.R. 1713 concentrates exclusively on livestock production, our approach encourages 

collaborative management to sustain the land's overall productivity to meet the needs of not only 

public lands ranchers, but other public lands users such as hunters, campers, and recreationists. 

I firmly believe that our approach is more appropriate in meeting our stewardship responsibilities 

and will better serve all of those who use and value the public ·lands. 

Second, the bill would 

• severely limit public involvement in the management of the public lands. 

Over the past 20 yean, it has become clear that the most effective stewardship - for both 

natural resources and people - occurs when the many public land interests work together for 

what President 1beodore Roosevelt called "common solutions to common problems for the 

common good. • 

We must move beyond public land users sitting at opposite ends of the table arguin& over the 

use of shared resources - waiting for court ordered "solutions. • H.R. 1713 is a lawyer's dream 

- a recipe for polarization and litigation. If we regress to such management, the public lands 

and the people who depend on them, suffer most. 

H. R. 1713 limits the ability of anyone who does not graze livestock to have a say in public land 

management and planning. To deny citizens a seat at the table - a voioe in the process -

would be a major step backward. In contrast to the bill, our program to improve public 

rangeland management would assist all who value the public lands to work in a collaborative 

manner to define a common vision for their health. 

In order to brill& togetber all of those who use and care for the public lands, we have met with 

western Governors, or tbc:ir staffs, to select a model for creating diverse and balanced citizen 

advisory councils. We intend for local citizens to be in the lead. Our Resource Advisory 

Councils are tailored to. best meet the needs of all those who use and appreciate public lands, 

be they families on outings, ranchers, anglers, or oil and gas developers. 

3 
223 

Over time, our approach will 

• restore the productivitY and diversity of 100,000 acres of riparian areas; 

• bring 20 million acres of uplands into properly functioning condition; 

• benefit most plant, fish and animal species, including livestock; and 

• enhance recreational opponunities such as fishing, hunting, hiking, tourism, and wildlife 

viewing. 

The health of our watersheds is what ultimately sustains livestock production in the West. Yet, 

we cannot meet the needs of the people if we do not maintain the health of the land. 

BLM's healthy rangelands approach moves resource decision-making from Washington D.C. to 

the western rangelands. In contrast, H.R. 1713 offers 93 pages of top-down direction to local 

managers and public land users. We believe that those who live closer to the resources have a 

better understanding of how to meet people's needs within the limits of sustainability. 

This bill is a departure from traditional multiple use management in that it appears to elevate one 

use over other uses of public lands. It changes the standards that cc,urts apply and creates the 

potential for disruptive litigation for years to come. 

We cannot allow lawsuits, judicial injunctions, and top-down remedies to impede our 

stewardship responsibilities. Good stewardship must provide managers and local communities 

with the tools Uld flexibility to develop lasting solutions for all public land uses and values. 

BLM's approach provides this flexibility; H.R. 1713 does not. 

4 
224 

For example, H.R. 1713 eliminates a rancher's ability to apply for conservation use of public 

rangelands. It also prevents managers from placing decisions in immediate effect in order to 

avert resource degradation except in extraordinarily narrow circumstances. 

As you know, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee plans to mark up their 

grazing bill, S. 852 on July 19. I sincerely hope that the House will choose not to use the 

Senate's preliminary mark which the Senate Committee has slw"ed with us. It makes a bad bill 

far worse. 

Allow me to speak to the three provisions of the Senate's mark: that particularly concern BLM. 

First, the Senate preliminary mark: of S. 852 deletes all "affected interest" provisions -

effectively eliminating the meaningful opportunity for QlrjOne who tiDes not graze livestock on 

public land to participate in grazing planning and management. Grazing is conducted on 

approximately 95 'Jii of public land in the lower 48 states. Lands owned by all Americans. The 

only recourse for those who do not graze livestock, but who do care for publicly-owned lands, 

and who are affected by grazing, is litigation. 

Such a policy is contrary to law, precedent, and common sense. We should be working together 

to involve more people in collaborative decision-making - not cutting them out. 

BLM resolves multiple use conflicts at the allotment plan level. Here, closest to the ground, 

livestock operators, sportsmen, recreational users, conservationists, and others work together to 

find common solutions to common problems. The process works and will work even better with 

BLM's new regulations. 

Top-down legislation from Washington D.C. simply cannot take the place of local people 

working togethez to resolve local issues. 

Second, the Senate's preliminary mark prohibits BLM from using monitoring and inspection data 

5 
225 

unless the livestock operator has been invited and allowed to participate. BLM agrees that 

conducting monitoring with permittees is most effective. Requiring the permittee's participation, 

however, is akin to allowing the uncooperative operator veto power over needed monitoring. 

This would essentially eliminate our ability to conduct effective trespass inspections. Most 

public land ranchers are good and responsible stewards. This legislation, however, would 

insulate irresponsible and uncooperative operators from management actions that keep the land 

healthy and productive. 

Finally, the Senate preliminary mark would require that all Resource Advisory Council members 

are selected from a list submitted by the Governor of the state. This politicizes what should be 

an apolitical process. Certainly, State Governors need to be heard. In fact, in recent months, 

our BLM State Directors have worked with all the western Governors to forward to the 

Secretary nominations for diverse and balanced Resource Advisory CoUncils. We already have 

in place a process that works by representing the full range of opinions - be they from the 

general public, commodity interests, recreation users, or conservationists. 

Limiting public participation in public rangeland management would fail both the land. and those 

who depend on it. I assure you that if we: 

• limit the tools available to managers and ranchers; 

• narrow peoples' ability to participate in public land management; 

• empbasiz.e a single ux of the public lands at the expense of other uxs and values; 

we will have faikd u stewards of the public land. More importantly, we will have betrayed our 

children by diminishing their natural resource legacy. 

For these reasons, and for those set forth in the atla.ched analysis, the Department of Interior and 

the Bureau of Land Management strongly oppose H.R. 1713, the Livestock Grazing Act. 

6 
COMPARISON AMONG BLM'S OLD GRAZING REGULATIONS, 

THE NEW GRAZING REGULATIONS, AND 

THE LIVESTOCK GRAZING ACT 

IDtrodudloa: In May, 199S, the Livestoclc Grazing Act (H.R. 1713) was introduced in the House of Representatives. The bill 

would clwJge major provisions of the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM's) new grazing administration and relations 

rules whicb were developed after two-and-a-half yean of public involvement. BLM's new regulations are ICheduled to be 

implemented after August 21, 199S. 

Issue Old regullliom New regullliom Livestock Grazing Act Key DiffeRDcel 

! 

Fwlda11111111111 No fi,nd • ._,,, goala to Four fnnda!JW!IIls of Doea DOt provide any The DeW regullliom' 

or ranp1auc1 mainlain belllby public rangelllld beallb: fuodamentals of fundi!JW!IIII Of rangeland ' 

baltb l'llllelands. rangeland belltb. belllb make clear the basic ! 

I. Wllenbods are in, ullderpinninp of resource 

or progressing stewudsbip. 

toWird, "properly 

functioniD& They provide goals for 

condition. • IDIDigen and users llike 

that will ensure !be long2. EcoiCJCical processes tenD productivity and 

are mlnbjnod, or belltb of the public Ianda. ! 

prop-eulng towlrd 

lttlinmeat. 

3. Wri« quality meea 

u.e lllllldarda. 

4. Hlbillll for TIE 

speciel are either 

restored, 

ID.Ijntabwt, or 

improving. 
laue Old regulations New regulations Livestock Grazing Act Key Differences 

Stat6'reclooal BLM has 110 geographically- Stalldlrda that measure the Standards are developed Under the new regulations, 

ltaDdards or baed c:riteria to measure the physical function and in conjunction with state state/regioDal standards 

health physical function or biological health of the land agricultural agencies and would provide the technical 

biological health of the established on a state or land grant universities. and scientific basis for 

public Ianda. regional basis. measuring progress toward 

attainment of the 

Standards are developed fundamentals of rangeland 

with extensive Resource health. 

Advisory Council 

participllion and broad Whereas, the focus of the 

involvement by the public Livestock Grazing Act is 

and academia. limited to the time of 

grazing, amount of grazing, 

Stalldlrda are reflected in and duration of livestock 

activity plans and the terms grazing on public lands. 

and conditions of grazing 

permits and leases. 

If the authorized officer 

determines that existing 

Jl'8Zin& management is a 

significant factor in failing 

to achieve standards 

management practices will 

be adjusted before the next 

Jl'8Zin& year. 

- -- - -----
lllue Old reguladoal New regulltlons Uvestock Grazioa Act Key Differalcea 

BLM hll DO aatelreciooal <Juldelu. are establilhed Ouldelloelare developed Tho oew regulations 

pldelb8for ocoloeJally-bued OD I JeQJI'IIPhic basis 10 In eonjwlalon wldlllate require broader public 

... pidellJB for Jl"IZiDI. ensure that grazing ia agrleulturalqenclea and lnwlvemeat In developiDJ 

eoodueted In a llWIIIet that land graat unlvenitita. JUidelioe& for graz:iDJ OD 

helpsiO meet lltalldards. public Ianda lhan does lhe 

Grazina Act. 

Guiddlnea are developed 

wilh extemive Resource Under lh.e new regulations, 

Advisory Council and locally developed pidelines 

genenl public lnwlvement. provide BLM wilh. lhe 

IIWIIJemellt toola 10 meet 

Guidelines are reflected In basic lltalldards for lhe activity plana and lh.e terms physical function and 

and eonditiona of grazing biologic:al heallh of lh.e 

permiU and leases. public laodiiO enaure 

productive and diverse 

-
Issue Old regulations New regulations Livestock Grazing Act Key Differences 

AIMaory Molt BLM diltticts utilize Ten to IS member Resource Requires establishmeat of The new regulations 

ClOUJICils enzinl advisory boards and Advisory Councils (RACs), nine to IS member nqulrt a more balanced 

dislrla advisory councils. representing a diverse RACs for each grazing and diverse advisory 

Gndng advisory boards are balance of interests from district representing council membenhip than 

composed of permittees who within the state, are historical uses; multiple does the Livestock Grazing 

advise BLM on various established for public lands. uses; affected land Act. 

grazing issues. owners; county social 

RACs provide advice and and economic interests; The Livestock Grazing Act 

recommendations to BLM elected state and couoty 

on planning and officials; and the public- • does not provide for the 

lllaDIIemeitt of all resources at-large. possibility of RAC 

on all public lands. involvement with other 

Requires establishment of agencies. 

RACsoperateby S-9 member Grazing 

At least a Advisory Councils for • does not require, or 

majority of each of the each grazing district; facilitale, consensus-based 

interests represented (i.e., grazing permittees and decision-making. 

commodity users, lessees must be the 

conservation interests, other majority of each council. • requires establishment of 

citizens and stakeholders) a1 /e4St 3-4 times the 

must agree to forward Grants Grazing Advisory number of councils 

recommendations to BLM. Councils the authority to proposed by BLM under 

set range improvement the new regulations. 

objectives. 

• does not provide for 

Limits both councils to RACs outside of Section 3 

providing advice only on grazing districts. 

matters relating to BLM 

grazing districts. 
lasue Old regulations New regulations Livestock Grazing Act Key Diffcralces 

Pub De IDdividuals may ask to be • Affected iurerat" replaced Same provisions u old The aew regulations 

putld .. tlon ldtnlified as an "affected by "illletested public. • regulation except all reinforce the fact dill 

intenllt" to participate in affected illletests must public Ianda belong to all 

anzing decisions. Any illletested citizen, provide "substantiated AmaiCIIII; and that a more 

group, or organization may evidence • that they will open decision-making 

Some State offices apply request, in writing, be affected by BLM process will assist BLM to 

selection criteria to decide "interested public, • status decisions. manage for multiple uses 

who qualifies as an affected and thus participate in and values. 

illletest, others do not, public land planning and 

decision making. 

ConNnatlon Nonuse is allowed on an If 11pproved, lllows No provisions for The aew regulations allow 

- annual basis for permittees to voluntarily conservation use. ranchers, who know the 

conservation or personal exclude livestock grazing land beat, to decide when, 

business rt.lSOns; during this for up to 10 years (while if, and for bow long, they 

period, other ranchers may retaining the opportunity to should 11pply conservation 

receive temporary graze in the future). use to an lllotment. 

permission to use forage. 

Other ranchers may not They aiJo provide ranchers 

receive temporary witb an additional tool, 

permission to use forage available at their discretion, 

to conserve and restore 

other rqeland values and 

uses such 11 big game 

populations, healthy fish 

habltal, upland pound 

birds, and other wildlife 

---- --'------···- ---L__ - - species. --
Issue Old regulati0111 New regulations Livestock Grazing Art Key Differeoces 

Ran&e Half of crazia1 fee receiplz Half of graziiJi fee receipla Grazing Advisory The DeW regulmona allow 

lmproYement IIJ'e retumed 1D district of are returned to state or Councils advise BLM on BLM broider ftellibility to 

l'undll origin; the och« half are district of origin; the oth« expenditure of ranae prioritize apenditures and 

allocated by Secretary (but half are allocated by improvement fullda. to apply range improvement 

normally returned to Secretary (but normally fuDda for on-die-ground 

district). returned to district). improvements in ord« to 

maintain the health of the ...... 

Funds are used for limited The Secretary allocates on a public rangelands. 

purposes. priority basis. 

Fullda can be used for onthe-ground improvements to 

benefit rangeland resources. 

- - - -
Iuue Old regulationa New regulatioDS livestock Grazing Aa Key Differences 

Appeal rl&l* Grazing decisiolll 11'0 Provides l'llldlen wi1h lbe SliDe 11 old regulati6111 The uew regulatio111 eoable 

aod "stayed" upon appeal unless same appala proviaio111 that except for a proviaion field managen 10 CUe 

proced.- emerpocy regulllliona are apply 10 other uen of lbe 1hlll allows a distria decisive action I) at tina 

illvobd. It oftm takes 2 public lands: manager to dismiss other than during permit 

yean or more to resolve appeals without merit. applications and 2) before 

I 

,appeals. • 30 days 10 file appeal or resource degradation 

petition to "stay" a decision. District manager may becomes "iuiminent" or 

make a decision effective "irreversible" (yet they still 

• Unless stay is requested, during an appeal only if allow a permittee to file for 

decision goes into effect a stay). 

after 30 days. • such a decision is on a 

grazing permit The new regulations place 

• A final decision is on the application; grazing appeals under lbe 

stay within 45 days of the same proviaions that apply 

stay request. • "imminent and 10 other uses of the public 

irreversible" damage lands. 

• If a stay is not granted, would occur 10 the land 

decision goes into effect DO because of delay; and if 

later than 75 days after I 

decision. • such a decision is in 

ICCOrdance with lbe 

• Decisiom may go into opiDiom offered by &tate 

effect immediately in lbe land grmt universities. 

event of unusual 

circumstances such 11 

drought, fire, flood, 

infestation, or wbm 

continued grazing an 

• immineut likelihood of 

aignificaot resource damage. 

L_ ___ 

- - -----------'------
Issue Old regulations New regulations Livestock Grazing Act Key Differences 

Permit tenure 10 year gnziDg pennill 10 year gruina permits IS year grazing permits. Livestock Grazing Act ~p«ifies 15 year permit 

without amending The 

Taylor Grazing Act. 

Unauthorized Requires a cash settlement Allows non-monetary Generally similar to new ~nr:use regardless of circumstances. settlement when regulation. 

unauthorized use is 

unintentional, incidental, ~ ~ causes 110 damage, and 

results in 110 substantial 

forage consumption. 

Suspended Historic Animal Unit The same as old regulations. Similar to old 

nonuse Months (AUMs) that exceed regulations. 

the present carrying capacity · 

of the land are placed in 

- --

·suspended no1111se. • 
luue Old regulatiolll New regulatiooa Livestock Grazing Ad. KeyDiffereocea 

.SubleMID& Permittee must own or Surcharge is ISieiiSCid for Surcharge is asseued for The Livestock Grazing Act 

coatrol both livestock and mlhoriz.ed piiiiUI'iDa authorized pasnuiJI& 

base property. agreements (where a agreements. • expands surcharge 

permittee pastures someone exemption and 

Approved pasturing else • s livestock) on tbe Surcharge calculation is 

agreements are allowed 8lld permitted or leased land. 25% of tbe difference • enables permittees to 

oo surcharge is asseaaed. between federal grazing allow others to graze their 

Surcharge calculation is fee and previous years livestock on public land for 

35% of tbe difference private grazing fee in tbe 10% less than tbe new 

between federal grazing fee applicable state. regulations. 

and private grazing fee in 

tbe state. Expands surchuge 

exemption to include 

Permittee's children are spouse, aon, daughter, 

exempted from the grandson, granddau&btec 

surcharge. and if opentoc is unable 

to make full use due to 

age or death of primary 

operator. 

·---- ---- -
Issue Old regulatiODI New Livestock Grazing Act KeyDiffere.nca 

Prohibited Grazlq permill may .be Applies civil and criminal Applies civil sanctioDJ to The Livestock Gruing Act 

ads caoceled or IUSJ*Ided for penalties for graring related specific livestock graring I) prohibits administtative 

vlrioullivestock related violations of laws and related offenses (e.g., penalties against the grazing 

offenses 11 well as regulations protecting failure to graze for 2 permit/lease for 

viollliou of the Bald Eagle wildlife, regulating use of consecutive years; of almost all environmental 

Protection Act and the pesticides, protecting unauthorized subleasing; statutes and 2) omits all 

Endangered Species Act. archaeological resources, failure to comply with criminal pepalties. BLM 

and protecting water quality terms of permit or lease; managers are limited to 

and stream courses. damage to federal using civil penalties, whose 

property; false statements effectiveness is restrained 

Applies civil and criminal in base property by appeal/stay procedures. 

I sanction to an exhaustive list certification, application, 

of grazing related offenses cooperative agreement, The Livestock Grazing Act 

(e.g., failure to graze for 2 or actual use report, does not include penalties 

consecutive years; etc.). for the following: 

unauthorized subleasing; 

failure to comply with terms • failure to pay fees; 

of permit or lease; damage 

to federal property; false • refusal to install, 

statements in base property maintain, or modify an 

certification, application, improvement when so 

cooperative agreement, or requested by BLM; 

actual use report, etc.). 

• failure to comply with 

requests for special tagging; 

• destroying vegetation 

I without authorization; 

The Livestock Gruing Act I 

makes couervation use for 

more than two years a 

I prohibited act. 
236 
237 

dt 
lllue Old regulltioal New regulltiona Livestock Gnzing Act Key Differeoces 

... ~bold title to Clarifies that Iitle to all new Same as old regulations The new regulltiona make 

lmpro.-t lmprovemeall that they fund permaDiilll iqn'Ovemeall on except the pereatt of it clear that title to fulure 

owuenblp IIIII lbare Iitle with thole public 1111111 are Dillie in the ownership is in ~ improvemeall 

COIIItrllcted with BLM. name of the iaDIIowael", the proportion to the level of will be retained by the 

U oiled States. maintenance performed. United States, as 

landowner. 

Prospective only. Valid I I 

existing rights are DOt ~ affected. 

Permittee/lessee I I 

contributiona are recorded 

and reimbuned lbould they 

cease to bold a permit or 

lease if the land is devoted 

I to other public purposes. 
239 

~Just the Facts~ 

BLM's New Grazing Rule ~ w--

Myth: The new grazing rule will eliminate livestock grazing from the public lands. 

FACT: Livestock grazing will remain a major use of public lands. 

The new grazing regulations will provide better grazing opportunties for ranchers by 

improving the capability of the public rangelands to produce more water and forage. 

Implementation of the new range management provisions will help to:· 

+restore the health of 100,000 acres of important streamside habitat 

+ bring 20 million acres of uplands into properly functioning condition 

+ reduce erosion, improve water quality, increase ground water recharge, and 

increase the number of perennial streams 

+ benefit all wildlife species and reduce reliance on the Endangered Species Act 

to conserve rare plant and animal species 

+ enhance revenues from and opportunities for recreational activities such as 

hunting, fishing, hiking, and tourism. 

The new grazing regulations will help speed improvements to rangeland health, 

which will benefit all sectors of the economy, including ranching, recreation, and 

tourism. The poor condition of the public lands is exemplified by: 

X Watersheds not producing their full range of benefits 

X Soils continuing to lose fertility. 

X Poisonous, exotic weeds that are a "biological wildfire" (an explosion in slow 

motion) reducing the land's carrying capacity. 

X Many streams and riparian areas being degraded 

Myth: The .pnal grazing rule raises the Federal grazing fee. 

FACT: The final grazing rule does not raise the Federal grazing fee or change the 

federal grazing fee formula. In fact, the Federal grazing fee declined by 19 percent 

this year. BLM decided not to finalize a fee increase in order to give Congress the 

opportunity to hold hearings on the subject and enact legislation addressing the 

appropriate fee for grazing on public lands. 
240 

.\ly th The neu..· grazing rule violates stare trater lau• and u..·ill enable che got·emmenr co 

w ke concro/ o( ranchers: existing water rights. 

FACT: The new rule in no way affects state water law and does not affect existing 

water rights. 

+The new rule does not take conuol of ranchers' water rights. The new rule does 

not affect the structure of western water law. Nor does it affect any current water 

rights on public lands. 

+ Only new water rights on public lands for livestock watering on those lands, 

would be acquired, maintained, and administered in the name of the federal 

government to the extent allowed by state law. 

Myth: The BLM will take ownership of existing range improvemenr:s without 

compensation. 

FACT: The final grazing rule does not affect existing range improvements on public 

lands. Permittees and lessees can continue to hold title to temporary or removable 

improvements such as corrals and water tanks. The United'States will hold title to 

new, permanent range improvements constructed on or made to public lands. 

+ If a lease or permit is transferred, the new permit or lease holder will reimburse the 

previous permittee or lease holder for contributions made to range improvement 

projects. 

+ This policy is consistent with the common practice of landowners keeping title to 

permanent improvements made on their land. It is also consiStent with Forest 

Service practice. 

My th: Ranchers are being cut our of planning and decision-making on public lands. 

FACT: Ranchers will continue to be directly involved in permit issuance, renewal 

and modification, increasing or decreasing permitted use, development of activity 

plans, and range improvements. 

BLM recognizes that often the most effective and knowledgeable stewards are those 

who live in communities dependent on goods and services from the public lands. 

Ranchers will participate along with other public land users, elected officials, and 

other state residents on Resource Advisory Councils. The diversity of membership on 

the Resource Advisory Councils reflects the fact that the public lands serve multiple 

uses and provide multiple benefits. 

(2) 
241 

Just the Facts (continued) 

Myth: Ranchers will lose their right to appeal BLM decisions. 

FACT: The grazing rule provides ranchers with the same appeals provisions that 

apply to other users of the public lands. 

In the past, when a permittee or lessee appealed a BLM decision, the decision was 

"stayed" automatically pending resolution of the appeal. This often delayed 

implementation of decisions for several years or more. As under current rules, these 

new rules allow a perminee to appeal a decision within 30 days. The decision would 

not be in effect during the 30 day appeal period except in limited circumstances. The 

Department of the Interior Office of Hearings and Appeals has 45 days after the end 

of the appeal period to consider stay petitions filed with an appeal. Thus, if a stay 

petition is filed with an appeal, a decision goes into effect no later than 75 days after 

it is issued if a stay is not granted. If a stay is granted, a decision would be "stayed" 

until the appeal is decided. 

Only actions necessary to protect the resource in certain specified circumstances and 

decisions to end unauthorized use are implemented upon issuance. This will apply 

qnly in a very narrow range of cases such as during severe insect infestation, drought, 

where continued grazing use poses an imminent likelihood of significant resource 

damage, or grazing without a permit. Even these decisions may be appealed within 

30 days. However, the decision will remain in effect until resolution of the appeal, 

unless a stay is granted. 

Grazing decisions are no longer the exception to Departmental policy. Grazing 

decisions and appeals will receive the same consideration that applies to other users 

of the public lands. 

Myth: Bureaucrats in Washington DC will impose one-size-fits-all standards and 

gUidelines on ranchers who hold permits or leases to graze livestock on public land. 

FACT: Standards and guidelines wiD be developed at the state or regional levels by 

local people, not in Washington. Resource Advisory Councils wiD play a key role in 

developing standards and guidelines. Standards are measurable criteria to maintain 

the physical function and biological health of the land. Guidelines are designed to 

help meet the standards. 

(3} 
242 

;lllych: BL\1 or environmencalists will apply "conservation use" to permitcees in order co 

remove livestock from public rangelands. 

FACT: Conservation use will not be imposed on a permittee or lessee by BLM. 

Conservation use is simply a management tool available at the discretion of the 

permittee or lessee. If approved by an authorized BLM official, conservation use will 

enable a rancher to exclude livestock grazing for up to ten consecutive years without 

paying grazing fees. During the period of conservation use, forage will not be 

available to other permittees. Permittees retain the ability to resume grazing in the 

future. 

Myth: The Deparrmenc of Interior forced grazing changes on the public and ignored public 

participation. 

FACT: The new grazing rules are the result of an extensive collaborative process. 

Nearly evety major aspect of the original proposal has been modified in response to 

public comment. For example, recognizing that local communities often have the 

most direct knowledge of public lands, the final rule allo'WS for far more flexibility in 

establishing Resource Advisory Councils and establishes residency requirements. 

The final rule responds directly to issues raised by the ranching industry. For 

example, the final rule provides for long-term permit tenure, allows subleasing and 

pasturing agreements, and allo'WS non-monetary settlement of unintentional trespass. 

As an indication of the emphasis on public participation, Secretary Babbitt met with 

western Governors, environmentalists, user groups, State and local officials, and local 

citizens on twenty separate occasions. BLM and the U.S. Forest Service held 48 

hearings throughout the West on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the 

proposed rule-making. Over 20,000 letters registering over 38,000 comments were 

read and considered. 

Questions? 

Contact: BLM Regulatory Management, Annetta Cheek: 202/208-425& 

BLM Legislative Affairs, Laurie Sedlmayr: 202/208-5101 

Resource Advisory Councils, Chris Wood: 202/208-7013 

(4) 
Implementing Livestock Reductions 

Under 5.852/ H 1713 IIUI-"'-

...... 

-- 8lllll1- -Acctph 

..... ··+ Filllllodllon 

llonltortng Dati AYIIIblt 

I -Don Nat 

Ag110ToAitom-

... 

----- 50<.114(2)(8) -----·-----... 

I 

PtmiftHApplatt : 

C'"Y'na Capldly 

Soe. 104 

-

Nollonilo<1ftl 

OltiAvllilbll 

klltlattContnc:torMOUWittl 

Unlwnlly "'Agrtculluro Dlpu1mont 

Soe. 114 (o) (c) 0) 

Soc. 15< (1}(1) : I . 

lniiJOIIIIonltoltnfl -Willingly llonltoriOJIIIIdlclln 'Evalu .. ...... , OHAHooroAppoll DodllonSiryacl j Soc. 104jll (22) Parllc-ln MooliOrlng "Parmanont Da111111•" Raooonablo l!ld lll1blo Uplloldl Bl.M Poodlng Appool t Soe. 23 Soc. 123 Prac1lco11nd Allom111vft Soe 15< (b)(1) : I _,,.. ' I ' -=qT• .. t ..... !( .................................. : 

Conllnld COIIII1ct Survey ana ConductC......,ctl Do'lllop Propoool i 

-T-Acllon 

InC,.. Court 

--Porty-11'11' t Amlcu1 Cwllt 

Soe. 114 (1) • 

: : : : 

IIUI-Ch-ln IIUI- -- Bl.Mtnuoo -HAppooll llaclllof, llllyM OHAttoinApput IIUI--1 

....,___ Doclllon Propooodllodllon Doc1o1on 50<.114(1}(1) PondlngAppul llph-Bl.M 

NaiAchll'lo Soe. 111 (1)(1) Soc. 112 Soc. 163 (c) Soe. 114 (b)(1) : Soe. 11-4 (1) (2) (8) 

-m"o ' t 

.. 1 . t . ' 

P-Accapto Anal --- Dtc!lkln Over LIP Thill Ftvt Yean 

. ' . t 

-"""' PttmittM and BlM AgrM To 
STATEMENT OF 

DONALD M. BAY 

ADMINISTRATOR 

NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE 

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Before the 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands 

Committee on Resources 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Concerning H R-.l1J..3,jjnifo.rm.Managemeot of I ivestock Grazing an Federal I and 

July II , 1995 

MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE: 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide the views of the Department of Agriculture 

concerning H.R. 1713, a bill to provide for uniform management of livestock grazing on 

Federal lands. We will convey the concerns of both the National Agricultural Statistics 

Service (NASS) and the Economic Research Service (ERS). 

Only two provisions in this bill affect programs under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of 

Agriculture: Title I, Section 137, concerning grazing fees, and Title II, Section 201, which 

would remove national grasslands from the National Forest System. We defer to the Secretary 

of the Interior concerning other provisions of the bill and to the Forest Service concerning 

Title II, Section 201. 
246 

Title I, Section 137, would replace the current grazing fee calculation formula and require 

NASS to collect certain data and calculate grazing costs. While we concur that the present 

system for determining grazing fees on Federal lands might be improved, it is not clear how 

this legislation would accomplish such improvement. This proposal appears vastly different 

from the current fee formula that is determined by the change in private grazing rates, beef 

cattle prices, and the costs of producing beef cattle as collected and published by NASS for the 

Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (Attachment A). 

The bill, as written, raises many unanswered questions and issues. For example, some 

important terms, such as "total gross value of production for livestock" are not defined. We 

believe that the legislation refers to "total gross value of production" per cow, currently 

estimated by ERS and published in Economic Indicators of the Farm Sector--Costs of 

Production: Major Field Crops and Livestock and Dairy. These estimates are based on the 

1990 cow/calf version of the 1990 Farm Costs and Returns Survey (FCRS) for the beef 

cow/calf enterprise, only one of the species listed in the definition of livestock set forth in the 

proposed legislation. Estimates for 1992 are the most recent, and were published in August of 

1994. Under Section 137, the calculated grazing fee based upon the last 3 years (1990-92) of 

ERS estimates of gross value of production would be $2.16 per animal unit month. 

NASS also estimates "Value of Production" for cattle and calves and for sheep and lambs in 

their Meat Animals: Production, Disposition, and Income. NASS estimates are in $1,000 

totals f01 each State and the United States. Using NASS estimates of "Value of Production" 

on a per cow or per animal basis could result in higher fees since this total value of production 

2 
246 

includes fed cattle, culled dairy cows, and beef cattle consumed on the farm. However, this 

approach (value of product) raises a number of uncertainties and has the potential for 

unanticipated consequences, i.e., changing the fee system for the eastern and southern regions 

that could have "pay-as-you-go" implications. 

We are also unable to determine the connection between the fee to be charged and the data 

which would be required to be collected-- or if the specified data apply to public or private 

grazing leases. We are concerned that the language, as written , would lead to additional 

grazing fee studies, perhaps on an annual basis, which would lead to continued debate over the 

validity of studies and findings--which has been the case with prior studies. 

There would also be a need to clarify agency responsibilities to avoid duplication. As written, 

NASS would be responsible for collecting the specified data. However, ERS currently indexes 

costs of production estimates per bred cow from the cowl calf version of the 1990 FCRS. 

These ERS estimates include estimates of the "total gross value of production· per ~nit, but 

only for beef cattle. ERS has discontinued its beef cow/calf and sheep costs of production 

surveys due to budget constraints. No Federal agency currently collects such value of 

production per unit data for cattle, horses, sheep, burros, or goats as would be required under 

the legislation. Conducting the additional surveys that will be required would be expensive 

($1 million annually) and difficult within the time frame specified in the legislation. 

In addition, we have concerns about the increased reporting burden on ranchers, additional 

funding needed, and costs of obtaining a statistically reliable sample to determine broad, 
247 

absolute data such as "total gross value of production, • especially at the state and local levels. 

Private leases are statistically a fairly rare item in some Western States. For example, in New 

Mexico, out 2,135 agricultural operations contacted last year, 165 reported private grazing 

fees for their locality, but only 59, or 3 percent, reported having actually leased private 

grazing land . rt is also unclear that a reliable estimate of "total gross value of production for 

livestock" could be determined from the specified data. Information on the "pounds gained" 

and "total dollar amount to be realized from the lease" are judgmental and difficult to 

quantify . In short, the data specified to be collected are much more statistically demanding 

than a measure of price or change in base rate as currently collected, and would be more 

costly to collect. 

Although we agree in principle with approaches for basing fees upon market value, there is no 

obvious rationale for charging a fee which is 'h of I percent of such value of production gain 

from grazing. 

Also, to determine grazing fees under the bill's provisions requires that data be collected for 

the previous three-year period. Costs of production estimates as determined by ERS are 

generally about two years behind the current year since survey data are collected for the prior 

year and time is then needed for data processing and analysis (Attachment B). Projections for 

at least two years would therefore be required to meet the requirement in the legislation for 

the "three years preceding. • 

4 
248 

Finally, the proposed bill establishes NASS as the sole agency responsible for setting grazing 

fees. NASS is a data collecting agency and the administration of the fee has always been a 

responsibility of the land management agencies. 

I have attached for the record an explanation of how the current grazing fee is computed, 

tables on the data collected and published by NASS that are used by the Forest Service and the 

Bureau of Land Management in the fee formula, and beef cattle costs of production estimates 

published byERS. (Attachments A and B). 

Smnmar.y 

Many unanswered questions and unresolved issues exist in the language dealing with grazing 

fee formula revision in the proposed bill. Important items such as "total gross value of 

production for livestock" are not defined and it is unclear whether the data specified to be 

collected are from public or private grazing leases. There also appears to be no link between 

the data required to be collected on the costs and returns from beef cattle grazing and the fee 

formula. Finally, there appears to be no rational for the proposed fee formula , which amounts 

to one-half percent of "gross value of production." 

NASS and ERS will work with this Committee, Bureau of Land Management, and Forest 

Service to collect and publish the necessary statistical and economic information required, but 

we should remain as third parties to the actual establishment of fees which would be left with 

those agencies that manage the Federal lands. 

I would be pleased to answer any questions the Subcommittee members might have. 

5 
249 

Auachment A 

Current Grazing Fee Formula Explanation 

The National Agricultural Statistics Service collects grazing fee data to meet 

fee computation requirements of the Public Range Improvement Act of 1978 

(PRIA) extended by Executive Order in 1986. This covers 307 million acres of 

Bureau of Land Management and National Forest rangeland in the Western 

States. The PRIA fee formula generates a single fee for these federal lands. 

The PRIA fee formula is: CF $1.23 X (FVI+BCPI-PPI)/100 

where, 

CF = The Calculated Fee to be charged as Congress defined to be 

the fair market value of the estimated econom1c value of livestock grazing to 

the user. Annual increases or decreases in the fee are limited to a plus or minus 25 percent of the previous year's fee. 

$1.23 = The Base Value grazing fee on private lands established in 

1966 through the Western Livestock Grazing Survey which was conducted 

byNASS. 

FYI = The Forage Value Index, an index of the 11 State Head 

Month Private Grazing Lind Lease Rate (PGLLR), 1964-1968 = 100. 

BCPI = The Beef Cattle Price Index, an index ofUSDA prices of beef 

cattle over 500 pounds, 1964-1968 = 100. 

PPI = The PRIA Prices Paid Index, an index of prices livestock 

producers pay for selected production input items, 1964-1968 = 100. 

All components of the PRIA fee formula are published in the December 

Agricultural Prices report. 

A formula similar to PRIA is used for the National Grasslands but the 

I>rivate Animal Unit Month (AUM) rate for the 17 States are weighted by 

State level grazing permits for the FYI. . 

PGLLR data are also used to set rates for grazing on State owned land. 

PGLLR data are necessary input for legislative and policy analysis. 

Fe.es on the Eastern National Forests are indexed using NASS "Other Hay" 

pnce data. 
250 

Attachment A 

Data Used to Compute Grazing Fees with Pubic Range Improvement Acl of 1978 (PIUA) 

Formula and Specified Values 

(Indues During PRIA Executive Order 12548 Ftt Formula, 1979- 1994) 

Data Fee Private Grazing Forage Value Ba:fCatUe Ba:fCatUe Prices Paid Unconstrained 

Ye;,r Ye;,r Land Lease Rate Index Price Price Index Index PRIA Fee 

(PGLLR) (FVJ) II (BCPO 21 (PPO 31 Rates 41 

($Per Head) (Percent) ($Per cwt) (Percent) (Percent) (Per AUM) 

1979 1980 7.53 206 64.90 294 275 2.77 

1980 1981 7.88 216 64.20 291 319 2.31 

1981 1982 8.83 242 59.10 268 359 1.86 

1982 1983 8.36 229 57.70 262 378 1.39 

1983 1984 8.85 242 56.40 256 387 1.37 

1984 1985 8.86 243 51.19 262 395 u ·5 

1985 1986 9.17 251 53.65 243 397 0.93 51 

1986 1987 8.50 233 51.78 235 388 0.98 51 

1987 1988 8.54 234 59.96 272 381 1.54 

1988 1989 8.75 240 65.46 297 386 1.86 

1989 1990 8.87 243 67.46 306 402 1.81 

1990 1991 9.22 253 71.81 326 419 1.97 

1991 1992 9.66 265 12.15 327 436 1.92 

1992 1993 10.03 275 69.60 316 440 1.86 

1993 1994 10.20 279 73.43 333 451 1.98 

1994 1995 10.30 282 67.07 304 455 1.61 

II The annual PGLLR divided by the 1964-1 968 base PGLLR of $3.65 and multiplied by I 00 to convert to an index 

number. 

2J The annual beef cattle price divided by the 1964-1968 base beef cattle price of$22.04 and multiplied by I 00 to 

convert to an index nwnber. 

31 Index of prices paid for livestock productior. inputs for beef cattle from November through October of the data year 

and weighted to reflect beef production in the Western States. 

41 PRIA calculated rates or economic value without applying plus or minus 25 percent limit on year-to-year cbange. 

51 PRIA fee formula expired December 31 , 1985, and indefinitely extended by EO 12548 (2114186) with a minimum 

of $1.35 per AUM. 
251 

Attachment A 

Definitions As They Apply To NASS Data Collected and Published 

HEAD MONTH - This is a month's use and occupancy of range by one animal, except for sheep or goats. A full head month's fee is charged for a month of grazing by: adUlt animals if the gra.zing animal is weaned or 6 

months of age or older at the time of entering, or will become 12 months of 

age during the _permitted period of use. For fee purposes, 5 sheep or goats, weaned or adult, are equivalent to one cow, bull; steer, heifer, horse, or mule. 

Animal Month is a term formerly used by the Forest Service and is 

synonymous with Head Month. 

ANIMAL UNIT MONTH (AUM) - (a) The amount of feed or forage required by an animal unit for one month. (b) Tenure of one animal-unit for a period of one month. This is not the same as Animal Month mentioned above. 

An Animal Unit is considered to be one mature (1000 lb.) cow or equivalent based upon the average daily forage consumption of 26 lbs. dry matter per day. 

COW -CALF PAIR - This is considered to be a cow with nursing calf (less than 6 months of age.) 
252 

Attachment A 

Data Published Annually by NASS in the December Agricultural Prices to .meet Grazing Fee Computation Requ1rements 

Prices Paid Index for Beef Cattle Production (1964-6B~100l l/: 455 

The Index of Prices Paid by farmers and ranchers for beef cattle 

production input items is for the period of November 1993 through October 1994. The components of this index include the production indexes of Fuels & Energy, Farm & Motor Supplies. Building & Fencing Materials. Interest. Farm Wage Rates. and Farm Services. These 

components are weighted to the overall index value by their importance 

in the cost of producing beef cattle . The weights are unchanged from a 

year earlier. 

Cattle : Prices Received. Selected States. 1994 11 

State 

9 Great Plains States 2/ 

11 Western States 3/ - 16 Western States ~/ 

17 Western States ~/ 

Beef Cattle 

Dollars per Cwt 

69.66 

67.07 

69.04 

69.00 

1/ Average for November 1993 through October 1994. except NV. UT. and WA 

which are mar~eting year averages. 21 CO, KS . NE, NM, NO, OK. SO, TX. and WY . 3/ AZ. CA. CO . ID , HT. NV. NM , OR, UT , WA. and WY . ~I Eleven Western States plus KS. NE. ND. OK. and SO. 

51 Sixteen Western States plus TX. 
253 

Attachment A 

Data Published Annually by NASS in December Agricultural 

Prices to meet Grazing Fee Computation Requirements (Cont1nuedl 

-- --- ---- -- --- -------- ----- --- ------- ---------- ---- ------- ---- ----- --- --- -----

Average Rates by Payment Method 11 

State : Animal Unit 2/ : Cow-Calf Per Head 

·--- ----- ------- -- -------- ------------- -----

: 1993 : 1994 : 1993 : 1994 : 1993 : 1994 

--- -------------- ------ --- --- --- ----- -------------- ----- -------------- --- ---- -

Dollars per Month 

AZ 5.72 5.72 7.25 7.25 6.32 6.35 

CA 10.40 11.00 13 .30 13.10 11.20 11.80 

co 9.70 10 .20 12 .00 12.10 9.74 10.20 

lD 9.25 9.70 11.10 11.60 10. 20 10.30 

KS 11.30 11.00 13 .30 12 .50 10.50 10.00 

MT 11.40 11.80 12 .90 13 .50 11 .50 12.90 

NE 17.00 17 .50 20 .10 20.90 16.30 17.50 

NV 8.80 8.80 11.00 11.50 8.80 9.50 

NM 7.55 8.08 9.26 10.40 7.57 8.50 

NO 10 .00 9. 75 11.40 11.30 11.20 11.40 

OK 7.10 6.20 8.90 7.80 7.00 7.15 

OR 9.75 9.00 11.50 11.00 10.30 10 .00 

so 12.60 13.20 15.10 15.80 14.20 14.00 

TX 8.75 8.75 10.00 10.40 8.00 8.10 

UT 8.90 9.00 11.20 11.50 9.90 10.10 

WA 7.80 8.30 10 .60 10 .00 10.50 10 .40 

WY 10.50 10 .50 12 .60 12 .40 11.00 11.00 

Seventeen State 

<All States l 10 .30 11.00 12.80 13.10 9.40 9.70 

Sixteen State 

(All States Except TXJ 10 .60 11.30 13 .30 13 .50 10 .50 10 .80 

Eleven State 

<Excludes KS. NE. NO . OK . SD. TX) 9.70 10.00 12 .1il 12 .00 10 .20 10 .30 

Nine State 

<Excludes AZ. CA. ID. MT. 

NV. OR. UT. WA) 10.60 11 .50 13 .30 13.60 9.10 9.40 --- -- ------- ----- ---------------- --- --- ------- -- ------- -------- --- --- -- ----- !' The J99J average rates. are estimates (rates over UO .OO are rounded to the 

nearest dime) based on survey indlcations of monthlY lease rates for 

private . non-lrrlga ted graz ing land from the June Agricultural Survey 

?.I Incl udes an1mal umt plus CO'..t·calf rates Cow-calf rate converted to 

an1mal un it {aum) ing (l aum·cow-calf "'0 833) 
254 

Attachment A 

Questions Asked by NASS on Its June Crop and Livestock Survey to Collect 

Private Grazing Rjites 

(Only ranchers who currently have cattle are asked these questions) 

----------------------------

GRAZING FEES: 

10. Which of the following is the most conunonly used method of charging for grazing on privately 

owned, non-irrigated grazing land in your area: Per Head Per Month, Per Animal Unit Month 

(AUM), or Per Cow With Nursing Calf Per Month? 

(Check appropriate line) Per Head Per Month 

Per Animal Unit Month (AUM) 

Per Cow With Nursing Calf Per Month 

What is the average charge for this method in your area? ........... Dollars & Cents 

II . During 1995. will this operation pay a fee to graze cattle 

on privately owned, non-irrigated land?............. .... ............ YES = 1 

NO =2 
255 

hbHI u.·-u.s . cow·C4U f"'"''duc\tC!ft c.e•h cot.ta e.c'ld return.. 1990 ·92 ............................ ______ ...._.. _____________ ....... - 1990 1991 1992 

········-····-·-··-·-----·------·-··-···-·-.. -- Grou velue o4 produt:tiOf\t 

!itttr calvn 

Htlfor calvH 

Yur' '~ lte-or• lurl hlQ hclfen 

Ot~or <DtUo 

Tote!, grw• Ytlut of """""'tloon 

tuh expena": f-r eoottlo 

feed· · Croln 

Protein •~Wl-.to 

ly· pr""""U 

Marveeted for-roe 

tott\lf"o 

Total feed CO&tl 

Other·· 

Veterlnery wd R<fl<lne 

~ lv«t<><'~ heullrt 

llerketlrt 

c .. ,,. t...:~ •lxtrt 

Fuel, hbc 

IOadllnery wd llulldll'lll ~lro 

ftlrtd lobar 

Other qrloblc eooch ~ 

Tout, wrleble cull ~a 

o-ro! fe..., .....,rheod 

laz.u. end loaurence 

IMerut 

toto!, fixed eoooh ~ 

Toto!, coeh ~ 

Crou vwluo of pN>Cloct I on lese CDih llll:pONe& 

---··-·-··-

Ootlare per bred cow 

61.4~ 63.22 ~7.2& 

51.68 53.24 L1!.09 

133.46 1)2 . 20 127.26 

72.97 72.17 69.72 

121.99 117.40 111 . 2l 

441.59 438.23 413 .54 

14.97 14.91 14.12 

7.05 1 . 10 7.15 

23.10 23.26 23.95 

7.55 7.U 7.Sl 

77.93 71.77 74.'7 

13.63 13. 21 11.00 

199.96 193.7S 194.ZI 

"·" 13.72 IS.&4 

2.63 3.41 3.:59 6.66 6.57 3.54 

0.34 o.n 0 . 11 

22 . 10 2l.L4 20.39 

24.20 26.02 27.02 

27.97 ~.0:5 lO.U 

5.09 $.26 5.47 

315.66 316.49 314.52 

34.16 27.52 27.&7 

13.51 11.90 12. 09 

31.47 31.98 27.07 

86.14 71.40 ,7.93 

401.10 317.119 3e2.(5 

:59.1'9 SG.34 31., 

··- leble 511··u.a. corcetf ~ton --lc c-to- returnc, 1990· 92 

-.:a•c.c:c-•-- --.-eta••- Jtea 1990 1991 1992 -··-···'"'-'"'·- _ ....... Dollero por Wed cow trO&& volue of ~ttOft: 

tt"r calve. "·'9 ,3.22 57. 26 

ll•tfer calve• 51.68 53.24 41.09 

'YHrtfng at .. ra ISS ~ 132.20 127.26 

Tcor!lng helfero 72.97 n.11 69. 72 

Other c:•ttle 121.99 117.LO 111.23 

lotal, gro.1 vela. of pt"'O..ctlon "1.59 431.23 413.56 

£c;onanlc (full --.onlllp) coo to: 

Varleblc C:Nh •ltfii'NK 315 .U 31&. L9 31L.52 

hnor•l farw ~rheed 34 . 16 27.52 27. 17 

T u.es ard I r.urence 13.51 11.90 12 .09 

Cepltol rop!ec0111tnt 11.56 13.11 14.65 

Optrnlne eopltel 17.60 12.91 1 .42 

Other noonlwd cephal 32.27 3'.90 37.27 

ltnll O.OL O.OL O.OL 

llrl>o 1 d l oi>Qr 13.63 18.20 92.14 

Total , KOI"''CD(C Cot:tl 5711.52 575.~ 517.70 

l<tiO....l return< to-· wd riot •136.93 ·137.61 ·16<.14 

........... .- ..... ~------·--·-····-··-······-···········---------·• c; ··· lilotc • 19'90 to 1992 Htl .. tea vent beaed Ot'i a revh~ ~nethodology 

and &re not. dlrectl)' C<XI"pOf8blC' Vfth r .. Utte for prcv{ OVf. year-•. 

Al tachment B 
256 

NATIONAL AssoCIATION OF STAT£ DEPARTMENTS OF AGRICULTURE 

1156 15TH STREET, N. W. • Sum; /020 • WASHINGTON, DC 20005 

TELEPHONE: 202 1296-9681) • FAX: 202/296-9686 

NSTATEMENT 

TEsTIMONY OF 

FRANK A. DUBoiS, NEW MEXICO SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

ON BEHALF OF THE 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE DEPARTMENTS OF AGRICULTURE 

BEFORE THE 

HOUSE RESOURCES 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 11, 1995 

re: H .R. 1713 

Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I am Frank DuBois, New Mexico 

Secretary of Agriculture and a member of the National Association of State 'Departments of Agriculture 

(NASDA) Committee on Natural Resources. I am also the President of the Western Association of State 

Departments of Agriculture and a member of the NASDA Board of Directors. I appear before you today 

on behalf of NASDA, which is the nonprofit association of public officials representing the Commissioners, 

Secretaries and Directors of Agriculture in the 50 states and the territories of American Samoa, Guam, 

Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. 

H.R. 1713 will shape the future of the western states which depend on the use offederal rangelands for the 

continued growth and stability of the livestock and related industries, as well as maintaining the integrity 

of community social structures. As such, it is imperative that a full disclosure of the need and importance 

of this bill be expressed to you. Recognizing that the bill is indeed lengthy, I will limit my comments to 

those sections of the bill which NASDA feels will have the greatest impact and relevance within the time 

constraints we face today. 

NASDA supports establishing state or regional standards and guidelines, as found in Section 105, for the 

administration and management of the federal rangelands. The provision in the bill which allows the Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) to develop these standards and guidelines in conjunction with state departments 

of agriculture, or the appropriate state agency, along with the state land-grant university, is a positive step 

toward recognizing the important role these entities can play in the management of the federal rangelands 

resource. It is the state departments of agriculture which are best suited to know the needs as well as the 

challenges which face the livestock industry within each state, and the land-grant universities are best suited 

to provide the science and technical expertise which will make the decisions of the BLM defensible and 

appropriate. 

NASDA IS A NONPROFIT ASSOCIATION OF PUBllC OFFICIALS REPRESENTING THE COMMISSIONERS, 

SECRETARIES AND DIRECTORS OF AGRICULTtiRE IN THE FIFTY mn:s AND FOUR TERRITORIES. 

rn .. rnlt~" lltry<lnl p,~ .. 
257 

We support the development of alloonent management plans (AMP), as outlined in Section 121, using the 

process of consultation, cooperation, and coordination with the permittees and lessees, landowners, the 

grazing advisory council for the grazing district, and any state having land within the area to be covered by 

the AMP. The language in this bill concerning the development of AMPs mirrors the language found in 

Section 8 of the Public Rangelands Improvement Act (PRIA) of 1978. We recognize that Congress, as 

found in PRIA and when considering legislation such as this bill, carefully chose language specific for its 

meaning and its intent. The terms consultation, meaning the act of conferring or deliberating; cooperation, 

meaning an association of persons for a corrunon benefit; and fmally, coordination, being equal, of the same 

rank, degree, or importance, not subordinate, are vital and necessary for successful AMP development. 

These terms provide that the above mentioned entities have equal standing with the BLM when developing 

an AMP and consideration is given to all viewpoints and proposals. This insures that the best course of 

action for managing the rangeland resource is taken. 

Additionally, NASDA supports paragraph (e) of this section which states that the issuance of a term grazing 

permit or lease that is consistent with a land use plan shall not be considered to be a major federal action 

requiring the conduct of any study or assessment under the National Envirorunental Policy Act (NEPA) of 

1969. This is a positive step toward the recognition that the livestock grazing programs which occur on 

federal rangelands are fully authorized by law, regulation, and policy of the United States. The issuance, 

reissuance, or transfer of term grazing permits or leases are not newly proposed federal actions requiring 

extensive evaluation of the affected envirorunent. Rather, the renewal of term grazing permits and leases 

is a continuing federal action by the Secretary in accordance with implementing the livestock grazing 

program on federal lands. The federal land management agencies have the responsibility to issue, reissue, 

or transfer term grazing permits and leases in accordance with the NEPA evaluation and assessment already 

provided for in the land use plan. 

NASDA supports Section I 22 of the bill outlining the process and corresponding ownership provisions of 

structural range improvements either implemented as cooperative ELM/permittee or lessee endeavors, or 

as provided solely by the permittee or lessee. This section maintains the value of range improvements, 

either in whole or in part, in the name of the permittee or lessee equitable to the amount of their original 

contribution to include maintenance costs. Allowing permittees or lessees title to structural range 

improvements which are located on Federal lands in proportion to their original construction costs, as well 

as increasing percentage ownership based on periodic maintenance costs, will encourage continued 

investment in range improvements necessary for effective range management. Additionally, the integrity 

of the ranch value and the associated grazing permit or lease will be maintained as the value of the range 

improvements is an inherent part of that value. 

Section 123 of the bill addressing water rights on the federal lands is supported in its entirety by NASDA. 

State water laws must be the guiding force concerning the use and appropriation of water on the federal 

rangelands. 

Section 131, paragraph (c)(2), concerning the Authorization of Grazing Use, provides that an authorized 

BLM officer, when considering more than one application for the grazing use , shall not take into 

consideration the past practice or the present willingness of an applicant 10 allow public access to federal 

land over private land. The association supports this paragraph but would suggest applying the language 

in this section to Section 132 addressing Grazing Permits or Grazing Leases. This would insure that the 

BLM could not make the issuance, reissuance, or transfer of a term grazing permit or lease contingent upon 

public access across private land. Additionally, the language should be expanded to include access for BLM 

personnel across private lands not being required or contingent as a qualification of the term grazing permit 

or lease. 
258 

NASDA supports the issuance of tenn grazing pennits or leases for a period of 15 years as specified in 

Section 132. Increasing tenure length over the current 10 year tenn will provide additional safeguards to 

livestock operators for securing the kinds and amounts of financial backing necessary to continue investing 

in the public rangelands resource. A 15 year tenn grazing pennit or lease also provides incentive for 

rangeland stewardship based on the pennanence of the opportunity to produce, along with the expectation 

of receiving compensation in return for their investment. The length of tenn penni! or lease tenure can also 

be thought of as the length of time which the public can depend on judicious stewardship of the public 

rangelands. Additionally, due to the intermingled land status so prevalent in the West, long tenn 

stewardship of the public lands affected by this bill also means long tenn stewardship of federal lands other 

than those of the BLM, as well as state trust and private lands which are so often part of many ranching 

units. 

NASDA supports the grazing fee fonnula established by the bill which strikes a balance berween providing 

a reasonable return to the federal government for use of the federal rangelands while insuring that pennittees 

and lessees remain economically viable and financially solvent. The non-punitive grazing fee will allow 

pennittees and lessees the latitude to invest in the federal rangelands. Revenues generated by the grazing 

fee will allow the BLM to continue providing effective management guidance and administrative oversight. 

NASDA supports Section 164 concerning the ability of a pennittee or lessee to appeal a final decision made 

by the BLM. Allowing final decisions which have been appealed to be placed in suspension, except in cases 

of inuninent and irreversible damage to the resource, will insure the continued atmosphere and philosophy 

of innocent until proven guilty, and the opportunity for a full and fair disclosure of the facts related to the 

appeal. Delaying the implementation of a final decision pending appeal could be crucial to providing the 

operating stability necessary for many federal lands ranchers. Continuity in management and decision 

making is something that should be afforded to the federal lands livestock operator when so many other 

conditions are uncontrollable and unpredictable. 

Section 176 of the bill, Resource Advisory Councils, is a concept that is supported by NASDA. Allowing 

entities with varied backgrounds, experiences, philosophies, and concepts of public land management to be 

involved in the land use planning process for BLM grazing districts will insure that a broad range of 

viewpoints and planning perspectives will be represented. BLM decision makers will benefit from this input 

resulting in less stalemate and increased efficiency in implementing productive rangeland management 

strategies and practices. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I do have three suggested changes to the bill I would like to 

present to you today on behalf of NASDA. 

One, I would suggest that H.R. 1713, in its entirety, be applied as it is now written or as amended, to all 

the grazing lands in the National Forest System under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture. 

I believe applying this bill to both the BLM, under the Department of the Interior, and the U.S. Forest 

Service, under the Department of Agriculture, is both feasible and will have support from both agencies. 

The following quotes are taken from proposed rules published in the Federal Register. On March 25, 1994, 

a proposed rule by the BLM states, "Many of the proposals would result in greater consistency berween the 

administration of grazing on the public rangelands by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and 

administration of grazing on National Forest System lands by the United States Forest Service (Forest 

Service)." On April24, 1994, a proposed rule by the FS states, "The Department of Agriculture proposes 

to revise the National Forest System rangeland management regulations to ... achieve greater consistency 

berween the grazing management regulations of the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, 

U.S. Department of the Interior. " The joint BLM and Forest Service final environmental impact statement 
259 

also states, "The purpose and intent of the Preferred Alternative is to: Make the Forest Service's and 

BLM 's rangeland management programs more consistent with each other, and more compatible with 

ecosystem management." I think it is obvious that both the BLM and the Forest Service should support the 

application of this bill to both of their respective agencies and encourage this committee to consider this 

recommendation. 

Secondly, I would request on behalf of NASDA that any and all inclusions of the term "affected interest," 

in relation to allotment management planning, be removed from this bill. All interested parties should be 

and are allowed to participate in, comment on, and have standing to appeal resource management plans for 

the BLM and forest plans for the FS with respect to livestock grazing and the other issues addressed in these 

plans. Site specific planning, such as allotment management plans (AMP), must be consistent with the 

existing land use plan of either the BLM or the FS. As such, the development and subsequent adoption of 

an AMP is a final document signed by the permittee or lessee and the land management agency. These two 

entities are exclusively bound by signature to any and all requirements of the AMP, as well as the 

consequences of the success or failure of implementing the very same AMP. Affected interests are not 

signatory to the AMP nor obligated in any way to its requirements. Deleting the term "affected interests " 

in the bill as it relates to the development and preparation of AMPs does not limit their input into the public 

land management process, which should occur at the land use planning level, but rather prevents third party 

interference. Section 8 of PRIA is very specific concerning who shall be involved in the development of 

AMPs. I would urge the committee to take a close look at Section 8 of PRIA, giving special attention to 

the language used by the 95th Congress which provides permittees and lessees who use federal rangelands 

equal footing with the federal land management agencies. 

Lastly, concerning Grazing Advisory Councils as found in Section 177 of the bill, I would request on behalf 

of NASDA that the membership of these councils be elected by the permittees and lessees who are permitted 

to graze livestock in the areas for which the councils are created, in this case it would be each BLM grazing 

district. The Secretary would establish the election process to be used for establishing the membership of 

the councils. This would insure that the membership of Grazing Advisory Councils would be chosen locally 

rather than appointed by the Secretary, thus eliminating the possibility of allowing the political landscape , 

particularly on the national level, to become a consideration in the local management of the nation's 

rangeland resource. Allowing those individuals, who have the greatest commitment and obligation to 

successful federal rangeland management, the freedom of self-determination in selecting membership to 

Grazing Advisory Councils is viewed by NASDA as positive and beneficial to both the industry and the 

resource. 

This concludes my comments to this committee. I would like to once again thank you for your 

attentiveness, your patience, and your commitment to this very important issue. If the committee has any 

questions for me either now or at a future date I would be more than happy to try and answer them. 

4 
Re: 

260 

Tutimony by Tim Lowry for the Owhyec Cattlcmcn'a Association 

And the Owhyee County Land Use Plallning Committee on H.R. 1713. 

Dear Mr. Olairman and Representatives: 

The comments that I am making today on H.R. 1713 represent the view and policy of the 

Owhyec Caalemcn's Association (OCA) and the Owhyec County Land Use Planning Committee 

(OCLUPC). 

I want to begin by cxprca&ing the appm:iation of the OCA and OO..UPC to Rep. Helen 

Chenoweth far her steadfast suppon in proteCting bcr <:Ollstituents rights and for working to 

protect the stability of the weatem Iive&toek induatty. We arc certain that there arc others on this 

subcommittee who alao served their constituents and the iDdusay u well, and we thank you. We 

arc also indebted to Owhyee County Extension Agent Chad Gibson, Ph. D. and OCLUPC 

conaultant Fred Kelly Grant, J. D. far their invaluable assistance and contributiona. 

Subcommittee~ of the OCA and OLVPC met on SIUiday night July 9, 1995 to review the 

revisions that have been made to the bill following the Senacc hearin& and wen: -very pleased 

with the changes !bat have been inserted by the Senate. 

The position of Owyhee County lhat lhc propeny righla and inlereitJ, due pl"'CeSS rights, 

and stability of the western livestoclc indusay must be protec:led has remained constant from the 

beginning. The proceu of identifying lhe partioDJ of the original bill Ulat needed amending 

began with a worldng meeting with Rep. Chenoweth the night we m:eived a copy of the bill. Dr. 

Gibson and I then flew to Albuquerque, New Mexico the ne"t rooming. and met with the New 
261 

MPK:o Public l..aDda Qluncil. An exrensive lilt of %eCOIIlDICI!dcd chanaca wu developed at that 

mcctin& aad forwarded to OlD' respective conlfelliODal dclcJatiOill. Several of those 

rccoiiiiJielldationa were incorporated iniO the bill before it was intzoduccd. After the bill'a 

introductioo, members of tbc OCA &Dd OCLUPC met In Bolle, Id. with leaden of the Idaho, 

Oreaon ancl Nevada Cattlcmea's Auoc:iations to review the billllld identify the conCCl'DI that 

remained. A number of imponant iuues rcmaincd and were prcaentcci to the Senate 

Subcommitrec Oil Foresta and Poblil: Land Mana,acmcnL We arc plcascd that it now appears that 

about 80~ of our ori&inal recommendations have been adopted and most all of the mcm 

important i11ues have beelli'CIOlvcd. 

I would like 10 brin& to your attention tine aectiona of the bill that we believe srill need 

10 be amended. 

Ylrlt. the provilion of Sec. 137 (c) (3) 10 assess a IUI'Cbarge for the authorized pasturing 

of Hvcatock owned by a penon other than the permiuee or leasee ia dilc:riminarary &Dd punitive. 

Thia proviaion will penalize those who can least afford it wl will undermine the economic 

atability of many ranches. If the ratiollalc for the aun:harae Is far revenue enhancement. the 

rcsuJtl will likely bo di&appointin&. When permiueea or leaaeea who depend on authorized 

puturiq of liveatodc owned by odlrn ID mab uiC of their pennit C&Dilot afford the £ee, they 

will not be able to run livcatock and no revenue will be collected. 

This provision will not only pcna1lze and place many ranchm In ecoDOD!lc jeopardy, it 

will allo be contrcy to IOWid reiOIIli:C IDIDqCIDCIU it lt elinlinatca arazinl from rhe affceted 

allormenta. AJ Dr. Wayne Burkhardt, a l'CIIOW1ICd IUJC acientiat. and other ranp acicmlstl have 

pointed out, arazin1 i1 a nallU'Il and nec:euary COIDpOIICDt of healthy, sustainable ranp-landa. 
262 

0a ICIIDC allocmeDu in Owybcc Cowley that ~ beeo IIICdcd 10 c:rutecl wbeat pa me 

BLM is iDiilliq dw the pcnniueca 010 lbem heavier tban they aze able 10 wilh their own caale. 

T'bc pami.aeca baw: beCIII told that It they cloll't mab the cklircd 111e the BLM will brina 111 

additionallivatock. If the pc:rmitlees wen 10 lcuc 1iw:Jtcck in CIW 10 comply with tbc Bl.Ms 

requat for more 111e, why lbou14 tbcy be ]lCIIIlizocl? 

Secondly, c~&ablilhin& IWidarcls &IICl plde1iDcl Oil a stale or rcJionallcvel u mandell'Jd 

in Soc:. 105 (a) will crc&~~~IICirly u 111111}' problem& u would lll!ionaliWidlrda or l\)idclincl •. 

Durina die bcaiinp an RanJcland Reform '94 many Dllltl lcicmiats pvc a loud and clear 

meuaae that IWidarda anc1 JUidelinea wtft ckUimenta1 to aood ranac manavment when applied 

over a wide ~rea. Too many differcaccs aiat wfthill a stale or reP,n 10 eatablilh workable 

stalldards or auideline• at levels larger than an allotment or at DIOit, a Rcaource Area. 

Thirdly, Owyhee County doel not believe that Sec:. 137 (c) Grazin& Cccs will finally 10lve 

the fee issue and would cncourap you 10 eumille tbc m:ommcDdalion 1ubmittcd from the 

county u a aimp1c, equiQblc &Ddlucln& 10ludon. 

I Wlllt 10 coadude by apill dwlkilla Rep. CleDowcth &Dd tbc committee for the Pft)Jl'CII 

that die bill hal made llld lhaDk you Mr. Ollirman Cor die opportunity 10 offer thia tcltimoDy. 

Sillc:erdy • 

Tim. Lowry 
263 

STATEMENT OF 

MARSHA TUROCI, FIRST DISTRICT SUPERVISOR AND CHAIR OF 

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

To: 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Resources 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands 

At Hearing on H.R. 1713, the 

Livestock Grazing Act 

Washington, DC 

July 11, 1995 

ll1ank you for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee considering reform and stability 

of this important topic throughout the West. We have, for too long, fought over grazing 

issues on public lands. It is time to re cogn ize that range livestock grazing, like all 

agricultural pursuits, bas a place in the economic scheme and fabric of the West and the 

United States, that it can and is managed under professional principles, and that we cannot 

afford to see this aspect of our economy and heritage "reformed" out of business simply 

because the ranchers use public lands for all or part of their operations and certain elements 

of society feel that this is somehow wrong. Grazing of rangelands, whether public or private, 

is an integral part of the livestock economy throughout the West, Midwest and South. 

The public lands are important to all the people, and they must remain an integral part of 

the base in the West, and continue to provide their values to all of the people. 

San Bernardino County is the largest county in United States. It also has perhaps the 

largest area of public lands within any political subdivision, over 6 million acres under BLM 

administration and significant other areas of former public lands now administered by the 

National Park Service and Department of Defense. 

Public lands in the County are home to both cattle and sheep interests. The sheep utilize 

spring forage which is frequently abundant on our deserts, as they have for over 100 years. 

Cattle are grazed from ranches in the County in surrounding mountains and foothills 

throughout the First District, which I represe nt. Again, this has been going on for over 100 

years. 

We recognize that much of the history of grazing in the West has been colored by an initial 

history of non-regulated activity. But times change, and so does science, and we have the 

ability and the will, to properly manage our natural resources. The BLM has been doing 

this for years, and formalized management with the Desert Plan in 1980 which provided 

conservation, thresholds for turnout, and a variety of other provisions to stabilize the 

livestock within the County and the Desert region. 

Unfortunately, over the past 15 years, our ranchers have been bombarded with added 

problems associated with their use, which should have been long-ago resolved. We hope 
264 

that this attempt by Congress will affirm that livestock do have a place on the public lands, 

and that ranchers do have continuing recourse to appeal arbitrary and impractical decisions, 

and have them stayed during the appeal and resolution process. 

These actions have included restrictions on livestock grazing by Federal agencies under the 

Endangered Species Act as it is currently being implemented (e.g. desert tortoise restrictions 

have effectively eliminated spring grazing over much of the region even in the face of 

evidence that tortoises and livestock co-existed in even an unregulated environment for over 

100 years!), as well as actions taken by past Congresses, such as enactment of the California 

Desert Protection Act which placed over half of the County's public land cattle grazing 

under National Park Service administration. 

I come before this subcommittee testifying in favor of the proposed legislation. 

• It will bring renewed stability to public land grazing, and send. a message to 

administrators that the Congress has once again affirmed the importance of this historic and 

economically important use. 

• It will eliminate, or at least reduce, the chances of management and administration 

of public land grazing being arbitrarily "reformed" under single-use agendas. 

• It appears to be a logical and natural evolutionary step in the progression of 

grazing administration which began with the Taylor Grazing Act in 1934, continued through 

FLPMA in 1976 and PRIA in 1978. It is sad that Congress must continue to revisit these 

issues, but perhaps each generation must reaffirm that which is important--and grazing use 

of public lands is as important to our ranch families as it is to our heritage. 

• It establishes better balance on the Resource Advisory Councils than those 

recently chartered by the Secretary. By not specifying a split between environmental and 

user interests, it assures that all parties with a stake in public land management issues can 

be at the table. 

• It makes a clear statement regarding ownership of private investments in range 

improvements on public lands, together with recognition of private holding of water rights 

under State Jaw. This will remove any ambiguity regarding title should public lands be 

disposed of or transferred to another agency. 

• While I take no position in the grazing fee issue formula proposed, I do hope that 

this will become the final word in the matter. Too long have ranchers faced uncertainly 

regarding their own expenses, in a market over which they have no control. It is important 

that fees not only serve as rent but they reflect the costs of operation, the lack of full 

security of tenure, the public nature of the lands which livestock share with a variety of 

other users, and that a portion of the fees continue to be returned to the County. In our 

County, 111e spend the mODe)' bact on the land, with advice and counsel from our ranching 

eommunity. It has worked for us. We hope it can continue. 

2 
265 

We do offer two proposals for inclusion within the Act: 

1. For the sake of consistency we urge that the National Forest System also be administered 

under this Act. In other words, the term "Secretary" should be expanded to include the 

Secretary of Agriculture. This will assure consistency between BLM and Forest Service 

administration and fees. Since many of our ranchers use lands of both agencies, it is 

important that the United States government be consistent in its policies, which include 

administration as well as grazing fees, management, title to improvements, and other factors. 

2. For the sake of San Bernardino County, we propose an addition to Section 124 which 

will redress an issue which was created by the last Congress. We suggest the addition of a 

paragraph (c) and the inclusion of wording to the following effect: 

Areas of public lands which Congress has designated to be units of the 

National Park System since January 1, 1994, and in which grazing was 

specifically authorized in the enactment to continue, shall be administered 

under the provisions of this act, including licensing and permitting by the 

former agency, setting of and deposit of grazing fees, installation and 

maintenance of range improvements, and title thereto, and retention of appeal 

rights to the Interior Board of Land Appeals under the Administrative 

Procedures Act. 

The above text is proposed for the purpose of amending Section 510 of the California 

Desert Protection Act which placed many of our cattle ranchers under the National Park 

Service within the newly created Mojave National Preserve, and their rules and regulations, 

and which eliminated their appeal rights except within the Park Service hierarchial structure, 

created ambiguity regarding ownership of existing range improvements, and has created a 

great deal of uncertainty regarding coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service 

regarding range management and desert tortoise habitat coordination. 

Relative to the text of the Bill we suggest that the definition of "Affected Interest" be made 

more specific in that the role is advisory only. Since management of allotments must be 

consistent with the regional Resource Management Plans, which are completed with full 

public review and input toward decisions including livestock grazing allocations, we see little 

to be served by allowing the public to have detailed oversight into the professional 

intricacies of livestock movement and management on the allotments. Input to reduce 

specific conflicts is appropriate. Input to raise and debate, in another forum, the prejudices 

and antagonisms which some have on allocating of grazing should be limited. 

Relative to the text of the Bill, we suggest that the definition of "Monitoring" be made more 

explicit and include the concept of "over time." This will assure that decisions are not made 

on the basis of a single snapshot, which might not reflect long term trends and effects of 

management on the resources and its uses. 
266 

Thank you for the opportunity to participate. I would be happy to expand on any of the 

points in the testimony or provide additional details which the Subcommittee might find 

helpful. 

4 
267 

LIVESTOCK GRAZING ACT OF 1995 

BY Ll:-il>A TALIAFERRO 

rM LINDA TALIAFERRO, PRESIDENT, WYOMING COUNTY 

COl\1MISSIONERS ASSOCIATION. I AM A COl\1MISSIONER FROM 

SWEETWATER COUNTY WYOMING. 

WE HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH RANGE LAND REFORM 94 FROM THE 

START, MANY COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FROM WYOMING HAVE 

TESTIFIED AGAINST IT. THE WCCA AS A BODY HAS TAKEN A STAND 

TO OPPOSE RANGE LAND REFORM 94. 

THEREFOR IT IS GREAT PLEASURE FOR ME TO BE HERE TODAY TO 

VISIT WITH YOU ABOUT THE "LIVESTOCK GRAZING ACT" . 

I AM GOING TO SPEAK WITH YOU ABOUT WHAT WE BELIEVE THIS 

"ACT" WILL DO TO HELP KEEP WYOMING AND OTHER WESTERN 

STATES THAT HAVE PUBLIC LANDS HEADED IN THE RIGHT 

DIRECTION. 

WE FEEL THAT IT IS TIME TO PUT TillS ISSUE TO REST AND ARE 

HOPEFUL THAT THIS ACT WILL HELP TO DO THAT. 

AS COMMISSIONERS IN WYOMING WE WORK, LIVE, AND SOCIALIZE 

AND ARE IN TRUTH THE VERY PEOPLE THAT THIS BILL WILL EFFECT. 

WE BELIEVE IT IS TIME TO LET THIS INDUSTRY HAVE A STABLE 

ENVIRONMENT TO ACT WITHIN. DEALING WITH THE MARKET IS BAD 

ENOUGH BUT HAVING TO DEAL WITH A BUREAUCRACY THAT YOU 

DON'T KNOW FROM DAY TODAY. YEAR TO YEAR, WHAT THEY ARE 

GOING TO COME UP WITH NEXT, IS ASKING TO MUCH. IT IS TIME TO 

MOVE TillS ISSUE INTO TIIE TWENTIETH CENTURY, AND HOPEFULLY 

BE READY FOR THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY. 

AS COMMISSIONERS OUR GOALS ARE NOT MUCH DIFFERENT THAN 

YOURS- TO KEEP A STABLE TAX BASE. TO DO THAT WE HAVE TO 

WORK TO KEEP INDUSTRY STRONG, ALL INDUSTRIES. 

THE AGRICULTURE COMMUNITY OFFERS SO MUCH FOR EVERYONE, 

FOOD, OPEN SPACES, USE OF A PRODUCT (RANGE GRASS) THAT ONLY 
268 

BENEFITS EVERYTIIING CONCERNED WHEN USED PROPERLY, TO 

SAVE A LIFE STYLE THAT IS SO VERY IMPORTANT TO AMERICA. 

NOT ANY MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANY OTHER, BUT J1l.SI AS 

IMPORTANT. 

TilE AG DOLLAR THAT COMES INTO A COMMUNITY NINETY-NINE 

TIMES OUT OF A HUNDRED STAYS IN THAT COMMUNITY. THERE ARE 

SEVERAL COUNTIES IN WYOMING AND OTHER WESTERN STATES 

THAT AGRICULTURE IS THE MAJORITY OF THEIR TAX BASE. SO WHEN 

TillS ISSUE IS ADDRESS AND KICKED AROUND YOU ARE TALKING 

ABOUT COMPLETE COMMUNITIES NOT JUST TilE PEOPLE THAT RAISE 

THE SHEEP AND CA TILE. YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT SCHOOLS, 

HOSPITALS, CAR DEALERS, CHURCHES, GROCERY STORES. MAIN 

STREET WYOMING IS BEING DECIDED WHENEVER TillS ISSUE IS 

DISCUSSED OR WRITTEN ABOUT . 

•••••• 

TO GO OVER SOME OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF THE ACT ITSELF THAT 

ARE VERY IMPORTANT AND THAT WE AGREE WITH: 

I- HAVING THE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES ESTABLISHED ON THE 

STATE OR REGIONAL LEVEL IS EXTREMELY VITAL. LETTING THE 

PEOPLE THAT HAVE TO LIVE WITH TilE SITUATION PUT TOGETHER 

TilE PLANS UNDER WHICH TO OPERATE AND I MEAN "INVOLVE ALL 

GROUPS ",LOCAL CONTROL'AND INPUT IS ESSENTIAL. 

2- WATER RIGHTS· SHOULD BE CONTROLLED, MAINTAINED, 

ADMINISTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW. 

3- THE 25% SUBLEASING CHARGE ON EVERYONE UNLESS THE 

SUBLESSEE IS AN IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER WE BELIEVE IS 

APPROPRIATE 

4- WE LIKE THE FACT THE LG.A ACCEPTS THE PROPOSAL TO 

ESTABLISH RESOURCE ADVISORY COUNCILS AND THAT THEY HAVE 

TO BE RESIDENTS OF THAT STATE AND LOCAL COMMUNITY. 

REQUIRING EDUCATION, TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE IN RANGELAND 

ISSUES TO BE AN EXCELLENT IDEA AND EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT. 
269 

5- GRAZING FEE FORMill.A: TillS FORMULA WOULD INCREASE THE 

AMOUNf OF AUM. NONE OF US LIKE INCREASES IN COST, THAT IS A 

GIVEN, BUT TillS INCREASE WILL HELP SOME TO OFF SET OPERATION 

COSTS AND HOPEFULLY WILL NOT HURT TO MANY. THIS FORMULA 

IS MUCH BETTER THAT THE ONE THEY OPERATE UNDER NOW. 

ONE AREA OF CONCERN: 

THAT IS ABOUT PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS WHEN THE LANDS ARE 

INTERMINGLED. AS A COMMISSIONER I DEAL WITH ZONING ISSUES 

ON A REGULAR BASIS. I HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL WHEN 

ENACTING AN NEW ZONING REGULATION, TO CONSIDER ALL 

PROPERTY THAT IS ADJACENT AND JUST WHAT EFFECT THE NEW 

ZONING WILL HAVE ON IT. WHEN REGULATIONS ARE WRITTEN TO 

GOVERN ONE SECTION OF PUBLIC LAND IT WILL HAVE A DIRECT 

EFFECT ON THE ADJACENT LAND. MAYBE THIS SHOULD BE 

ADDRESSED IN MORE DETAIL. 

WE IN WYOMING ARE VERY PROUD OF OUR PUBLIC LANDS, WE WANT 

TO KEEP THEM AS BEAUTIFUL AS POSSIBLE AND TO DO THAT WE 

NEED TO USE THEM PROPERLY. 

I AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT ON PAGE 3, STARTING ON LINE 17 

"THAT THE FEDERAL RANGELANDS ARE IN THE BEST CONDITION 

THEY HAVE BEEN IN DURING THIS CENTURY AND THAT THEIR 

CONDITION CONTINUES TO IMPROVE." WE HAVE HAD WONDERFUL 

MOISTER THIS SPRING AND SUMMER AND THE RANGELAND IS 

ABUNDANT WITH PLANT LIFE. 

WE BELIEVE THIS ACT WILL MOVE US IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. 

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND EFFORT. 

LINDA TALIAFERRO, PRESIDENT 

WYOMING COUNfY COMMISSIONERS ASSOCIATION 

P.O. BOX 189 

FARSON, WY 82932-0189 

307-273-5714 OR 872-6331 

FAX 307-273-5714 
270 

HARVEY BARNES TESTIMONY 

JULY 11, 1995 

My name is Harvey Barnes of Jiggs, Nevada and I am President-Elect 

of the Nevada Cattlemen's Association. 

The Livestock Grazing Act offers the opportunity for livestock 

grazing to continue on public lands using wise and sound management 

practices for the stewardship of rangelands. The rural West needs 

this type of security for stability and its future. 

Cooperative public land management has caused vast improvements in 

range conditions over the past half century. The need exists for 

continued range improvements, s olid resourc e management and use of 

this resource to care for our ever-increasing population. 

The Nevada Range Livestock Industry supports the concept of this 

legislation. The Association has reviewed SB852 and HR1713. As 

this legislation has such a direct effect on our industry, we have 

some poi nts for your consideration. These points are as follows: 

TENURE: 

The fifteen year tenure proposed in the bill is the highlight of 

the bill, because it assures long term stability to the industry. 

Lack of tenure has been the major problem encountered in public 

land grazing. In Nevada, where 87% of the land is public land, 
271 

dependency on the use of those lands to make economical use of the 

private lands is high. Therefore changes in the policies for use 

of the public lands has direct immediate effects on the private 

lands used for livestock production and local economies. Since the 

inception of public land grazing administration in 1934, we have 

not been able to obtain assurance of tenure, even through the 

permit system. We believe that with the improved condition of the 

ranges, the advancement of the range sciences during the past two 

decades and the necessity to stabilize the range livestock 

industry, reliable tenure must be provided. Such tenure will also 

allow financial institutions to provide adequate long term loans 

for purchases and improvements on ranch and range lands to enhance 

rural economic stability and the environment. 

ADVISORY BOARDS: 

We feel that the Grazing Advisory Council proposed in Section 177 

of SB852 and HR1713 is essential to effective management at the 

local level. For many years, the livestock industry had an elected 

Grazing Advisory Board with mandatory meetings to consider all 

aspects of grazing management. People who participated in the 

process, both Federal employees and private individuals felt that 

these Boards provided a valuable service. We believe that the 

proposal should include the opportunity to resolve differences 

which arise from decisions of the authorized officer prior to the 

final decision. This can be accomplished by a mechanism in which 

the authorized officer and affected user would appear before the 

2 
272 

Council which would hear both sides of the issue and then make a 

recommendation to the agency. All actions of the Grazing Advisory 

Council in this proposal and the Bill should be by a two-thirds 

vote instead of unanimous as set forth in the Bill. We believe 

that the same vote should apply to the Resource Advisory Council. 

STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES: 

Standards and guidelines were first proposed by Secretary Babbitt 

in his Rangeland Reform. They appeared to remove any incentive for 

progressive range management and improvements. We support 

establishing regional and state standards and guidelines. However, 

we believe that standards and guidelines should be established with 

full consideration to forage production, soil betterment, watershed 

management, and coordination with the production capabilities of 

the private land dependent upon the public land grazing. Standards 

and guidelines must recognize the need for consumption of the 

renewable resource consistent with the production capabilities of 

the public and private lands within the region of consideration. 

We wish to express our appreciation to this Committee and the 

various represeantives of the States who are making the tremendous 

effort to initiate legislation which will benefit not only the 

public lands but also the private sector which is directly effected 

by decisions for public land administration. 

3 
We believe that passage of this Bill will begin to provide some 

basis of stability in public land grazing and therefore, we support 

this concept. We very much appreciate the opportunity to comment. 

***END*** 

4 
274 

... 

AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATIONs 225 TOUHY AVENUE • PARK RIDGE· ILLINOIS· 60068 • (372) 399-5700 • FAX (312) 399-5896 

600 MARYLAND AVENUE S. W. • SUITE 800 • WASHINGTON, O.C. • 20024 

(202) 484-3600 • FAX (202) 484-3604 

STATEMENT TO THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS 

OF THE 

HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

ON 

THE LIVESTOCK GRAZING ACT 

Presented by 

Doug Breese 

American Farm Bureau Federation 

Oregon Farm Bureau Federation 

July 11, 1995 
275 

STATEMENT TO THE 

SUBCOMMmEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS 

OF THE 

HOUSE RESOURCES COMMmEE 

ON 

THE LIVESTOCK GRAZING ACT 

Presented by 

Doug Breese 

American Farm Bureau Federation 

Oregon Farm Bureau Federation 

July II, 1995 

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Doug Breese, 

and I am a fourth generation cattle rancher from Prineville, Oregon. I am President of the 

Oregon Farm Bureau Federation, and I am testifying today on behalf of both the American Farm 

Bureau Federation and the Oregon Farm Bureau Federation. Our ranch is a 400 head cow-calf 

operation that I run with my children, who will be the fifth generation on the land. I served 10 

years on the Prineville BLM District's Multiple Use Advisory Council and two years on the 

National Public Lands Advisory Council until it was disbanded by the present administration. 

Livestock from our operation will use federal lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) and the Forest Service at various times of the year. These lands, in some cases, are 

intermingled with our private lands and we must be able to use them to properly manage the 

land's resources and economically manage our ranching business. The usc of federal lands is an 

important and integral part of our ranching operation. 

Congress and the federal agencies have been debating Western ranching livelihoods for 

decades, and have been making piecemeal changes to policy over several years. Rangeland 

Reform is the latest, and the most sweeping, of those changes. Fann Bureau believes that passage 

of H.R. 1713, the Livestock Grazing Act, will give me and ranchers across the West the certainty 

and stability that we need to continue operating in an economically viable manner. 

The bill is in no way intended to challenge or change the multiple use policies of the 

agencies managing federal lands or weaken the ability of those agencies to manage the natural 

resources on those lands. The bill addresses the livestock grazing management processes and/or 

policies for these lands. Rangeland Refonn also addresses many of the same policy issues as the 

bill, but does so in a way that makes it virtually impossible to manage and sustain productive 

rangelands and watersheds. 

As federal land users, we recognize that we have a responsibility to take care of these 

lands and keep them productive for livestock, wildlife and other uses. Our livelihoods depend on 
276 

the condition of those lands. Studies have shown that the federal lands are in better condition 

now than at any time during the twentieth century. Such improvement is panicularly obvious 

where !live. Permittees, with the encouragement and support from some of the more creative 

agency land managers, have been able to overcome many of the policy and paperwork generated 

handicaps to good management. These permittees have spent a great deal of time and money in 

successful efforts to improve their allotments, making changes that benefit livestock, wildlife. 

and the overall condition of the rangelands. 

Livestock permittees understand that the continued improvement of rangeland conditions 

depends on a pannership with the federal agencies. The LGA will foster and promote that 

partnership in a manner that is fair to both the permittee and the public. 

By contrast, the Rangeland Reform regulations will make it more difficult for permittees 

to continue this improvement. By taking title to new range improvements and to new water 

rights, the Department of Interior is eliminating any incentive for permittees to undertake new 

range improvement or water development projects. For those who want to undertake such 

projects, banks are reluctant to lend money for them if the permittee does not have some 

ownership interest. The Livestock Grazing Act recognizes a proportional ownership interest in 

the permittee to the extent that he has contributed to it, thus balancing the interests of both the 

government and the permittee. 

Federal administration of rangelands in our area is being strangled by red tape. Even 

though national forests and BLM resource areas prepare Environmental Impact Statements as 

part of their planning procedures. agency personnel are required by court and administrative 

decisions to also prepare environmental analyses for every action implementing those plans, 

including range improvements and reissuance of grazing permits. As a result, agency personnel 

are spending much more time doing paperwork than in on-the-ground range management. 

Personnel in our area are doing everything they possibly can, but they are hamstrung by 

exploding and largely duplicative paperwork requirements. 

Rangeland Reform would perpetuate and even expand these requirements. Under this 

proposal, NEPA documentation would be required for all permit decisions and all range 

improvements, regardless whether the same concerns had been addressed in the resource plans. 

And this committee is well aware of the scrambling being done by the Forest Service to complete 

NEPA analysis on its 4,300 permits that expire at the end of 1995. 

The Livestock Grazing Act addresses this problem in a way that maintains the integrity of 

NEPA while removing duplicative and burdensome paperwork requirements. By providing that 

issuance of grazing permits or leases that are consistent with resource plans need not undergo a 

second round of duplicating NEPA review, the Livestock Grazing Act will get agency personnel 

out of the office and back onto the ground. 

Rangeland Reform attempts to develop "Standards and Guidelines" for rangeland 

2 
2:!7 

management nationwide. Rangeland Reform seeks to use the two terms interchangeably. and in 

place of setting good land use goals and site specific objectives. "Standards" and "guidelines" 

are not the same thing, nor are they goals and objectives. Guidelines provide general policy that 

provides flexible directions to achieve general land use or management goals. Standards are 

more specific, and are used to accomplish site specific objectives in line with the goals. 

Rangeland Reform's use of "standards and guidelines" will in the end continue a process where 

specific land management decisions are made in Washington, D.C., instead of on the ground by 

competent agency staff with input from the local land user. Rangeland Reform will stifle 

adaptive management by creative people to accomplish specific objectives, and instead lead to a 

form of "cookbook" management that will doom our range resources. 

The LGA seeks to limit the use of standards and guidelines. It also directs their 

development to the state or regional level in conjunction with the state department of agriculture 

and other appropriate agencies or institutions. Amendments may be offered to more clearly 

define the standards and guidelines and how they relate to goals and objectives. 

These are only a few of the problems created by Rangeland Reform that will be solved by 

the Livestock Grazing Act. The bill seeks to accommodate the concerns and the needs of both 

the livestock permittee and the general public that has entrusted us with stewardship over their 

lands. While there may be parts of the bill that we might not totally agree with, the bill is fair. 

More importantly, the bill puts an end to the piecemeal and sometimes conflicting additions to 

grazing policy by comprehensively updating federal lands grazing policy in a unified manner. 

But the ultimate yardstick for measuring the merits of the bill is whether it will continue 

to result in improvement of our federal rangelands. It is clear from the few examples that I have 

cited that Rangeland Reform will not work on the ground. The Livestock Grazing Act will 

continue to forge the partnership between agency and permittee by providing the framework 

necessary for permittees to continue operating in a viable manner. At the same time the 

Livestock Grazing Act will foster the continuing improvement of range conditions for the benefit 

of all. 

We wish to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for holding hearings on the bill, and 

we also wish to thank the sponsors and co-sponsors of the bill for the time and energy spent in 

drafting a bill that provides a common sense grazing policy that benefits everybody. 

I will be happy to answer any questions the committee might have. 

3 
278 

Testimony of Robert M. Skinner, Oregon Rancher 

Before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Lands 

Committee on Resources 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 

On H.R. 1713 

The Livestock Grazing Act 

July II, 1995 

Chainnan Hansen and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to 

talk to you today. It is very hard for a rancher such as myself who lives nearly 3,000 

miles from here to grasp the fact that our destiny can be determined here in Washington 

D.C. 

I am a rancher from South Eastern Oregon. Our ranch currently leases a permit to graze 

livestock from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) primarily from April through 

mid-September. I am Chainnan of the Public Lands Committee of the Oregon 

Cattlemen's Association. I also serve as a Public Lands Council delegate from the State 

of Oregon. 

The comments I am making today on H.R. 1713 are consistent with the views ofthe 

Oregon Cattlemen's Association members and the Public Lands Councilleaderslup m the 

State of Oregon. Also, I feel it IS impm1ant to remind you the livestock industry as a 

whole did sound a strong voice of suppot1, with the Presidents of all We stem States 

Cattlemen's Association's voting to suppoll H.R. 1713. 

It is with a very strong commitment to the well being of the lands (both public and 

private), that I talk to you today. \ly children are the 6th generation of Skinners to live 

and work on our ranch in Jordan Valley. The well-being of the land is absolutely 

essential for us to survive over the long haul. 

We strongly suppon H.R. 1713 because in Oregon we landowners. especially those of us 

who hold federal grazing permits. are literaily under siege from special interest 

organizations that simply want all economic use of land stopped at anv cost, with little or 

no consideration for the people who are affected. I also would like to point out that in 

many cases scientific data is overlooked or disregarded. :\!any times rules, legal 

interpretations. or just interpretations of statute such as the Endangered Species .-\ct, the 

Clean Water Act, Wild and Scenic Rivers. Wilderness, and 'JEPA, are used to keep our 

industry in a constant state of tunnoii. unceitainty. and stress. 
279 

Page 2 

With increasing frequency ranchers, fanners, and other property owners such as myself 

are forced into the stressful, expensive and uncomfortable position of defending our 

livelihoods in the courts oflaw, debates with press, and the legislative process such as 

this process today. 

Our people are fighting for their livelihoods. I have seen families give until they simply 

have no more. People are having a hard time making ends meet fmancially. When there 

is no more to give, they are perceived by others as quitters and in retreat, thus not only is 

a fmancial hardship expressed, but equally bad - a social hardship comes into play. 

Simply put, we need to legislate stability back into the tural west. Our lending 

institutions would also welcome a more stable atmosphere. 

We believe H.R. 1713 is the most significant piece of legislation to be introduced since 

the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 and will provide much needed stability for our people 

and industry. 

It is very ironic that I am speaking to you today about a bill that we hope will stabilize 

public lands grazing. Just over 70 years ago my Grandfather and Great-Grandfather were 

fighting the same battle -- they were very active in nying to pass legislation to provide 

stability as well as protection from the abuse of the public lands we were then and are 

today, so dependent upon. I have listened to my dad tell stories of the pre-Taylor Grazing 

Act days when his job as a youngster was to spend all day, day after day, keeping the 

bands of sheep out of our private ground. The only distance between bands was what was 

necessary to keep them from mixing. The owners of these livestock in most cases owned 

no property, therefore they were motivated to get all they could while they could, then 

move on. Due to good management practices by grazers, the ''range" has done a 

remarkable job of recovering from the abuse it endured around the tum of the century and 

continues that process now. 

STABILITY is essential. the land carmot endure sh01t te1m gain. It is imperative that this 

nation strive to provide as much tenure as possible. thus people will be motivated to 

improve the land and thus improve themselves. 

We fully realize the countless hours many Congressmen and staff people have put into 

the L.G.A. We would like to take this oppo1tunity to thank all of you. The L.G.A. is not 

all that the livestock industry wants. but we do ttust you, our Congressmen, to act in our 

best interest, which we sincerely believe is in the best interest of the land and of this 

Nation as a whole. 

Thank you. 
280 
281 

Testimony 

on behalf of the 

ASSOCIATION OF NATIONAL GRASSLANDS 

in regard to 

H.R. 1713 

The Livestock Grazing Act 

submitted to 

House Resources Committee 

Forests and Public Land Management Subcommittee 

submitted by 

Keith Winter 

President 

Association of National Grasslands 

July II, 1995 
282 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. I am Keith Winter. President of the 

Association of National Grasslands (ANG). a family rancher from Cartwright. North 

Dakota. and a member of the McKenzie County Grazing Association. I am honored to be 

here today and want to express as an individual and as representative of the ANG my 

great appreciation for the efforts vou. our own Representative Earl Pomeroy and Senators 

Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad and others have made to successfully resolve the 

"'Western Range Problem ... 

The Association of National Grasslands supports the legislative process designed to send. 

as quicklv as possible. the Livestock Grazing Act of 1995 to President Clinton for his 

approval. In principle. we support all aspects ofH.R. 1713 Today. I want to limit mv 

comments to Title II however 

"Title 11-{Jrassland." :IS currently ionnulated. would remove the National Grasslands 

from the National Forest System and. thereby. !rom National Forest regulations. As 

Pre sident of the Association of !\'ational Grasslands. and as the representative of the 

ranchers and grazmg associations who use those perennial grasslands for grazing 

purposes. ensuring thereby the economic viability or our ranch units. I am here to testify 

in absolute support of Title II and its purpose. 

Title II is entirely consistent with the purposes under which our National Grasslands are 

administered under the Bankhead-lones Farm Tenant Act of 1937 (50 Stat 525. 7 U.S.C. 

1010-1012). and with the multiple uses of land and water resources assured through Sec. 

31 of that Act Over the past 60 years. administering federal agencies have interpreted 

the Bankhead-Janes and related statutes to mean that our Grasslands are to be managed 

as a "demonstration of good grassland agriculture" and resource conservation through 

cooperatively regulated domestic livestock grazing exening "a favorable influence for 

securing sound land conservation practices on associated private lands" (36 CFR Ch. II 

Sec. :!!3.l(d)). 

There is considerable precedent and clear rationale ior the transfer oi certain acquired 

federal lands from the jurisdiction of the Forest Service back to the direct jurisdiction of 

the Secretary of Agriculture or. for that matter. to any other federaL state. or local 

government or unit thereof 

These transferable l:lnds are the ":-lew Deal" era Land Utilization 1 LU) grazing projects 

renamed :\'ational Grasslands through the Secretary of Agricultures June 20. 1960 

Regulation 1 Federal Register. June 24. p. 5845). During the 1930's and early 1940's. 

many decades after the withdrawal and reservation of the National Forests from the 

public domain. about 11.3 million acres of patented land were acquired through 

purchase. condemnation. and other procedures pursuant to President Franklin D. 

Roosevelt's "submarginal" land acquisition and population resettlement programs. 

!ncludino "'ational Grasslands jn the National Forest System Constrains Achievement of 

Congressional Imem in Title !II of the Bankhead-lones Faun Tenant Act 
283 

The purposes for which the National Forests were reserved are quite unlike the policy 

goals of the Depression era land acquisition program. While the 1897 Organic Act (Ch. 

2, 30 Stat. 11, 16 U.S.C. 475) established timber production and watershed protection as 

the primary purposes of the reserved National Forests, the LU lands were acquired for 

the primary purpose of land-use adjustmen~here is virtually no commercial timber 

production on any of the National Grasslands. 

The primary social policy objectives of the original land acquisition program were (I) to 

give "stranded" Depression era farm owners and tenants an opportunity to relocate. (2) to 

restore the rainfall shon. dryland-farmed, acquired lands to more suitable uses, especially 

sustainable livestock grazing and (3) to harmonize the uses of acquired and intermingled 

private lands. 

Thus, the acquired LU lands had as their primary purposes soil and water conservation, 

secure human occupancy. and sustainable domestic livestock grazing. The withdrawn 

and reserved National Forests, while sharing as a primary purpose water conservation. 

did not have human occupancy as a policy objective: and funher. while the Forest 

Service was to manage the National Forests primarily for timber production, the LU 

lands were to be managed primarily for the production of livestock products. 

The LU program objectives were codified with the passage of the Bankhead-lones Farm 

Tenant Act of July 22, 1937. The primary public policy objectives served by that Act 

were to achieve social stability: to create the Fanners' Home Administration, to promote 

more secure occupancy of farms and farm homes and to correct the economic instability 

resulting from forms of fann tenancy then prevalent. Title m of that Act pertained 

specifically to the LU lands, authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to: (I) retire 

patented lands not suitable for cultivation and promote more stable forms of use; (2) 

implement soil and water resource conservation projects on the acquired lands: and (3) 

administer the LU project lands pending their final disposition. Unlike the National 

Forests. the LU lands were neither withdrawn nor reserved. 

A Summary of the History and Evolution of the National Grasslands 

In October 1938 administrative responsibility for the 7+ million acres of acquired lands 

found to be permanently best suited for domestic livestock grazing was shifted from the 

USDA Farm Security Administration to the Soil Conservation Service (SCS). Through 

1953, the SCS administered the LU grazing projects through cooperative management 

agreements with local grazing associations and soil conservation districts. During this 15 

year period, the SCS spent about $97 million on range and closely related improvements, 

the purpose of which was to enhance livestock grazing carrying capacity. 

The SCS adop~d a decentralized, project-oriented management style in its administration 

of the LU grazing projects. Grazing permits and leases were issued primarily to local 

livestock associations, and secondarily to individual ranchers. Limitations were placed 

2 
284 

on the maximum amount of grazing preference given any one rancher. Each district had 

a SCS employee as its supervisor. while boards of directors elected from the ranks of the 

local permittees hired technicians and generally assumed responsibility for day-to-day 

operations including maintenance of all improvements and for adjudication of the district 

forage allocations. 

In January 1954, administrative responsibility for the LU projects was shifted from the 

SCS to the Forest Service. apparently because it was then felt that the Forest Service was 

USDA's land management agency. The resource conservation projects had achieved 

their land and water conservation objectives. and through cooperative management with 

local grazing districts and their boards human occupancy and economic stability had been 

assured. There remained no reason fo r continued SCS administration. according to the 

Forest Service and USDA officials at that time. There may have remained no reason for 

continued federal retention of the lands as well. but the Forest Service would not address 

that question. 

Interagency transfers of jurisdiction subsequent to 1953 had been authorized under the 

auspices of the Transfer Act of February 1954 under which the LU grazing projects were 

transferred from the jurisdiction of SCS to the Forest Service. Transfers could be 

initiated by BOB (OMB) or by application of the Secretary of Agriculture or a 

Congressional delegation in response to desires of constituents: The Secretary of 

Agriculture would have the right to endorse or reject any such initiative. Only if 

endorsed would the application be forwarded to BOB (OMB). Ultimately, between 1954 

and 1963 over 2.5 million acres of LU lands were so transferred. reflecting the fact that 

the acquired grazing lands more closely resembled BLM-administered public domain 

than Forest Service-administered National Forests. 

Under Forest Service administration. the name of the remaining National Forest 

administered LU grazing projects was changed to National Grasslands by Secretarial 

Executive Order (Federal Register, June 24, 1960, p. 5845). In 1963. by Secretarial 

Regulation (Federal Register. June 19. p. 6268). it was declared that the National 

Grasslands would henceforth be permanently held by the Department of Agriculture. The 

reason for this Regulation apparently was to thwart transfers of jurisdiction ofLU Grazing 

Project/National Grasslands from the Forest Service to other federal. state. and local 

agencies and units of government. There was. however. no statutory authority for the 

permanent retention of the National Grasslands by the Forest Service or. for that matter. 

by any other public agency. 

A decade later. the National Grasslands were shoehorned into the National Forest System 

via a phrase in Sec. II (a) of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning 

Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1609(a)). 

3 
285 

forest Service Mminisvation Fails to Achieve Coneressiona! Intent 

As a result of this bureaucratic and political maneuvering, each separate grassland is 

administered by a National Forest and is subject to the same regulations, restrictions. and 

management program requirements as the administering National Forest. The local 

management system has changed from cooperative, project-oriented management to 

more active and direct, process-oriented management. Grazing as a predominant land 

use has weakened, and non-economic (particularly amenity) use is increasingly 

emphasized. 

Thus. through a combination of Administrative (Secretarial Regulations) and 

congressional initiatives. the National Grasslands of I 995 bear only a superficial 

resemblance to the LU grazing projects of earlier years. The lands are still grazed under 

grazing permitS, but grazing lease contracts have been abolished by the Forest Service. 

Domestic livestock grazing is only one of several. and increasingly of lower priority, 

authorized uses of the acquired lands. The intent of Congress in passage of the 

Bankhead-lones Farm Tenant Act of 1937 has not been achieved, because the Forest 

Service has not made a good faith effort to achieve it. 

Tjtle II of the Liyestock Grazim: Act Will Achieve the Orieinal Intent of Coneress 

The Bankhead-lones Farm Tenant Act has not been repealed however. Meanwhile, the 

human occupancy and economic stability objectives of Forest Service land management 

have declined. For these reasons, in essence a fundamental and sometimes hostile 

mismatch between National Grassland social policy objectives and Forest Service land 

management objectives, the Association of National Grasslands. a cooperative assembly 

of the former LU grazing district boards from the Northern Great Plains States where the 

acquired lands are concentrated, has repeatedly requested a transfer of jurisdiction from 

the Forest Service to another federal agency, to a lower unit of governmental jurisdiction. 

or to private ownership. 

Assuming the National Grasslands remain under federal administration. cooperative 

federal agency/grazing association management--a uue working partnership-£oup!ed 

with a project-oriented approach to land and water improvement projectS, could result in 

significant cost-savings including reduction in direct agency management costs and 

overhead. Local district boards could once again assume responsibility for 

improvements and their maintenance; as well as for contracting with outside parties for 

archaeological surveys, pasture and habitat monitoring, threatened and endangered 

species protection, etc. The membership of these boards could be expanded to include 

representatives of other affected interests. as is being proposed on BLM grazing district 

lands in Title I of the Livestock Grazing Act. Grazing fees and conservation practices 

surcharges could continue to be administratively set by the Secretary of Agriculture. 

It seems consistent with the underlying body of law, administrative procedures, cost 

efficiency in government operations, and user preferences to proceed now with the 

4 
286 

transfer of jurisdiction authority from the Forest Service to the direct administration by 

the Secretary of Agriculture. The National Grasslands, after all. are acquired lands 

convened to perennial grass cover for sustainable grazing use: they are not National 

Forests. Given the continued resistance on the part of the Forest Service to administer 

the former LU grazing projects for the purposes for which the lands were originally 

acquired. or to treat them in the land use planning process as entities different from the 

reserved and acquired National Forests. an interagency transfer within USDA is entirely 

wan:anted. 

Without hesitation, the Association of National Grasslands encourages your support for 

and passage of Titles I and II of the Livestock Grazing Act of 1995. Thank you for 

giving us. the users whose livelihood is dependent on the grazing use of these federal 

lands. this exceptional opportunity to have our voices heard. 

5 
287 

Testimony 

on behalf of the 

PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL 

in regard to 

H.R. 1713 

The Livestock Grazing Act 

submitted to 

Bouse Resources Committee 

Forests and Public Land Management Subcommittee 

submitted by 

Truman Julian 

President 

Public Lands Council 

July II. 1995 

The Public Lands Council represents approximately 27.000 cattle and sheep permittees 

who hold leases and permits to graze livestock on 270 million acres of federal lands spread 

across 14 western states. 
288 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to address the committee. I am 

Truman Julian from Kemmerer, Wyoming. The Julian Land and Livestock Company is a 

family ranch consisting of my parents, wife and my three children. My grandfather 

immigrated to the United States in the 1800's, started herding sheep and eventually 

bought sheep and homesteaded in southwestern Wyoming. The Julian family has been 

ranching for over I 00 years, involving four generations. It is my hope and desire to have 

at least four more generations of Julians involved in the ranching business. Unfortunately, 

Mr. Chairman, my hopes and desires for the future survival of a family tradition, western 

culture and existence of a viable livestock industry depend to a large degrees upon the 

actions of this committee and eventually the entire Congress and Administration. It is 

unfortunate to be place in a situation where one's livelihood and future decisions depend 

upon the actions of the Congress and Secretary Babbitt. 

I am here today in my capacity as President of the Public Lands Council which 

represents the interests of tens of thousands of federal lands ranchers who utilize over 270 

million acres ofBLM and Forest Service land spread across 14 western states. The Public 

Lands Council coordinates the federal lands policy for the National Cattlemen's 

Association. the American Sheep Industry Association. and the Association of National 

Grasslands. 

The National Cattlemen's Association (NCA) is the national spokesperson for all 

segments of the beef cattle industry, including cattle breeders, producers, and feeders. 

The NCA represents approximately 230,000 cattlemen and women in a membership that 

includes individual members as well as 46 affiliated state cattle associations and 29 breed 

associations. 

The American Sheep Industry Association (AS!) is the national voice for the nearly 

90,000 sheep producers in the United states. AS! is a federation of all 50 state lamb and 

wool grower associations. 

The Association of National Grasslands represents I ,300 permittees across several 

western states who hold grazing permits on the national grasslands. Because of the 

unique nature of Title II of the bill, regarding the removal of grasslands from the national 

forest system, I am deferring comments to ANG President Keith Winter. 

My comments today reflect the views and concerns of all these organizations. 

Mr. Chairman. I am typical of the membership of the Public Lands Council. My 

family 's income is derived solely from livestock. in my case sheep, and the products they 

produce In addition. I use United States Forest Service and BLM lands for at least 60 

percent of our operation. For those in Congress who think they do not have an impact on 

our lives. let me share a part of a letter that I received from our banker with whom we 

have done business for over 50 years. I quote: 

2 
289 

This letter is in regard to our phone conversation on May 31, 1994. The 

Utah Production Credit Association requested on November 19, 1993, that 

you start considering different alternatives or options regarding your 

operation as we were concerned with the future viability of the sheep 

industry due to changes in the Wool Incentive Program and Range Reform. 

Again, Utah PCA is requesting you submit a letter outlining some 

alternatives or options you have considered. The reasons Utah PCA is 

requesting this letter is that we have concerns regarding the sheep industry, 

such as the Wool Incentive Reduction, Range Reform, predator problems 

and the volatility in the sheep markets. (The letter is attached.) 

This letter sums up the woes of the federal lands livestock industry. That is why in 

Wyoming we have lost 255,000 head of sheep from January 1993 until January I, 

1995. This represents a loss of approximately 30 percent of the sheep numbers. 

Mr. Chairman, I am typical in other ways of the federal lands rancher of 

today. I am not a rich person. We paid income taxes on approximately $30,000 in 

1994. We borrow money to pay the income tax. I am not going to bore you with 

reports, statistics and facts that hopefully you already have; however, I am 

besieged by government policy, rules and regulations. Chief among my concerns 

are the regulations promulgated by Secretary Babbitt, known as Rangeland Reform 

'94 on February 24, 1995. As you well know, Secretary Babbitt delayed 

implementation of those regulations so that Congress could decide whether it 

wished to involve itself in the policy decisions which these regulations represent. 

am most appreciative of the willingness of this Congress to do just that -- in the 

form of the Livestock Grazing Act. 

The sheep industry has had a rough ride in its partnership with the federal 

government the last five years. The sheep producers are fighting to stabilize the 

industry and stop the loss of inventory and the infrastructure producers rely on to 

grow and market our lamb and wool products. In addition to the loss of the 

National Wool Act in 1993, our industry has suffered: 

;;.. An 18 percent reduction in the U.S. sheep inventory. 

;... The loss of 10,000 farm and ranch families over a two year period. 

,_ The loss of 500 sheep operations every m?nth in 1994. 

;... The closure of two of the nation's lamb packing plants including the only 

lamb packing plants in Minnesota and Texas. 

;... Last month's announcement that Con Agra, our industry's largest packer, 

will close their lamb processing facility. 
290 

;.. A 50 percent increase in lamb imports into the United States. 

;.. An I I percent !ncrease in wool and wool textile imports. 

At this point in time, the sheep industry needs more than anything else. to 

stabilize and maintain our industry infrastructure. The sheep industry recognizes 

that the Livestock Grazing Act supplies a measure of stability and benefits not only 

the federal lands rancher. This bill effects the entire industry; lamb packing plants, 

wool warehouses, wool buying companies, sheep shearers and trucking companies 

that do business with the industry. 

Furthermore, as seen in the U.S. Department of Agriculture testimony 

before Congress in May, unless stability is provided, loss of the sheep inventory 

will cause: 

;.. a reduction in land values and tax base in production areas. 

;.. an adverse affect on the viability of some rural communities. 

)> higher consumer prices for lamb and wool products. 

With respect to the Livestock Grazing Act, the industry appreciates the 

authors' recognition of the physiological differences in sheep as compared to other 

livestock. Scientific evidence, as documented by USDA Agricultural Research 

Service, in combination with the evaluation of rangeland cover types in the areas of 

sheep grazing, clearly demonstrates that seven sheep to one cow more accurately 

reflects the Animal Unit Equivalent for sheep than the current 5: I ratio. The ratio 

change of seven-to-one would ensure parity between the species for grazing 

assessment purposes only. and assist permittees to remain in the business. We, 

however, believe the bill's language needs to clarify that the seven-to-one animal 

unit equivalent is for billing purposes only and not for stocking rates. 

Depending on factors such as vegetation type and topography, the ratio of 

sheep to cattle can be as high as fifty to one. Recent conversions of sheep to cattle 

permits in Wyoming have been at ratios of 17: I and 24: I. West-wide, the USFS 

and BLM have seldom converted sheep permits at ratios ofless than 7: I because 

of vegetation and/or topography factors. 

Livestock species have different grazing preferences. For example, cattle 

prefer a predominantly grass component to their diet, while sheep prefer more of a 

forb and shrub component in their diet. This vegetative preference is best seen in 

the distribution of sheep and cattle allotments today. Only seven percent of the 

4 
291 

federal AUM grazed by sheep are found in states where the range in dominated by 

the grass component preferred for cattle grazing. On the other hand, 93 percent of 

the federal Animal Unit Months grazed by sheep are found on rangelands 

dominated by either a grass/shrub cover type or a grass/forb cover type. 

In addition to topographical and vegetative differences that make many 

federal grazing allotments more suited for sheep, there are factors such as 

exclusions of riparian areas and lack of water or lack of fences that make herded 

sheep grazing more preferable, especially on BLM lands. These climatic, 

topographical, vegetative or managerial factors make it very likely that many 

allotments and leases will remain vacant after they are abandoned by the sheep 

industry. 

In 1992, federal data showed that approximately 16 percent of the U S. 

Forest Service sheep AUMs and 24 percent of the BLM sheep AUMs were not 

being utilized. The change in the billing ratio to seven sheep per Animal Unit 

Month will slow the rate of vacancy and the conversion of federal allotments. 

Slowing the trend of conversions of federal allotments will mean not only 

an increase in revenues to the government due to high conversion rates, but will 

also ensure that an important and cost effective range management tool remains 

available to range managers. You are aware that the BLM has used sheep to 

biologically control leafy spurge in Montana. The Forest Service is using sheep to 

control knapweed and tansy ragwort in Oregon, and larkspur in Montana and 

Colorado. In Idaho and Oregon, the Forest Service is using sheep in wildlife 

habitat improvement projects and, in California, sheep are being used as a costeffective means of maintaining critical fire breaks. 

Should the domestic sheep industry continue its present decline, the Forest 

Service and BLM may find themselves in a situation similar to the Canadians. 

With over 65,000 head of sheep now involved in Canadian sheep ecology projects. 

low sheep inventories in Canada have forced Provincial Ministries of Forestry and 

Environmental Protection to pay contractors (up to $40C per head) for their sheep 

in forestry, noxious weed, range improvement and brush control projects. These 

low inventories have also caused Canadian contractors to look south to the United 

States for additional supplies of sheep. 

The cattle and sheep industry is continuing to make a detailed review of the 

Livestock Grazing Act and I will not attempt in this testimony to present a section 

by section analysis of the bill. We will be pleased, however, to submit to the 

Committee, at its convenience, a list of our primary concerns with the legislation. 

Before discussing a few of those, it is important to reiterate what is at stake here. 

If Rangeland Reform '94 becomes effective on August 21 , 1995, a number of 

livestock operators will simply go out of business. The regulations as a whole 

5 
292 

impose a significant burden on the backs of producers which will increase the nonproductive agency red tape while decreasing income and profitability. 

In addition, we have long called for the codification of a fair and equitable 

grazing fee formula. This is not to say that we are opposed to the current formula 

as set forth in Executive Order 12548. In fact, we think that formula has worked 

quite well to adequately reflect the comparative cost of doing business on federal 

versus private land and the market conditions affecting the livestock industry. We 

have been told by our friends in Congress, however, that the Public Rangelands 

Improvement Act formula has run its course. In any event, we strongly agree that 

it is important that a fee formula be codified so that we have certainty. Bankers 

such as mine become very nervous when they are unable to project from year to 

year what my federal grazing fees will be. Without codification of the formula, we 

cannot honestly tell the bankers that we ourselves know what our fees will be in 

the next year or the out years. 

The fee formula presented in this legislation represents a fair return to the 

federal government for the value of the product taken from federal land by the 

industry-- the forage on federal land. The formula permits the government and 

industry to be partners in a productive business with the fee representing a 6% 

return on our gross income, before expenses, paid on a monthly basis for the use of 

federal forage . It is simple, easy to understand, explain, and administer, fair to the 

user and fair to the American public. As presented, it represents approximately a 

30% increase in revenues from the grazing fees over 1994 revenues at a time when 

most ranches are suffering through a significant economic downturn in beef prices. 

Most ranches, mine included, fully expect to pay their fair share for the use of the 

federal forage. The fee proposed here does that. More importantly, we all need to 

put the fee issue to rest. It will also add stability to the western livestock industry, 

enabling ranchers to arrange financing meeting their needs and the requirements of 

their bankers. For these reasons, we are supportive of the concept. 

We applaud the provisions in the bill which provide for increasing the 

permit tenure to 15 years, not only for the increased certainty and stability it will 

provide ranchers, but also for the tremendous savings in processing costs 

assouated with permit issuance that will result. Range management is the art of 

long term strategies and commitment and the industry appreciates this step. 

Mr. Chairman, the foregoing testimony is not to suggest that the bill is 

absolutely perfect. Indeed, there are many in the industry who have submitted 

detailed comments as to how they might improve the legislation. Some examples: 

J.. It is very important that the Forest Service be brought under the same set of 

rules as the BLM. This will greatly streamline the system of federal lands 

management --to the benefit of users, the bureaucracy and the taxpayer. A 

6 
293 

great many of the substantive provisions in this bill, particularly the fee, the 

tenure provisions, the NEP A compliance provisions in Section I 06, and the 

advisory board provisions should be made to apply to the Secretary of 

Agriculture and then through him to the United States Forest Service. It is 

time to begin the process of consolidating the federal grazing management 

under one law and eliminate inconsistencies between the two agencies. This is 

the vehicle to do that. 

:,.. Clarify key definitions such as animal unit months and heth~r . that is intended 

to apply to both the billing rate and the stocking rate. 

;.. The section regarding the fee formula needs to be clarified regarding the 

reference to the National Agricultural Statistics Service and its subsequent use 

in addressing a surcharge for subleasing. Issues such as the appropriate 

amount of forage use is essential since livestock carrying capacity should be 

determined by measured trend studies over time and not based solely on 

utilization, stubble height or residual measurements This may seem like arcane 

range science to some folks. but it is a critical decision when determining how 

many animals can be turned out on the federal land by a particular permittee 

for a particular amount of time 

l> It is important that the provisions of civil violations also protect ranchers. their 

investments and their livestock on public lands from harassment, vandalism and 

death which is a disturbing and growing trend. 

l> We are facing some confusion over the provisions regarding suspe:~sion of a 

federal decision pending appeal. 

Mr. Chairman. it is also important to note what this bill will not do. 

Professional environmentalists who seem to be more concerned about raising dues 

income and selling magazines, have already gone on the record decrying this 

legislation for various reasons which simply are not well founded . We are seeing 

the use of scare tactics in an attempt to generate a constituency in opposition to 

the legislation. We would be happy to sit down with these environmentalists and 

you and your staff to look at the issues they raise and to make a reasoned inquiry 

into whether, in fact. the purported environmental degradation would in fact flow 

from this legislation 

Ranchers proudly consider themselves environmentalists as we must care 

for the environment day in and day out if we are to return to it for our livelihoods. 

I'm convinced that these scare tactics are nothing more than that. It has been my 

experience that when we have an opportunity to sit across the table from local 

environmentalists in the western United States that they are much more willing to 

reasonably discuss the issues and work towards a fair and equitable resolution for 

7 
294 

everyone. We want the public. ourselves included, to have a meaningful bite at the 

apple when it comes to planning and implementing the management of the nation's 

land. That opportunity should be at the plan level, however, and not on individual 

grazing operating plans or even, on individual grazing bills, as is now the case. 

To that end, we strongly support the concept underlying the process set forth in 

Section I 06 of the act whereby livestock grazing activities and management actions are 

not to require any special consideration under the National Environmental Policy Act. 

The livestock industry strongly supports the development at the local administrative unit 

of Resource Management Plans, (RMPs) or Forest Land and Management Plans, with full 

public participation as provided for in NEP A. as well as appropriate and timely 

consultation with other federal agencies. We believe that these plans n·eed to be given new 

vitality. They are the mechanism whereby decisions regarding a "major federal action 

significantly affecting the human environment" ought to be, and can be made. They can 

and do now contain many specific and precise guidelines and standards that govern 

grazing and a multitude of other uses for the federal lands in a given area . The provisions 

ofNEPA can and do have an important role to play in that process. However, a great 

deal of the time. energy, and controversy surrounding the daily management of the federal 

lands could be eliminated by the process outlined in Section 106. !fit's in the plans. and 

clearly not prohibited by them, the authorized officer can proceed. We want the public, 

ourselves included, to have a meaningful bite at the apple when it comes to planning and 

implementing the management of the nation's land. That opportunity should be at the plan 

level, however, and not on individual grazing operating plans or even, on individual 

grazing bills, as is now the case. 

I have two specific changes in this area to call to your attention. 

First, on page 20, line 10 of the bilL please insert the word "minimum" after the 

word "related ". 11'1 developing a land use plan, we owe it to the nation to say very clearly 

what the allowable resource uses are. We also owe it to those communities dependent 

upon their surrounding federal lands and the resources associated with those lands to set 

forth, up front, what the minimum levels of production or use that will be maintained. 

Secondly, if this legislation is amended to include the Forest Service, and I 

certainly hope it is, then consideration needs to be given to the effective date of the 

legislation, particularly Section 106. As you well know, a great many grazing permits in 

the West expire on December 31 . 1995. It is not that helpful to state that grazing should 

be administered under the law existing on May 18, 1995, for it is under that law that the 

Administration is now acting. This bill, assuming it is signed into law. would greatly serve 

those ranchers and those whom must bear the brunt of processing all those permits up for 

renewal if its effective date was prior to December 3 I, 1995 . I see no reason why the 

effective date for purposes of the grazing fee might remain March I, 1996. 

8 
295 

We will support the provisions covering water rights in the bill. Just as Secretary 

Babbitt felt strongly that only the United States should hold title to the water for livestock 

grazing on federal lands, you should know there are interests that feel that the United 

States should be expressly prohibited from acquiring a water right for livestock grazing 

purposes as they are not the beneficial holders of any livestock. The more reasoned 

course is that outlined very simply and elegantly in Section 123 . Consistent with the longstanding policy of the Congress of deferring to the water laws of the various sovereign 

states, leave those decisions, including the questions regarding title to a specific water 

right, for a specific purpose to state law. 

A great deal of discussion has evolved over the past three years on the question of 

advisory boards. We support the establishment in both the BLM and the Forest Service of 

Resource Advisory Councils at the level of the local administrative unit with the principal 

focus on an individual's knowledge and experience of the local area and a commitment to 

consensus. National standards for grazing should be replaced by regional and local 

standards, developed with assistance from the advisory boards as constituted in the bill. 

Ranchers have accepted that there will be change and we are trying to 

formulate equitable change -- it is time for environmentalists to do the same 

instead of trashing all the options offered. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, allow me to reiterate the importance of what you 

are doing. Your decisions on this legislation will directly impact the ability of my 

family and other members of the Public Lands Council to stay in business to 

produce food and fiber for this nation and the world. We do not want a handout 

from the government. Basically, we just want an opportunity to make a 

satisfactory living for ourselves and our family and the oppor·Jnity to continue 

producing and improving the quality and quantity oflivestock products -- wool, 

lamb and beef that we provide to the American consumer. I do not want to 

become another Wyoming operator who has sold out under the weight of federal 

regulation. Parents are discouraging sons and daughters from coming back to 

ranches because of the instability of the livestock industry. In my own 

circumstance, I have a son and daughter that want to come back to the ranch fulltime but I have withstood their desires and insisted they keep their teaching jobs 

until I know if our ranch is to survive. Your decisions will determine our fate. 

Thank you. 

9 
296 

Punuc LANDs CoUNCIL 

The Livestock Grazing Act 

A Compendium of Comments 1 

Prepared by the Public Lands Council 

All references are to the Senate bill, S.852, as introduced. 

SECTION I. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

I~ oUa\ IWYl 

Pr-t 

Btent Atlcln IAZJ \1\ce Pr.-a.nr 

!!liM""' 

Execvtiw Oltector 

. 

•flletZT!fl6 

Page 3,line 8: Clwlge effective date of"May 18, 1995" to "December 31 , 1994". We agree with 

Nevada Farm Bureau, this date should be moved back to December. By doing this, it wiU predate the Range Refonn rules and regulations published earlier in the Federal Register. Oregon 

Farm Bureau 

TITLE I-MANAGEMENT OF GRAZING ON FEDERAL LAND 

Subtitle A-General Provisions 

SEC. 101. Findings 

Addition of a new (4) and concurrent renumbering of the old (4) and (5). To serve as a logical 

precursor for much of the discussion regarding grazing preferences later m the bill. The new 

finding (4) would read as foUows: that grazing preference ri&J!ts, as deljneated. recognized and 

ac!<nowlec!ged in federal coun decisjons. in the Taylor Grazing Act < 43 U S C A 31 5) in the 

related House of Reoresentatiyes and Senate commjnee hearing records and in rules and 

regulations subsequently Promul81!ed must continue to be adequately safeguarded in order to 

promote the economic stability of !he western livestock industrv: Fred 0Mrmiller, Bob Sears 

(Idaho. Oregon, Nevada) 

It is recommended that the foUowing be added to (10) or a new (11): Sustainable use of Federal 

rangelands is a goal desired by aU Howeyer grazing or any other land use is not sustainable if it 

is not economically feasjble to continue that use A verv low livestock stocking rate may have 

little effect on the resource (forage oroduction) site productivilV or competing uses of the land 

but mav not be economically feasible Proper livestock grazing js both ecologicaUy and 

economjcally sustainable on the Vast majority of Federal rangelands" . WA. Laycock 

1 This document compiles commeniS received from tbe soun:es as tndicatocl. No elTon has been made to r=ocile 

multiple or contradictory recommendations. PLC docs not offer an opinion ln this document on the merits of any 

listed commenrs NohonOI Cotttemens Assoc10t1on • Amencoo Sheep IndUStry Assoc•ation • Assoc•ation ot National Gras$1onc 
297 

2 

Page 7, line 7 Insert "ICl Section 402 of the Federal Land Policy and management Act of 1976 is 

hereby repealed" . Wyoming Wool Growers Association (WWGA) 

SEC. 102. APPLICATION OF ACT. 

We would suggest that if the US Forest Service is to be included in this act. it be done as soon as 

possible. Oregon Farm Bureau, Budd-Fa/en, W.A . Laycock, Nevad£J Canlemen 's Association 

Page 7, line 9--With respect to its effect on the other laws cited, one can assume that unless the 

language of the LGA specifically overrides the provision of the law or there is a provision 

repealing the other law, the previous law remains in force . Lewis Cipher 

SEC. 103. OBJECTIVE 

(4)-(5)-Page 8,lines 14-18 It is not clear how the LGA performs an inventory of public land, or 

considers wildlife. Lewis Cipher 

(4)-Page 8, line 15 Insert "proven scientific monitoring" after the second "of'. WWGA 

SEC. 104. DEFINITIONS 

(2) Please clarifY "the places at which" Fred Obermiller 

Strike "the places at which ... " New Mexico PLC 

(4) Affected Interest-An appropriate definition will streamline the remainder of the bill and the 

need for more substantive changes therein. It is suggested that "Affected Interest" be redefined as 

follows: The tenn "affected jntereg" means an individual or oraanization whose role is advisory 

only and not signatory ofrange agreements or AMPs. Fred Obermiller, Bob Sears (Idaho, 

Oregon, Nevad£J) 

(4) Affected Interest-Page 9, line 17, Between the words "will" and "affect", insert the word 

"economically". Oregon Farm Bureau, W.A. Laycock 

(4) Affected Interest-Page 9, line 12 Delete "or organization" . WWGA 

( 4) Affected Interest (A)-Page 9, line 15 Delete "on a specific grazing allotment" and insert 

"durina the land use planning process", on line 17, insert ~' after "will" and, on line 18, 

delete "or organization". WWGA 
298 

( 4) Affected interest-Page 9 The legislation should specifically include local government as an 

affected interest to ensure that local customs, culture, and economics are considered. The current 

definition gives the authorized officer far too much discretion in determining who is an affected 

interest. ' This definition should be more restrictive. California Cattlemen's Association (CCA) 

(4) (B)--Page 9, line 19 Insert "(ll) further for an individual to gualifv as an affected interest 

that individual shall meet the qualifications of having legal standing The general public's 

privilege to panicipate in the Land Use Planning process is recognized. and shall not be 

diminished by this definition. and". Delete (B) and inse!l.(Q. WWGA 

(4) (B)-Strike this section. Nevada Cattlemen's Association 

(6) Allotment Management Plan (B)--Replace with: "is prepared jn consultation. cooperation and 

coordination With leasees permittees landownen involved grazing advisory councils and anY 

States having lands within the area to be covered by such plans." New Mexico PLC · 

( 6) Allotment Management Plan--Pages 9-1 0 The definition is completely ambiguous. The 

language needs work to make it clear as the definition of AMP. It is suggested that the current 

statutory definitions in FLPMA and PRIA be used in order to maintain continuity between current 

and new AMPs. Chad Gibson 

(6) Allotment Management Plan--Pages 9-10 Replace term and definition with the term 

"Management Agreement" which is defined as "a document that details items of agreement 

between the permittee and the Agency on issues related to the livestock management of the 

allotment. This document shall be considered a contract between those who sign the Agreement 

the Agreement to be as!iudicated under the respective State laws of residence ofthe perminee<s). 

Add a Rule of Construction foUowing the above definition which states: "Management 

Agreements that document the items of consensus between the permittee and Agency with respect 

to the livestock management in an allotment shall be constructed for each allotment on Section 3 

lands. These Agreements shall be considered contracts between the parties of signature and will 

be adjudicated under the respective State laws of residence of the permittee<s)." WWGA 

(7) Animal Unit Month--Leaves a sword over the sheep industry's head by making "animal unit 

months" a term subject to State definition. This seems to be most unwise, since a state could 

eliminate sheep grazing any time they wished, simply by making the ratio two to one, for example 

It seems best to take the state definition idea out. It is not needed, and is risky. Lewis Cipher 

(7) Animal Unit Month (B) No state Definition (i) In General (I)-Clarify and make consistent 

with range science definitions the AUM by type oflivestock ratio (excluding the 7: I sheep: cow 

ratio). Move this definition to the subsection dealing with grazing fees (Section 137). Fred 

Obermiller 

(7) Animal Unit Month {AUM): The bill should specifY that I AUM equals I cow and its calffor 

stocking-rates and billing purposes. Larry Nelson 
299 

(7) This would be scientifically unsound. An AUM for stocking purposes reflects the amount of 

forage an animal consumes. One AUM equals a 1000 pound animal, as an animal's weight 

exceeds 1000 pounds its forage intake increases. A 1400 pound cow would have a stocking rate 

of 1.25 to 1.3. If the stocking rate is not properly adjusted there is a very real concern for 

overgrazing areas. Dick Loper 

(7) Animal Unit Month (B) (i) (I)--Strike everything through mule. Replace with " I cow, bull, 

horse, burro or mule, . 7 steer, heifer .. ."' New Mexico PLC 

4 

(7) Animal Unit Month--Page II, lines 3-6, Is there a problem with classifYing a weaned steer as a 

full AUM? We have had no one indicate that they are concerned with this issue. Oregon Farm 

Bureau. 

(7) AUM- The entire section on AUM equivalents should be dropped or placed in the fee section 

and designated for billing purposes only. It is recommended that the definition now in the 

regulations be used "Animal Unit Month (AUM) means the amount of forage necessarv for the 

sustenance of one cow or its eguivalent for a oeriod of I month" and that equivalents which do 

not have scientific agreement and have major implications for purposes other than billing be left 

out of the statute. Chad Gibson 

(7) Animal Unit Month (B) (i) (ill)--Page II, line 7-10 The drafters of this bill apparently did not 

realize that BLM has some year-round operators. The livestock never leave the public land until 

they are shipped to market. Section (ill) needs to be clarified to make it obvious that the grazing 

year or period of use is in view here, and not the term of 15 years of the permit. This comment 

also applies to subsection (ii) (D), page II, line 24. Lewis Cipher 

(9) Bas Property--Page 12, line!? Add the following new subsection (C) "Land or water that 

wholly or partially derives its economic value from the use of the associated grazing permit or 

lease." Scott Bedke 

(12) Consultation, cooperation, and coordination--Add after the period "Whereby all parties are 

equal, none being subservient to the other." New Mexico PLC 

(12) Consultation, cooperation and coordination--Page 13, This-definition uses the current 

FLPMA definition for consultation, cooperation and coordination in 1752 (d). In Sec. 104 (b), 

page 18, this wording amends the above listed definition to include any "good faith effon to reach 

consensus on issues"- The ambiguity of"good faith" renders the CCC process mute and 

unworkable. This amendment would essentially eliminate the protections of private property 

rights and interests in those situations where private lands are unfenced and intermingled with 

public lands. Chad Gibson 

Desired Plant Communitv (DPC)--Add the definition as follows: The plant coromunitv of the 

several plant communities that mav occupy a site that has been identified through a management 

plan to best meet the plan's objective for the site. WA. Laycock 
300 

( 14) Federal Land--This new definition is important in large part beause of the intermingled and 

checkerboard nature offederal-state-private land ownership in parts of the West and the 

impossibility of controlling livestock movement and access atnong unfenced ownerships. "Federal 

Land" sh'ould be redefined as follows: <A) means land outside the State of Alaska . FRED 

OBERM/UER, Bob Sears (Idaho, Oregon, Nevada) 

(14) Federal Land--Page 13, line 16 Change the word "owned" to "administered" . Until the Nyc 

County case is settled, federal ownership should not be admitted. CCA 

(14) Federal Land (A)--Page 13, line 15 Delete "or an interest in land". This change is an 

absolute must, in our opinion. If the language remains unchanged, we believe that the federal land 

management agencies wiU be able to exert control over grazing on land where the surface 

ownership is in private hands but the federal government owns the mineral estate. Much of the 

state of Wyoming is held in exactly this situation. We see this problem arising particularly in 

Section 15 and checkerboard areas where the Bi.M has tried for years to force lessees into 

AMP's. With the wording as is in the LGA, in areas where there are split estates, they would 

have the statutory authority to do so. WWGA 

(14) Federal Land (B)--Page 13, lines 20-21 It would be better to say "held in trust for Indians" 

to make clear that if an Indian happens to be an allottee that does not remove the allotment from 

the operation of the LGA. Lewis Cipher 

(14) Federal Land-Should Forest Service land be included? W.A. Laycock 

(15) Grazing District-Is defined in a classic way, but apparently the bill loses sight of the fact that 

a lot of land in BLM administrative districts are not part of any of the old grazing districts For 

example, Sec. 176 (c) (2) limits advice to lands within a grazing district and leaves unanswered 

the question of what or who will give advice on the other land. Lewis Cipher 

( 19) Grazing Preference--After the word "land" insert, "as adjudicated and attached to the 

oriKinal permits apoortioned " New Merica PLC 

(19) Grazing Preference--Page 14 Retain the definition of grazing preference found in the Taylor 

Grazing Act. CCA . 

Guidelines (policy Qujdeljnes)--Add the definition as foUows: General oolicy statement which 

gujdes the administration of srazing on Federal Lands Policy guidelines are appropriate in anv 

document dealing with grazing above the AMP level. Specifications in an AMP should be 

considered Standards <Technical Standards)-see that definition. W.A. Laycock 

(21) Land use plan-Page 15, Lines 6, After the semi-colon and before "or" insert "!hiili 

consistent with state and local land use plans". "Land use plan", when used in this act, is also 

used to refer to state or local land use plans and not just those developed by the federal 

government for the lands they manage (note page 6, line 13). Oregon Farm Bureau 
301 

Livestock-should be supplemented with a sentence, perhaps part (C) that says that wild, free.. 

roaming horses and burros are not livestock under the meaning of this act. F allure to do so will 

almost surely generate opposition from wild horse groups. It makes the definition more correct, 

as a side benefit. 

(23) Livestock Carrying Capacity--Page 15, line 22 After " resources" insert "as determined by 

monitoring." WWGA 

(24) Monitoring-Add " rangeland study" between "means" and "monitoring". Fred Obermiller 

6 

(24) Monitoring--Page 15, tine 25, add "over time" after the word "data" and after the word 

"evaluate" add "trend and to determine the ... " We feel that most, if not all, monitoring processes 

should be geared to determine trends toward or away from some objective. The Nevada Farm 

Bureau made an effort to do this in their input, but we betieve that the wording they suggested 

ought to be included after the word "data" rather -than before. Oregon Farm Bureau 

(24) Monitoring (A) Add "ecological changes and" between "of' and "management". Fred 

Obermiller 

Add the foUowing definitions here: W A. Laycock 

Standard <Technical Standard)-Specifications in the Allotment Management Plan (AMP) that 

speD out what the specific requirements are for that allotment. Technical Standards are !!Q1 

appropriate in any document above the AMP level. Statements in these documents are considered 

to be "Poticy Guidelines" (see definition). 

Stubble Height Cor Residue}--the height or amount of herbage remaining on the ground after 

grazing. When appropriate local standards have been developed, stubble height or residue may be 

used in tieu ofUtilization. 

(29) Sublease-Don't you need to separate out the different concepts of subleasing and 

management contracts? They are different and need to be treated differently on p. 55. W A. 

Laycock 

(32) Trend-Add the foUowing to the definition: Must be determined by actual measurements or 

monitoring taken over time and not from one time checklists "instant" trend or rapid assessment 

WA. Laycock 

(34) Utilization is defined as the year's herbage production consumed or destroyed by herbivores. 

(34) Utilization--Page 18, tines 12-14, It is recommended that after the word "herbivores" the 

following sentence be added, "PeatrQyed herbage dQes nQt relate tQ herb!IBe tbat js stiU growing. 

but physically impacted by the herbivore or the previous growing season's titter and standing 

dead plant material." In some instances, range technicians have a tendency to assume that forage 

that has been laid upon or bent over by herbivores should be classified as "destroyed". This is not 

the case if the material is stiU rooted and growing. The. whole issue may be academic and seem 
302 

7 

too obvious, but when the ability to continue to use an allotment is dependent on a utilization rate 

of 3 5-40%, proper identification of destroyed vegetation could become critical. Previous years 

litter and standing dead can also be mistakenly classified as destroyed vegetation. We feel that the 

definition of"utilization" in this act should clarify what "destroyed vegetation" is. Oregon Farm 

Bureau 

(33) Utilization--Change the definition to read: " .means the oroportion or percentage of the 

total year's herbage production ... " W.A . Laycock 

(33) Utilization--Page 18, line 13 After "of a" insert ''!illi!". WWGA 

(26) Rangeland study--Page 16, Line 22, between "use" and "utilization" insert "production and 

trend." 

Page 17, Line 3, place a period after ·'land" and strike the rest of the sentence. New Mexico PLC 

(28) Service area--Strike "properly" .Vew MericoPLC. WWGA 

(3 I) Supplemental feed--Place a period after "nutrition" and delete the rest of the sentence. New 

MericoPLC 

(35) This section is okay if the "affected interest" definition is changed as previously stated. Fred 

Obermiller 

New Definitions-Oregon Fann Bureau 

Guidelines--The term "guidelines" means general parameters for processes and quality control to 

help attain management goals. 

~--Definitive and quantifiable parameters established as a model or example for the 

measure of quantity, value or quality of an action used in attaining objectives. 

We feel that specific definitions of"standards" and "guidelines" are absolutely necessary 

to avoid the lumping of the two terms together. These two terms are not the same. Standards are 

more specific and should be used on the ground and in site-specific situations. Guidelines are 

more general policy items and are not as specified as standards. Guidelines should be flexible. 

Neither "standards" nor "guidelines" should be mistaken for "objectives" or "goals". They 

provide parameters and direction in achieving management goals and objectives. 

Section I 04 (b) (2) Page 19, line 4--Strike "good faith" and (line 5) strike "from" and add "where 

all parties are equal and none being subservient to the others". 

Line 7 --Strike affected interests" and insert "landowners". 

Line 10--Strike "resource" and insert "grazing". 

Line 14--Strike (4) in its entirety. New Merico PLC 

(b) Consultation, Cooperation, and Coordination--Page 18, line 21 Delete 402 (d) of the Federal 

Land Policy and insert "8 of PRIA" 

Line 22, delete "Management Act of 1976 (43 US C. 1752 (d))" 

Line 2J, after "amended" insert "to include the following definition:". WWGA 
303 

8 

{b) (I) Delete lines 24-25 . 

(b) (2) Page 19, line I, delete and,.line 2, delete "used in this subsection", delete "the" and insert 

"The" and delete page 19, lines 14-15. WWGA · 

SEC. 105. FUNDAMENTALS OF RANGELAND REALm 

Page 19, line 16 Insert "Condition or'' between "Rangeland" and "Health". W A. Laycock 

(a) Standards and Guidelines--As indicated in the definitions, the tenns "Standards" and 

"Guidelines" should not be used together because they are concepts that apply at different levels. 

As indicated in the PLC review of the DEIS (p. 62): "Ecologically sound 'and feasible 

management requires separation of the two tenns. 'Standards' are appropriate at the local level 

as part of an AMP. However, they must be established locally to fit the situation on each range 

site within the' allotment. All directions above the AMP level should be called 'Guidelines'. They 

should be general in nature .. . " For clarification, the tenns "Technical Standards" and "Policy 

Guidelines" arc probably clearer that just "Standards" and "Guidelines". WA. Laycock 

(a) Standards and Guidelines-This subsection maybe is not needed, but if needed the standards 

and guidelines, and management objectives should be defined as the lowest possible level of 

geographic aggregation to promote site specific adaptive management Preferably, the title of the 

subsection, "(a) Standards and Guidelines" would be changed to read "(a) Manaaement Goals". 

For the purpose of consistency, the language on lines 15-20 could read: "The Secretary (or 

authorized officer) sha!! establish standards and guidelines through the land use planning process 

at the Resource Management Plan level and management objectives at the District Resource 

Area. and allotment or eauiya!ent site SJ!ecific level in conjunction with the State Department of 

Agriculture or other llJ!oromiate agency and the land-grant university or other appropriate 

institution of higher education of each interested state consistent with the orovisjons section 309 

(d) and (el ofthe Federal Land Policy and Management Act of !976 (43 U.S.C. 1739.1: Fred 

Obermiller, Bob Sears (Idaho, Oregon, Nevada) 

(a) Standards and Guidelines-Page 19 Additional sideboards must be placed on the Secretary's 

ability to establish standards and guidelines. We suggest that the legislation should require that 

standards and guidelines be developed in careful and considered consultation, cooperation and 

coordination with penninees. CCA 

(a) Standards and Guidelines (I) Guidelines--The Secretary shall establish guidelines with flexible 

parameters to &ttain planned ecologically and economically feasible land-usc goals on a state or 

regional level in conjunction with the State Department of Agriculture or other appropriate 

agency and the land-grant university or other appropriate institution of higher education of each 

interested state." Oregon Farm Bureau 

(a) Standards and Guidelines (2) Standards--The Secretary's authorized officer will establish 

standaids to attain site-specific ecologically and econof!!ically feasible management objectives, in 
304 

consultation, cooperation and coordination with the State Department of Agriculture or other 

appropriate agency, the land-grant university or other appropriate institution of higher education 

of each i~terested state and other affected interests." Oregon Farm Bureau 

(a) Line IS--Between the words "or" and "regional" insert "intrastate". 

Line 20--After "agriculture" insert "county governments". New Merico PLC 

(a) Standards and Guidelines--Page 19, lines 17 and 18 Delete "standards" and replace with 

~" Page 19, line 18, delete "shall" and insert "!!!BY"· WWGA 

(b) Rule of Construction--Page 19. line 25 After "necessary" insert "to accomolish the pur:poses 

of this Act." WWGA 

9 

(b) Rule of Construction--Page 19, line 25, after "necessary" add "or appropriate" . Oregon Farm 

Bureau 

SEC. 106 LAND USE PLANS. 

The NEP A exemption will give little practical help in the case of specific projects. ESA and 

Archeological Preservation Act will continue to hold up site specific projects (range 

improvements). NEPA exemption, alone, does not speed up range improvements very much. It 

is important to keep the concept that the issuance of annual bills and the issuance of the permits 

and leases, when in compliance with the land-use plan, do not require further NEPA assessment. 

Lewis Cipher 

(b) Contents of Land Use Plan (2)--Page 20, line 14, Replace "needed" with the word 

"proposed''. Oregon Farm Bureau 

(c) Application ofNEPA--This should read as follows: A land use plan shall be developed at the 

Resource Area Level in conformance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et sea.) and with the requirements of the Federal Land Poli,;y and 

Manaaement Act ofl976 (43 U.S.C 1701 et seq.). Fred Obermiller, Bob Sears (Idaho, Oregon, 

Nevada) 

(d) Conformance With Land Use Plan (I)--Page 20, line 24 Add a Rule of Construction after line 

24: "Secretaries are required to insure that agency Land Use Plans are consistent with state 

county local and tribal land planning efforts. Agency Land Use Plans shall be developed jn full 

and considered consultation. cooperation and coordination with state county local and tribal 

governments and their authorized representatives." WWGA 

SEC. 107 RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. 
305 

If possible the bill should include some guarantee that pennitted numbers wiU remain at 

historic levels. The Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act is being violated and nothing can be done 

to correct the problem. Bill DeVeny 

' 

Subtide B-Qualification and Grazing Preferences 

SEC. 111. MANDATORY QUALIFICATIONS. 

(I)-Page 21, line 13 This might make it hard to get slarted in the livestock business. Lewis 

Cipher 

10 

(I)-Page 2l,line 13 After "be engaged in the livestock business" add "and uses or has the intent 

to use the Federal rangeland as a part of that livestock business" W.A. Laycock 

SEC. 112. ACQUIRED LAND. 

SEC. 113. GRAZING PREFERENCES. 

(a) Base Property-Page 22, line 12 et seq. The base property as described here would allow base 

waters to be established in any State, and not only in areas which are presently water-base. Lewis 

Cipher 

(a) Base Property (2) Specification of Length of Time--Page 23, line I The existing statement 

destroys the relationship between the administration of grazing districts, prior preference 

adjudications, and seasons of use. It is suggested that the following language be used: Based on 

historical grazing preference rights an authorized officer shall specify the length of time for which 

land base prooerty shall be considered to be caoable of supporting authorized livestock use during 

the year. Fred Obermiller, Bob Sears (Idaho, Oregon, Nevada) 

(a)(4) Loss of ownership or control (A)-Page 23, line 16 Delete the following "terminate 

immediately, without notice from the authorized officer." Replace with "remain in force with the 

temporarv holder or controller of the base prooerty until a final disoosition is reached." Fred 

Obermiller, Bob Sears (Idaho, Oregon, Nevada) 

(a) (4) Loss of Ownership or Control--Page 23, line This section is too vague. Preference should 

not be removed from the base property. CCA 

(b) (2) Attachment of Grazing Preference--Page 25, line 9 Delete "attach" and insert"~ 

attached" CCA 
306 

(b) (3) Attachment of Animal Unit Months--Page 25 Delete this section entirely. CCA 

(c) Transfer of Grazing Preference (4)--Page 26, line 15 Between "as" and "the" insert 

"developed through consultation, cooperation, and consultation. New Mexico PLC 

SEC. 114. CHANGES IN GRAZING PREFERENCE STATUS. 

II 

Somewhere in this section probably is the appropriate place to reemphasize the current rules and 

regulations on complete non use. WA. Laycock 

(a) In General-'Page 29, lines 13, 15, and (b) line 16 Delete "stocking rate" and insert "i!Yin& 

~" WWGA 

(a) and (b)--To be consistent, "Stocking Rate" should replace "Gt-azing Preference" in the title. 

Then, wherever used, consideration should be given to changing the term "stocking rate" to the 

term "carrying capacity'' Fred Obermiller, Bob Sears (Idaho. Oregon, Nevada) 

(b)--Page 29, line 18, place a period after time, delete the rest of the paragraph. New Mexico 

PLC 

{b) Support--Page 29,1ines 19-20 After "plan" through the end of line 20 insert "and is consistent 

with state counrv local and Indian planning objectives." WWGA 

(b) Support--Page 29, line 20, Amend this section by adding the foUowing sentence at the end of 

the paragraph: Utilization levels shall not be the sole basis for a decision to limit livestock 

grging. Budd-Fa/en 

(b) Suppon--Page 29, line 18 End the sentence at "over time" and add "Utilization levels shall 

not be the sole basis for a decision to limit livestock grazing." Nevada Cattlemen's Association 

(c) Increase in Active Use-As a matter of reality, experience has shown that even when additional 

forage does become available, it is not apportioned to qualified grazing applicants. To provide a 

solution, the foUowing language could be used: (I) In General--As a customary practice any 

additional forage that becomes available will be apportioned to a qualified.. Fred Obermiller, 

Bob Sears (Idaho, Oregon, Nevada) 

(d) Page 31. line 21 & 22-Strike "affected interests" and insert "landowners". New Mexico PLC 

(d) (2) Permanent Suspension--Page 32, line 2 Strike "unacceptable" and insert "excessive" and 

(line 7) between _"use" and "if' add "to the long term carrying capacity'' New Mexico PLC 
307 

(d) (2) Permanent Suspension-Page 32, line 2 Delete "an unacceptable" and insen ~ 

~ .. and line 3, delete "level or pattern of utilization". WWGA 

(d) (2) Permanent Suspension--Page 32, lines 1-5, It is suggested that the following changes be 

made: "When monitoring. over time indicates that active use by livestock is causing an 

unacceptable and detrimental I eye! or pattern of utilization or exceeds the livestock caming 

capacitv an authorized officer after .. " A decision to suspend use should be made from data 

gathered in a manner that would indicate that present management is responsible for any trend 

away from the desired management goal and that the trend is, in fact, due to the livestock use. 

Oregon Farm Bureau 

12 

(d) (2) Permanent Suspension-Page 32, line I Add the following language so this reads: "When 

trend detenitined by monitoring 2Yer..1iDH: shows that active use is ... " Line 4, delete "as 

determined through monitoring" . At the end of (2) add: "Reductions in active use shall not be 

made based solely on levels of utilization stubble height or resjdue studies Such utilization 

studies must be correlated with and backed by actual measured trend studies to determine that 

tbere is a problem." W.A. Laycock 

(d) (2) Permanent Suspension--Page 32, lines 2-3 Delete "an unacceptable level or pattern of 

utilization" and insert "resource damage" . WWGA 

(e) (I) Phasing-in-Line 22 & 23, strike "interests" and insert "landowners". New Merico PLC 

(e) (2) (B) (page 33, line 7)--Replace the term "range analysis" with the term "range studv and 

monitoring" and then. for consistency reverse the order ofCBl and (C). Fred Obermiller, 

Bob Sears (Idaho, Oregon, Nevada) 

(e) (2) (B)--Page 33, line 7, After the word "range" add the word "trend". The only acceptable 

data to make decisions to decrease preference is data that indicates a trend away from some 

resource objective or land use goal. Oregon Farm Bureau 

(e) Implementation of Changes in Available Forage-Page 32, the language allows an "affected 

interest" to become a party to "consultation" in how a reduction in active use will be 

implemented. This allows for 3 rd party interference in a decision that wiU or could have 

economic impacts on contractual obligations of an individual. Chad Gibson 

(e) Implementation of Changes in Available Forage (1) Phasing-In-Page 32,lines 19-24 The 

phase-in is likely to be too little, too late, in emergency cases. Language to eliminate the phase-in 

in cases of emergency would be helpful. Its absence will cause a black eye to the industry, since 

the few bad operators wiU not be controllable. Lewis Cipher 

(e)Implementation of Changes in Available Forage (2) Suspension of Grazing Preference (c)--

Page 33, line After "If' add "adequate and acceptable measure trend data ... " W.A. Laycock 
308 

13 

SEC. 11~. CHANGES IN FEDERAL LAND ACREAGE. 

(b) Decrease in Land Acreage (I) In General--Page 34, line 15 After "within an allotment" insert 

the words "for adequate and justified reasons" . WA. Laycock 

(b) Decrease in Land Acreage (3) (C)--Page 36, line I Strike "but in excess of' and. line 4, after 

"land" add "and reduction in value of base property" Nf!W Mexico PLC 

(b) (3) (C)-Page 36, line 3 Following the word "improvements" add the following language: 

"and the capitalized value of the grazing oerroit. " Nevada Cattlemen's Association 

Subtitle C-Grazing Management 

SEC. 121. ALLOTMENT MANAGEMENT PLANS. 

Page 36, line 6 Delete "Allotment Management Plan" and insert "Management Agreement" 

(a) In General--Page 36, line 7 Delete "Allotment Management Plan" and insert "Management 

Asreement". 

Page 36, line 8 Delete "shall" and insert "!!!!X" 

Page 36, line 12 Delete "Allotment Management Plan" and insert "Management Asreement" 

WWGA 

(b) Contents--Page 36, line 13 Delete "Allotment Management Plan" and insert "Management 

Asreement" . WWGA 

(b) (2) Strike "prescribe" and insert "describe'' Nf!W Menco PLC 

(b) Contents (2)--Page 36, line 17 Insert items (2) and (3) as follows: 

(2)--Every range site on the allotment should have the Desired Plant Community (DPC) 

described for it. 

(3)-Actions needed to move toward the DPC must be stated, including: 

(a) The livestock grazing practices necessary to cause the community to move 

toward the DPC and to meet specific multiple-use management objectives: 

(b) Any needed range management actions or improvements: 

(I) fencing 

(2) brush or weed control 

(3) water development 

(4) salting 

(5) riding or herding 

(6) others 
309 

14 

and renumber original items (2), (3) and (4) to be (4), (5) and (6). At the end of the new (6)(page 

36, line 25) add "including trend toward (or away from) the defined DPCs. 

(c) Private and State Land--Page 37, lines 1-2 Insert the word "only" between "plan" and "with" 

Some mention of the true carrying capacity of these lands needs to be included here. WA. 

Laycock 

(b) (4)-Page 36, line 25 Delete "plan" and insert ". WWGA 

(c) Private and State Land--Page 37,1ine 2 Delete "shall" and insert "!!!IY', delete "Allotment 

Management Plan" and insert "Management Agreement" and insert "Q!!)Y' after "Management 

Agreement". 

(c) Private and State Land--Page 37, tine 3 After "with the" insert "Minen". 

(c) Private and State Land--Page 37, line 4 After "the land" insert "IfWifenced intermingled 

private or state lands are not included jn the Mli!!I8Cment Agreement. the agency shall assume full 

responsibility to preclude any federal jmpacts on private or state lands in the management area.·~ 

WWGA 

(d) Line 6-Strike "shall" and insert "may". New Mexico PLC 

(d) Incorporation in Gt-azing Permits and Gt-azing Leases--Page 37, lines 5-8 Delete item (d). 

WWGA 

(e) Line I 1--Strike "that is consistent with a land use plan". New Mexico PLC, WWGA 

(e)-Page 37, lines 15-16, it is recommended that the foUowing paragraph be inserted between 

lines 15 and 16: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrarv existing grazing 

permits or grazing leases shall continue and shall be renewed on the same terms while any land 

use plan is being prq;~ared here under or while any srudy or assessment under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U S C 4321 et seq.) or any other law is being conducted." 

This addition would avoid future problems where permittees are not aUowed to use their 

aUotments because the agencies have failed to complete studies that are required such as the 

current NEP A mess or the endangered salmon situation in the W aUowa-Whitman Forest in 

Eastern Oregon. Oregon Farm Bureau 

Insert 2 new sections following Section 121 

Monitoring 

(a) In Genera!-Anv monitoring of aUotment territorv can only be performed by qualified 

BLM or Forest Service perwnnel qualified agents of the BLM or Forest Service or pennittees at 

the reauest of8LM of Forest Service perwnnel 

(b) Requirement ofReauesting Pennittee Participation jn Allotment Monitorimz-No 

inspection or monito c< ng documentation shaD be used or placed in the oermittee's allotment file 

unless the permittee has been reauested and allowed to participate in the allotment inspection with 

aualified BLM or Forest Service personnel or qya!ified agems of the BLM or Forest Service. 

Non-Interference with Gt-azing Contracts 
310 

IS 

(a) In General-Grazing permits shall be granted the same protection as all other contracts 

or leases issued by Forest Service or BLM including protection from interference by third parties. 

Oregon ~ow- op 

Insert new subsections 122 and 123, and renumber all original subsections accordingly. The 

subsections designed to negate third party interference have been prepared by qualified legal 

counsel, could be added following line 16, page 37. Third party interference in monitoring and 

livestock management is an increasing problem in the Pacific Northwest and can be expected to 

spread, with equally disruptive effects, to other parts of the West. It is important that some 

language be added to the LGA which will discourage frivolous and capricious interference with 

livestock and range management, and will ensure that only qualified personnel monitor grazing 

allotments. One way to do this would be to add the foUowing language: 

Section 122 Monitoring 

(a) In General--Any monitoring or inspection or allotment territorv for condition or 

compliance with grazing rules and regulations M.d the terms and conditions of grazing permitS and 

allotment manasement clans shall be performed only be the permittee qualified personnel 

qualified consultants retained by the United States or qualified consultants retained by the grazing 

permittee or grazing lessee. An individual is qualified within the meaning of this section if he or 

she possesses the training educational credentials and experience ordinarily possessed by 

professionals in the scientific or technical field being assessed. 

(b) Requirement of Requesting Permittee or Lessee Panicipation in Allotment Monitoring-

-No inspection or monitoring documentation. data. information. or reports shall be relied on. 

used or included in the permittee's or lessee's allotment file in any form unless the pennittee has 

been invited and allowed to be present at and to participate in the inspection or other activitv in 

which the information or data was gathered or which resulted in the report. No invitation to the 

permittee's or lessee's presence shall be valid for the purooses ofthis section unless the qualified 

personnel carrving out the inspection or monitoring activity made reasonable accommodations to 

the pemtittee's or lessee's schedule and circumstances allow the oermittee to be present. 

Section 123 Non-Interference with Grazing Activities 

(a) In Qenera! This section is declarative of existing law. 

(b) The Secretarv shall insure that grazing activities being carried out on or in connection 

with federal land administered by the Secretary or protected against interference by third parties 

and are given the same protection as all contracts or leases issued by the Secretary. Fred 

Obermiller 

SEC. 122. RANGE IMPROVEMENTS. 

8100 funds for range improvements are not in the bill, needs to be considered. Ed Depaoli 

(a) Range Improvement (I) In General--Page 37, line 24 Insert "including the value to wildlife. 

especially of vegetation enhancement or water development programs". W.A. Laycock 
311 

16 

(a) Range Improvement Cooperative Agreements (4) Nonstructural Range Improvements--This 

section is somewhat unclear as to who is entitled to participate in the benefits of such an 

improvement. If a wildlife group participated in the improvement of elk habitat, would livestock 

have to be .fenced out or elk fenced in to assure equality of benefits? If this section intended to 

assure that the permittees and lessees involved receive equal benefit to their input, it needs some 

clarification. Chad Gibson 

(a) (5) Incentive--Page 39, line 14 At the end of this section add "This agreement should 

document expected value of the proposes! improvement to wildlife and other multiPle uses of the 

!Jnd". W:A. Laycock 

(b) Range Improvement Permits (3) Authorized officer to issue--Should read as follows: ~ 

improvement permit reoyested pursuant to Section 4 of the Taylor GrazUig Act (43 U S.C. 3151 

shall be issued by the authorized officer. Fred Obermiller, Bob Sears (Idaho, Oregon, Nevada) 

(b) (I) Application--Page 39, line 16-20 It should be indicated where the application for the 

permit should be directed. This application should also specify the projected value to wildlife, 

especially for vegetation enhancement and water projects. W:A. Laycock 

(b) Range Improvement Permits (5) Control--Page 40, lines 7-10 (See definition oflivestock.) 

This could include wild horses and burros (WH&B). If so, the permittee can prevent WH&Bs 

from drinking at these permitted waters. Is that the intent? Lewis Cipher 

(c) Standards, Design. and Stipulations--Page 40, line 16 After "improvements" add "in 

compliance with state law" then strike the rest of the sentence. New Merico PLC 

(e) Removal and Compensation for Loss of Range Improvements (3) (A)-Page 41, line 22 After 

"constructed" add "or purchased". New Mexico PLC 

(e) Removal and Compensation for Loss of Range Improvements (3) (B)-Page 42, line 6 Strike 

the period and add "and with consideration of reduction of the value of the base property". New 

MexicoPLC 

(e) (3) (A)In General--Page 41, line 24 Add the following language: "and the caoitalized value of 

the grazing pennjt. " Nevada Cattlemen 's Association 

(e) (3) (B) Fair Market Value-Delete the word "Fair'' on lines I and 3. Insert the following" 

(8) (I l Marlcet value means the most Probable price which a prooerty should bring in a 

comoetitiye and ooen market under all conditions requisite to a li!jr sale. the buyer and seller each 

acting prudent!v and knowledge&blv and assuming the price js not atfected by undue stimulus 

ImPlicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the pa .. jng of 

title from seller to buver under conditions whereby 

I Buver and seller are tvoicallv motivated· 

2 Both Parties are well informed or well advised and acting in what they consider 

their own best interests· 
312 

3. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the ooen market· 

4. Pavment is made in terms of cash in U.S dollars or jn tenns of financial 

arrangements comparable thereto and 

5. The price represents the norma] consideration for the property sold unaffected 

by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale. 

(B) (2) Value determined by a state licensed appraiser who is acceptable to both paoies 

Nevada Cattlemen's Association 

(j) Transfer of Ownership of Improvements--Page 43 Strike entire section. New Me rico PLC 

It is suggested that after page 43, line 20 a pan (k) be added to read as follows: 

(kl "Satisfaction ofReouirements of Other Laws--

( I) Range improvements consistent with and recognized in a land use olan as a 

17 

management method that will help attain the management goals and objectives of the land use 

plan. or are generally recognized by range management professionals as improvements lhat will 

accomplish the goals and objectives of a land use plan. will not reouire anY study or assessment 

under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S C 4321 et sea.) to be Part of an 

approved Allotment Management Plan." Range improvement activities such as brush control on 

specific allotments, where NEPA has not normally been applied, are being challenged by 

environmental groups based on their belief that NEPA assessments must be carried out for each 

individual improvement activity. These actions have slowed the improvement process and in 

many cases interfered with management activities that could speed recovery and protect 

rangelands. This act should help clarify where and at what stage NEPA is necessary. Oregon 

Farm Bureau 

SEC. 123. WATER RIGHTS. 

(a) In General--After "In general" insen "No fes!eral agency shall apply for a water right or 

pursue anY pending water right claim based on beneficial use bv livestock not owned by the 

United States or for wildlife not under the direct jurisdiction of )he United States nor shall they 

interfere in anyway with the issuance or adjudication of water rights to individuals." Add 

language on Lines 22 through 24 here, place a period after "law" on line 24 and delete the rest of 

the sentence. New Me:cico PLC 

(a) In General--Page 43, line 25 After "law" insen "(s) statutes resulatjons and policies." 

WWGA 

(a)-Page 43, line 22 lnseo the following before ''No water rights" : "No federal agency shall 

apply for water rights or pursue any pending water right claim based on beneficial use by livestock 

no) owned by the U.S. or for wildlife not under the direct jurisdiction of the US Nor shall they 

interfere in any way with the issuance or adjudication of water rights to individuals." Nevada 

Cattlemen 's Association 

(c) Rule of construction--Page 44, line 8 Delete "in" and insen "lQ" and add "government" after 

"States" CCA 
818 

SEC. 124. MANAGEMENT OF GRAZING LAND UNDER THE JURISDicriON OF 

O'I'HER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES. 

Any memorandums of understanding developed under the tcnns of this section must be entirely 

within the authority and scope of this Act. CCA 

Subtitle D-Authorizatioo of Grazing Use 

Strike the words "grazing use" and insert "stocking rate". New Mexico PLC 

SEC. 131. APPLICATIONS. 

Page 45, lines II, 13, 15, 18, 19,24-25, Page 46, lines 3-4,6-7, 20-Strike the words "grazing 

use" and insert "stocking rate". New Mexico PLC 

(c) (I) (B) (ii)-Page 46, change (ii) to "Custom and Culture" then renumber (ii) to (iii), (iii) to 

(iv), (iv) to (v) and (v) to (vi). New Mexico PLC 

18 

(c) Conflicting Applications (I) Factors to be Considered (B)-Page 46,1ine 9 Somewhere in the 

list of factors should be the statement: "Applicants must provide proof that they are legitimate 

livestock operators and intend to use the permit for the authorized amount of livestock grazing". 

W:A. Laycock 

SEC. 132: GRAZING PERMITS OR GRAZING LEASES. 

(b) Term (3)-Page 47, line 12: Delete "or" and add "in which case the permit or lease will be 

issued up to the commencement of the public purpose. Fred O~rmil/er, Bob Sears (Idaho, 

Oregon, Nevada) 

(b) Term (3)-Page 47, lines 11-15--Delete this whole subsection. Oregon Farm Bureau 

(b) (3) Term-Page 47 A shorter term must be supported by sound scientific data, especially in 

light of the move toward "adaptive management" by the agencies. Delete this language entirely. 

CCA 

(c) Renewal--Page 48, line 3 An item ( 4) should be added after line 3 that states: 

(4) The renewal of any permit shall not include cuts in the amount of livestock use. Any 

reduction in amount of use allowed must be documented as prescribed in Section 136 (a) (2) 

(Note: "with suggested wording changes, see that section). W:A. Laycock 
314 

19 

SEC. 133. FREE-USE GRAZING PERMITS. 

SEC. 134. OTHER GRAZING AUTBORIZA TIONS. 

(a) Exchange of use GTazing Agreements (2) Extent of Use-Page 49, line 7 Add at the end of 

this section: "Canyjng caoacitv must be determined by standard oractjces and takjng into account 

the canying capacity for wildlife where aopljC8ble This sbould joc!ude value of water sources on 

the lane! offered both for livestock and wj!d!ife that make a!liacent Federal lands u58ble or more 

valuable for grazing by either livestock or wildlife". W.A. Laycock 

(a) Exchange of use GTazing Agreements (2) Extent of Use-Page 49, line 7 After "exchange of 

use" insert "as determined by the owner of the piivate land". WWGA 

(c) Crossing permits-Page 49. line 22, place a period after the word "permit" and add ::00 

crossing pmnit shall be reauirecl of a permittee for movement of livestock in a reasonable and 

prudent manner when such movement js necessary to obtain grazing preference authorized by a 

grazing oennit or lease." New Mexico PLC 

(d) Special GTazing Permits or GTazing Leases-Page 50, This section sho~ld require consultation 

with state and local government officials before a permit for use by privately owned or controUed 

indigenous animals is issued. Chad Gibson 

(d) (I) In General-Page 50, line 5 It is not clear what is intended by the word "indigenous" 

animals. Would this include tame or otherwise raised bison and elk? W.A. Laycock 

SEC. 135. OWNERSHIP AND IDENTIFICATION OF LIVESTOCK. 

(c) Marking or Tagging-Page 5J, Iines 3-5 This stops BLM from using ear-tagging to stop 

trespass even where it is chronic. It is not clear how this restriction can be justified, unless 

Congress wants livestock trespass. Lewis Cipher 

SEC. 136. TERMS AND CONDmONS. 

(a) In General (I) Specifications- Page 51 , line 17, strike "specify" and insert "identify'' and after 

"lease"(line 21) add "After consultation, cooperation and coordination with the permittees and 

affected landowners". New Mexico PLC 
315 

20 

(a) (I) Specifications-Page 51 The legislation must ensure that the specifications attached to a 

grazing permit or lease must be ta!<en from an allotment management plan and not left to the sole 

discretion of the authorized officer. CCA 

(a) (2) Amoum ofUse--Page 52, lines 1-2 After "monitoring" add the words "of range condition 

and trend" and at the end of (2) add the sentence: "Livestock carrying capacitv must be 

detcnnined bv measured trend studjes over time and may not be based solely on utilization. · 

stubble height or residue measureroems." W.A. Laycock 

(a) (3) Cancellation-Page 52, lines 3-7, amend this section to include the following subsections: 

(a) (3) (A) When a pennittee who leases the base propertv commits an act which results in 

the cancellation ofthe pennjt jn wbole or jn part. the landowner shaD have two years in which to 

regain control of!be base property and srazing preference or to transfer the canceled preference 

to anotber qualified acplicam. 

(a) (3) (A) (i) If the landowner has not assumed control of a canceled or partially Caru;eled 

permit within two years the BLM shall transfer the preference to other qualified applicants which 

mav include subsegyem owners of the original base property. Budd-Faien, Nevada Cattlemen's 

Association 

(b) No Special Terms or Conditions--Preventing the implementation of Standards and Guidelines, 

will reduce the amoum of management flexibility available to the agency and will cause problems 

for both BLM and industry. 

At present, the provisions of an AMP are made enforceable by placing a term and 

condition to that effect in the lease, permit, or annual bill. This provisio~ iit LGA will prevent 

that, which makes AMPs unenforceable. That means that BLM will have no incentive to write 

AMPs. This will discourage any sort of on-the-ground planning. 

Under LGA the only course of action to resolve resource concerns would be adjusting 

numbers and the season of use. 

Some problems, such as management of riparian areas, for example, may not readily lend 

themselves to solution by adjustment of numbers or even of season of use. Absent any other 

enforceable provision, substantial cuts in the stocking rate may be needed to correct the problem. 

This lack of flexibility is likely to harm the operator more than provide a benefit. To ensure 

compliance, this restriction on BLM flexibility will, again, force the. manager to go for terms and 

conditions that will be more extreme that would otherwise be the case. 

This assumes that the restriction also works to prevent BLM from placing enforceable 

terms and conditions in the annual bill as has been past practice. If this is not the case, then a 

restriction in the terms and conditions that can be placed in the permit or lease itself would not be 

a particular problem. This point should be clarified, or it will probably have to be clarified in 

court. 

This section conflicts with 121 (d) which requires AMPs to be incorporated into permits 

and leases. Since «.incorporation" does not make the AMP mandatory without a term or 

condition in the permit making it so, it is questionable whether the AMP is a binding document as 

the bill now reads. The issue must be resolved now, or it will be resolved in court later if the bill 

becomes law .. Lewis Cipher 
316 

21 

(c) Modification--Page 52, line 14 Strike "interests" and insen "landowners". New Mexico PLC 

(c) Modification--Page 52, line 14 After "pennittees" insen "and", delete "and other affected 

interests" r WWGA 

Page 52, line 18-Insen "Rule of Construction after (c): Terms and Conditions of a Section 15 

grazing lease shall be restricted to a billing of the lessee for the number offederal AUM's of 

livestock forage the season and number of livestock on the leased area of federal land to be 

determined by the lessee If the Agency detennines that the use ma!le by the livestock of section 

15 federal lands in the liyestock lease area is causing unacceptable impacts to the federal lands 

under lease it shall be the full resoonsibilitv of the Agency to fence and maintain the area(s) of 

federal lands in a maooer to mitigate those unacceptable impacts." WWGA 

SEC. 137. FEES AND CHARGES. 

This section should give pennittees the option of selecting payment for actual use at the end of 

the grazing season. CCA 

The provisions of Section 137 on pages 52 through 58 relating to surcharges should be deleted, 

or in the alternative, Section 137 (a) (3) (A) (ii) on page 55 should be amended to read as follows: 

The operator is unable to make full grazing use, as authorized by a grazing penni! or 

grazing lease, due to the age, death or financial disposition of the primary operator. Budd-Fa/en 

(a) Grazing Fees (I) Basic Fee-Page 52, line 23, strike "gross value" and insert "cash receipts" 

New Mexico PLC 

(a) Grazing Fees (I) Basic Fee-Page 52, line 21 It is unclear what this basic fee is now or what it 

might be in the future . The basic fee calculated for 1994 or some other year should be included. 

W:A. Laycock 

(a) (I) Basic Fee--Page 52, line 24 Replace the word "livestock" with the words "beef cow-calf 

operations per cow". These words are definitive and avoid the problem of complicating the 

formula with additional data which would be required, such as data for sheep, horses, goats, 

swine, dairy cattle, etc. By narrowing it to "beef cow-calf operations per cow" we can all be 

more cenain what data is to be used. Consideration should be given to including some additional 

language which would provide the latest (1992) Economic Research Service (ERS) definition of 

the term "Gross value of production". The ERS definition is as follows: "The gross va)ue of 

production for livestock commodities includes the value of primarv and secondarv products as 

well as any other related sources of income to the enter:prise. Any direct Government orogram 

benefits are excluded from receipts. To ensure consistency between costs and returns income 

from cooperative memberships manure sales and any other income derived from livestock 

enterPrise assets are added to gross value of production (and reooned as 'other income') when 

exoensts for these items are not separable from other farm enterorise exoenses." The definition 
317 

could perhaps be handled by means of insenion of cenain wording into the legislative history. 

The problem we have encountered with the ERS is that they constantly change their 

methodology, therefore year-to-year comparisons are difficult, if not impossible. Lorry Bourret 

(a) (I) Basic Fee--Page 53, line I Delete "in accordance with paragraph (2)" 

22 

(a) (2) Criteria--Page 53, lines 9-10 Delete "under paragraph (I)". These two paragraphs do not 

deal with related subjects and this technical correction would alleviate the current problem of 

confusion. Larry Bourret 

(a) Grazing Fees (!)Basic Fee--Proposed Language: 

The base fair market value for each AUM of grazing is equal to the three year average 

total gross value of production per cow as reponed by the National Agricultural Statistics Service 

for the year's 1990 1991 and 1992 of$420 multiplied by .06 and divided by 12 which is $2.00 

for the grazing year 1993. The base fee will be updated proponionate to annual changes in the 

grazing forage market as indicated by the Private Grazing Land Lease Rate reponed by the 

National AgP~ultural Statistics Service. The current methods for determining Private Grazing 

Land Lease Rates will continue to be used to adjust the Fee until two years of reliable data are 

available in accordance with paragraoh (2). Chad Gibson 

(a) Grazing Fees (2) Criteria--Page 53, line 6 to end of section (2) This entire section seems to be 

setting criteria for establishing the private land lease rate (on page 55, line 14-15), which would 

not be used under the new formula. Lewis Cipher 

The grazing fee section is confusing and needs some minor changes and clarifications to be 

easily understood and workable. To stan, we believe that the definition for AUM which contains 

the change to 7 sheep or goats should be in the grazing fee section, NOT in the definition section. 

If it remains as is in the LGA, the definition will apply to stocking and conversion rates as well as 

billing. We do not believe that we should open that discussion as this time, so we have suggested 

changes in the definition section to maintain the current stocking and conversion rate, and 

including a definition in the grazing fee section to change the 7 I for sheep and goats for billing 

purposes only. WWGA 

(a) (2) Move this entire section, page 53 lines 6-25 and page 54, lines 1-17, to page 55, line 19, 

and renumber as (3) then renumber sections accordingly [Page 54, line 18 delete "(3)" and add 

"(2)"]. WWGA 

(a) Grazing Fees (3) Surcharge--Page 54 line 18 It is suggested that this subsection be 

redesignated as (3) Authorized Pasturing. The new subsection would authorize a lessee or 

permittee to pasture someone else's livestock of the lessee or permittee owned or controlled the 

base propeny. This could be thought of as an "authorized sublease" even though that term is 

technically inaccurate ("authorized pasturing" would be correct). The sublease or pasturing 

agreement would be "authorized" if the permittee or lessee informed and filed appropriate 

documents with the agency. By implication, an "unauthorized" sublease ("unauthorized 

pasturing") would be one in which the agency was not appropriately notified. 
318 

23 

The lessee or permittee could conceivably be charged so~e fixed rate per AUM 

committed to authorized pasturing up to the amount of active AUMs authorized--in those cases 

where the permittee/lessee did not control the pastured livestock. This sum (for example, $1 per 

AUM) in -addition to the normal fee, or twice the normal fee could be used by the owner or holder 

of the base property as a basis for negotiating a rental or lease rate with the sublessee (or person 

whose stock is pastured). Transaction costs incurred by the agency would be markedly reduced 

and net revenues to the Treasury would be correspondingly increased. 

In any case, the cost to the lessee or permittee incurred in pasturing someone else's 

livestock varies from case to case and with the level and cost of nonfee services provided by the 

landlord. To assume that aU ranchers pasturing someone else's livestock on a federal grazing 

aUotments means profiteering is totaUy incorrect, but this is what the surcharge option as 

formulated implicitly assures. Fred Obermiller, Bob Sears (Idaho, Oregon, Nevada) 

(a) (3) Surcharge--Page 54, line 22 After "lessee" insert "if the total lease charges are in excess of 

the current annual private native rangeland lease for that state as computed in paragraph (3) 

WWGA 

(a) (3) Surcharge-Strike entire section. New Mexico PLC, Nevada Cattlemen's Association 

(a) (3) Surcharge-Page 54-55, lines 18-8, suggested language to follow: 

(3) Authorized Pasturing 

(A)--A grazing permit or license will only be issued to an entitv that· 

(j) sbows evidence of livestock ownership or a livestock lease arrangement 

containing authoritv and responsibility for the control management and care of livestock 

(ii) shows evidence of. ownership of base propertY or a base property lease 

including control of the attached preference right 

ffil-For pumoses of subsection (a) {3) livestock owned by a SPouse son. 

daughter grandson. or a;randdaughter of the permittee or lessee are considered to be owned by 

the permittee or lessee. Chad Gibson 

(a) (3) (A) (ii)--Page 55, lines 3-6 This should be amended to read as foUows: "The operator is 

unable to make full grazing use as authorized by a grazing oennjt or grazing lease due to the 

age death or financial diSPosition of the primary operator." Nevada Cattlemen's Association 

(a) (3) (A) (i) Page 54, line 24 After "a" insert "parent" WWGA 

(a) GTazing Fees (3) Surcharge (C) Livestock Owned by Others-Page 55, line 9 This should 

make clear that livestock owned by individual owners in a Grazing Association do not faU under 

this surcharge. Also, somewhere, there needs to be a distinction made between true subleasing 

and a management contract. WA. Laycock 

(a) (3) (C)--Subleasing-"Eiderly permittees" are not the only ones with legitimate reasons to 

sublease. Wording should stress permission of lessor on basis of justification submitted by 
319 

Leasee, recognize the other expenses to Leasee such dS fencing and water and security. Peggy 

Monzingo 

(ai (3) (C)'Livestock Owned by Others--Page 55, lines 13-14 Delete "current year's Federal 

grazing fee" and insert "the lease amount charged by the permittee or lessee to pasture the 

"WWGA 

(a) (4) (B) Payment prior to use--Strike entire section. New Mexico PLC 

(a) (4) (C) Billing after grazing season--Strike "If' through "season" and begin section with "A 

grazing fee shall be based ... " New Mexico PLC 

SEC. 138. PLEDGE OF PERMITS OR GRAZING LEASES AS SECURI1Y FOR 

LOANS: 

24 

(a) Renewal--Line 6, strike "if', delete line 7 through 12 and insert the following language: ill 

No permittee or leasee complying with the rules and regulations laid down by the Secretary of the 

Interior shall be denied the renewal of such oermit jf such denial will impair the value of the 

grazing unit of the permittee when such unit is pledged as security for any bona fide loan. New 

Me:r:icoPLC 

(a) Renewal, (3)--making the renewal of a grazing permit or grazing lease subject to its 

accordance with other applicable laws significantly dilutes the meaning of the applicable language 

in Section 3 of the Taylor Grazing Act. Renewal should be automatic if the permittee has abided 

by the terms and conditions of the grazing permit or else the value of the grazing permit is 

inequitably diminished. It is recommended that item (3) be deleted. Fred Obermiller, Bob Sears 

(Idaho, Oregon, Nevada) 

Subtitle E-Violations and Failures of Compliance 

Strike Subtitle E. New Mexico PLC 

SEC. 141. CIVIL VIOLATIONS AND FAH..URES OF COMPLIANCE 

The bill must include some way to hold authorizing officers (i.e. agency personnel) 

personally accountable for their actions. Agency personnel must be held to at least the same 

standard of responsibility as private parties. There should be a penalty for fraudulent statements. 

Bill DeVeny 

This section needs some "wordsmithing" and some additional changes to make the 

meaning clear. We are not sure what the intent of the wording in the bill is (we assume it is 

accidental) but the LGA makes a second non-willful violation equal in severity and penalty to a 

willful Violation. We STRONGLY disagree with this . . WWGA 
320 

25 

(b) In General (4)-Page 59, line 20 After "enters into a sublease", you need to add "in violation 

of the pr~visions in Section 137 (J)" W.A. Laycock 

(b) In General-Page 59, line 8, add "intentionally" between "that" and "does". 

(I) This paragraph, lines 11-13, on failure to make substantial grazing use is an 

anachronism from the 1930s and 1940s. It is not necessary and should be deleted. 

(c) Penalties ( I) In General (C) and 

(c) Penalties (2) Second or subsequent willful violation--(B) (page 61 , line 15 and page 62, line 

2): 

(b) (5)--Page 59, lines 21-23 This issue is better addressed in Subtitle -Unauthorized Use. 

Only repe&ted willful unauthorized use should subject a permittee or lessee to the loss of a permit 

or lease. CCA · 

Grazing preference as defined is more than a mere revocable privilege, as is implies by 

including canceUation of grazing preference on the two reference lines. It is recommended that 

the term "and grazing preference" be deleted in both instances. Fred Obermiller, Bob Sears 

(Idaho, Oregon, Nevada) 

(c) Penalties-Page 61, lines 9-24 and page 62, lines 1-3 make the foUowing changes: 

Page 61 line 9, replace "a" with " the" 

line 10, insert " in question" between " lease" and "for'' 

line 12, replace the lim "a" with "the" 

line 12, insert "in question" between " lease" and "for' ' 

line 14, replace "a" with "the" 

line 15, replace "a" with "the" 

line 16, insert "in question" between "authorization" and "in" 

line 23, replace the lim "a" with "the" 

Page 62 line I, replace "a" with " the" 

line 2, insert "in question" between "preference" and "in .. 

These words have been added to ensure that in a case of violation, the penalty will be ascribed 

only to the permit, lease, etc. on which the violation occurred. Oregon Farm Bureau 

(c) Penalties (5) Subleases (a) In General--Page 62-63, lines 18-2 This is a pretty complicated 

recovery mechanism, and BLM is required to conduct a very intensive investigation, involving the 

forced disclosure of financial data. It would be far less intrusive and less costly to the public to 

set a penalty based on the trespass rate, such as double the rate, or something lilce that. Again, 

this provision is bad for the operator, in that it is invasive of privacy. Part (C) Additional Penalty 

page 63, lines 8-11, however, does indicate that BLM can take normal trespass actions in addition 

to this penalty, which is a good thing. Lewis Cipher 

(c) Penalties (2) Second or Subsequent Willful Violation--Page 61 , line 18 Delete Second or 

Subsequent. WWGA 
321 

(c) (4)--Page 62, line 14 Delete "shall" and insert "nru:" WWGA 

Insert new Section 142 

Criminal Violations for Interference with Livestock Production on Federal Lands 

(a) Scope of Section 

Cll In General--This section states all of the violations Pertaining to the 

interference with the production oflivestock in Federal Lands that may result in imposition of 

criminal penalties described in subsection (c) against a person on Federal lands. 

(2) Other violations--A person that commits a violation relating to Federal Land under a 

law that applies to all persons generally shall be subject to penallY under that law. 

26 

(b) In general--A person that does one of the foUowina shall be subject to criminal penallY under 

subsection (c): 

()) KnoWingly or intentionaUy takes appropriates obtains or withholds livestock from the 

owner thereof or causes the loss death injurv of any livestock maintained on federal Lands. 

(2) Knowingly or intentionally takes any action that has the effect of harassing or causing 

s:ress to livestock maintained on federal Lands. 

(3) Damages vandalizes or steals any propertv related to livestock production located on 

federal Lands. 

( 4) Knowingly or intentionally makes a false report to a F edera) agency concernina the use 

or condition of a Federal Grazing allotment. 

(c) Criminal Penalties--

(!) In General Whoever commits the crime of interference with livestock production as 

describe<! in subsection (b) shall be fined or jmprisoned 

<Al not more than five yean or S I 00 000 if the interference causes damage to 

livestock or property related to the Production of livestock exceeding S2 500· and 

ffi) not more than 6 months or S I 0 000 if the interference causes damage to 

livestock or property related to the production oflivestock less than $2 500. Oregon Cow-Cop 

Subtitle F-Unauthorized Grazing Use 

Strike Subtitle f. New Merica PLC 

SEC. 151. LIABll.ITY FOR DAMAGES. 

(a) In General--Should read as follows: "A person who commits an intentional violation .. . " 

(b) No Liability--Page 64, line 8 should read as follows: " .if the person did not commit an 

intentional violation ... " 

SEC. 152. NOTICE AND ORDER TO REMOVE. 
322 

27 

SEC. 153. SEmEMENT 

(a) Detennination ofWtllfulness-Page 65, line II Delete "151" insert "ill" and delete "second 

or subsequent". WWGA 

(b) Second or Subsequent Willful Violation-Page 65, lines 13-14 Delete "second or subsequent" 

and, line 15, delete "shall" and insert "m~". WWGA 

(c) Settlement Amount-Page 65, line 24 Delete"l51" and insert "ill". WWGA 

(d) (I) Nonwillful Violation-Page 66, line 12 After ' product of' insert "the federal grazing fee". 

WWGA 

(d) (!)(A)-Page66, lines 13-17 Delete section. WWGA 

(d) (2)-Page 66, line 21 Delete "twice" and insert ", delete "under paragraph (I)" and 

insert previous section (d) (I) (A) !hat was deleted above. WWGA 

(e) Nonmonetary Settlement could read as "An authorized officer shall aoprove a nonrnonetaJy 

settlement which precludes as a penalty or stipulation requiring additional cog of a case involvin& 

a proven violation described in section 151 ". Fred Obermiller, Boh Sears (Idaho, Oregon, 

Nevada) 

(c)-Page 67, line 3 Delete " lSI" and insert "141". WWGA 

(g)--Page 67, line 19 Delete "lSI" and insert "141". WWGA 

SEC. 154. IMPOUNDMENT AND SALE. 

(a) In General-Several -em states do not have a State Livestock Board and some states have 

laws that would not allow the authorized officer from selling impounded livestock. It is 

rcconunended that the foUowing language be used: .. be imoounded and sold in accordance with 

Fred Obermiller, Jock Metzger 

(c) Impoundment-Should read as foUows (line 9): " .. and the unauthorized livestock may be 

impounded witbout further notjce any time after a !-month oeriod . " Fred Obermiller, Boh 

Sears (Idaho, Oregon, Nevada) 

The laws of the states cover this section fuUy. They may also be at variance with parts of this 

section. The text of this entire section could be eliminated by inserting "AU actions including 

impoundment and sale oflivestock shall conform to State laws governing trespass and stray 
323 

livestock" . Without assurance that this section confonns to all applicable state law, there are 

budget implications in potential legal actions to settle disputes. Chad Gibson 

Subtitle G-Procedure 

SEC. 161. PROPOSED DECISIONS. 

28 

Timeframes should be established within which agency decisions must be made. If the 

timeframes are not met, the requested pennit wiU take effect. right now agencies are in gridlock 

and doing nothing but generating mounds of paperwork and elaborate plans. Bill DeVeny 

(a) Proposed Decisions on Grazing Pennits or Grazing Leases (I)--Page 70,1ines 14-19 

Violations require service of a proposed decision for any violation of this title, but does not make 

clear what is to be done in the case of violations of other laws. If the intent is to make it 

impossible to issue a decision except in cases of these enumerated violations (preventing the 

enforcement of standards and guidelines), then this wording does not do that. Lewis Cipher 

(a) Proposed Decisions on Grazing Pennits or Grazing Leases (2) (B)--Chanse "1 5 dus" to "30 

din". Fred Obermiller. Bob Sears (Idaho, Oregon, Nevada) 

(a)(l)(~)-PI.ge 70, line 17-18, strike "by certified mail or". New Mexico PLC 

(b) Proposed Decisions on Alleged Violations(2) (B}-Chanae " 15 days" to "30 davs". Fred 

Obermiller, 

Bob Sears (Idaho, Oregon, Nevada) 

SEC. 162. PROTESTS 

Page 72, line 12 After "pennittee" insert "QI'' and delete "or other affected interest". WWGA 

Page 72, line 14-Strilce "or" and insert "and". New Mexico PLC 

Page 72, line 15-Chanae " IS clays" to "30 days" . Fred Obermiller, Bob Sears (Idaho, Oregon, 

Nevada) 

SEC. 163. FINAL DECISIONS. 

(a) No Protest-Page 72, lines 18-19 Delete "proposed" and insert "fu!A!" and delete "become the 

final deCision of' and insert "be issued by". WWGA -
324 

29 

SEC. 164. APPEALS. 

The appeals process needs to provide for resolution of disputes under strict standards for 

accuracy with review by outside parties and some fonn ofbinding arbitration so disputes can be 

settled short of going to court. Bill DeVeny 

Concern was expressed over the laclc of ability to have an appeal process and that the local 

officer has too nwclt (IOW8'. It wu IIJ88elted that there should be a hearing over the confticta 

before one of the councils rather than leaving the decision on the conffict up to the authorizing 

officer. The question was also asked: Do the Conunittees/Councils have any teeth and if so what 

or where are they? Nevada Cattle~Mn 's A$SOCiation 

Appeal$-Under the Comb Wash settlement it has become possible for an appeal or protest 

to be filed on BLM' s Annual Billing for the yearly grazing fee. 

Clarification is needed to show that the annual bill for grazing fees is not a 

protestable/appealable doaunent. 

The Office of Hearings and Appeals Kcept~ almost anything as an appealable decision, 

including a letter saying that somethina is not a decision. Since the LGA does not repeal any 

other law, merely specifying how one must appeal/protest a formal decision in the LGA in no way 

outlines how protests and appeals are to be dealt with when a formal decision is NOT in view. 

l.AwisCipher 

(a) In General-Appeal timing-Is there a requirement of prompt IIJIIWa' to appeal? Peggy 

Monzingo 

(a) In Geilerai-Page 73, lines 7·8 After "permittee" imet "!![". WWGA 

(a) In General-Page 73,1ines 5-12, amend section 164 (a) to read as foUows: 

(a) (I) In Gcncnl After tbe decjsjon of an authorized officer has bewmc final a 

permittee, 1-or aft'ected interest may appeal the final decision for the purpose of a hearing 

before an administrative law judge by filing a notice of appeal in the office of the authorized 

officer within 30 days lfter the service of the final decision. The bcujng sha!J be mgdnqm! 

punuant to S U S C Sections SS4-SS9 

(a) (2) When a 111JZins drQRon ja IPJ)CIIed to an Admjojstratjye LaW hul!l!!! the burden of 

proof s!Ja11 be on the proponent of !he rule or order The standard of proof shall be a 

preponderance of the eyjckg;e. 

(a) (3) The Admjnjstratjye L&w ludae shaU bm the authority to rule on the credibility and 

ya!jdity of all eyjcfmce and other nwcrio! relied on bv any party reprdless oftbe source of said 

evic!ence and other matpjal. Budd-Fa/en, Nevada Cattlemen's ASS>Oeiation 
325 

30 

This section is internally inconsistent and while it attempts to streamline the nuisance appeals 

process, by so doing it violates the principle of separation of powers. It is recommended that the 

following changes be made: 

(a) In General--delete the clause reading "with respect to which a protest under section 162 was 

timely filed." 

(c) Expeditious Dismissal ofNonmeritorious Appeals-delete the entire subsection. Fred 

Obermiller 

(b) Suspension Pending Appeal (2) (A)--Page 73, line 20, delete "may" and replace with "shall". 

(b) Suspension Pending Appeal (2) (A)--Page 73, line 23, delete "if' and replace with "unless" 

(b) Suspension Pending Appeal (2) (A)--Page 74, line I, between "from" and "delay" insert the 

words "failure to" _ 

(b) Suspension Pending Appeal (2) (A)--Page 74, line I, delete the first ''of' and replace with 

"the". These changes are to ensure that a pennittee is not penalized or the use of his/her pennit is 

not affected while a decision is being appealed. Oregon Farm Bureau 

(b) Suspension Pending Appeal (2) (A)--Pages 73-74, lines 19-2 This is confusing. What is the 

reason for a hearing by an administrative law judge if the final decision is still the District 

Manager's. Lewis Cipher 

(b) Suspension Pending Appeal--Effectively eliminates suspensions, however, the "29 cent" 

appeal (though a few cents more expensive) will still be there. Sometimes, however, an appeal of 

the decision locks the pennittee or lessee in a very unfavorable situ3tion, which can go on for 

years, and the LGA lacks a "safety valve" . 

The Suspension is limited to cases where a decision is made on a grazing pennit 

application. The effect of an approval of the application and the filing of an appeal would be to 

cause the approval to be suspended, perhaps for years. If the pennit application is denied, the 

effect of a suspension would be about the same as no suspension. In either case, the pennit would 

not be issued until the appeal is settled. The District manager could probably not allow the pennit 

decision to remain in force, since it would likely be hard to prove that a failure to issue would 

cause "imminent and irreversible damage to land resources" . In fact, that standard is so difficult 

to meet that a suspension would be very rare even if not limited to grazing pennit applications. 

Lewis Cipher 

(b) (2) (B) Basis of Order--Page 74, line 6 After "an" insert "range monitoring" . WWGA 

(c) Expeditious Dismissal ofNonmeritorious Appeals--Page 74, Delete section 164 (c) or amend 

to read as follows: 

(I) Examine each appeal as soon as possible after it •s filed and wjthin thirty (30) days 

forward the appeal to the Office of Hearings and Appeals. 

(2) The District manager may include a recommendation to the Office of Hearings and 

Appeals that the apoeal be dismissed for failure to raise a substantially meritorious issue. 

(3) When a pennittee or lessee aopea]s a BLM decision which is made effective 

immediately the District Manager shall immediately forward the appeal to the Office of Hearings 
326 

an Appeals for an expedited determination of whether the full force and effect aspect of the 

decision is warranted under Section 164 (b). Budd-Fa/en, Nevada Cattlemen's Association 

31 

(c) (2)--Page 74, line 15 After "expeditiously" delete through the end of(d) and insert "forward 

an appeal to the Office of Hearing and Appeals within 30 days." WWGA 

(c)-Page 74, line 17 Insert a new (3): "With respect to a new decision issyed in full force and 

effect and appealed by the permittee or lessee the Authorized Officer shall immediately forward 

the !ij!peal to the Office of Hearing and Appeals for an exoedited hearing on the merits of the full 

force and effect decision." WWGA 

(d) Authority-Page 74, lines 17-18, delete this section. Budd-Fa/en, Nevada Cattlemen's 

Association 

Subtitle H-Advisory Committees 

Both the Interior Regulations and LGA try to solve the FACA problem with specified 

advisory boards under F ACA. Neither will be effective unless FACA can be amended to allow 

land-use agencies to participate with CRM groups. The Forest Service considers it illegal for 

their employees to participate on these groups. This is the total reverse of Congress' intent in 

passing F ACA, to be sure, but that is how it is now interpreted. Lewis Cipher 

SEC. 171. PURPOSE. 

SEC. 172. OBJECITVE. 

SEC. 173. RELATION TO OTHER LAW. 

SEC. 174. POLICY. 

(a) In General-After "General" add "after consultation, cooperation and coordination with State 

and local officials". New Merico P LC 

(a) In General--Page 75, line 26, delete the word "citizens"'. By so doing the act will allow all 

major interests to be involved. Oregon Farm Bureau 

SEC. 17S. GENERAL PROVISIONS. 
327 

32 

(a) Chaners (I) In General (A)--Page 76, lines 16- 17 Some guidelines are needed to guide the 

subject matter area(s) and functions of the Advisory Committees. What will be in the "Charter''? 

This is ve"i broad as written. W.A. Laycock 

(a) Charters (I) In General (B)--Page 76, line 18 Does the committee have any function other 

than to receive the files? W.A. Laycock 

(c) Composition (3) Qualifications (C) and (d) Avoidance of Conflicts of Interest (I) Participation 

in Deliberations--Page 78, lines 10-20 It does not seem logical to exclude anyone with a grazing 

lease, etc. from a committee. It would be better to add item (D) after line 12, page 78 to read~ 

a oerson or employee of an organization that holds a grazing lease license permit contract or 

claim that involves land or resources administered by the Secretary has special knowledge or 

exoerience that is needed to accomplish the committee functions to be perfonned that person 

shall not be excluded from the committee." Then delete (d) (I). W.A. Laycock 

(d) (I) Request for Response--Page 83, line 18 Delete "by unanimous vote of its members" and 

insert "by a 2/3 majority" _ Nevada Calllemen 's Association 

(f) Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses--Page 79, lines 18-22 This provision 

eliminates travel expenses, even though BLM used to pay for travel for District Advisory 

Councils. Would make it hard for the "little guy" to be a RAC member, and thus narrow public 

participation. Lewis Cipher 

(f) Compensation and Reimbursement-Page 79, lines 18-22 Won't reimbursement of travel 

expenses be necessary to get qualified people to participate, especially at the national level where 

meetings might be at some distance, especially in Washington, DC? W.A. Laycock 

SEC. 176. RESOURCE ADVISORY COUNCILS. 

(a) Resource advisory council for each grazing district--Page· 79 I suggest that the appointments 

be made from lists submitted by the Governor of each state. W. A. Laycock 

(a) Resource advisory council for each grazing district--Page 80, line 2 Strike "counties" and 

insert "county officials". New Mexico PLC 

(a) Resource Advisory Council for Each Grazing District--Page 80, line 4 The big problem is that 

GACs and RACs can only advise within "grazing districts" . For section 15 or lands outside of 

grazing districts, apparently both are powerless, though this is less clear with respect to the GAC. 

[I!Wis Cipher 

(b) Membership (I )--Page 80, line 9, strike "social" and insert "custom, culture". New Mexico 

PLC · 
328 

33 

(b) Membership (3)--Page 80, line 16, strike "state" and insert "district". New Merico PLC 

SEC. 177. GRAZING ADVISORY COUNCILS 

Page 84-Add the following language: "Conflicts will be heard by the council so thev can ma!ce a 

recommendation to the authorizing officer before he/she makes a decision." Nevada Cattlemen's 

Association 

It is not at all clear why there are both "Resource Advisory Councils" and "Grazing Advisory 

Councils". Isn't there a great deal of duplication of effort? Getting enough volunteers to serve 

on these may turn out to be quite a problem. It really needs to be made clear why both these 

Councils are needed. WA. Laycock 

(b) Membership (!)Representation of interests--Page 84, lines 16-20, delete everything after "be" 

or the balance of the paragraph and insert the following language: "elected from among 

pennittees and leasees, an elected county official and a member representing wildlife interests. 

Membership shall be no less than 7, no more than 9 members. New Merico PLC 

(b) (3) Residency--Page 85, line 3, strike "or adjacent to"- New Merico PLC 

(c) Responsibilities--Page 85, lines lO-ll and 16 A new section, not within the draft, was added 

to make clear that the council can advise on range improvement funds under PRIA. 

Unfortunately, normal range betterment funds are not under PRIA, and BLM has not 

appropriated any PRIA money for the past 15 years or so, so this provision is moot, from a 

practical matter. Also in line 16, it is not clear what a "permit management plan" is. Lewis 

Cipher 

(c) Responsibilities-Page 85. lines 9-16 Shouldn't this Council, if it exists, have some say on the 

expenditure or distribution of the Range Betterment Funds? WA . Laycock 

(d) (I) Request for Response--Page 85, line 21 Delete "by unanimous vote of its members" and 

insert "by a 213 maiority". Nevada Cattlemen 's Association 

SEC. 178. MEETINGS. 

SEC. 179. CONFORMING AMENDMENT AND REPEAL. 

(b) Repeal--Page 90, line 5 Insert"~" after "Section" WWGA 
329 

Subtitle !-Reports 

SEC. 181. REPORTS. 

(a) In General (I)--Page 90, line 14. between "directly" and "in" add "district by district" . New 

MexicoPLC 

TITLE II-GRASSLAND 

SEC. 201. REMOVAL OF GRASSLANDS FORM NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM. 

MISC. 

34 

The rules regarding the use of Range Betterment Funds probably should be included. As 

noted on page 3 I of the Public Lands Council review of the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (DEIS} on Rangeland Reform--FLPMA and the Taylor Grazing Act directs ponions of 

the annual grazing fee receipts be used for on-the-ground range improvements. These 2 Acts plus. 

PRIA indicate that these funds are supposed to be spent on range improvements, not agency 

salaries, management of wild horses and burros, administrative costs and preparation of 

environmental assessments. The DEIS funher proposed that these funds be used for planning 

pr~jects, conducting environmental analyses, compliance inspections and consultation with the 

interested pubtic as a permitted use of Range Betterment Fund monies. 

Suggestion: Include in the appropriate place a description of the Range Betterment Fund 

distributions as they now exist. Then add the statement that "Range Betterment Funds must be 

used for on-the-ground range improvements and cannot be used for: salaries administrative 

expenses management of wild horses and burros planning comptiance inspections not related to 

the range improvements funded or consultation with interested pubtic. The monies can be used 

for environmental analyses required for the installation of the range improvement but not for other 

NEPA-related documentation". W.A. Laycock 
Utah Production Credit Association 

July lJ, 1994 

Julian Luui & Livestoclc Co. 

409Quartz 

Kc:mmer::, ~,y 3J !0 1 

Dar T rwna.n and Marie: 

330 

Enaru lnndl 

!<I Ftcnl su ... Evans&m. WyQ11nq SZ$20 

31111 119-"20 

F;a.; lOT 1189·3806 

This leaer is ill rqud to cur phone ecnver:ution on lvlay J l, 1994. Utah PCA requested on November 

19, 1993 !lw you stan considering di6erem alternatives or options reprding your opcntica as we were 

catiCCtUCd with the N= viabilily cf the sheep inc!u.ruy do tc the elwlgcs in the W eel !n=tive Prognm 

IUici IWige Rdarm. 

Apin. Utah PCA is requesting you submit a letter cudilling same alcenwives cr options you have 

considered. The reuons Utah PCA is requesting this Jetter iS we have con=s rep:ding the sheo:p 

inc!u.ruy, suc:ll as, the Wocil Lac=nave rec!w:ticn, !Wise Reform, predacar problems and the vclalilicy in the 

sbccp marXeu. IU we have cliscussci before, the eliminaticri cf the Wool Ln=uve Program and .the 

increased gru:i:lg fe:s. your opcntioo brca.i:<Ven will inae:ue by S.28 compared co the existing brca.i:-

even of S.60, uolc:s:s you= ll12lce opentiona.l changes to reduce your overall ::tpenses or inCI'CISe 

income. 

This letter we ate requesting you co submit is nee binding. However, we feel you shoulc! be thinl<ing of 

tli1re=c alternatives ami options reprding your oper.~tion. If you have any question or ccnccrns, please 

colllaCI me. T!wLlc you. 
331 

STATEMENT BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ON THE LIVESTOCK GRAZING ACT 

BY 

ALLAN SMITH, CHAIRMAN, PUBLIC LANDS COMMITTEE 

UTAH CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION 

ON BEHALF OF 

UTAH CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION 

UTAH FARM BUREAU FEDERATION 

UTAH WOOL GROWERS ASSOCIATION 

July 11, 1995 

I am Allan Smith, a third generation rancher from northeastern Utah presently 

operating a cow-calf operation of some 350 head . The federal ranges are a vital part of my 

total cattle enterprise. I summer my cattle on part of the Uintah National Forest for some 

three-plus months. From mid October through January, I use my improved private range, 

then transfer my stock to my BLM permits until the end of February, at which time I rerum 

to my private ranges. Each one of these grazing units must be considered a part of the 

whole and are interdependent upon the other with little value on their own. 

I support The LIVESTOCK GRAZING ACT and the vast majority of the western 

livestock industry supports it with a few minor changes. In the recent summer meeting of 

National Cattlemen's Association Western Regions V and VI at Park City, Utah, all western 

state Cattlemen's presidents signed a letter of support for this bill. The National Public 

Lands Council here in Washington also supports this bill in the most part. On behalf of the 

Utah Cattlemen's Association, Utah Farm Bureau Federation, and Utah Wool Growers 

Association, I urge passage of the bill for the following reasons. 

The proposed grazing fee, even though it is a 30 percent increase from this year's 
332 

fee, provides a fair return to the United States for the forage utilized by livestock. It is 

simple to calculate, based upon the gross return of the livestock, all data would be gathered 

by the Economic Research Service, and it is similar to the way other user industries such as 

mining and timber are charged for public land user fees. The proposed fee measures the 

value of the federal forage after it is converted into beef, wool and lamb. 

My cash expenses, including past grazing fees on Forest Service lands, have been 

running at about $16.00 per AUM, not including any interest cost. Much of this high cost is 

due to fence building and maintenance and other federal regulatory requirements. My BLM 

costs are somewhat lower. My cattle operation cannot sustain a much higher grazing fee . 

For these reasons, I believe early passage of this bill is vital to the western rural economy. 

There has been a drastic reduction of rangeland improvements since Secretary 

Babbitt's Rangeland Reform '94 was announced because those pending rules create so much 

uncertainty about the viability of our industry. The proposed 15 year term permits will 

encourage future federal rangeland improvement projects, once again allow the banking 

industry to support the western livestock industry and provide a greater amount of stability. 

I recommend that any standards and guidelines be developed at the BLM district or 

forest level. There is too much diversity in range conditions even at the state level. 

I also suggest the proposed grazing advisory council members be allowed to serve on 

the councils of neighboring states wherever the permittees operate across state lines. This is 

common in Utah. 

NEPA concerns have been addressed by this bill and sbould allow for better operation 

of the agencies and promote less office paper work and put more personnel back on the 

ground. Our industry welcomes constructive input from all disciplines in future management 
333 

decisions in order to provide a sustainable forage base on which we depend. 

1be Livestock Grazing Act is fair to all interests and this issue needs to be decided 

now so we can go back to providing food and fiber for our consumers, and so Congress can 

move forward with other issues facing our great nation. 

Again, I thank this committee, and particularly the bill sponsors, for this opportunity 

to express my brief remarks and I would be glad to answer any questions. 
:..EE C REDMOND 

WGTt~v~er~ ~ ~ 541 0GRQSVENQRLANE SUITE 11 0 • BETHESDA MARYLAND 20814 -2199 

(301) 897·6616. 897·8621 • fAX !:WI I 897·8096 

Testimony of Paul Brouha 

Executive Director 

American Fisheries Society 

Before the 

House Resources SUbcommittee 

on 

National Parks, Forests and Lands 

regarding B.R. 1713 

The Livestock Grazing Act 

to provide for uniform management 

of livestock qrazing on Federal land, 

and for other purposes 

July 11, 1995 

PAUl BRQUHA 

£.,1!',vloW-O r:~. 
335 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for the 

opportunity to appear before you today to present the American 

Fisheries Society's views concerning H.R. 1713, The Livestock 

Grazing Act. 

The American Fisheries Society (AFS) is an international, 

professional and scientific organization of nearly 9,000 fisheries 

managers and aquatic scientists. Founded in 1870, AFS is the 

world's oldest and largest organization dedicated to strengthening 

the fisheries profession, advancing fisheries science, and 

conserving fisheries resources. AFS Chapters exist throughout 

North America and members reside in 75 countries. 

Domestic livestock grazing is permitted on 159 million acres of 

Federal land administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) . Fifty-eight percent of the BLM rangeland is in fair or poor 

condition. Fifty-two million acres of big game habitat, 100 

million acres of small game and nongame habitat, and 19,000 miles 

of sport fishing streams have declined in quality as a result of 

land management practices, including overgrazing. These degraded 

habitat conditions also have negative implications for endangered 

and threatened species. It is well known that livestock often 

spend a disproportionate amount of time in riparian areas, 

especially in the hot seasons, on rangeland in the arid and semiarid west. Unfortunately, overuse has resulted in considerable 

damage to riparian zones with resultant degradation of aquatic and 

riparian habitats. o streamside vegetation has been reduced or eliminated. 

o Stream channels have been widened and aggraded. o Erosion and headcutting has lowered water tables and reduced 

minimum streamflows. 

The most apparent effects on fish habitat are the reduction of 

shade, cover, and terrestrial food supply. Resulting increases in 

stream water temperature, degradation of water quality, changes in 

stream morphology, and the addition of fine sediments means fewer 

fish can survive in such streams. Despite such degradation we know 

resident recreational and anadromous commercial and subsistence 

fisheries are a tremendously valuable component of the public 

lands. The good news is that with improved livestock management 

practices degraded fish habitats are restorable. The American 

Fisheries society's position statement "The Effects of Livestock 

Grazing on Western Riparian and Stream Ecosystems", which I have 

attached to this testimony, details cooperative, science-based 

strategies to accomplish such restoration. Please consider these 

ideas as you address rangeland management issues. 

Against this tableau of findings, against the knowledge of how to 

restore degraded streams, and against the increasing cooperative 

spirit to enhance overall productivity and achieve balanced 

multiple use on the part of all public land users comes H.R. 1713. 
336 

It proposes to fracture the emergent cooperation between livestock 

grazers and other public land users by making livestock grazing the 

primary use on the public lands. It disenfranchises the public by 

permitting only narrowly defined "affected interests" to 

participate in rangeland planning and management. It exempts 

grazing permits from the purview of the National Environmental 

Policy Act. It creates more than 100 grazer-dominated advisory 

boards which have the sole authority to establish range improvement 

objectives and to make management decisions. It prevents anyone 

except a permittee/lessee from appealing a decision made by one of 

these boards. It sets livestock carrying capacity at the maximum 

stocking rate possible "without inducing permanent damage to 

vegetation or related resources." With this definition, at the 

same time H.R. 1713 provokes conflicts among present users, it also ensures that future generations of users will be battling over further degraded rangeland ecosystems. 

I could go into greater detail about the provisions of this bill 

that set public rangeland management back to before passage of the 

Tailor Grazing Act but I will leave that for others testifying here 

today. Suffice it to say we oppose H.R. 1713 becoming law and we 

strongly encourage you to endorse the new BLM regulations that have 

been arrived at through broad public participation throughout the 

West. They are not perfect. They do, however, focus on 

establishing rangeland health, on enhancing overall productivity 

of all rangeland resources for all users, on state or regionalbased rangeland standards and guidelines, and on public involvement 

by all interested publics. Further, they recognize scientific 

information and monitoring as a basis for cooperative adaptive 

management of public rangelands. Finally, the new BLM regulations 

would do all these things with about 100 fewer advisory boards 

operating in a much less politically-charged atmosphere. simply 

put, while they aren't perfect, we think the BLM regulations are 

better, cheaper, simpler, and more effective than what is proposed 

in H.R. 1713, The Livestock Grazing Act. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

(execfpaper/BR1713test) 
337 

The Effects of Livestock Grazing on 

Western Riparian and Stream Ecosystem 

By Carl Armour, Don Duff, and Wayne Elmore 

This position paper is the culmination of s~veral years of revie""· ctnd 

discussion at Ohision and parent levels of the American Fisheries Society 

(AFS). The AFS process started in 1982, when the Western Division developed 

a position paper regarding livestock grazing on western riparian ecosystems 

as well as a publication on best management practices (BPMs). The Division 

forY~arded its position statement to the parent Society for consideration as a 

Societ)•·v..-ide position statement. In 1988, the AFS Em·ironmental Concerns 

Committee (now called the Resource Policy Committee) appointed Carl 

Armour, Don Duff, and Wayne Elmore to develop the statement, which was 

ultimately sent to all Divisions, selected Sections, and all Chapters ""'ithi.n the 

Western Division. Comments received by the authors and Environmental Concerns Committee ., . .,:ere incorporated into the draft document, and the re-sulting 

statement was re,:ieweJ by Committee mem[\ers and the Executive Committee 

(Excom) at the 1990 annual meeting. The statement was then published in 

Fisheri.~ for full membership review (Jan-Feb 199116(1)7-11.). Resulting comments were incorporated into the draft. At that time the issue of grazing fees 

was discussed as a possible addition to the draft, but the Committee recommended that the fee issue warranted a second position statement and urged 

assigning this issue to another group of authors for further development. 

The Resource Policy Committee, following review by the membership, 

also sent the draft statement for peer review to selected experts in the field at 

various Division, Section, and Excom levels. The authors then incorporated 

these comments into the draft. Excom reviewed the draft during the 1993 

annual meeting and approved it as a Society position statement at the midterm 

Excom meeting in March. 

ABSTRACT 

Domestic livestock grazing is permitted on apprOximately 307 million 

acres of federal land in the western states. The land is administered by the U.S. 

Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service. Owrgrazing of riparian and 

stream ecosystems by domestic livestock has damaged thousands of linear 

miles in the ecosystems. The position of the American Fisheries Society (AfS) 

is to ad\·ocate livestock management practices that result in recovery and protection of riparian and stream ecosystems associated with public and private 

lands. This policy statement addres!'oes problems caused by overgrazing, and 

action items that the Society advocates to be impl emented to correct problems. 

The Society does not ad.,.ocate ceasing of domestic livestock grazing on public 

lands. Instead, the policy is that grazing is acceptable providing that its manl'lgement is C'omratihle with tht> e<:ologicl'll requirt-mcnts of healthy riparian i'lnd stream i"Cos~·s tt-ms . 

I

ssue Definition 

Domestic livestock grazing is permitted on almost 307 million acres of 

federal land in 11 contiguous western st.1tes. This grazing affe-cts 

.1pproximi\tely 159 million i\cres of land administered by the U.S. Bureilu 

of Land Mani'lgement (BLM) and 132 million ilC'Tf'S administered by the Forest 

Carl Armo~otr i~ au a<juatic «•,osi~l Ill tht• U.S. N.rtku~o~/ Biological S1.r.ry iu Ft•rt 

Ctllliu~. CtthlroJJ\•. Don Duff i;; Mf fh/IU!Iic rcolt•gi;;l til 111.· U.S. Ftw~l St·r'l'i,t'. Suit L:lkc 

City, Utttk l\'.tynt" f.lmoN.' i~ tlu· uati,,n,t/ riro:1rim1 fid.t mm,asrraf the U.S. Burt'tlilt>f 

Umd M,m,l,\CIIIOII ;, Print'O.'il!t·. Orrg,111. 

ITopl Strumbo~nk and ripari.J.n 

rr<:overy from rrmov•l of livestO<k in 

C.ll'$0n•lcrNr& Wildernns. Co~litomi.1, 

.lids in recovery of thrulened Pointto 

cutthro.1t. IAho\·eJ A fence tine 

ton lush grued o~nd ungrutod ripui.an 

Lones in \1ont.an.a. 
Service (FSl. Grazing also occurs on near!)' 

212 million acres of private land. 

Overgrazing by domestic livestock has damaged riparian and stream e-cosystems throughout the nation. Problems from overgrazing are 

particularly acute in the West. where lush vegetation is confined to stream corridors. Livestock tend to concentrate in these areas, especially in the hot seasons, where they can overgraze and damage habitat. Overgrazing in 

stream corridors has been so damaging to habitat that range managers have referred to these 

sites as "sacrifice zones" (Stoddard and Smith 

1955). Past position statements of the American 

Fisheries S<xiety on riparian area management 

stated that overgrazing by domestic livestock 

was one of the principal factors contributing to 

damage and loss of riparian and stream ecosystems in the West. However, livestock grazing is 

one of the many uses of public range lands. 

Because western riparian and stream ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to harm from 

overgrazing, we conservatively estimate that 

more than 50% of the habitat in these ecosystems is damaged. 

Background Information 

LSFS 

The damage done to western fish and wildlife habitat 

from overgrazing is difficult to quantify; however, the 

U.S. Government Accounting Office (USGAO 1988) 

reported on some problems affecting riparian habitats on 

public lands. For example, for BLM lands in Colorado, 

51 '7c of the area along 5,300 miles of perennial streams 

"'·as in poor condition due to overgrazing. and 39% was 

in fair condition. In Arizona, riparian areas were "generally less than satisfactory," and 80% of the riparian area 

inventoried in Idaho was degraded. In four BLM 

districts in Nevada, 68% to 93% of the riparian habitat 

was in poor to fair condition. Similar trends were noted 

in other states. On all BLM lands it is estimated that 77%, 

or 15,000 of the 19,000 miles of streams are in unsatisfactory condition (Trout Unlimited 1979). The impaired 

areas included habitat for threatened and endangered 

species (USGAO 1988). 

The general assessment for the Forest Service (USGAO 

1988) was that restoration was needed for most of the 

riparian areas. Inventory information was incomplete, 

but statistics were cited for five locations. Approximately 

80% to 90% of the stream riparian areas in the Tonto 

:--..'ational Forest in Arizona were in unsatisfactory 

condition compared to 78% of all riparian areas in poor or 

f<1ir condition in the Modoc National Forest in California. 

In Idaho, where 162 miles of riparian habitat were 

inventoried in the Sawtooth National Forest, 37'7, were in 

poor condition. Unsatisfactory conditions existed in 

0ievada in approximately 90% of riparian areas of the 

inventoried Austin Ranger District. In the Baker Ranger 

District in Oregon where habitat along 300 miles of 

streams was inventoried, 15% was in poor condition 

compared to 45% in fair condition. 

The general public has become increasingly aware of 

the enormous recreational potential of \•,;estern public 

lands and the existing management issues. Also, increased urbanization of the West has reduced politicnl 

10 

338 

power of more rural, livestock-oriented interests. Thus, 

recreationists and other users of public lands who are 

independent of the livestock industry are politically 

influencing livestock management decisions for public 

lands. Recreational demands are especially high for 

riparian and stream zones, yet 70% to 90'7c of all natural 

riparian areas in the United States ha\·e possibly been 

altered (Hirsch and Segelquist 1978). In some locations 

(i.e., Arizona), 959c to 99% of the riparian resources have 

been lost (Warner 1979). 

Livestock damage to fish habitats is amply addressed in 

the literature (Leopold 1975; Annour 1977; Behnke 1977; 

Kennedy 19n; Marcuson 1977; Van Velson 1979; Claire 

and Storch 1983; Duff 1983). Damage includes (1) loss of 

riparian vegetation by changing the compo$ition and 

quantity of streamside vegetation and altering channel 

morphology, (2) lowering the groundwater table and 

decreasing summer stream flows, and (3) increasing 

summer water temperaturt:'S and v•inlt'r icing. The result 

is deteriorated conditions for wildlife, fish, and other 

aquatic organisms (Chaney eta\. 1990>. \'egetiltion is fln 

extremely important influence on hydrologic conditions 

within a 'A'atershed (Elmore and Beschta 1987), and any 

activity, including overgrazing, that decreases ,-egetation 

can adversely affect hydrologic conditions and diminish 

summer stream flows. 

Degraded habitat is generally restorable through 

imprO\·eJ li\·estock management pr.1ctices, but no simple 

strategy is c1pplicable to all sitt.--s (Chane~· eta\. 1990\. 

Strategies to ilchit:>\·e site-specific man,1gt.'ment objecti\ es 

must t-e well planned, fully implt'Olt'nted, and thL)rou,c.hl~ 
339 

monitored for compliance. The strategies include 

(Chaney et al. 1990) (1) establishing the riparian zone as a 

separate pasture with specific management objectives, 

(2) fencing off the zone o r controlling li\·estock use in it 

by herding. (3) controlling the time of use (e.g .. k~ping 

livestock off during periods when streambanks are most 

vulnerable to damage}, (4) benefitting habitat 

by lengthening the period when grazing is not permitted. 

(S) altering the intensity of use (i.e., reducing livestock 

numbers), (6) changing the kind of livestock, and (7) per· 

manently fendng off habitat to prevent lh·estcx:k access. 

Policy 

It is the policy of AFS to promote consen:ation and 

restoration of public lands in the United States and to 

advocate that li\'estock grazing be carefully managed to 

protect the nation's natural resources. AFS considers 

riparian and stream ecosystems espt."Cia lly \'Uinerable to 

livestock grazing impacts. Therefo~. A~S encourages 

wise stewardship of these lands and their resources by 

state, federal, provincial, and local Agencies. AFS sup· 

ports implementation of dose coordination and cooperation among all agencies in managing and improdng 

riparian-stream ecosystems on -.II public. pro\'incial. and 

prh·ate lands in North America. 

AFS \'\"ill aggressi,·ely pursue a course of action to 

create an awareness of scientificall\" based resecm:h and 

m.:magement practices to state, fc(i'c-ral. and pro,·inciC\1 

agencies and to pri\'ate users of pu~lic l.1nds. This .1Ction 

will be designt.•d to wntribute to the ~IN <'Ilion and 

consen·ation of depleted and d,1m.1ge\1 ripMian-strc.1m 

S...ptt>mbtorl994 

livestO< k d.am.age to fish h.abitd includes loss o( 

ripui.a.n \'egetation .and rtduced summer slre.am 

flows, such .as (top ldt) in C.arson Iceberg Wilderness, C.alifomi ... Oegr.aded h.abit.at c.an be restored, 

.u it w.ts in S.~owtooch N.ation.al Recre.ation Area 

(bottom ldtl, ld.aho, once sheep were removed. 

{Top right) The South Fork Crooked River suffered 

from he.avy overguzing in August 1978 but ho.d 

grutly improved by 1984 (big photo) .~ofter restorot· 

tion efforts. 

ecosystems and their dependent resources. The objective 

is to enable riparian-stream e-(Osystems to main tain their 

natural form, function, and process as well as to maintain 

self-sustaining populations of fish and pro.,· ide for 

aesthetic, scientific, recreational, subsistence, and com· 

mercial uses. 

AFS regards Ji,·es!ock grazing on western ecosystems 

as a practice to be pennitted only when careful analyses 

have shown that it is compatible with other uses, including protection of natural ecosystems. Also, AFS emphasizes that public and provincial lands are owned by all of 

the nation's citizens, and livestock grazing on these lands 

is a privilege, not a right. Therefore, AFS must take 

action to ensure that scientifically sound management is 

designated as the basis of all livestock grazing system 

administration to assure restoration, maintenance, and 

enhancement of riparian-stream ecosystems and their 

dependent resources across North America. The implementation of an efficient grazing administrative process 

is especially critical to assure the maintenance and 

restoration of valuable western riparian-stream ecosystems. Although grazing fees charged by land management agencies need to be adequate for the program's 

administration, AFS stresses that the primary issues are 

land conservation and stewardship. 

Accordingly, acting through its members, affiliates, and 

publications, AFS advocates careful management and 

professional administration of livesto.:k grazing on public 

and pro,·inciallands. The policy of AFS is 

(1) To consider riparian areas to be unique and 

distincth•ely valuable habitat and to encourage management practices that are vigorously applied and enforced 

to protect fisheries, their habitats, and other resources for 

the benefit of all public land users. 

(2) To encourage federal and pro\'incialland management agencies to develop, implement, fully administer, 

and ensure long-term adherence to scientifically valid 

allotment management plans. including those for stewardship programs, to meet clearly defined objectives 

for riparian and stream ecosystems. If grazing conflicts 

with the health of riparian-stream ecosystems, preference 

should be gi\·en to the recovery and future protection of 

those eocosystems. The plans should conform to riparian 

policy and standards and comply with state, federal, and 

pro\"indal water quality standards. Also, the plans 

sh<luld emphasize accountability for the inclusion of 

important ecosystem components. including streamNnk 

soil and \"egetation, instream and channel hydraulic 

structure, instr('am water quality and quantity, groundwater retention, and landform geomorphology. 

(3) To encourage development of grazing m~nage· 

ment plans for public lands that include a monitoring 

11 
~-\' mt' ~' lh \11 t\1 ~kl\.'\lllh'lil the dl~~n-,.. 

,.>f SU((rlS nm~ting managcnwnt 

ol-ojectin?s for their rip.Hian ,1nd 

~!ream ecosystems. It the obtec"th·es 

<HC n0t mN, the plan shctu ld require 

implemenl.11ion of .lhernO\liYe 

n1.1n.1gement prescriptic\1\S. 

{-D To pwmote pubiic im·t,lnment in AdC'pl-li·Streanl programs 

;md acli\" ities tht~t encom.,~e roopcrali\'e effNI!'i \,·it h the Fort>st Ser-

\·i.::e <1nd Bureau of Land Managemen t to enhtmce 11nd protect rip.lrian and stream ecosystems through 

improvl"d administra ti on and managt>ment of grazing systems. 

G) To encourage development of 

management programs .... -ith provisions to compensate or reward pri-

''ate landowners who fence off and 

discon tinue use of specified sites to 

impro\'e and maintain riparian and 

stream habitat for the benefit of 

wildlife, fisheries, and soil and water resources. Easements instituted 

under such p:-ograms should require 

landowners to maintain fenced en- closures and not to plow, m o w, 

bum. spray, or graze within them. Part of such programs could include 

an option for funding the design 

and implementation of improved 

g razing strategies to allow some 

level of controlled domestic livestock grazing. 

(6) To encourage p rofessional 

societies and conservation organizations to give publicity to private 

Jando .... •ners who achieve exemplary 

success in protecting and improving 

grazing of public, provif\cial, and 

private lands to protect natural v alues, including riparian a nd stream 

ecosystems. 

(7) To encourage and assist local, 

state, federal. and provincial go\·· 

emment agencies to acquire funds 

to accelerate riparian and stream 

ecosvstem inventories and to develoP and implement improved 

12 

340 

. .l.!S urgr., l., nd 

IT1Jn.J~•'rS to d"'r)(l p 

scit>olifically •·.alid 

~rtotmrnt nuna~c· 

mrnt pl~n~ to 

conserve slre~m 

t'cosn!rms. The 

Soci~ y rncourag('s 

rl.ans tfut monil(lf 

-f thtse fragil~ u~u 

. "'! J and r~quire othr 

_:., ~"'; :f. pr.a , hcn of goah for 

.. •-:~ ;i:; ~ .1 ~i~a~:~ qu•lity ~rc 

li\" t..'!-h x· J.;. m,,llo'l~l IHt J\1 pJ.ln:" iN 

prk,rit y :> ih:.'S r~g..udl~s l,f o~~ t.>~ hip . 

lS) To pursue a program of over-

!'ight mon itoring of go,·ernment 

,lgl'ncks to document if h~ir m;maf_t.'mcn lllf rangel;mds and rip<tri<tn 

.Hid stream enls,·stcms. is CC'nsiMent 

h'ith e\iSting la~d management 

plans. and also to ass-ist agencies in 

d is-s-em inating information relevant 

to ~ucces.s iul management pn.'gtfims 

to re~tore. maintain. and conser\'e 

fi~heri s resources and habitats. 

(9) To encourage <~. ppropr .Jte 

sta te, federal. and provincial agen· 

cies to form best management practices <BMPsl for grazing lands and 

riparian and stream ecosystems that 

on private lands. The B~P pra ctices 

could be patterned after examples in 

Washington and 

Oregon for forestry practices, and 

thus would include strong compliance requirements that emphasize 

achieving goals for state, federaL 

and provincial water quality stan· 

dards and enhancing watershed 

conditions for soil and water~ 

sources on agency and prh•ate lands. 

(10) Stress the principle that, al· 

though a major issue is adequacy of 

fe-es charged for the grazing of public la nds, the primary issues are land 

conservation and s1e .... •ardship. In· 

creases or decreases in fees are issues 

that must be considered by manage. 

ment agendes for program administration purposes . ....,. 

References Annour. C L 1977. EHt'Ct5 of deteriorated range strt'ams on trout. Bu~.a.u 

of Land Man.agement, Boiw, JD. 

Bthnk~. R.. J. 1977. F'ash faunal changes 

assodatf'd \\;th land-use and water 

de"elopment. Creal Plains· Rocky 

Mountain Ct-ographi~al Journal 

6(2):133--136. 

C'hult'y, E., W. Eltnort, •nd W. 5. PlattL 

1990. Li\'estoclt brazing on .... ·estern 

n;~ .• r:.m .11\".h. L -;::. F.1·,, ir,•nm.·m:.) 

l'r,•t.-•:1• •n ~," lh . ! \ ;JH ,.,. ((1. 

C"l~irt', L, .1 11d R. Stor<h. I"'~~ ::Otr. .lnl-

~~ .1~· Jl>.nM,.;<·m,•n t <lnJ )J, ·~ h•.: l.. ~r.u111. : .111•<hl,,:\lll" J,•,•\o;. ,\t th,· illl.l:i<•ll 

j',,;.:., ~ 111·1:~ mI. \1.-nl.. ,•. ,.,l. \\",•r k-

,.h,,p ,.n l1• l.,.,,..,.l., ,1 11 J tl .ll l..: i~ h, · 

k~ rd ,l i\ •n~hi ~~ in th,• C.r,•.u B. ~il\ . 

L"S ., ~,·:-t S..•r, k,·. 1:\,·rl..,•ll'\ ", CA. 

Duff, D. A. Ju~:; l.i ~t • ..- 1.. nn~ 

imp.ll"h 1'1\ ,\'{llol\ll' h.lhl:lt 'II\ B1g' 

Cm .. ·k. L"t.1h. .,~ ·~ 1: "'· 1·-C m J. !1.1o:>nk<'. e.l. \\ I..• h•')~t•ll :,,.l".'I•'•:J.:: 

.m.-1 wJIJ hk i~ lw ~ l,lt ,>n~hir<. in 

tht' c~eilt BM·\11 . t.:.S. Ft'Tt'~t 5,.-n ·i.:"'. 

&:rJ...di.'\".Cl 

Elmort', \\' ., .-. n.i R. L Buchta . 11.1!';. 

Rip.,r;,,r; .1 n .>,1$" P<'T(\' i,, ~ in m:magt'mcnt. Ril ll~t'l and~ 6) 60-~65. 

Hirsch, A .. and C. A. Seg~lqui t. 19; 5. 

Prolt'.-ti(ln ,,nJ nMn.lst'mt'nt of rir.ui.,n l"(U:I\'~ 1\.' nl!' : .,.;:ti\"ifil'$ .lllJ \"lo:'W~ t' f 

the L5. F1~h .1nJ. \\"i ldlife S.:.rd.:e. 

P.:~~es JH.:;:<2 m Pr~>Ct"'{' dlO SS e>f the 

n11tional ~~ mpo:: um e>n $lr:l tt>gic-s iN 

rrott"CCion and management of rl ood· 

plain '<' <~n ds 1111J ("It her riparian 

l'"C(I!'n tems. t.:.S. Fnre~t Ser,·ke S\"m· 

~i~m. CTR·\\'0·12. \\"<~sh ii ~Sh:; , 

DC 

Kenn~dy, C. 1977. Wildlife ~onflicts in 

rip:uian manasement: h·att'r. 

Page-s 32·:-S i11 S~·m~ium on impor· 

tanc~. presen·ation, and management 

of riparian habitat. U.S. Forest Sel'\·ice 

Gener.al Ttthnical Report RM-0, 

Ft. Coll n~. CO. 

LH)pold, A. S. 1975. Eco~y tem deterioration under multiple uses. Pages%-

98 in Proce-edings: \vild trout management srmposium. Trout Unlimited, 

Den\'er. CO. M.arcuson, P. E. 19i7. The pff«f of 

cattle grazing on bro\\·n trout in Rock 

Crttk, Montana. Montana DE-part· 

ment of Fish and Came, Fisheries 

Dh·ision, Projeoct No. F-20 R-21 . 0-a, H~l~n .. , MT. 

Stoddard, LA .. and A. Smith. 1955. 

Range management, 2nd edition. 

McCraw· Hill Book Company, Inc., NtwYork.. 

Trout Unlimited. 1979. Gra.zingand 

riparian stream ecosrstems. Den\'et, co. 

U.S. Gov~mtnent Accounting Office. 

19BB. Public rangelands: some ripar· 

ian areas restored but widespread 

improvement "''ill be slow. U.S. Co·.·- emmenl Accounting Office, GAO/ 

RCED-68-105. Washington, OC. 

VJn V~lson, R. 1979. Effects of livestock 

gr.azing upon rainbow trout in Ottn 

Creek. Pages 53-55 in 0. B. Cope. ed. 

Forum, grazing and riparian-stream 

erosptt-ms. Trout Unlimited, Vienna, 

VA. 

Warner, R. E. 1979. FtSh and ""ildlife 

resourc-e needs in riparian erosystems: 

proceedings of a workshop. Natural 

Water Rt'SOurces Croup, Eastern En· 

ergy and Land Use Team, US. Ftsh 

and WUdlife Sen·ice, Ke.amt'ys,·ille, wv_ 

Fishtrie$, Vol. 19, No. 9 
341 

Te,;;timony 

of 

Elden Hughes 

Sierra Club 

Before the 

National Parks, Forests and Lands Subcommittee 

of the 

House Resources Committee 

Washington, DC 

July 10, 1995 

1 
342 

I am Elden Hughes of south Whittier, California. I grew up on a 

cattle ranch that straddled the North Fork of Coyote Creek on the Los 

Angeles Plain. This was at a time when there were still cattle ranches 

on the Los Angeles Plain. Six of my great grandparents were running 

cattle in California in the 1860's. 

I am now retired, but I made my living designing business computer 

systems. This does not mean I have lost touch with the land. I served 

six years (the maximum) on the Bureau of Land Managrnent's Desert 

District Advisory Council and served and continue to serve on numerous 

agency planning bodies on grazing allotments and other land uses. 

The Bureau of Land Management carries me as an affected 

interest on fifty-eight grazing allotments in the deserts and mountains 

of California. I am so carried because I have hiked, hunted, camped, 

photographed and led outings on these wonderful public lands that 

include these allotments. 

The Livestock Grazing Act which we are addressing is flawed and in 

my comments I wish to address two of these flaws: the elimination of 

public participation and the formula for grazing fees. 

ELIMINATION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 

The Livestock Grazing Act eliminates public participation in the 

management of the Public Lands. This is a mistake. 

SOME EXAMPLES OF HOW THE PUBLIC HELPS 

This has been a wet year in our mountains, a very wet year. The 

high country snow pack is just now breaking. Some of the meadows are 

way too wet for grazing, but the normal time to drive the cattle up to 

the high county is now. The allottee can't be everywhere. Certainly 

the range cons can't visit all the meadows. Public interest groups 

2 
343 

have folk who understand meadows and they ride and hike and ski. They 

are in the process of alerting allottees and the managing agency about 

the meadow conditions. Damaged meadows can take a decade to heal and we 

all lose. 

The BLM laid out a new fenceline range improvement. I discovered 

it while hiking and I learned later that it was laid out based on a 

compass course from a bend in a back country road. This was fine except 

that fencelines tend to generate cattle use trails and impacts and 

ultimately fence maintenance generates a road. This fence line would go 

directly through a major archaeological site--Native American hunting 

blinds and anthropomorphs (giant rock art carvings) 7 feet tall. 

By alerting the BLM, the proposed fenceline was resurveyed and moved a 

half mile to the south. The range managment purposes were met and an 

archaeological resource remains unimpacted. This is win-win. 

One plague on the Public Lands is the recreational rancher, the 

one who wants the title "Rancher" but takes none of the responsibility. 

He has 20 cows and a weekend retreat and the assemblage of trailers 

and trash he brings to the lands is unbelievable. When the rules are 

being violated, the public can help make it known and inform the 

managing agency. 

Growing up on a ranch, I accepted the degraded grazing lands as 

normal and natural. Only as an adult and after much travel and 

looking at other lands do I now see how heavily we impacted the land--

particularly the riparian areas of Coyote Creek. Thistles over my head 

should have been a clue, but I accepted them. 

Now I am watching the return of native grasses to the riparian 

areas of Kennedy Meadows in Tulare County, Wylie Creek in Los Angeles 

County and Ceda1: Creek in Modoc County. Where there is improvement of 

3 
344 

the range, the public has been part of making it happen. It has helped 

supply the vision and much of the volunteer labor. Now there is better 

fishing and hunting and all the things that are a part of multiple use. 

Cattle still graze most of these areas, but they are moved in and out. 

They are not allowed to squat on the land and kill it. 

Like me as a boy, there are ranchers who have never seen really 

healthy range lands. The stumps of the cottonwoods are a clue that the 

stream dried up, but doesn't tell them that the grazing practices were 

responsible. Good range managment can restore the streams as surely as 

bad range management can kill them. Good range management pays, but it 

is hard work and it takes a vision of what the land can again be. The 

public can be part of the vision and help supply the labor and can serve 

as the link to the larger community, the urban community whose support 

is needed for proper multiple use management of these extraordinary 

lands. 

PROPOSED GRAZING AUM FEES ARE A RIPOFF 

I speak to a second flaw in the Livestock Grazing Act. It 

represents an absolute retreat from marketplace forces. Using the 

sponsor's data, the formula produces a fee of $2.10 for 1992. The cost 

of the grazing program exceeded $3.00 in that year. That is a subsidy. 

The estimated fair market value of publicly-owned forage as defined 

and determined by the Dept. of Agriculture and the Interior in 1992 

during the Bush administration averaged $7.68/AUM. $2.10 is a subsidy. 

The $2.10/AUM is below most state grazing fees. $2.10 is a 

subsidy. 

This is far below what permittees are subleasing for and far below 

capitalized permit values. It is clear that the new formula, just like 

4 
345 

the old, is cowboy welfare and we oppose it. 

Federal permittees should not have an advantage over the vast 

majority of livestock operators. Taxpayers should not underwrite a fee 

that allows permittees to profit at the expense of the Treasury through 

subleasing. Federal lands should not be welfare lands. 

And the bad fee structure perpetuates overgrazing and grazing of 

marginal lands. It incourages livestock operators to resist reductions 

in authorized numbers. It takes us down the wrong road for all the 

wrong reasons. 

Let's give the marketplac e more than llp service. Let's look at 

real costs and real values. The public lands are enormously valuable 

and enormously productive, but the Livestock Grazing Act is not the 

route to get us there. 

5 
346 

California Native Plant Societ;Q 

1722 j Street. SUite 17 • Sacramento. CA 958 14 • 916) 447 -2677 • FAX i9 16) 44 7-2727 

July 11 , 1995 

The Hon. James V. Hansen 

Chair 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands 

Resources Committee 

United States House of Representatives 

re: testimony on H. A. 1713, the Livestock Grazing Act of 1995 

Dear Chairman Hansen: 

My testimony on H. A. 1713 is attached along with a bibliography and letters 

from experts in relevant fields . 

Thank you for inviting me to testify before the comm1ttee. 

Sincerely , 

Emily B. Roberson. Ph.D_ 

Senior Land Management Analyst 
347 

Testimony of 

Emily B. Roberson, Ph.D. 

Senior Land Management Analyst 

California Native Plant Society 

Sacramento, California 

before the 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands 

Resources Committee 

United States House of Representatives 

regarding 

House of Representatives Bill 1713 

The Livestock Grazing Act of 1995 

July 11, 1995 
348 

Mr. Chainnan and members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify concerning HR 1713, The Livestock 

Grazing Actof 1995. · 

The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) is pleased to have the opportunity 

to submit the following testimony on the Livestock Grazing Act of 1995- H.R. 

1713. At the time of this analysis, the bill applie$ only to lands administered by 

the United States Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM). We are aware that the current Senate version of this bill, S.852, applies 

to grazing management by the United States Forest Service (USFS). So these 

comments address BLM land management primarily, but apply to general 

federal land management as well. 

CNPS is a nonprofit scientific and conservation organization that has worked to 

conserve California's native flora since 1965. CNPS is an established 

nationwide leader in rare plant research and conservation. For many years, 

CNPS has participated in all levels of grazing management planning with the 

USFS, the BLM and other agencies. We provide the agencies with botanical, 

ecological and other scientific infonnation through legally mandated public 

input processes and through other fonnal and infonnal exchanges. Our 

members, staff and officers map rare species on public lands and serve on 

agency task forces. CNPS publishes many California botany and plant ecology 

texts including the Inventory of Rare and Endangered vascular Plants of 

California (California Native Plant Society, 1994) which is internationally 

recognized as the primary source of infonnation on the uncommon components 

of California flora. 

Society members are active in 31 Chapters statewide. CNPS membership 

includes leading scientists, elected and appointed state and community 

leaders, consultants, small and large business owners, agrarians and others 

who simply appreciate the most diverse flora in North America. 

We want to state clearly that CNPS js not opposed to properly managed 

livestock grazing on public or orivate land. What we are opposed to is improper 

grazing management. We have a· long history of working with land management 

agencies, ranchers, and the scientific community to promote grazing 

management practices that are compatible with the health of native plant 

communities and ecosystems and with the survival and expansion of rare native 

plant species. 

CaJijomia Native Plant Society I H.R.1713 
349 

Our goals for grazing management are: 

.1. to ensure that any system of administering livestock graiing improves the 

condition of. public lands so that all muitiple uses are sustained in 

perpetuity. 

2. to ensure that any system of administering liyestock grazing resul~s in the . 

restoration of public trust in land management agencies by the American . 

people; and thalpublic confidence in government increases as Americans 

see that their lands and resources are managed properly, cost-effectively 

and sustainably for all resource values. · 

3, tQ ensure that public lands grazing does not result in added costs to or 

undue regulatory burdens on private property owners and general 

taxpayers because of agency management practices that degrade 

resources on public lands; and finally · 

4. to ensure that definitive and measurable steps be taken to improve 

biological conditions on western ranges and to solve the ecological and· 

administrative problems that have been enumerated by the U.S. General 

Accounting Office, range scientists, and others for over thirty years. 

CNPS is confident that these goals are shared by the Administration, 

responsible legislators, and citizens throughout the West and the nation. 

Unfortunately, current public lands management rarely' meets the goals listed 

above. University studies and government reports have repeatedly found 

serious flaws in the management of public rangelands. For the most part; these 

problems do not reflect shortcomings in current ~nvironmental laws. A principal 

reason for·these flaws is lack of enforcement of current federal laws and 

re9.ulations governing public land management. 

Impacts. of poorly managed livestock ·grazing 

Poorly managed grazing can have serious adverse impacts on ecosystems. 

Many of these have been well-doeumented in recent years by government 

.studies and by independent research. . 

1 . Damage to soils 

Excessive stocking rates or grazing wheri the soil is.too moist can. cause .soil 

compaction and other damage (Fieischner, 1994), alter nutrient cycling 

processes (Shariff et at, 1994), and can substantially increase erosion 

(H~heck et at., 1995, Kleirifelder et at., 1992). All of these impacts reduce soil 

fertility and· productivity and can ultimately lead to desertification, 

CaJHomia NatiVe Pl8nt 59clety I H.R 1713 2 
350 

2. Damage to streams and fisheries 

Through trampling and consumption, livestock can destroy streamside 

vegetation and alter stream channel morphology. These processes in tum 

increase water temperatures and reduce the ability of streams to support trout, 

salmon and other fisheries (Platts, 1991; Clary and Webster, 1989). 

3. Damage to water quality 

Disturbance by livestock can increase the amount of erosion and thus the 

amount of sediment entering strea,ms. In addition, feces and urine from livestock 

pollute streams with nutrients and disease organisms (Platts, 1991; Tiedemann 

et al., 1987). 

4. Changes in plant communities 

As the protective vegetation along streams is damaged, the channel looses its 

ability to resist the erosive force of water, particularly during peak flows such as 

snowmelt. Erosion of the streamchannellowers the water table, and the site 

dries, replacing normal streamside and meadow vegetation with dry-site 

species such as sagebrush, lodgepole pine or others (Holecheck et al, 1995; 

U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management and U.S.D.A. Forest Service,1994). 

5. Invasion of exotic weeds 

Invasive exotic plant species are a multi-million dollar epidemic across the 

West. Some species, such as thistles, destroy plant and wildlife habitat and are. 

unpalatable to livestock. Others, such as leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) are 

poisonous to livestock and other animals. Many invasive annuals such as 

cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) can significantly increase fire danger in infested 

ecosystems (Billings, 1994). 

Livestock have facilitated the spread of invasive and noxious exotic weeds in 

rangeland ecosystems (U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management and U.S.D.A. 

Forest Service, 1994; Asher, 1993). Livestock carry seeds of these species on 

their bodies. Trampling creates soil conditions that favor the establishment of 

·.veeds and reduce the competitiveness of many native species. 

6. Destruction of native species 

Studies show grazing to be the second greatest threat to California's rare 

plants, following only development (California Department of Fish and Game, 

1984-93). The CNPS Inventory (California Native Plant Society, 1994) lists over 

200 California plant species whose rarity can be traced completely or partially 

to overgrazing. Similar patterns have been observed for birds and other wildlife 

(Fiather, et al., 1994). 

CaJHomia Native Plant Society I H.R.1713 3 
351 

7. Reduced livestock production . . . . . . . 

Perhaps one of the most important impacts of poor livestock grazing · 

managementis that the resulting environmental degradation reduces the ·ability . 

of rangelands to produce forage and support liv'est~k. Diminished soil 

productivity, plant community changes that reduce the availabirlty of nutritious 

and palatable species, and red1:1ctions in water availability all impair livestock 

production. Studies have shown thatmoderately stocked rangelands can 

produce healthier cattle, better weight gain, and.higher net cash retums to the 

operator per cow and per acre than heavily stocked rangelands (Holeoheck et · 

al., 1995; U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management and U.S.DA Forest · 

Service, 1994.). · · 

Attached to our testimony are letters from experts in various disciplines relating 

to public lands management. These letters. demonstrate the wide range· of 

resources impacted by livestock grazing. · · 

Concerns regarding the proposed legislation 

In many places, most of these adverse impacts cari be reduced orever:t· 

eliminated with improvements to grazing management. Examples of such 

improvements include: . 

• chahges in stocking rates or in season of u5e, · 

• use of managE!ment systems such as rotational grazing, .. 

• encouraging better livestock distribution through herding or through targeted 

placement of salt licks and water sources. · 

CNPS is concerned that H.R. 171.3 would impede the ability of BLM manager$ 

to use these or other techniques to modernize and improve public rangeland 

management. The Act would undermine the public's right to co6t-effective, 

scientifically sound management of.publicly-owned lands. In addition, the Act 

would reduce the variety of uses and benefits that the American people realize 

from their publicly-owned lands. · 

Our concerns fall into four broad categories: the proposed Act would create 

barriers to scientific analysis of. public land management, barriers to public 

participation in public land management, and barriers to conservative range 

management on the ground. In addition, the proposed Act would impair the 

ability of BLM lands to provide uses and resources other than livestock grazing 

and forage production. · 

1. Restrictions oil scientific input 

' . . Our most serious concern is that the Act specifically prohibits environmental 

analysis of all local grazing management actions, including Allotment . 

Management Plans (AMPs), under the National Environmental Policy Act . 

(NEPA) and restricts NEPA analysis to the Resource Plan level. This would· 

significantly reduce scientific input into and re~iew of BLM grazing 

C&llfomia Native Plant Society I H.R.1713 4 
352 

management. NEPA analyses for BLM Resource Area plans have been 

developed on the premise that site-specific environmental impacts of grazing 

would be addressed at the allotment level. BLM Resource Area Plans therefore 

tend to be vague and general in their discussion of grazing, and any scientific or 

environmental analysis of grazing at the Plan level is also normally vague and 

general. Most Plan-level NEPA analyses contain insufficient scientific 

information to make well-reasoned site-specific grazing management decisions. 

This is because Resource Area NEPA analyses simply were not designed to 

fulfill that function. 

This is not the time to reduce or eliminate NEPA requirements for scientific 

analysis of grazing management and of its ecological impacts. On the contrary, 

we should be looking for ways t9 facilitate and.expand scientific input into public 

land m&nagement. In recent years, there has been a dramatic increase in the 

understanding both of the impacts of livestock grazing and of potential 

management solutions. Federal agencies must be required to seek out and 

incorporate the latest and best information on grazing management and range 

ecology if they are to do the best possible job for the permittees and for the 

American people. 

Regular NEPA review at the time of permit renewal provides an opportunity for 

livestock operators, the public and agency staff to evaluate past management, 

to make corrections and to incorporate new information. Moreover, periodic 

NEPA review provides a useful incentive for monitoring the environmental 

impacts of grazing management on the wide array of public land resources: 

GAO studies (1992: 1991) and the recent National Research Council report 

highlights the value of science-based, ecological monitoring of federal 

rangelands (National Research Council, 1994). Elimination of NEPA review for 

local grazing management will essentially remove the BLM grazing program 

from meaningful scientific scrutiny. 

In addition to limiting NEPA analysis, the Act would restrict the types of scientific 

information that can be used by federal managers to support changes in 

management. Section 114 (b) specifies that stocking rate changes must be 

"supported by rangeland studies•, or must be necessary to maintain or improve 

rangeland pro<;luctivity [for forage production]. Rangeland studies are 

specifically defined as addressing only use, utilization, climate, special events, 

production trend, and rangeland condition and trend. This definition appears to 

limit the environmental damage that can be considered under the Act to 

damage to forage production. Managers would not be able to alter 

management based on the condition of any other resource. However, as 

discussed above, grazing management impacts soils, fisheries, water quality, 

wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities and mafly other resources and 

values. How are these impacts to be evaluated or mitigated under H.R. 1713? 

Rangeland studies are further restricted to exclude methods relying on •cursory 

visual scanning of land". Some grazing impacts such as streambank erosion, 

soil disturbance, or excessive forage use can be estimated quite accurat~ly by 

C&llfornia Native Plant Society I H.R.1713 5 
353 

"visual scanning of the land", including by the use of photographs, particularly 

when ~ombiiled with occasional objective measurements to calibrate visual 

observations. Such methods are in wide use in California today and are 

endorsed by the land management agencies and by the University of California. 

Managers must be free to conduct any type of scientifically sound study that is 

necessary to determine the best use and management of public lands. 

We understand that the current Senate version of this Act prohibits the use of 

any monitoring data that was not colleeted in the presence of the permittee. If 

enactec;l, this provision would even further curtail the ability of agency staff to 

monitor or evaluate impacts of grazing. Again, the land management agencies 

must not be arbitrarily prevented from performing any studies or from using any 

data that are scientifically sound in order to manage the public lands for the 

multiple· uses that are mandated by law. 

The 15 year interval for permit renewal specified in Section 132 would further 

reduce the opportunities for regular scientific and public review of grazing 

management. Moreover, no peer review or other tests of scientific adequacy are 

set for regional or State standards and guidelines. As noted above, Congress 

should be seeking ways to encourage involvement of the scientific community 

in all levels otgrazing management in order to ensure that the latest and best 

information is used to manage the public lands . 

. 2. Restrictions on public input 

Several' .provisions of the Act restrict public participation in grazing . 

management. Among the most important are the elimination of the public's right 

to participate in AMP development and the elimination ofNEPA analysis of 

AMPs. As noted above, BLM Resource Area Plans and Plan-level NEPA · 

analyses have been developed based on the assumption that grazing NEPA 

analysis will be performed at the allotment level. The public h.as reviewed Plans 

and Environn:tental Impact StateiT)ents on this basis. Elimination. of public input 

and NEPA analysis for allotment level grazing decisions would essentially 

circumvent a legal commitment that ~s made to the public by the BLM. 

There is no justification for restriction of NEPA review of grazing. NEPA is an 

excellent example of a law that represents the best of the American democratic 

system. Public lands are just that • lands owned by the public, by taxpayers. 

NEPA gives local communities, and the public atlarge, the right to participate in 

important decisions about the management of their federal public lands and the 

expenditure of their tax dollars. NEPA is a contract between the federal 

government and the American people. In that contract, the federal government 

makes ,three commonsense commitments to the public they serve: 

• Federal agencies will endeavor to accurately determine, based on the best 

available information, what the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of 

their actiVities will be. ' 

Callfoinia Native Plant Society i H.R.1713 . 6 
354 

• Federal agencies will publicly disclose both their planned activities and their 

probable impacts. 

• Federal agencies will consider public input on the activities and their 

impacts when finalizing planning decisions. 

These promises are not radical or extreme. Federal agencies are funded by tax 

dollars. The environment, quality of life, and the local economies that taxpayers 

depend on are affected by the activities of agencies like the BLM and the Forest 

Service. It is the public's right, in o1:1r democracy, to fully participate in the 

management of publicly-owned lands. We understand that the paperwork 

associated with NEPA analysis can be time-consuming, but democracy carries 

with it certain obligations, some of which are occasionally inconvenient. That 

does not mean that we should ignore those obligations. 

In addition to elimination of NEPA for AMPs, the Act dictates that the majority of 

the makeup of the Grazing Advisory Committees be livestock operators, 

essentially excluding other interest groups from meaningful input into important 

management processes such as AMP development and expenditure of range 

improvement funds. Finally, the Act mandates no public input into the 

development of State or regional standards and guidelines. The Senate version 

of the Act reduces public participation even further by eliminating even the 

limited opportunities for participation as an affected interest. 

3. No incentives for stewardship 

Livestock operators and federal range managers must be able to implemant 

ecologically conservative management techniques and to restrict use of federal 

forage when necessary to protect resources. We believe that, rather than 

encouraging improved management, several provisions of the Act actually 

would discourage good stewardship of public rangelands. 

For example, Sections 136 (a) and (b) of the Act prohibit the BLM from placing 

any terms and conditions in grazing permits other than number of animal unit 

months of forage to be used, stocking rate, and period of use for the allotment. 

This prevents range staff from setting or enforcing even the most basic 

environmental standards for gr~ing management. Grazing permits are the 

enforceable contract between the permittee and the agency and it is in these 

contracts that all management requirements are specified. Terms and 

conditions in permits currently include requirements such as the permitted level 

of forage utilization and directions for livestock distribution. The ability of federal 

agencies to set these types of simple, essential management standards would 

be eliminated under H.R. 1713. 

Management of stocking rate is one of the most powerful tools mangers can use 

to protect rangeland resources (Holecheck, 1995). Several provisions of the Act 

seriously curtail the ability of the BLM to manage stocking rates. Section 1 07 of 

the Act may be interpreted as a perpetual freeze on stocking at the levels 

CaiHomia Native Plant Society I H:A.1713 ' 7 
355 

pennitted on August 1 , 1993.-Section 1 04 ( a)(23) of the Act sets penn anent 

damage to vegetation or resources as the standard detennining the. allowable 

carrying capacity of an allotment. Setting pennanent damage as the standard 

increases the burden of proof required for the BLM to set stocking rates to 

protect or restore resources. As discussed above, Section 104 (a)(26) of the Act 

would restrict the types of sCientific data that can be used to support stocking 

rate changes to those relating to forage production. Section 114 (d)(2) of the Act 

also requires that the BLM evaluate and implement "all reasonable and viable . 

management practices or altem!ltives• before reducing stocking rates. 

Temporary stocking reductions are only allowed in order to facilitate recovery 

from extraordinary natural-events or to assist in work on range improvements.· 

Finally, in the event that the Act's stringent criteria for demonstrating a need to 

reduce stocking levels are met, Section 114 (e) requires a 5 year phase-in. 

These raquirements, taken in sum, essentially eliminate the. practical ability of 

the agency to manage stocking to protect fisheries, recreation opportunities, 

water quality, wildlife or any resource other than forage productivity. 

The Act also restricts the management options of livesto<<k operators. In contrast 

to the Rangeland Refonn '94 proposals (U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management · 

and U.S.D.A. Forest Service, 1994), the Act has no provision for voluntary 

conservation nonuse of forage by livestock operators .. In fact, nonuse for more 

than two'Seasons is prohibited under Section 141 (b)(1). This feature of the Act 

would prohibit livestock operators from voluntarily resting allotments in order to 

protect or restore rangeland resources, even if they detennine that rest is · 

necessary for the health or productivity of the allotment. 

Finally, Section 111 of the Act, which defines the qualifications necessary to 

hold a federal grazing pennit, contains no mechanism to take into account past 

compliance with federal grazing pennits when awarding new pennits or 

renewing old ones. This precludes federal managers from preventing known 

"bad apples• from grazing on federal lands. Even pennittees who have 

displayed complete disregard for obligations under past grazing contracts with 

the federal government and for federal environmental laws would be able to 

obtain new grazing pennits under the proposed law. 

4. Publicly-owned lands should produce multiple uses and benefits for all 

Americans 

The proposed Act would create a situation where other uses, values and 

benefits would be given less emphasis than grazing in the management of 

publicly-owned lands. Managers would be discourageq or even precluded from . 

changing grazing management to enhance water quality, wildlife habitat quality, 

habitat for rare species, or opportunities for fishing, hunting or other recreation. 

Rangeland Refonn '94 (U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management and U.S.D.A. 

Forest Service, 1994; 1995) came about in part because environmental 

degradation, population changes in the Western US, and increasing 

environmental awareness have altered the social climate in which public lands 

California Native Plant Society I H.R.1713 8 
356 

grazing takes place. Opinion polls.(e.g. Brunson and Steel, 1994) show that the 

vast majority of Americans favor stronger protections for wildlife, rare and · 

endangered species, water quality and biological diversity on public 

rangelands. One essential element in any reform package that seeks to 

respond to public opinion is the requirement that agencies manage rangelands 

to reduce conflictswith other resources and values. 

Such conservative management creates economic opportunities as well. . 

Several recent studies .have found that livestock grazing is not the most fiscally 

responsible use of some public lands. Because grazing conflicts with fishing, 

hunting, hiking and other recreational activities, it reduces revenue from those 

sources. Economic analyses, looking at hunting alone, have found that 

reducing or eliminating livestock grazing can significantly increase economic 

returns ~rom rangelands in some cases (Loomis, et sf., 1991 ). 

Conclusions 

The debate around livestock grazing is often seen as a struggle between two 

mutually exclusive views: those who favor unrestricted grazing vs. those who 

favor complete removal of livestock from public lands. This view is inaccurate . . It 

is based in part on the false impression that livestock grazing is necessarily 

incompatible with all other resources and uses on all public lands. There are 

ways to graze livestock on some public lands while prot9cting other uses, 

values, and resources. The land management agencies. the scientific 

community, and the public should be working together to seek out and develop 

new techniques to manage public lands that are cost-effective and which 

promote the multiple uses for which the public lands were established. 

Congress must be working to encourage this process. 

The Livestock Grazing Act of 1995 does not advance this process. In its current 

form, the Act would restrict public and scientific input into grazing management 

and it would discourage livestock operators and federal range managers .from 

practicing conservative, multiple-use stewardship. H.R. 1713 would be a step 

backward at a time when federal grazing management is just beginning to. 

move towards modem, sustainable management We strongly urge Congress 

not to pass this bill. 

Thank you for your attention to these issues and concerns. 

Sincerely, 

Sj t---

Emily B. Roberson, Ph.D. 

Senior Land Management Analyst 

Califomia Native Plant Society I H.R.1713 9 
357 

References 

Asher, J. 1993. Noxious we~s in Eastern Oregon. BLM, Oregon State Office .. 

Billings, W.D: 1994. Ecological impacts of cheatgrass and resultant fireo.n 

ecosystems in the western Great Basin. ln. S.B. Monsen and S.G. Kitchen 

eds. Proceedings - ecology and management of annual rang&lan~s .. Gen . 

Tech. Apt. INT-GTR-313. USDA Forest ServiCe, lntermoun~ain Research 

Station, Ogden, UT. · · 

Brunson, M.W. and B.S. Steel. 1994. National Public Attitudes to ard federal 

rangeland management Rangelands 18(2): n. , 

California Department of Fish and Game. 1984-1993. Annual reports of the 

status of California state listed threatened and endangered plants and . 

animals. (see any year since 1984 for information on grazing threats). 

California NatiliePiant Society. 1994. 1nyentor:y of Rare and Endangered · 

Vascular Plants of California. 5th edition. M.W. Skinner and B.M. Pavlik, eds. 

Clary, W.P. and B.F. Webster. 1989. Managing grazing of riparian areas in the 

Intermountain region. Gen. Tech. Apt. INT-263. USDA Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, -UT. 

Flather, C.H., L.A. Joyce, and C.A. Bloomgarden. 1994. Species endangerment 

patterns in the U.S. Gen. Tech. Apt RM-241. USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, Ft. Collins, CO. 

Fleischner, T.L. 1994. Ecological costs of livestock grazing in western North 

America. Conservation Biology 8(3): 829-644. · 

Holecheck, J.L., R.D. Pieper, and C.H. Herbel. 1995. Range Management -

Princjples and Practices, 2nd editiOn. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New 

Jersey. 

Kleinfelder, D., s, Swanson, G. Norris and W. Clary. 1992. Unconfined . ; 

compressive strength of some strear'nbank soils with herbaceous roots. Soil 

Science Society of America 56(6): 192Q-5.· · · 

Loomis, J.B., E.R. Loft, D.R. Updike, and J.G. Kie. 1991. Cattle-deer interaCtions 

in the Sierra Nevada: a bioeconomic approach. J. Range Management. 

44(4): 395. 

National Research Council, 1994. Rangeland health: Dew methods to classifY . . 

inventory. and monitor rangelands National Academy Press, Washington, 

DC. 

I · 

CaiNomia NatiYe Plant SOciety I H. R.1713 10 
358 

Platts, W.S. 1991. Livestock grazing. In: W.R. Meehan, ed. Influences of forest 

and rangeland management of salmonjd fishes and their habjtats. American 

Fisheries S9eiety, Bethesda, MD. 

Shariff, A.R., M.E. Biondini, and C.E. Grygiel. 1994. Grazing intenstiy effepts on 

litter decomposition and soil nitrogen mineralization. Journal of Range 

Management 47: 444-9. 

Tiedemann, A.R., D.A. Higgins, T.M. Quigly, H.R. Sanderson, and D.B. Marx. 

t987. Responses of fecal coliform. in streamwater to four grazing strategies. 

J. Range Management 40(4): 322. 

U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management and U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1994. 

Rangeland Reform '94. Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 

U.-S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management and U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1995. 

Rangeland Reform '94. Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

U.S. General Accounting Office. 1992. Rangeland Management. Interior's 

monitoring has fallen short of agency requirements. GAO/RCED-92-51. 

U.S. General Accounting Office. 1991. Rangeland Management. Forest Service 

not performing needed monitoring of grazing allotments. GAO/RCED-91-

148. 

Califomia Native Plant Society I H.R.1713 11 
359 

The ·Honorable Senator John McCain 

Senate Office Building 

Washington, D. C. 20519 

Re. Senate Bill 852, Livestock Grazing Act 

Dear Senator McCain: 

June 29, 1995 

I am writing to you to express my dismay at Senate Bill 852 

which would give ranching leasees greater control over Bureau of 

Land Management lands. 

My 27 years as a wildlife biologist for the Arizona Game and 

Fish Department and five years as an Adj unct Professor of Zoology 

at Arizona State University have convinced me that what is needed 

is more federal control of our public lands, not less . 

Excessi ve livestock numbers remain the most serious p rob l em 

facing wildlife in the arid West. Such gamebirds as prairie 

chickens, sharp-tailed grouse, sagehens, and Montezuma quail 

continue to decl ine bec ause of overgrazing . Livesto ck-borne 

diseases decimate bighorn sheep populations and cattle compete 

with deer an d elk for sca rce forage and water. Even nesting 

waterfowl have been shown to b.e negatively impacted by grazing. 

Less dramatic, but perhaps even more consequential, lions 

and bears are continually being killed as predat ors of calv es and 

yearlings because they are pastured in brushy alottments that 

should be grazed only by steers if grazed at all. Livestock 

fences also restri ct pronghorn antelope movements. Most of our 

streams are in a less-than-desirable condition because of 

livestock trampling and cattle feeding on riparian vegetation, 

thus reducing the numbers of trout and songbirds alike . 

Supporting stockmen comes at additional public costs 

dried-up springs, cattle polluted s treams, countless mile s of 

wire fence, and numerous erosion gullies. Given all of these 

detriments, the benefits of stock waters to wildl ife are poor 

compensation indeed. 

Nonetheless, it should not go unmentioned that grazing 

conditions have improved during the last 40 years, although 

imperceptibly. To curtail what little power the BLM has, and 

reverse this trend, would be a tragedy. Urban users of our 

public lands have been too patient for too long in their 

protracted wait for improved land management practices. A return 

to rancher-dominated management perscriptions wi ll only result in 

an increasing demand to have these leasees of the federal lands 

removed from what many view as the public dole. 
3 July 1995 

Honor'able laiTy Craig 

360 

Thomas L. Reischner . HC 30 Bo~ 1(1) 

Plt:s<:on, AriZDDII 8630 I 

(520)776-1502 

Chairman, Subc:ornmlttee on Forests and Public Land Management 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resouroes 

U.S. &inate · · Wll8hington; D.C. 20510 

Re: Senate Bill 852, Uveetock Grazing Act · 

Dear Olairmill1 Craig, 

1 am writing to you because, as a acienti81, I am greatly alarmed at lha intanlion of Senate Bl1 852, lha 

"Uvestock Grazing Act," which ill being cousldered by lha Subcommlllae on Forests and Public Land 

Management. 

My concern is grounded in considerable adentlflc study of lha ecology and m~ of Uvestock 

grazing. In add~ion to publishing ln1ormation on grazing ecology and management in peer-fllllie"'ed . 

journals and a scientifiC encyclopedia, I HMid as lha Chair altha Pubic lands Grazing Committee ollha 

Society lor Conservation Biology, an international scieniHic society, and was lead author of~ Pos~ 

Statement on grazing. I am ~ Prolesaor of Environmental Studes at Prescoll College (lor identification 

purposes). 

My enclosed article, "Ecological 00618 olllveetock !irazing In wiM!Iem North America.· summarizes almost 

two hundrad scientffic studies. When taken as a whole, ~becomes Clear that the ecological costs of 

livestock grazing have been underestimated in the past. In fact, liYestock grazing has negative effects on 

all major componenta of ecosystems: their compo6/tion (which &pedes live there), structure (their phy6lcal 

lonn), and functioning (their basic proc98888, such as cycling of assential nutrients). Because livestock 

grazing is lha moat widespread land management practice in the weatem United States, this is c:aus8 lor 

grellllilml. 

To quote from my lr1icle: "Sy virtually any measure, Hveatock grazing has l8rious ecok!glcal COSIII 
Honorable Senator Larry Craig 

Page Two 

361 

in western North America · To reiterate, grazing has reduced densities and biomass of many 

plant and . animal species, reduced biodiversity, aided the spread of exotic species, interrupted 

ecological succession, impeded the cycli~ a1 the moat Important limiting nutrient {nitrogt~n), 

changed . h.d,itllt structure, diSturbed. ~mmunl~ organization, and h~ been the m~t sewre · 

impact on on.e of the biologicaHy richest habitats in the region. While undoubtedly there are 

exceptions to this theme of destructl_on. ·clearly much of the ecological integrity of_ a variety of 

No~h American hllbitats is at risk· from this land management practice." 

In ahort, .any claim that llveatocll grazing Ia a harmle .. practice, In need of 

reduced management or overalght, Ia ebaolutely .without aclentlflc foundation. 

Two years · ago I was asked to chair a llc:ientHlc committee on public lands grazing for the Society 

for Conservation Biology; our charge was to study tt:J8 scientHic issues carefully, and make a 

policy recommandation based on science. It was a great horior to S8rVll on that committee, which 

represented owr one hundred years of experience wHh the scientifiC man~~~~erner~t of grazing. 

One · member was a fHih generetion rancher, another was the former Principal Rangeland 

Ecologist_ for the U.S. ForeSt Service; all fiVll niem~ had great expertise in this sUbject. You 

. . . . ·. 

win see that the propoaed bl!l rune atrongly co~nter to the policy 

recommendation& thoughtfully propoaed by thla team of aclentlflc axparta, 

who88 conclualon waa that grazing haa had, and contlnuea to l!ave, enormoua 

negative Impacts, end Ia In n-d of atronger management--not leas 

management. . 

I urge you to reslel this bill, which wllf. serve only· very brief economic self-Interest of a 

minority oi ranchers, but which will undermine any sustainable ranching patentlal for 
Honorable Senator Larry Craig 

Page Three 

362 

generations. This bill works egalnat the fireln of both a~ologlcal and economic 

wisdom. 

. . . . 

I have enclos8d a copy of my ll\linmary article,. "Ecological c:lQita of. lvestoc~ graz.liig in. western 

North America." and the "Society for Conservation Biology PoeltlOO Statement: Uvestock 

Grazing on Public Lands in the l.Jni!ed States of America. • I would be happy to respond to any 

questions you may have . 

.. ,~(~ Thomas L Aeischnar, M.S. 

Professor of Environmental Studies, Prescott College 

Chair, Public Lands Grazing Committee, Society for Coneervatio'\ Biology (1993-94) 

Enclosures 

cc: Senator Jon Kyl 

Senator John McCeln 
363 

Reviews 

Ecological Costs of Livestock 

Grazing in Western 

North America 

THOMAS L FLEISCHNER 

Prescott CoUcgc 

E.nvtronmenLal StuCUCJ Program 

220 Grove Avenue 

Prescort. AZ 86301 , U.S.A. 

Absuact: Livestoclt grazing Is tM most 'UIIM:s/Jrf!Od land 

management prtzcttce in waUnJ Nortb Awwrla:t Sewnty JH'· 

cent oftbe west#!m Unllftl StaN$ Is~ hldud"'' wlltl6r· 

ness areas, wildlife ~fuga. tuJtto1141 jorwtl. and f'Wn Mnf'N 

national parlu. Tbe ecolcigtc:aJ cosa of Ibis -ly ubtqui· 

tow form of land ou• cmt ~ dramtllk. E:ulmpla of sucb 

costs include Joss of bto41wnlty; knuftrlng of populi#IOtt 

Mn$itles for a wiM ....Wty of ta:ur; dlsruptl<m of OOOIJ'Sfunctions, Including rnurlent cycling and su«a<km; cbtmtl< in community org~mURtion; and cJN:znp In liH pbystcal 

characteristics of bolb terrestrUJI and ~c btlblttliS. Be· 

cawe livestock COII8"'8<Ue In rlparlim ooorys- wbtcb an 

among 1M biologiCQ/Iy rlc:best babiUJ# In llrld 4nd snnklrld 

rogions, lbo •cologta<l cosa of graz~,., an ""''l"lftod In 

tbese sites. Ran~ sdma IHu tnuJitlcmtJlly bftrJ llldnJ wltb 

«<rttmlc a.mnnpttmu fmJOrlng NSOUf"U use. Ccmm"VQ~ton 

blologlsa,.,. ~to rot~trlbu# to lbeong<>lng social 

and sckntlflc dlalogw on gmzi"' 1siua. 

Introduction 

Aldo Leopold (1953) once said tbat to be an ecologist Is 

to live "alone in a world of wounds." The spectacular 

groundswell ol interest in conservation biology Is heart· P---A-tlll993;--t-r.lP<b- """Y 14. 1994. 

Col<oo ccolop:oo del putOr<o de ganado en cl ocsac de 

Elt>dosUDidoo 

Keoumcn: EIIJ<'StDroo iU g<ul4do es Ill pnlctlt:>J de ~ 

• 111-....u ampl,.,.,,. uttltzada m •I oar. deNort• 

Am1ri<4 £1_,. por<Ut!to MI. oesrw M Esl4dM lhiJdos S< 

uttllz4paru~ t.Kiuymdo61NI 111-tra, re/118101 iU 

vUlQ sllvarr.,. · bosqua JUJctoruda • .tnclustw. algunos 

/1{ll'qWS- £1 COOto «</dglcoiUGtiiJor1rll> ubiala 

• ""' • Ill - JnWII - dnultdltcn EJ<mplos ..... 

mrto lrKIIIJIWI phrlllla iU Ill blodlvorsl44d; -

dellls....-Mpoblad6n}J<itw"""'f"'PIIIJ,__M 

_,_ •~~w«~ona mIlls Junc1<>r1e ., . ._Is_. m-

<111)/WJda <l<los tU ...arllrl ... )' ~ - ... Ill orpm--• lllcom..,.ldady cambloom ,._,_ 

tlu# .flsle>JS iU b<lbltas -~y acudttcoo DlltiD - •I 

..,._, .. ""'11'"8"'" -·--rlbomtor, los-• · tdn mtrelo. b<lbltas blo/6glamlont< m4r r1«1« tWrtlro dew 

rog~ona 4rldas y limol-tirl4tu, 1"' cosro. oco/6gl<o< d<IIJ<'S· 

torwo se """BfttJiam _. ertos stttos. T~ Ill 

<WndaMIJ<'Stlz<l/ft,baaftldoCIII'/l-·~-­

rr6miau -ftzVO<Oem <I ruo Ml rectmo. S. ti/WniiJ " los 

111610110'-tlamtril>ldrtl/4141/ofo-y 

cltmtlftco .,. lac problewuu Ml JNUIO#WO. 

enin8 evidence that we no longer work alone.. But wbai about a world of woun<ls? The wolltldinal of tWunl processes accelerates, but some woun<1s are more c;ontp~c. 

uous than others. Recognizing a c:lean:ut forest II eay,' 

but It Often takes a tralned eye to c:omprd>eod clomase to~ The destruction caused by Im:stoc:t snz· 

in8 1s so pervasive and tw c:xlsted Cor oo Iona .tbll It 

frequently goes unnoticed. !Jvestock grazing bas rc· 

.639 
ceived fiu less mention frOm conservation biologists 

t1w1 iiS widespread inllucnce would suggest is appropriate. When I recently surveyed the first six volumes of 

this journal, for example. I foupd almoot three times as 

many articles on dcforc:stltion as on gnzing·rdated topics. 

Uvcsrock snzing is tbc most widespread inllucnce on 

!Ulivc ccosystcms of wcsum. North America (Wqacr 

1978; Crumpacker 1984 ). Gnzing by livcsroc:k, primar· 

ily cartle, is nearly ubiquitous throughout this rqion. 

Approximately 70% of the II western 502tcs of the 

United Slates (MonWI&, WyQJDlna. Colorado, New Ma· . 

ico, and watward) is grazed by Uvcsux:lt (Council foe 

A8ncuttun1 Science aud Technology 1974; Lonihunt ct 

a1. 1984; Cnunpackcr 1984), indudintl• broad dlvcnlry 

of ccosys<cm types aud virtually all types at land maD· 

dcscns, 

agcmcnt 

blackbrusb 

designations

dcscns, 

. Gnzillg 

sUdaoclt 

occurs 

mcsos,

in ~ 

.sagcbrusb 

ftaiS, pinyOII·junipcr woodlands, chapornl, · poodcrooa 

pine forcsiS, aod alpine meadows above timbcrllnc. 

Grazing occur> on the majoriry of federal bnds in tbc 

West, including most of the domains of tbc U.S. Bureau 

ofUild Management (BL\1) aod die U.S. Porcsi Service, 

as well as in many national wildUCe refuges, tedcnJ 

wilderness areas, and even some !Ulioml puts. In 16 

western states, approximately 165 million acres ofBIM 

land aud 103 million acres of Forest Service land arc 

grazed by 7 million head of livestOCk. primarily cartlc 

(U.S. General Accounlinl Ollice 1911114). Of tbc BL\1 

lands in these swcs, 94% Is gn2ed. Of fcdcraJ wilder· 

ness areas, 35% have active livestock grazing allotments 

(Reed ct a1. 1989; this llgwc is frOm a !Ulioawidc sur· 

vcy-<bc percentage foe the West Is probobly hlgbcr). 

Urbanized :IN25, some dense c:otlifaOOs forests, and a 

few rock·aud·icc peaks arc about all that is &cc frOm tbc 

inllucnce of livestock. Given die ublqulry of Uvcsroc:k, it 

behooves us 10 understand the cooscqucnccs of liS presence oa the Western landsca_pe . . 

Undcr>Wldlng the inllucnce of domestic livestock 

upon native Ccosystcms is a problcmatic process. Mea• 

taining the potential naruraJ vcgcwlon of most Western 

ecosystems is dllllcult because ungnzed .land is ex· 

trancly rare. EcologistS have galnallnslgbt Into the d· 

fccts of grazing primarily In tbrcc ....,.., (1) Historic 

records provide pcnpcctlve 011 the dramalic c:boop 

that havc traDSpirCd sinCe tbc lnuoductloo oflnatock 

10 tbc West (sec Cooper 1960). As tbltingl5 ( 1959) 

pointed out, ~. OllC mua be aulious In lnr,cr· 

prcting blsiOrical reconls, due 10 tbc IUbjcaMry at ell(. 

fcrcnt ~ Hlllodc pbocopapbl bne ...., been 

used in Ill IUCIIIpt 10 reacatC Ill ecolopc:ll boacllnc 

(sec tbltingl5 a, Tomer 1965); Babrc ( 1991) rcvlcwcd 

tbc oecaoory cautions ln. lntcrpfeliD& blsiOric pbocoFIIlbL (:Z)-ac:ludcd from grazing tbrou&b ICI'CD· 

diplry, sudl U llolated - rop., proride IW'IIln8 COO· 

tnst 10 8djaccllt areas that havc been· coottnuoualy 

.,__....., 

-...... ~-· ... 

grazed (ICC RummcU 1951 ). ( 3) Areas tbatlntcntionaUr 

exclude UVCSIOd< ( aclooures) provide a bcto~·grazlng 

and after-grazing comparison. Exclosurcs can be moni· 

IOrCd a tbcy recover from the dkcts of grazing and can 

be c:omparcd with adjacent grazed sites. Almost all ex· 

closures share rwo characteristics, ( t ) tbeir areas arc 

UIUally qulfC small (Bock ct a1. 19934), oltcn less dian 

50 ba; and (:Z) dlcy have been grazed prior ro cxclosurc. 

In otbcr words, very few~ of truly ungrazed land· 

sc:apcs ala. MOOJ: ra:rcatlooal impact srudlcs coacu.r 

lbar tbc orijJlnal impact upoo a pristine site ;,. tbc most 

sc01:n: (Cole 1981; Cole a: MarioCI "1986); tbus, adosure srudlcs probably Undcrcstinwe. tbc INC extent J:Jl 

grazing dkcu bccwsc they· caonoc IIIOniior tbc most 

dnsdc ilomlae. wbidl occurred looa ...,. Ia 8ddltloo, 

'rinually 

~ 

all~ studies examine IICUIOO small fO 

laodaapc·lcvd dlvcnlry. In ·summary, ""' 

lack • clear ccolotliCLt bcDc:bnlllk foe clcrcrmlning tbc 

dkcu at grazing. 

Attempts fO dlsccm grazing dkcu abo bompcrcd 

by tbc dllllculry ·m dlstingulab1ng bctwccD dlll'ercnt 

ronae m ""'"!llloe"' pncti<:es. Management nrtables 1n: 

elude grazing inlalllry ("IROcldng rate"), lttatoc:k !lpC· 

cles, scuoaallry of grazing, and dcgrcc of active man· 

as=cnt, sucb as movement of livestock between 

Puaucs. Uofortwwcly, the lllaJII8=CRt bis10ry of 

mony sites is IUiknown. Marry - clo DOt describe 

grazing IDtalllry (sec, foe cumplc, Gllmki 1977; Rt:yn; 

olds & Trwt 1980; Croucb 198:Z). Purtbcrmorc, .-. 

dardlzed tcrminolotD' is laddng foe diiJ\:rent grazing in· 

tcasltles. lldallvc - IIUCb .. "berry," "moclcraDe," 

ond '1Jsbt" grazing, may be unddl.ncd (ICC Jclfries a: IClopalet t987)or quall12tivcly ddlned In very dlll'ercnt 

ways. Among die c:rltaia used ~ presence of llvcstod<. prcscncc of trails, range condllioo (sec Jones 1981), and 

llllOUilt .of bc:rbagc remaining after a grazing ICISOII (sec Wdcb ct al. 1991). Studies that have qWUJiiftcd gnzln& 

lntcosiry bave do so i.ncOnSistcntly. For cumple, twn 

studies ( Mooconl a: Hutto 1982; Baker a: Guthery 

1990) aoaly2ins the dfect of "beavy" grazing dltrctcd In 

thdr ddinllion by a factor of seven. Tbc mucb·used 

term "ovcrsnzing" is wrought with conuoversy ....f lack of clariry; even spedfi.c discussions of ovcrsrazmc fall tQ ddlnc It (sec Menke&: Bradford 1992). 'lbls tu· 

dlmcntsry - of knowledge lntcrfacs wldl analysis at tbc tole at dlll'ercnt grazing pnctlccs 011 blodlverslry. 

. Available c:vid<:D<:e lndlatcs lbar lttatoc:k grazing. baa 

~ ~ a.s. Autccolopc:al. .,. .... oioS'cil, 

-~-haW: coallnDcd lbar- live ccooyoccma pay • ltccp price for !be pcaencc of 

lmoiOcl<. 1brcc .,._,. aurlbutca at CCOIJilCIDS bne 

been duc:ldatcd: composllioo, llmctloo, and IIU'IICIIIre 

(l'nDidln ct aL 1981). UYCStOCit grazing liat a prol'oooDd 

Impact Oil all tbrec. Tbc ecologtal COlli of 11-.od< 

sroz~n~ c:m be IUIDIIWized .. eouo-
365 

-· 

(I) AI- of sp«:/6$ composlttcm of communi· 

tla, including dec:rcascs in density and biomass of 

individual spcdes, reduction of species richness, 

and cbanging community orpnization. 

( z) Disruption of «<S}'St"" functlonin& including 

in!Crfermce in nutrient cycling and ecol<>sial 

succession. · 

(3) Alteration of ecosystem structure. including 

cbanging vcgewion strati6cation, contributing to 

soil erosion, and decreasing aY2ilabillty of W2tct to 

biotic communities. 

Altmdloo of Species Composition or Communities 

That the introduction of a Luge-bodied herbivore 

·sboukl bave dnmaUc dfccts on the spcdes compoo«ion 

of plant communities In arid and semiarid regions 

sbould DOt • be suiprising. CoogressiOnal investigalioft 

into rangeland conditions on BIM and . Forest Service 

londs sbowed that over 50% of pubuc· rangelands ad· 

ministcted by these twO agencies were .in "poo<" or 

'"fair" condition, meaning that less than balf the range 

was 50'11> similar to the · presumed climax community 

(U.S. Gcnctal Accounting <>mcc 1911&. 1991a). Graz· 

ing :dfeets the spcdes composition of plont communi· 

tics In essentially twa W2}'S: ( I ) active odection by bet· 

bivores for or apinst a specific plont tu:on, and .( 2) 

dlfrercntial vulnerability o( plont W<a to gruing (Szaro 

1989 ). Decreases in density of native plont opccies and 

diversity of native plant communities as a result of Uve· 

SIOdi: gnzing activity bave been obsctvcd·in a wide va· 

ricty of western ecosystems (Table I ). · 

Grazing also can exert a great impact on animal pop· 

ulations, usually due to indirect effects on habitat JIJ'UC· 

tun: and prey avail:abWty (Wagner 1978; Jones 1981; 

Moscimi 8c Hurta 1982: Szaro eta!. 1985; Quinn 8c Wal· 

genbacb 1990). The deleterious dfccts of gruing bave 

been obsctvcd in aU vertebrate classes ( Table 2). The 

response of native wildlife to grazing vvies by babitaL 

Bock et aJ. ( 19931>) reviewed the dfect of ·grazing on 

Ncouopial migratory londbirds In thscc ecosystem 

types and fouild an increasingly ·negative dlcct on .&,, · 

dances of bird species in grasslaod. riparian WQ!ldland, 

and intermountain sbsubstcppc ( almost equal numbers 

ol species with positive and negative responses to grazing In gruslaod; six times .. many w!Jh negative .. posltM; responses in shrubstcppc ). DUe to their mobWty 

and Yllual orientation, birds .may be beacr able to cope: 

wldl .grazcd landsclpcs than mammals arc (Bock et aJ. 

1984). Plaas (1979, 1981 ) lcvicwed dlc intcnction of 

biolotlial and gcomorphologial factors that dcgr.dc liob 

babitaL 

The rclatioosbip nf grazing to · insect populations 1s 

unclear (Table 3 ). Studies of grasshoppers (Acrldldac) 

on rangc1ands bave yielded contradictory results: some 

report an increase In srasshoppct densities on heavily 

grazed londs, and others report a dectcasc (summarized 

In Wdcb cr aJ. 1991 ). Recent rcscarcb has clarttlcd that 

duration nf grazing, ~ differences In plont and 

insect communities, and plont community architecture 

Tlble1. Delelnlou_tl_....,. .. ,..._ .. ta_Noclla-'-i<L 

HtlbtfiJt LOCiltl<m I!Jfoct Autborlty: 

Sonot2n Dcscrtscrub Arizona Percanlal-""" IWmma (palatable shrub) Btydcnstem « at ( 1957) 

sbowcd dnmal:ic deasity dccrcues Wid! anzin8 

Mojave Dc:scn.scrub CaUfo<nja ~ tcductloa In abovc-p'OWI<I biomass o( IIUIUals. 

16-29'Jii dccrcax.in ~ ol pcrcnnial shrubo wid! 

Webb <'It S<lelsln ( 1979) 

Sapnub DcsCn anzin8 ld:abo Grucd lice had y, spcdcs ricbacso of uagrazed al<c Reynolds <'It Troo1 ( 1980) 

Deocn Gnslland New Mexico Gna dcnlity iDc1'c2Sc<1 by 110'll0 otter 30 yean of Gardner ( 1950) 

ScmidescrtGnsoland Arizona 

proccdion from snzin& 

Spccic:l ricllnc:JI incrcoscd, u clld canopy cover Cor Bi-ady ct aJ. ( 1989) 

............ ......._ - · ondiO<b groupo. oflcr rcmonl olllvatod< ScmldacnG.- ~ Woody plan .. ~ 1D0R obuoclant aftc< Bocketal(1984) 

rcmonl olllvatod< 

-PIDc WllbiaiiO<> 

- Ot:creascd·spccics lidu>cll OQ FUCd· ..... Rummdl ( 19S1) 

-Caayon Utlb Aboeoce or - lbscnce oliO .,_ tpCdc:s on ll'w:d · 

- CoamiA Evaos (1945) · 

Rlporioa Orqon Spccic:l ~-6:om 17 to 45 tpCdc:s - - yanllra ~ olWinepr (1977) . 

aq.rtoD Arizona ~ coocr olll'w:d p1o< a lhoD balf t1w o1 Szuo"'-(1983) 

aq.rtoD Colorodo IJD8riOCd plot . . Sbrubanopy .,_..,.- ~- Scl!ulz "' l.clalnle< ( 1990) canopy """""1"8 dmco llra ~ olllvatod< . 
366 

·- Tlllllel. -dloctaot-~ .. ---lto-Noo111-.lta. · 

o.,animt(s) i.Qc4tion Eff«t 

Small Mammals 

Small Mammals 

Sonjjbirds. Rap<on, and Small 

M>mmals 

Ducb aod .all T=aial 

Noogamc Birds 

Upbnd Sandpiper (Banrdmla 

kmg-) 

Riparian Birds 

Riparian l'as3crlno 

WWow Flycau:hcr 

(Emp-ll'rlilltt) 

V ell ow Warbler (Dmdroica 

pot«bia) 

D;ckcisscl (Spi= ,.,_.;cmur) 

aod BcU's Vireo (VIM> 

bellti) 

Uzards _ 

W:mdcring Garter Snake 

( TlHnnnopbis •Iqans 

vogrrms) 

Desert Tottoi.sc ( GopberU.s 

aga.ssizt ) 

Trout ( Salmon.idac) 

Trout (Salmonidac ) 

Trout (Salmonidac ) 

Idaho ~iry and diversity r~uced on grazed Reynolds & Tros' ( 1980 ) 

siiCS 

NCV\Ida Density over <>nc·dlird lowu, dlvcr.!ity Medin a Clary (1989) 

- ball"" snzc<l siiCS Utlb 3'10l01 IDcr<asc in usc aod dlvcr.!ity :ofler 8 Dlllf(l979) 

yean rcsr from grazing 

Colorado AU " "''" abundan< in ...,..azed babicac Crouch ( 1982) 

Nonh Dakota Nest density reduced oo snZed sl<cs Bowen & Kruse ( 1993 ) 

Moocma SpeCies composition alccrcd by .,...U.J; Mosconi a< Hutto ( i 9a2) dcmltlcs of y, of speci<S dl6cred 

slgnlllantJy bclwttn beavily and lqjlttly 

snzc<1 slccs-¥, of lhoe were bJsj>cr 

oalqjlttJy....,..SIIICS 

Soulb<aswo Orqon Spcdcs ridulcoo d<aaled Oll....,..S sites Taylor (1986) 

Soulheaslcu Orqon AbulldoDcc u.ac-1 from 0 10 30 wileD Taylor & Unldicl4 ( 1986) 

......,. ...-.,. reduced by • - Soulbcasten Orqon Abundance u.ac-1 by 8 ames wbcn Taylor & Unlcftdd ( 1986) 

.,...ma IDteiiSity reduced by • limo 

Oldaboma Popubdoos 50'1\ lower oo ....,..S Illes Ovcnnirc ( 1963 ) 

Calll'omia Abundance 2- aod bioala8 3.71imcs llu5ack & Bury (1974) 

bJsj>cr OD UJIIS"ZCCI ~~~ 

AtUoaa AbuDdancc aod diYcnlty bJsj>cr"" )ones ( 1981, 1988) 

unanzcd siU: 1D • of5 --types New Mexico 5 time> more abuodlnt 1D .....,....S lites Szaro o<,al ( 1985) 

Wcs<crn U.s.A. U..,..ock <rample young tonobes, llamaac Berry (1978); Campbell 

burrows - sbrubs UICd lor lbdu:r, ( 1988) 

and cemovc critlcal fon8c G=<llastn Avcraic incrcue ID producdoa of1 .. '1\ ll<>w= ct al ( 1979) 

wben snzin8 reduced oc dlmlnaled 

Idaho Mace abuDdam, larger llsb llu:r cemowl Kdlcr & Bumbam ( 1982) 

oflivcllock 

Colorado Sundlna crop -ed ~ """"""' of Srubcr ( 1985) 

lhcstod< 

are imponaill factOrS in ~ lbe dfect o! gtai. ing on grasshopper populations. 

. · Grazing-induced chango in particular spcdes <nnslatc into major conversions of community orpnization. 

Grazing is credited with tnnsl'ormlng southern Nc:w 

MezlcO from gnss1and to crwsoteb!Jsb (L<Imwl) cksert 

(Whitfield a Andenon 1938; York & D lck·Peddle 

1969). Kennedy (19n) noted that grazing thoroughly 

changed the primary plant spcdes in most Southwest 

riparian zones. He referred to these chango as "com• 

Tollle3. _ol_....,. __ 

G.-cppu demlty 3.7-Fealcr oo p<orected lite: ill """""""· 3.8 a-s ..-cr oo ....,..s- tn fall (dllrcrcol sut6m1llcs, wid> -.,, 

food prdclaM:a-ID eadiiCOIOO) 

Am llbw>doDcc a.crc-d allbecp dcnoity lnaaocd; all olbu p-oupo 

~ 

rcdul:td ~It bipCit 1hcstock _., 

llplllaDtJy more llbuadaal oo all&bdy grazed sllc tban 

Oil a benliy gnzcd Ill<:; boause tbcrc - DO dllr.rcDce bclwttn tbc 

- 111a 19 ran cor~~tt. •looa·u:rm died of anzinllls lDdlcaled Dec:ral<a ID-of-IDocct poupo. dnmltlc inc:raoe-ID 

~ ardlluCmrc dlaJ:IIcd from lllliiF-'WIF- 10. • ....,..... wblcb dlaJ:IIcd sr.wl>oPPcr opcclcs composition 

Jcpoon·lrmes lk Bock ( 1989) 

HuiChlmoo lk KIDg ( 1980) 

Wck:b ct al ( 1991) 

Smld> ( 1940) 

QulDn & Walpbacb ( i 990) 
367 

-

plcte type convc:nions." Gnzing C2l1 eliminate a willow 

sand within 30 years ( KoY21chik & Elmore 1992 ). In 

Oregon. grazing delayed plant phenology ""o weeks 

(Kaullinan er al. 1983b); such changes could have dra· 

matic dfects on communities of poUinatorl and dispcrs· 

ers. Gruing has abo been observed ro alrer animal for· 

11!iD8 guilds (TObie 4 ). 

Gruing deslabillzes plant communilles by aiding !he 

sprOd and es<abllshmenl of exotic species, such as wn· 

arisk (Tanumr) (Ohman & Anderson 1982; Hobbs & 

Huennekc 1992 ). l.ivesrock help spread exotic pl2nl 

species by ( 1) dispersing seeds in fur and dung; ( 2) 

OIJelling up hablw for weedy species, such as cheatgnss 

(Bromus t«torvm; Gould 1951; Mad< 1981), wbich 

lhrive in disturbed areas; and (3 ) reducing competition 

from native species by eating !hem. M. D'Antonio and 

VIU>USd: ( 1992) poinled OUI, alien gross invasiOns in 

North America have been most severe in !be arid and 

semiarid Wesr, where invasion by many species (includ· 

ingBromust«torum, a ~a moJits, a d~ 

T aenialberum asperum, and Avena spp.) was associ· 

atcd wilh grazing. 

· Disruption of Ecosystem FIIJICtlonln& 

The delererious dfects of livesrock on native ecosysrems are nor limited to changes In species coiDpQSitiotL 

Gruing also disrupt> !he fuodamcntal Ccosys.cm func. 

tions of nutrient cycling and succession. 

An often overlooked chatactcristic of arid and semi· 

arid ecosystems. is !be p<~e of microbiotic (or cryplogamiC) soil CntSIS, delicate symbioses of c:ymobacte· 

ria, lichens, and moues from a variety of .rua. The 

essential role of lhese mierobiotic ·ausu In nutrient cy· 

cling of arid ~ has been increuingly oppreci· 

ared. Crusu perfonD !he major share of nitrogatllution 

iii desert ecosystems .(J!.ycbert et al. 1978). Tbc avail· 

abWty Ot.nlttogenln tb,e_IOIIIs a primary limiting faCtor 

on biomass prciduction In deserts. In !be Great Basin 

Oeser!, al least, II Is second in importance only to !he 

W:k of _moisture. Qames & )urinal< 1978). Microbiotic 

aus<s iii arid ecosystems have been corrdated wilh increued organic matter and available phosphorus 

o.r-- LocMiorl 

(Kleiner & Harper l977), increased soil stabilirv 

(Kleiner ·& Harper 1972: Rychert et al. l978 ), and ;.;. 

creased _soil water infilrntion ( Loope & Gill'ord 1972: 

Rycbcrt er al. 1978 ). CrusiS also play an importanr role 

in ecological succession because .they provide favorable 

sires for !he germination of V2SCUiar pl2n1S (SL Clair ct 

. al. 1984). 

Given !be fngile nanire of microbiotic CntSIS, 11 fol· 

lows !hat !hey are easily damaged by livesrock grazing. 

In numerous studies, gruing has been correlated wilh 

!he loss of mierobiotic cover (WuUstcin 1973;Johansen 

ct al. 1981; Anderson ct al. 1982; Jdliies & Kloj>atek 

1987). Crusu can be severely disrupted even wtiue l)iey 

(Belnap 1993) and !be more Conspicuous vuCuiar plant · 

communities ( Kictner & Harper 1972; Cole 1990) ap- · 

pear bcalthy. Mlaobiotic species ridlncso has also been 

sbown to deerease under gruing pressure (Anderson er 

al. 1982). Recenr studies on !be Colorado PU,tcau have 

dramatically dcmonstrared !hat soU surfatt disturbances 

can Virtually stap.nitrogen fixation. Nitrogenase activiry 

W25 reduced 80-100% in !be microbioeic crust under. 

sln81e human fnorprinr, as wdl as under vebide tracks 

(Belnap, personal communication; Belnap 1994; Belnap 

ct al. 1994 ), and nitrogen coruenr in !he leaves of dom· 

1nant plan! species was lower In rnmpled !han untram· 

pled arcas (Belnap, personal communication; Harper & 

Pendleton 1993). If a sln81e fnorprint can bring a local 

nluop:n cycle almost to a hair, me ImpaCt at a a:ntury's 

work of livestock boofpriniS C2l1 easily be imJtlined. 

Gnzing also can disrupt . eco~o&~cal succestion. Tbc 

cumulldve ImpaCt Of lonS·•erm livestock use has produced and maintained. early sera! vegetation tbroush<>u• much of !he West (Longbursr et al. 1982). Glinslti 

(1977) demonslnled !hat cattle gruing of smail seed· 

lings p<eVentcd cotton'WOOCI (Populus frwmtmttt) re· 

generation In a toulhem Arizona riplrian :woe. He COD· 

eluded !hat lonS·tcnD gruing could eliminate or reduce 

me upper c:mopy tiy p<eventing !be ""'"bllabmen~ of 

sapllnp. Cartxhers .ct ... (1974) !liKed !he lact Of cot• 

toDWoOd regeneration In graaed areas along !be Verde 

River, Arizona. Prevention nt seedling esW>IIsbment due 

to gruing and trampling by Uveslock has transl'onned a 

variety Of Soulhwest riparian systems Into rvm-II!Cd, 

EJf«:t ....,_.,. IUporioi>Binto 

- ~tplllcl,~lbrulhauJid llld Moocoal It Hutto ( 11182) 

IDIIIF-ateonma- auJid 6cted; bod<.fonFtl 

auJidIUporWl Birds ~ Gazed - ptdcrred..,. illseciiYora, ......--..,. berblvo<cs llld poa~...... ' ~orol.(19112) 

u-dl 

- M<ftlil·llld·....U Uzanlo on Fucci ollcs; opc:a-opoce }00<0 (19111) 

lonp:n llld wide-n1J811>8fonp:n CD snzed 

..... Gr-...,.n SoUib Dolloa ObUplc ---casnzedli- QuinD a w....-a (1990) 

-ed lorb-~r.edcnca.........,.S olri:s 
368 

nonreproducing vegetative communities (Carothers 

1977; Szaro 1989 ). 1o Oregon, grazing rewded succession in the willow-bbck cottonwood (Salix-Populus 

tricbocarpa) community, and there was little if any regeneration of alders (Alnus) or cottonwoods ( Kau1fmm 

et al. 1983b). Davis ( 1977) concluded that livestock 

gruing was "probably the major factor contributing to 

the bilure of riparian communities to propagate them· 

se:Jves." 

Ascertaining patterns of ecological succession in xe· 

ric rangelands is not easy; thus, the dfttt of livestock on 

successional processes i.s unclear. Traditionally, range 

ril2nagement was based upon Cements' (1916) ~c 

model of ecological succession, where se:raJ. stageS lead 

to a stable climax. Early on, this concept of predictable, 

directional succession was applied to range· eCosystems 

(Sampson 1919). lbis ·•range succession model:' even· 

rually formed the lnsis of range condition clwification, 

as oxemplified by government manuals and early range 

management textbooks (Stoddart & Smith 1943 ), and 

summarized in an ext~nsive review by Ellison ( 1960 ). 

ln the arid west, however, vegetation change ·due to 

grazing has not followed the prediction of this linear 

model. Recent evidence suggests that range ecosystems 

have not evolved as wcU·bahnced communities with 

stable species compositions Uohnson & M2yc:ux 1992). 

More reccm.ly. a less Oemmtsian view of xeric rangeland succession. referred to as the "state-and-transition 

model," has been proposed (Westoby et al. 1989). AC· 

cording to this mode:l, relativdy stable, discrete vegetation states go througb uansitions induced by natun1 

episodic events such as fire or by management actions 

such as grazing (Laycock 1991 ). As Friedel ( 1991 ), La:ycock ( 1991 ), and others h.ave discussed, uansitioru be· 

tween states sometimes cross successional "thresholds." 

Once certain thresholds have been crossed, as in severe 

soil erosion. succession m2y not be reversible ccccpt by 

suo ng. active m_anagement. Although this model is in Its 

infancy, it may someday provide a means to predict if 

grazing can cause long-term degradation by inducing 

irreversible succession across thresholds. 

Alteration of Ecosystem Structure 

The physical structure of ecosystems, including vegetation stratification, is often changed by livestock grazing. 

In central Washington, graziilg was responsible for 

changing the physicalstrucrure of ponderosa pine forest 

from an open, park-like uee overstory with dense gross 

cover to a communiry cb:lncterlzed by de!l5e pine reproduction and l2ck of grasses (Rummcll 1951). Grazing was at least partially responsible for sirnil2r suuctural changes in ponderos:a pine forests of northern 

Arizona {Cooper 1960). Historic records indicate that 

cnenslve willow stands once occurred throughout the 

c.-.....- v~ s. No. 3. Stpccmbcl" 1994 

rangelands of the Intermountain West. which are now 

almost completely absent (Kovalchik & Elmore 19.92 ). 

Grazing suucrurally changed habitat for .1.e wandering 

garter snake ( Tbamnopbis elegans vagrans) through 

the loss of small uces and shrubs ( Szaro et al. 1985). In 

cenual Arizona, lizud habitat was changed when livestock reduced low-height vegetation by totalty consuming permnlal grasses and severely reducing palatable 

shrubs Uones 1981 ). 1o Oregon, Taylor ( 1986) noted 

th.at lower vegetative strata were alkcted by grazing. 1o 

blackbrusb ( Coleogyne ramosissima) desert .. habitat, 

UDgnZed sites bad sigoificantly more shrub and herbaceous cover Qdfrles & Klopatek 1987). In a bigb·. 

altitude willow nparian communiry in Colorado, grazing 

inlluenced the spacing of plants and the width of the 

riparian zone (Knopf & cannon 1982). 

Grazing removes soil liner, wlticb cari h.ave both 

physical and biological elfects. Schulz and Leininger 

( 1990) observed rwice as mucb liner in an ex closure as 

in surrounding grazed habitaL 1o Oregon. removal of 

soil liner was thougbt to be the cause of delayed plant 

pbenology (Kau1fmm et al. 1983b ), wlticb in tum could 

alfect communities of animal pollinators. 

Racarcbcrs h.ave long recognized that grazing contributes to the deterioration of soil stabillry and porosiry 

and incrases erosion and soil compaction. Sevenry 

yean ail<>. Aldo Leopold (1924)declaral that "grazing is 

the prime factor in destroying watershed values" in Ar· 

izona. Grazing reduces the rougbness codlident of watersheds. resulting in more surface runoff, more soil erosion, and massive flooding ( Ohmart & Anderson 1982 ). 

Grazing in the upper Rio Grande changed plant cover, 

thus locrcosing llasb floods and, consequently, erosion 

(Cooperrider & Hendriclts 1937). As grazing-induced 

gullying lowered the stream channel along an Oregon 

suearn, associated plant communities changed from wet 

meadow to the more xeric sagebrush-nbbitbrush 

(Q>rywtbmnnos) rype (Winegar 1977). Davis (1977) 

concluded that removal of upland ~ctation by livestock wu a major factor in the increase in dev2Stating 

floods. Numerous authors bave noted ccueme erosion 

and gullying when comparing heavily grazed to un~ 

grazed sites (see Conam & Evans 1945; Gardner 1950; 

Kau1fm2n et al. 1983a). Elllion (1960) conduded that 

"as a result of some degree of denudation, accelerated 

soil erosion is ln5eparably linked with overgrazing on 

arid lands the world over." 

Grazing bas also repeatedly been shown to increase 

soil c:ompactlon and thus decrease water 1oflltration (AI· 

derfer & RobinsOn 1949; Orr 196o; R2uzi & Hanson 

1966; Bryant et al. 1972; Rauzl & Smith 19n; Kau1fmm 

a: Krueger 1984; Abde.I-Magid et al. 1987; Onxlbo et a1.· 

1990). 1o arid and semiarid lands wbere water Is the 

primary ecological limiting factor, major losses of water 

from ecosystems can lead to severe descrtllieation. 

Some cootrovcrsy c:ldsts as to wbether livestock grazing 
369 

..,.. the ~ of increased Hooding and erosion or 

wbcther lhe syndlroity of increased ch2Mcl trmching 

and the introduction of vast livestock herds during the 

last century was coinciden!al. Episodes of clwulel 

trmching certainly occurred priOr co the inuoductlon 

of'livestod< (Bryan 1925; KarlStrom &! Karlslrom 1987). 

Moot . bawever, conclude dw, at -die leas~ 

UvestQCI< have been a contributing bctor 10. !be en· 

trmching of stream dwmcl5 In the Sou-(Bryan 

1925; Leopold 1951; Hereford & Webb 1992; lletan· 

court 1992 ). This interaction of cllma'tic, geomorpbic, 

and biological factors has been summarized u • "lrii·. ger·puU": long·tcnn cUmalic trmds were alreody llilder· 

way when c:attle arrived 10 serve "as !he lrigger·puU that 

set ol! an alm1dy loaded wcapoo" (Hastlap 1959). 

Colts oC Grazlag Magnified: Rlpariail.llabbls in· 

the Arid West 

Uvestock, like humans, are adapted to male bablws, 

and they select riparbn areos Cor lhe same: rc:osons we 

do: shade, cooler ccmpetacures, and woier. In addition, 

riparbn areas ol!cr an abundance of food. Mally oboerv· 

ers have noted that cattle spend • ciJsproportlooau: 

amount of their time in riparian zones (Ames 1977; 

Kennedy 1977; Thomas ec a!. 1979; Roath & Ktueger 

1982; Van Vuren 1982; Gillen ec a!. 1984). That Uvt:-

scock actively select riPIU1>ll habl12ts, hownez, is a 

cause for ecological concern beauoe these babiw:s are 

among the biologically richest in · many arid and semi· 

arid regions and are easily damaged. Bccwse livestock 

spend much of their time in riparbn communlllc:s, and 

beauoe the ecological Sl2kcs are highest here, many of 

the ac!verse impaccs of grazing are magnllied In these 

habitits. 

Western riparbn zones are the most productive habit2.ts In North America Qohnsoo et al. 1977), providing · 

essential . wildlife habitat for breeding, wintering, · ind 

migration (Galne. 1977; Stevens ec a1. 1977; Brude & 

Bury 1984; Laymon 1984; Lowe 1985 ). Riparbn habluts 

In the Soulhwe>c are home to the North American eon· 

tinent's highest clcnslty of breeding blrcls ( Carotbers et 

at. 1974; Carothers & Johnson 1975 ), ram~~ forest type, 

and more !han I 00 swe and fedenJ1y Usu:d tbrcatened 

and endangered speclea Oohosoo 1989). Approxi· 

mate1y lhree.quarcers of !be vertebrate specie. In Ari· 

zona and New MexiCO depeod on rlpari2n habitat Cor at. 

1eut a portion of tbeir 11te cycles Qohnson ec a1. 1977; 

Johnson 1989).. Eva~ li<:ZOdpotlan bab1Cll5-a0mlally 

dry corridors that lntermlttendy carry floodwaters 

lbraugh low~ liVe 10 ten dme> the bird 

dmtldes and lpCCies dlvaslty of MUrOWidllla dcxrt up-

- .Onbnoon & Haith• 1985). 

Sadly, tbeoe 1:Jiolotlical ~ are In emane cbn~ 

ger. '!be EnvlronmCotal Protection A&cncy concluded 

that riparian condldonl throughout lhe wesc ""' now lhe ~ in Amerieln biSto<y ( a.ancy· et at: 1990 ). 

Over 90% of Arizona's ongitlal riParian habitat is 800<: Oohnlon 1989). Less !ban 5% of lhe rtpartan habitat in 

Callfomla's Caural Valley =ualns; 85\111 of lbat is ln 

dlaturbed or clegnded coadltion (Franzrd> 1987). '!be 

dcgradalioo of Western ripari2n habltW began with 'se. 

vere overgrazinil In the late Nlneu:eaith Century 

( Oaancy et at 1990). and grazing: remains "the -

inlidlous tbreat 10 the ripari2n habitat ~ tOday" 

(~ 1977). An atcnsl-..: sUrvey of Sou~ rlporian community types eoncluded that " liveslock.lll2)' 

be !be major """"" of~ bobttu dlllurtlotice 'In . 

IDOSI_.....stan rlpariiG. communlde>" (~ 1989). '!be 

~-WIIIIIJn&Ula Joten&cDcr Wlldllte Committee 

(1979), compooed of bloiOtlisU &om SCftrl1 penl· 

meat "'l""dea. eoncluded .lbat gr;u:iDg is !be most im· 

po<mU facto< In tlqp:ad1ns wlldllte and llsberies bObiW 

lhrou&IJout the 11 ·watem - - Ukewlse. eCoiopts In Mootana sugesced that liVestock grullig is !be lllljcit 

owse of bablt2l ~ In most weStern rlpodali 

c:ommunlde> (Mooconi 6: HuttO 1982). . 

ImsiOck aiJect four p:ncnl componea! of rtpartan 

sylleiDS: (I) llraiDSide ft8CWion, ( 2) lttCOID cbmnel 

morpbology~ (3) lbape and quality of !be wa{Cf columD, 

and ( .. ) ~ of screombank 1011 (Platts 1979, 1981, 

1983; KadliDan 6: Ktueger 1984; Platts 6: Nelsoa 1989). 

As SUIIIIIIari2Jed by Platts ( 1981 ). "Gn1Zin8 can a!'ecc !be 

sueamside eovlronmeDt by dwlging. ~or dim· 

lnalln8 'Vqetadon l>or<krln& the stream.'Cbaaad IDOf· 

phology cin be dwlged by accrual of sedlmau, alter· 

atiOa of c:bam!el substnle, disruption' of !be rdadoa Ot 

pools 10 riiiiCs, and widening of !be dlanneL '!be water 

column can be altcrec! by IDcrculng water~ 

nuaientS, suspended selllmen~ boctcrial ~. · 

and In !be liming and volume of~ Uvestock 

can trample streambanks, causing b:anlts 10 iiouaJjl oil, 

creating false ictbad< banka, and apoo1og banks 10 ac· 

cderat<:d soU erosion." . 

Rtparbn vqctatlon Is alcerCd by Uvt:3toek In sevaal 

ways: (I) compaCiion Of soil, which ina'easeS runol! and 

decrc:ues water anllabWty 10 planiS; (2) ~ re· movat. wbicb allows son tCmpa:aturi:ll co rile, -.:by 

intrcaslng enponllon; (3) phylicalllaiJia&e 10 yqela· 

tloo by rubbln& traropliD& and ~ and 4) - - ing lhe grcnnh form of plana by raucm..a tetm1na1 

buds and stimulating lateral branc:hln& (Kaull'mul 6: 

Ktueger 1984; Szaro 1989). Uvestock gr;u:iDg Is oac·o( 

!be ptlndpal &ctors cootrlbullog 10 !be ciCcuae of oa: 

dYe IIOUI.ID _!be West. cattle actlvldcs.apedllly deletertouS .0 1ilh are !be remont of am:r IDd 

!be tnmp!1ng of ow:r-bonpa ltt'i:amboab {Bcbalae • 

Zam 1976). Uvestock baoe been llbowD 10 ~ 

water quality ol - (Diacb 15''10; lluc:il!loule 6: GII10nl 1976). O>anp In water c:baaiocrr (JdrrtC:s' 6: 

Klopalek 1987) and tempenrure (Van Velsoa 1979), In 
effect, create an entirely new aquatic ecosystem 

(Kennedy 1977; Kauffman & Kruc:gcr 1984). lnsighiS 

such as these led c:hc American Fisheries Society to l!sue 

a fonnal position statement calling for an overhaul of 

riparian zone management (Armour et a1 I99i). 

Historical and Managemellt Considerations 

By virtually any measure, livestock gr.ainS bas seriOU5 

ccologica.l Costs in western North America. Grazinl has 

red,uced the density and biomass of many pbnt and ..,. 

lmal Sp<cies; reduced biodiversity, aided the spread of 

o:otic speCies, interrupted ecological ....:casioo, 'im· 

peded the cycling of the most important limiting nutri· 

ent (niuogen), changed habitat suuc:turt:, disrurbed 

community organization, and bas been the. most sevae 

impact on one of the biologically richest habitaiS in the: 

region. While undoubtedly there are o:cq>tiODs to this 

tl)eme of desuuction, dearly much of the: ecological 

integrity of a variety or North American habitaiS is at risk 

from this land management practice. 

In •ddition tO grazing pa se, the indusuy of livestock 

production entails a number of indirect costs to natitt 

biodiversity. Livestock compete with native herbivores 

for fongc ("usurpation") and often consume tbe most 

nutritive species ("highgratling"). FmciDg. which is a 

fundamental livestock ma.nagancnt tool, crcatc:s obsta· 

cles ior many native: wildlife: spe:des, such as the prong· 

hom (Antilocapra americana). 1bc livestock indusuy 

has played a large role: in the elimination of native ~­

ators: some of the most vehement opposition to pr:cda· 

tor reinuoduction continues to come (rom livestock: in· 

tcrests. Exotic species, such as crested wheatgra.SS 

(Agropyron cristatum), are pbnted as "range improve· 

mentS." In addition, livestock can tr2nSnlit diseue to 

native: animals (Mackie 1978; Longhurst c:t at. 1983; 

Menke & Br2dford 1992 ). 

Agency management priorities often overemphasize: 

livestock needs at the expense of wildlife. A recmt Con· 

gression.al study of BIM and Forest Service management 

confinned that wildlife receives only a SID2II percentage 

of available stalling and funding. During fiscal yean 

1985-1989 the BL\1 direCted only 3% of Its total appropriation toward wildlife habitat management, while 

34% or lts budget went to liS three consumptive programs' range, timber, and energy and minerals (U.S. 

General Accounting Ollie< 1991b). WUdllfe az national 

wildlife refuges also sull'en from management emphalil 

on livestock. Cattle gr.ainS and baying occur at 123 

refuges; az any given site these activities occupy up to 

50% of refuge funds and 55% o1 stalf time. Field studies 

Indicated that these livestocl<·rdat<d activities directly 

impeded wildlife conscrvazlon(Strassman 1987). Strong 

agency bi:ts in favor of gr.ainS often leads to contndic· 

tory management decisions. A reccn[ Forest Service 

Vo&umoe ~-8. No. 3. ScptCmbcr .1994 

370 

analysis ol'leDSitiv< v<rtebnte species i<lentified tive. 

stock grazing as one of five factors jeopardizing the 

northern gosbawk (Accipiter gmtilis) in the Southwest 

(Finch 1992). Yet the gosbllWi< management recom· 

mcndations (Reynolds et al. 1992). rdCas<d by the same 

olllce in the: sam<: year, did not even mention gruing. 

Such predilections by agencies rdl<et fimilar bWcs 

within the: range management dilcipline a recent 50(). 

page-- on range management (Holechck et a1 

1989) devotes one paraflri1pb to nongame wildlife. 

A nnery of justlficatioos are beard for grazing in the: 

west: Bccauoe Uvestock bas been sudl a promincnl 

componeat o1 Euro-Amcrican senlcmcnt of the: .west: some obocrvers 11tt It as a traditioDal pastime and as-

!tWDC It is oppropriare for the laDd. Some range managen 

mainl2in that livestock are acrually --, for ecosysocm bcalth, that •grass needs gr.ainS" (Chase 1988; 

Savory 1988). Popu12r claims such as tbc:K are roo<Cd in 

• scientific debate on the: consequmces or bcrbivory on 

grassland ttQOYS<cms. As the "herbivore optimization" 

llypotbesis goes, loos ol tissue to babivores can aetua11y 

iDaeuc total productivity of the grazed pbnL Such a 

response to bcrbivory is "*<red to as "overcomp<nsa· 

lion" by the: pbnt (Owen & Wiqpn 1976; Dyer et a1 

1982). Wber1 dilrercnt levdJ of ecological bicr2rcby (individual. population. community; BdJky 1987) and a 

wide divenlty ol ecosystem rypes, geographic settings, 

and <~epees of management intensity are lumped together into one gencraltzed theory. dariry is lOst. Mucb 

of the evidence for overcompensation comes from 

hlgbly productive and intensively managed systems, not 

from arid rangelands (Banolome 1993). Few 5tUdks 

have demonstrated ovc:n::ompcnsation in western NOrth 

America (Paintet & Belsky 1993), wltcre much of the: 

rangdand reoource is not grassbnd. Obocrvatioos of na· 

live herbivores lend no suppon to the ldea that. compensatory growth bas any relcvaoce at the: community 

level in western ran8eJands (Patten 1993). According to 

Vicari and Bazcly (1993), "thett is Uttle .evtdcnce that 

the act of grazing pa se increases the fitness of gnsscs, 

or any other pbnt species, except under highly spedfic 

circumstances." ~ 

Othc:r scientisiS and range managen suggest that live· 

stock, given their capactry for altertns so many aspects 

bl ecological organization, could be UKd as a wildlife 

management tool (Bokdam o!t Wallis de Vries 1992; 

Hobbs & Hucnnd<e 1992). In 1U11tJ1tafizin8 a symposium oo the topic, Severson ( 1990) c:lartlled tbaz sudl 

appllC2Iions may be very limited, and that what b<Ddlts 

00<: species may prove d<triment21 to anochcr. Jlc:ause 

two species in the same community may nry In tbclr 

response to grazing (Hobbs & Hucnnela: 1992). deter· 

mlnation of liS success or failure as a ~t prac· 

lice depends oo which species is UKd as a criterion. On 

many national wildlife refuges, gr.ainS and baying occur 

with the: rationale that these practices will benefit wild· 
371 

-. ' . . 11&:. Upon review of 123 refuges. SlnOSiilan ( 1987) con· 

dueled that "alihough in theory canle gnz;ng·and haying C:2il be: wildll&: 11Wl2gement tools. as implemented 

they arc tools that do more harm than good." 

It is often stated that livestock h2ve merdy taken the 

place cllarge oative herbivores, particuiarly bison (BI· 

son bUon ). The prescttlemmt abundance ol bison on 

the: Great Plains is legendary. W<St of the Rocky Moun· 

tain.s, however, bison were rare or absent in Holocene 

times. The spcdc:s was prc:scnt in the northem Rockies 

region. marginally present along the northern and west· em perimeter of the Great I!Uin (1121l 1981; Mack &: 

Thomp!!>R 1982; Zcvdolr 1988; Van .Vun:n &. . Deitz 

1993) and absent altogether from Arizona (CoCkrum 

1960; Hoftineister 1986), western New Mexico (Boiley 

1971 ), as well~ most of California Oamcson &. Peeters 

1988), and Nevoda (Hall 1946). The native steppe vegetation of mucb ol the Intermountain· West, dwacter· 

izell by cacspitose bunchgnsscs and a prominent microbiotic crust. rdlects the absence ol Iorge numbc:n of 

large-hooved, congregating mammals. Th<:se steppe 

ecosrstems have been particularly susceptible to the: 

introduction of livestock; microbiotic austs. as mentioned earuer •. arc easUy damaged by trampling 1ft contrast. the slightly wetter Great Plains gtuslaods, charac· 

tcrizcd by rhizomatous grasses :and a lack ol microbiotic 

crusts, were well-adapted to withstand hcrtJivorY by 

lar,ge ungulates (Stebbins 1981; Mack a: Thompson 

1982). Theoretically, then, the Great Plains should be: 

~:?cttcr suited to livestock grazifl8 than the arid and semi· 

acid ecosystems west of the Rockies. It should also be: 

noted that the ecological analogy between cattle and 

bisOn is incomplete. Cattle, unlike bison, spend a dis· 

proportionate amount of time in riparian habitats. In a 

comparative study of cattle and bison feeding ecology in 

the Henry Mountains, Utah, Van Vuren (1982) noted 

that attic distribution was limited to gentle slopes near 

water, regardless of forage, whUe bison roamed "idely, 

seemingly unalfected by slope or proximity.to water. 

The controversy about flood cyclCs and arroyo· 

cutting. discussed earlier, is but one part of a larger 

controve1'S)' concerning the respective ·roles of dlmate 

clwige and human land usc:-induding livestock graz· 

ing-in cha.ngins; the vegetation of western Nonh Amet· 

ica. The international bordmands ot southern Arlzooa 

and DOrtbem Sonora, Mexico, have been the site cl.the 

moot intensive study ol this;.....,_ The appeannce ol ~ 

Cbtmglng Mlk (Hastlngs &. Turner 1985) almost 1httt 

decades "1!0 promoted the then new Idea that the regloa's dramatic vegetation clwige during the previous 

cc:lltury was due to. incJ:eas1n8 aric1lty-<o oatutal climate c:barlge--«nd oot to human land· usc:· Poncms. u,.. 

IDa pU<s ol photognphs, one blstoric and Qf1C rcccn~ 

~ Cbtmglfll MIH visually docwuented vegetation 

c:baDge aod coacluded that.its cause was an lncteasingly 

arid climate. As for Uvestock, these authors felt the evidencc was somewhat zmbiguous an~ Qlncluded lhat 

livestock alay have contributed to vcgl:Ution Chang<- in 

the region "but have not been the primary agent of 

change" (Hastings & Turner 1965). This work bas since 

been widely quoted by Uvestock interests to support the 

idea that historic overgnzing was overstated and, therefore, to justify the continuation of gnzing in the region. 

Recently vegetation change along the Arizona bottler· 

lands bas received renewed scholarly anention. ·This 

oew work reached a very different conclusion: ''proba· 

bly oo single land usc: bas had a greater dl'ect on the 

vegetation ·{,f SOUtheast!= Arizoria Or bas led tO JDO~ 

cbongcs in · the landsape than livestock grazing rmgi: 

tDliRll(icmcnt programs. Undoubteilly, gniing since tlie 

18701 bas led to soil erosion, destruction cltbooe plants 

lllOSl palatable to livestock, clwigcs in regional fire ecology. the: spread ol both native and allen plants, and 

cbongcs in the age structure of evergreen woodlands 

and riparian forests" (Bahre 1991). Moreover. the new 

analysis (Babrc 1991) States that "the present historic 

evidence ... a.sts serious doubt on the hypothesis that 

a sbift toW2td greater acidity is the primary factor for 

regional vegetation clwigcs." Bahre (1991) agrees that 

clitoatic ooclllations since 1870 have resulted in short· 

term fluctuations in vcgc:tation but insists that long-term 

directional changes, inCluding degradation of riparian 

habitats and spread ol exotic speeies, h2ve resulted from 

human disturbaoccs, induding oversniz;ng. by a.ttle. 

Babrc challenges the condUSions of~ CIHingtng Mile 

on the basis of several factors, including lack ol historic 

evidence to support several key assumptions in the eartier work (for example, that overgrazing had bc:en,prac· 

ticed since the time of the Mexican occupation), and 

that .the majority of historic photOgraphs were taken 

aftw the worst gnzing damage had already occurred. In 

other wottls, ~ Cbanglng Mlk made comparisons to 

the wrong baseline data. For now, the best historic eviden~ seems to support the idea that livestock gnzing, 

interacting with fluctuations in climatic cycles, bas been 

. a primary factor in altering ecosystems ol the Southwest. 

· Human intervention is needed to restore the West to 

ecological health. According to the BL\I's own defini- tion, over 68'% of im lands arc in .. unsatisfactory"' condition (Wald & Albc:nwerth 1989; US. GeaetaJ Ac· 

counting Ollice 1991{1 ). Approximately 464 mJWon 

octes cl·American rangeland have unc1erg<>nc somc.dc· 

gree of desertification (Dregne 1983). AttemptS It restoration cllivcstock-darnaged ecosystems have o«em1 

both good and bad news' riparian areas often sbow npld 

recovery upon removal of livestock, but lliOtt xeric up-· 

lands demonstrate Uttlc Inherent capacity for bealiDg. 

Riparim areas appear to be: relarlvcly res!Uent. lit a Sononn Desert spring. Warren and ADtlcrson ( 1987) 

. documented dramatic recovery ol marsh .aod ~ 

· vegetation within five years cl' liveStock reuicmoL AU 

nine aspects of trout habitat studied aiooi Summit 

.,_,.__ 

Volume I. No. 5. ~ 1994 
37~ 

Crrck. Idaho, impro-'l wilhln two yean ol llvcs<ock 

remoY21 (Keller et aJ. 1979 ). Mahopny Creek. Nevada. 

a)oo showed major improvement in liahcries habitat af. 

ter only two years of aclosurc (Dahlem 1979). Beaver 

and waterfowl returned to Camp Creek, Orqon. within 

~ years ol cattle aclosure (Winepr 1977). However, the oquatic componcDt ol riparian sysccms o~ccn· is 

the quickest to show improvcmcnL Szaro and Pasc: 

( 1983) observed cttrcmdy limited recovery ol a cot· 

tonwood·asb·wlllow uoociation in Arizona alter four 

yon. Knopf and Cannon ( 1982) noted dw a willow 

C!lmmuiuty ..... slower to bCal titan the adjacent stream:· 

10.:.12 years a insullicient for recovery ol the Cormcr. . 

The U.S. Gcnc:nl Accounting Ollicc ( 1988b) recently 

reviewed riparian restoration drons oo BLM and Fora< 

Service lands in the West and concb>Cicd (I) that even 

severely degraded habitaiS can be succeootul!Y restored 

and ( 2) that successful restoration to elate' representS 

only a small fractiQn ol tbc work that needs to be clone. 

They noted that successful tccbnlques nrled considerably from site to site, and that many sites could repair 

thcmsdvcs, given respite from liVestock. Successful ri· 

parian restoration dforu are summariZed 'by the u.s. Gcnc:nl Accounting Ollicc ( 1988b) and Chancy ct aJ. 

( 1990). 

In numerous studies ol riparian (!nZlns Impact, investigators concluded that tOtal rcmoY21 ol liVestock ,.... 

necessary to restore ecosystem bCalth. Alolll! Mahogany 

Creek, Nevada, reductinn in grazing bad .little: bcndlt; 

only a complete rcmoY21 btougbt about habitat im· 

provcment (Dahlem 1979; O>aocy ct aJ. 1990). Ameo 

( 1977) found that even sbort·tcrm or seuonal usc is 100 

much and compared mere reductioos in Uvestoc.k num· 

hers to· letting "the milk cow get in the garden for one 

nigbL" In a recent comparison ol 11 graz1ns sysccms, 

total exclusion of livestock oft'crcd the 5U'Ofi8CSl ccooystcm protection ( Kovak:bik a: Elmore 1992 ). IU Davis 

( 1982) put l~ "If tbc ovay.ozlDg by llveswck Ia ooc: ol 

the main bctors i:ontributilll! to tbc destruction ol the 

babltaL tbcri the solution would be to .. , remove the 

cause of the problem." 

The vut majority ol damaged J:all8Cland acreage is on 

arid and semiarid lands, wltcrc the piOijDOOis for restoration Ia poor (Allen a: Jackaon 1992). To rebobillwc 

arid lands i5 IIOIDewbal anal"'I"US to ayln& to pow a 

garden without water. Perbopo 1>cca..c tbae i5 llalc 

chance ol npicl succc:ao. land """"''F" ban: bcco slow 

to taloc up .the c:llalla,.c ol rator1JJi lrid r&njldaDds. 

Cooperrider ( 1991) DOCcd that "the priaCipal purpooc 

olmoot .......- .-IIltatlon proJects bas bcco 1'0-

toratlon olllvatoc:k. forage. Such project~ typically end 

up redudng.plant and inlmal spec:ics diYcrslty.• Some 

dtylond rcstoradon projeCtl .touted .. sucxcss atorlcs 

(ouch as tbe Vale project in soutbcastcm Otqjon; 

Menke ~BradfOrd 1992}; aaually bi-n: cntalled larac· 

scale plantinls ol.,otic spcdcs. Such activities restore 

livestOCk: forage. DOt native ecosysterru. · · 

Is there an ecologically sustainable future for livestock grazlns In western North America? This ultimately 

is a qucstioa. of buman values, ·not of science. We must 

decide how much we really cue about native diversity 

and CCOO)'ICCill processes and wbat we arc willing to clo 

to sustain them. Ecological science and conservation 

biology bave.a key role to play in bclping society make 

a wise decision. Scientific input into grazing issues bas 

come laden wltb resource extraction assumptions: one 

ol the jximary aoais ol _range management Ia to maxi· 

mizc llvatoc:k procli>ctioo (SCocldart "'Smith_l913; Bell 

1973; Menke & Bradford 1992) or tO "uDproVC the out· 

put ol consumable range Products" (Holccbck ct aJ. 

1989). Gi-.m tbls economic underpinning. tbe ccolog· 

ical merit ol livestock in the West bas gcneral.ly gone 

unchallcngcd. It is time that conservation biologists take 

a an:fullooi< at the most pervasive land usc in western 

North Amertca and scrutinize the practice described as 

"the single most important factor limiting wUdlifc production In tbc West'' (Smitb 1977) and "one of the 

primary tbreata to biolO(!Ical diversity'' (Cooperrider 

1991). Wb!rcvcr decision sodety reaches, it will be a 

wiser, more Informed one II the conservation biology 

community contributes Its insights to the debate. 

This paper bcndlted conslderably from critiques by 

Walt Anderson, Allen Cooperrider, Reed Noss, Mark 

Rlcgner, and an . anonymous reviewer: Jayne Belnap 

!!harcd unpubllsbed data on ayptobiotic soil The 

sllllr of the Prescott Coilcgc Ubrary ·graciously. assisted 

me wltb blbliograpblc work. Eclic Dillon supponed this 

work ln numerous ways; RJvcr Flcischncr kept Jt 

.grounded To all thc!c people f offer my sincere thanks. 

~Cite4 

Abdcl·Majpcl, A. H., M.J. Trllca, and R. H. Hart. 1987. iioU and 

vqjCWioo rapoDSCS to olmulalcd ttomplins. Jouroal ol Range 

Maoajjcmcnt 40:30}-306. 

Aldcrfu, R. B., and R. R. ADbimon. t949. Ruoolrtrom paotun:s 

ill rdallon 10 snzi"'IIDtcmlty and toll c:.,_:tton. }oumal ol 

tbc ArllcriaD Sodc<)' ol Aponomy 39:94~ 

Allen, E. B., and L L }adcloo. 1992. The arid West. 1lc:Ror.Uion 

and-....-. Noca 1~59. 

Ames, c. a. 1977. wu.sur.: coallk:ll 1n riporiao """"'~~=CD~ · 

Gnzlua.Pigcs 49-51 In R. R. }obr>loo aod D. A. }ones. tedmical coonllnaron. imporuDce. prcscrvalioD. _, _. 

ol riporiao boobla~: A oympcolum. GcDen1 Tcdullcal lq>on 

~ 

~3. U.S.- Servlc:e,lloay Moun<ain- md Range 

SCatlon, Fort Colllas, Colondo .. 
Andenon. D. C., K. T. Hupc<. and R. C. Holm~JC!L 1982. Factors inftuencing development of cryptogamic soil crusts in 

UWI d<scrU. jourr121 of Range Management 35•1~185. 

Amtour, C. l., D. A. Dd, and W. Elmore. 1991. lbe dfccts of 

live:stock grazing on riparian and stream ecosystems. fisheries 

16•7-11. 

llabn, C.). 1991. A legacy of change Historic human impact 

on _vcgcu<ion.of the ArizOcU borderlands. UllM:nicy of Ari· 

zona Press, Tucson. ArizOna. 

Bailey, v . 1971. Mammals oflhc Southwestern United Stales. 

Coller PubUalions, New Yorit. RepubUalloo of. Bailey, V. . 

1931. Mammals of New Mexico. North Amcrian Fauna, No. · 

53. Bureau of Biologial Survey. Washlnpon, D.C.. · 

Baker,- D. L, and F. S. Gulhcry. 1990. Elrects of. coalinUQUS 

8f2Zln& on habitat and density of grouod-f<lrlllini · binls in 

soulh Tc:us. jourr121 of Range M:&nagemCI>I 43.:!-5. 

Banolome, J. W. 1993. AppUalion of bcrblvon: optimization 

lhcory 10 rangelands of lhe wcs1crn United SWcs. Ecological 

Apptiations 3•27-29. 

llcboke, R.J., and M. Zarn. 1976. Biolollf and llfal>agcmcnl of 

lhrealcncd and cndangcrcd w=cm UOUIS. Gcncnl Tccbnial 

Rcpon RM-28. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and 

Rangc Experiment StaliOn. Fon Colllns, Colondo. 

8cll, H. M. 1973. Rangeland management for Uvcslock produc· 

don. University of Oldahoma Press, Norman, Oldahoma. 

Sclnap, ). 1993. Recovery 1'2tCS of crypiOblolic crusts• lnocu· 

lant use and 155C:S.Sruent methods. Great Basin Naturalist 

53.S~95. 

Belnap, ). (in p~ ). Potential role of cryploblotic 5011 crusu 

in semiarid rangelands. Pages t-7 in S. B. Monson and S. 

Kilcbcn, editor>. Proceedings oflbc symposium on troiOSY. 

managemcn~ and rcstnmlon of inlcrmoumain annual range· 

lands. General Tcchnial Rcpon INr-XXX. U.S. Forest Service, 

ln1cnnountain Research SWlon. Ogden, UWt. 

Belnap,]., K. T. Hatpcr, and s. D. Warren.' 1994. Surface~ · 

baocc: of c:ryp~obiotic ~ ausu: Ditroge:DaSe activtty, chlorophyll COOleD~ and chlorophyll dql'2dallon. Arid Sot! ReSearch 

and Rehabilitation 8! 1-8. 

Sclslcy, A.J. 1987. The dl'ccu of~ Confounding of ceosystem. community, and organism scales. Amcrlcan: Naturalist 

129·777-783. 

Berry, K. H. 1978. Uvestnck gnzil>& and lhc dac:it tortoise. 

Tf'IOSaCtioas oflhc Nonb American Wlldllre and NaiW'al 1\e-- ICloiii'<:CS Conluencc 43•505-519. 

B~cln, J., C. It Hunacrford, G. L Day, and R. R. Hum· 

pbrcy. 1957. Elkct of. <loa!esdc Jhau>ck acluslon on vcgc-

- In lhc Snnorm Descn. Ec:olosJ 38>522-526. 

Bod<. C. E., ). H. Bod<. W. It KamcJ, and V. M. Hfttbomc. 

11184. llaponoa of.binls, rndcna, and ~.to Uoati>d< 

cscinour< in I ICIDldcscn J!rUSiand aile. )Oumal ofllangc Man· 

~ 37.:!'19-2·2.· 

Bock. C. E.,j. H. Bock. and H. M. Sntilh. 19934 Proposal lor a 

syacm of fedcnl livestock cxdosures on public nngelands in 

the wes~cm United States. Conscrr.i.tidn Blolo8f 7:731-'733. 

Bock. C. E .. V. A. Saab. T. D. Rich. and D. S. Dobkin. 1993b. 

Elrects of Uvescock puing on Seouopial migratoty landbilds 

in western North America. Pages ~309 in D. M. Fincb and 

P. W. Stangel, edilon. ScaN> and management of Ncouopial 

111i8t210fY binls. General Tccbnial Rcpon RM-229. U.S. Fon:st 

Service. 11octty Mounwn Fora< and Range Experiment Station. Fon CoiUns, Colol'2do. 

Bolalam,J., and M. F. Wallis de Vries- 1992. fol'2gc quality u a 

llmilin& bclor lor aale puing in isOlated Du1cb na111r<: «:· . 

IICn'el. Conservation BioiOSY 3~: 

11owa1. B. S., and A. D. KruSe. 1993. Ell'cct> of puing on ncstiaa by upland sandpipers in soulhcentr.!l North Dakota. Jour· ... of Wlldllr. -Management 57•291-301. 

--. W., B. Hoo(otd. A. Oakley, and C. Bond 1979. Wlldllr. 

babials In managed......- Grot Basin of SOUtbcast· 

ern Orqon. Native UOUL General Tccbnial Rcpon PNW-34. 

U.S. Fora< Service, Pacific Nonbwcst Forest and Rangc fxpcl· 

iment SWlon, Portland. Oregon. 

B1'211y, W. W., M. It Slrombclg. E. F. Aldon. C. D. llonbam, and 

S.H. l:lcmy. 1989. Response of a scmldcscn J!rUSiand to .16 

yean of. rest from puing. Jounial of Rangc Managcincnt 

42.:!84-288. 

Brode, j . M., and R. B. Bury. 1984. The i1Dpon2n<:<: of. rtpar1att 

S)'SICUIS 10 amphibians and reptiles. Pages 3G-36 In R. E. 

Warntt and K. Hendrix, editors. c.Jifornla riparian S)'SII:ms' 

EcolOSY. Comervation. and prOductive managcmcnL Untvcrlily of Callfornia Press, Bcrl<cley, CaUfomJa. 

Btym, K. 1925. Dale of c:lwlncl~renching (arroyo cutting) in 

lbe arid Southwest. Science 62>3~344. 

Btyan~ F. T., R. E. Blaser, and j . R. Pcceroon. 1972. Elkct of 

tnmpling by anle oo blucgra.ss yield and soU compaction of 

a Meadowvllle Loam. Agronomy Joumal64•331-334. 

· Bucllhowc, j .C., and G.F. Gilford. .1976. Wucr quality impU· 

a.Uoas of atdc grazing oo a seml·arid waccrshcd in lOUth· 

eos<cm UWt. Journal ot Range Mallagcmcnt 29•109-113. 

lk&sack. S. 0 ., and R... B. Bury. 1974. Some dfects of a«-~ 

vdlicles and sb<ep JP'ZZin8 on lizard populalioas In the Mojave 

Desert. BiologiCal Conservation 6•1 ~183. 

Campbell. F. T. 1988. Tbc dcscn ronobc. Pages 567-581 Ill 

W.J. Clw>dlcr, cdllor. Audubon WlldUfc Report 1988'1989. 

Aademk: ........ San DlCJ19, Callfomla. 

Cuolbcn, s. w. 1977. Imporunc:c, ~and--· 

MCOI of rtparlatt bablws, An ovuvicw. Pages 2-4 Ill L It 

~and D. A. }OIICI,ICCbnial coordiDaron.llpponan<C. 

~and IJW>I8CIIICOI of ripartoD - ·A- lium. Gcntnl Tcchalcal Report .RM-43. U.S. . Fora& Scmcc, 

Rocky Mounaln Forest and Range ~ SWIDa, Port Collino, Colondo. . 

.,_.__._ 

V._I,No.3. ....... 19H 
374 

Catolhcrs, S. W., and R. R. johmon. 1975. Water mmagcmcnt 

practices and their effects on nongame birds in range habitatl!i. 

Pages 21~212 in D. R. Smith, editor. Proceedings of the symposium on management of forest and range habiratS for nongome birds. General TcchniaJ Report W0-1. U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C. 

Caro!hcrs, S. W., R. R. Johnson, and S. W. Aitchisoo. 197•. Population suucrure and 50dal orpnization of Soutbwestcm ri· 

parian birds. Amcrian Zoologist 14"17-108. 

Chaney, E .. W. Elmort:, and W. S. Platts. 1990. Livestock grazing on western riparian areas. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agmcy, Region 8, Denver, Colorado. · 

Chase:. A. 1988: lUnge revolutionary: Alston Chase meetS radical environmentalist Allan Savory. Conde Nast's Traveler 

23,~6-<i2. 

Clements, F. E. 1916. Plant succession: An analysis of the de· 

vclopmmt. of vcgc.:alion. Carnegie Institute of Washington 

Publication 242:1-512. 

Cockrum. E. L 1960. The recent mammals of Arizona: Their 

taxonomy and distribution. Univcrsiry of Arizona Press, Tucson. Arizona. 

Cole, D. N. 1990. Trampling disturbance and recovery of cryptogamic soil crusts in Grand Canyon National Park. Great Basin 

Naruralist 50:321-325. 

Cole. 0.1\'.. and J.L Marion. 1986. Wilderness campsite im· 

pacts: changes over time. Pages 144--151 in R.C. Lucas, compiler. Proceedings-national wilderness research coofcrcnce:: 

current research. General Technical Report INT-212. U.S. Forest Service. Intermountain Research St2tion, Ogden. Utah 

Cooper. C. F. 1960. Changes in vegetation, stnR:tUre, and 

growth of southwestern pine forests since white settlemcnL 

Ecological M.onognphs 30:129-164. 

Coo~rrider, A. 1991. Con.sct'V2tion of biodiversity on western r.mgelands. Pages 40-53 in W. E. Hudson, ~to!'. Un~ 

linbge> and biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 

Cooperrider, C. K... and B. A. Hendricks. 1937. Son erosion and 

sireamflOW" on range and forest lands of the upper Rio Grande 

watershed in relation to land resources and human wel&re. 

TechniaJ Bulletin ~67. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 

Cottam, W. P., and F. R. Evans. 19.5. A comparatlve study of 

the vegetation of grazed and ungrazcd. canyons of the Wasatch 

Range, Utah. Ecology 26,171-181. 

Council for Agricultural ScicDce and Tecbnology. 1974. Uvestock. grazing on federal lands in tlx: 11 watem states. journal 

of Range Management ;n,l74-181. 

Crouch, G. L 1982. Wlldllf<: on ungrazcd. and JnZCd bottom· 

lauds on !he Sou!h Platte River, oortbcostcm ~- Pages 

1~198 in L Nelson,). M. Peck and P. D. Daiice, editon. Proceedings of tbe wildllfc-llYCSto<:k n:latlonsbipo sympooium. 

Forest Wildlife, and Range E:<pcrimcnt Scation, Unlvcrsity of 

Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. 

,_,;....-

v-..e a. No.3.~ 1994 

Crumpaek<r, D. W. 1984. Regional liparian research and a 

multi-university approach to the special problem of liveStock 

grazing in the Rocky Mountains and Great Plains. P:a8c:s 413-

422 in R. E. Warner. and K.. Hendrix, editors. California riparian systems: Ecology, conservati~n, and productive. managemcnL University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 

Dahlem, E. A. 1979. 1bc Mahogany Creek watcrsbcd-wi!h 

and wttbout grazing. Pages 31-34 in 0. B. Cope. editor. Proceedings of !he Fo~ and riparian/stream ecosystems. Trout Unlimited. Denver, Colorado. 

D'Antonio, C. M., and P.M. Vitousek. 1992. BioiogiaJ inva· 

sions by exotic sruscs- !he gtUSIIIn: cycle. 2nd global change. 

Annual R<:vlew of Ecology and Syucmatics 13.63--4'17. 

Davis, G. A. 1977. Management altenwiva for the ripari2n 

habitat in tbe Soutbwcst. Pages 5~7 in R. R. )obmon and 

D. A. ]oaa, technical coorditwon. Importance, preservation, 

and lllllllllg<DICDt of liparian habitat' A sympooium. Gcneru TcchniaJ Report RM-43. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Ijorc:st and Range bpcrimcnt Station. Fort Collins, Colorado. 

Davis,J. W. 1982. Uvcstodc vs.. riparian habiw managementthere are solutloos. Pages 17S..I84 in L Ncboa,). M. Peek, and 

P. D. Daiice, editors. Proceedings of !he wildlife llvestock n:la· 

tlonsbipo sympooium. Forest, Wlldllfc, and Range Experiment 

Station, Univenity of ldabo, Moscow, Idaho. 

Dicoch, 5.L 1970. Disease transmission of waterborne orpn· 

isms of animal origins. Pages 26S..285 in T .L Willticb and G.E. 

Smith, eels. Agricultur:ll practices and watet quality. Iowa State 

University Preis, Ames, I.,.._ 

Drqne. lL E. 1983. ~cation of arid lands. Harwood Ac· 

adcmic Publisbcrs, Chuc, Switzerland. 

Dull. D.A. 1979. Riparian habitat n:covcry on Bit! Cn:ck, Rid\ 

County, Utah. Pages 91-92 in 0.8. Cope. editor. Proceedings 

of the ~ and riparianl5tteam ecosystems. TrOut 

Unlimited. Denvet, Colorado. 

Dyet, M. L, J. K. DetiiJ1S, D. C. Coleman, and D. W. Hilbert. 

1982. 1bc role of bcrbm>rcs in snssJand. Pogcs 22s-261 in 

]. R. Estes, R.J. Tyri. and J. N. Brunken, editors. Grasses and 

grasslands. University of Oldahoma Press, Nonnan, Oldahoma. 

Elli5on, L 1960. In1lucnce of gazing oo plant succession ol 

rangelands. Botanlc:al Review 26, 1-78. 

Finch, D.M. 1992. 1bmucncd, emangcred, and vulnerable 

species of tcrrcsuial vertcbnra in !he Rocky Mountain Rc· 

8ion. Gcncnl Tc:cbnic:al Report RM-215. U.S. Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range bpcrimcnt Scation, Fort 

Collins, Colorado. 

Fnnzn:b, K. E. 1987. PenpectiYCS on JDalla8in8liparian eco- sys<cmo for·~ bird species. Wes<em Binb 18,3-9. 
375 

-fricdd. M. H. 1991. bnp: condition...........,, and lhc: cone<pt ofthreshoklo: A Y!ewpoint.)oumal of Range Management 

44:422-426. 

Games, D. 1977. The ..Uey riparian forests of Callfomla: Their 

imporw>ee to bird popuWions. Pa&<s.57-85 in A. Sonds. cd· 

itor. Riparian fo=t> in Callfom1a: Their ccolotll' :oncl conscrYUioa. Institute of Ecolo1IY Publlatioo No. 15. lt>stirutc of 

Ecolotll'. Ut!iversity _of CaiJfomia. Davis, CaiJfomia. 

Gordner, J. L 1950. E8c:as of tblny yean of protection !rom 

gruiilg in dactt gruslaDd. EcoiOIY 31:44-50. 

Gillen, R. L , W. C. Ktuqjer, and R. F. Mlller. 1984. Ca(de distribution on mounWD raDRCland in not'thcastcm. Oregon. 

Journal of Range M2nagcmcnt 37:541>-5H. 

Gllnsld, R. L 1977. ~ anddlstrlbutlon ofsycamora 

aod c:oaonwood treeS illool Sonoita Cn:dc. s ..... CNz Coumy, 

Arizona. Pages 166-174 in R. R.Jobmoo and D. A. )oocs, tech· 

nical . coonllottors. J.mponancc, psacrvatioil. and maJ128C· 

IDCIIt of riparian babiW: A syaipooium. Gcacnl Tecbnial k· 

pon RM-43. U.S. Fotest Scrvicc, Rocky MOUDtain Folest and 

Range ~t SWioa. Fon Colllas, Colorado. 

Gould. F. W. 1951. Gruscs oftbe IOU~ Uoltcd Stata. 

University of Arizona Press, Tucsoa., Arimaa. 

Hall. E. R. 1946. Mammals of Nevada. UDIY<IIIty of Collfomia 

Press. Berkeley, California. 

Hall. E. R. 1981 . The mammals of Nonb America, 'POl 2. 2nd 

editiOn. Jobn Wiley and Sons, New Yollt. 

lhrpcr. K. T., and R. L Pcndlctoa. 1993. Cyaaoboctcria and 

cyonoticbcns: ean· they cubaoce lnllablli<y of-- mlilcnls for higllcr plants? Great - Natunliot ~3 51>--n: · · 

Hastings. J. R. 1959. Vegetation cbange and :u-royo 'cutting in 

southeastern Arizona. Journal of the ArizoDa Academy of SCI· 

cnce 1:60-67. 

Hastings, J. R., and R. M. Turner. 1965. The C1wJsin1 mile: An 

ccolop:al S<Udy of vegeadoo clwtge wltb dmc: in tbc - mile ot an arid and 5CIDiarid tqlon. ·uru.-ry .of Arizooa 

Press, Tucson.~ · 

Hereford, R., and R. H. Webb. 1992. llbtoric variation of 

warm-season ralnbl1, .OUtbcm Colo,_ Platcou. Soumw.:st· em US.A. Climallc Chan&e 22:231>--256. . 

Hobbs, R. J., and L F. HuctiDdlz. 1992. D1stutb1t>c:e. dlvatlty, 

and invooioa: lmpllcadoal fo< ~ Cooocrvu1on Bi· 

olotll' 6:324-337. 

HoiiiDciSocr, D. F. 1986. Mamaial& o( ~ Uoinnlty of 

Arizooa Pras, TUclol\, Arbona. 

llolecbck, J. L, R. D. Plcpct, and C. H. Helbd. l989. -._ 

__... Principia and pracdC:Ca. Pratlc:e-Hall, i!np:· 

woodOltlii,Ne.-ja!M!y. 

H-, K.J, and K. L ~ 1980. The - of llbccp 

·IIOddailcOdoo--.-and-

-11!-a-...... ....-.Joumal of Applied 

f.cDicsr 17:361>--387. 

James. D. W .. and J_.J. Jurinalc. 1978. Ni-!crtillmion of 

dominant plant> in the nonltcaJ~cm Great Buin Desert. Pa&<s 

2 19-231 inN. E. West and}. Skujins. edirors. Nitrogen in des· 

en ccosystcms. Dowden. Hutchinson. and lloso. Inc .. Saouds- bu"' Pennsylvania. 

jameson. E. W., Jr., and H.J. Pcctcrs. 1988. California_,, malo. UnivCISity of Califomia Pras, Bcrlcdey, Callfomia. 

Jd!'fies, D. L, andJ. M. Klopotdc. 1987. Elkctsofsnzil>lon lhc: 

vcgewioo of die blackbrush ...odotioD. joumal of Raaac 

Managemcni 40:39()-392. 

Jepson-IDDcs, K., and C. E. Bock.-1989 .. Rapoaoe-ol..-,oppcrs ( <Jnhoptcn: Acridldoc) to Uvestodc snzU>3 in IOUtbc;aot' 

em . ArizOna: Dift'erenccs bcrwec:D seuon.s and subfamWcs. <>ecoJosia 78:430-431. . . . . 

)olw>oco,J. R., S.lt. ltusbli:>nb, and). D. Broibcnoa. 1981 .. Subaerial alpc of Navajo Nllloaal Monumctll, Arizona. Great Ba· 

ain Nownlllt 41~3H39. 

)ohoaon, A. s. 1989. The - - Unc: Rlporiar) corridors and .-,...ccl opecica iD Arizooa and New Mcalco. Pages· 

3s-461DG.-.-.JD-of.wtldllfc:Praer<· 

in& coaimunltics and cotridon. Dda1dcrs of Wlldll!e, Waoll· in&ton. D.C. . 

Jobmoa, H. B., and H. S. MaycuL 1992. VlewpoiD~ A - on 

spcdca --and - and tbc boloDce o( tww'C. joumal of Raaac ~ ·~ 32l-353. 

)ohoaon, lt. R., and L T. llalFL 1985. Avian- ofltcrortporlao 

CCOI)'IIam iD tbc Nonb AtDeriaa -...em delcna. .....,. I 56-- 160 In R. R. Jobmoo, C. D. ZldJdl, 0 . R. Pllma, P. F. FrDU-. and F •. H. Homre, tcdmial ~ IUportln CCOI)'IIam 

and - .........,_,., ~ CXIIIIIICUa& UICS. Geocral TcdmialllcportRM-120. US. Forcar-, Rocky Mouatain 

- and ._ Eltperimcm Stallon, Fan Colllas, ColonOO. 

Jobnoon, ll.lt., LT. flol&bt, and J. M. Slmpooa. 1977. --

gercd opccica .._ .-,...ccl bob!_: A~"-611-79 iD lt. R. Jobmoo and D. A. Jonca, tcdmial c:oordlnarOn. lm· 

·_.,c. prcacrvadoo, and ..,..,...,..,t of riplrlatl- A 

sympoSium. Geocral Tcdmialllcport RM~3- US. Forcar Service, Rocky Mountain Forcar and·.Jian8c ~ Stallon, 

Fan ColliDs, Colora<lo. 

Jones, K. B. 1981. Elkcts of .,....;. on llzanl lbuadaoc>c and 

dlnnlty in watcm Arizooa.- Natunliot 26.107- 115. 

jOt>CS, K.B.- 1988. ~ ol~ of a aatura1 

and -11parim--.....,. 22l-2Z7 iD R. c. Saro, K. E.~ and O.ll. Pllma, tedlakaJ. _ _ ....,_ 

._...of llllpblbl-. repcila, lad-_ ... _ -America. Gcacnl Tcdmial ll<port 11M I~. US. Forcar Scr· 

o:k:c, _,.--aDd'._ l!llpcl6caa,......... Fan CoWDo, Colondo. 

KmMrom, E. T.; and T. N. V. K1r1aaom. lll87. !.-< Ql.a- aary llhmll blstqry of tbc AtDcdcaD w--a poc:c:io · pondlpD. Gcolos!' U:ll8-89. . . 

Kaull'mm,J.ll., and w. c.~. ll'K Jmotoct._ .. ripotlan~and----~ 

. A rmew. )oumal of._~ 3'M30-437. . 
376 

~J .. B., W. C. Kruqcr, 'and M. Vavra. 1982. ~of 

a We 5C250fl grazing scheme on nonpme wUc1Ufe in a Wallowa Mountain riparian ~cosystcm . Plges 208-220 in L Ncl· 

son. J. M. Peek. and P. D. Dal.kc. editOrs. Procecdiogs of the 

wildllfc·livestoc.k relationships symposium. Forest. Wildlife, 

and Range Experiment Station. Univcniry of Idaho, M05COW. 

ld>ho. 

Kaull'nun,). B., W. C. Klu<J!ct. and M. Vavra. 19834 impacu of 

canlc on sucamban.k:s in northczstcm Oregon. Journal ol 

Range Management 36o68~5. 

Koulfman.J B., w. C. Klu<J!er, and M. Vavra. 198311 El!cas of 

btc seaSon cartl~ gru:ing on riparian plant comm!Jilidcs. Jour'· nal of Range Managem<nt 36o68~1 . 

Keller, C. R., and K. P. Burnham. 1982. lUpatian falclo8. llfU· 

ing. and trout habitat prcfttenee oo. Summil: Creek. I~ 

North Amenan Journal of Fl5heries Managcma>t 2"~59. 

Kennedy, c. E. 1977. Wildllfe conllicu in np0,m. """"''<· ment' Water. Pages 52-58 in R. R. Johnson and D. A. )oDes, 

technical cooniinators. lmponanc:c, pre:sct'\'2tioQ aod mmapmcru of riparian babital: A symposium. Geocnl Tccbnk::al 

Repon RM-43. U.S. Forrn Service, Rocky Moun- Fora1 and 

Range Experiment Station, Fon Collins, Colondo. 

Kleiner, E. F .. and K. T. Harper. 1972. EavirontiXDI and <x>m· 

muniry organization in grwlands ol Canyoalaods Natioaa1 

Park. Ecology 53,229-309. 

Kleiner, E. F., and K. T. H.._. 1977. SoUpropertialn rd21ioG 

to ayptogamic groundcovcr in. CaayoolaDds Naliooal Park. 

Journal of Range Manas=cnt 30'202-205. 

Knopf, F. L. and R. W. Cannoa. 1982. SauctunJ ralllencc ala 

wtUow riparian conunuruty to t:lw1Jes In llfUing pnctlccs. 

Pages 19&-207 in L Nelson,). M. Pttlt. and P: D. Dalke, edt· 

tors. Proceedings of the wUdUfc: liv~ rela.tionsbjpe symposium. Forest; Wlldllfe, and Range bpcrimeot sauoa, Uruvnsicy of Idaho. Moscow, Idaho. 

Kovalchik, B. L , and W. Eliuore. 1992. El!ccts ofanle grazin& 

systems on willow~om.inaled pbnt assoc:tadom ln central 01'· 

<J!On. Pages U1-119 in W.P. Cl.ary, E. E. McAnllut, D. Be· 

dunah, and C. L Wambol~ compUers. Pl<>ceedlngs ot the >ym· · 

posium on ecology and management of riparian shrub 

communities. Genenl Technie:al Repon INT-289. U.S. Forest 

Service, 'Intermountain R.c:scan:h Station, Ogden, Ulab. 

LayCock, W. A. 1991. Suble Stales and thraboklsofnnge con· 

clition oo Nonh American rangelaads' A vi""J))ial. Joumal of 

Range Management 44,427-433. 

~ 

lltymotl, S.A. 1984. Riparian bini community 5IJUCtW'e and 

Dog Island, Red Jllul!, CalilonUa. f'a8es 587-597 la 

R.E. Warner aod K. Hcadrbt. editors. callfomia rtporlaa .,.._ 

cems: ecology, conscnation, and proclu<:tM manaacmmt- Uoivenlry al CaiJI'omia Presa. BcrltdOy. 

Leopold, A. 1924. Gnsl, bnuh, tlmbcr, and lire lD IOUtbem 

Arizona. Journal al Forestty 22:1-10. R<print<d Ins. I;-

aod J. B. C&llk:oa, editors. 1991. lbe river al tbe - al 

~~ tlCbcr essays. UniverSity ofWIICo.- P!ao, Madboo, 

~ 

t.c<;>pold. A. 195 . lound Rlvcr. Oxford Uttivcnity Presa. Nc:w 

Yorlt. rkW edition published 1991 by NonbWord Presa, Mi· nocqua. ·Wisconsin. 

Leopold. L B. 1951. Vegetation of 50Utbw<:scro W2tenbccb in 

!be nincteemb ceneu<y. Gcognphial kriew ·U:295-316. 

L1q1nant, W. M.. It E. HateNdd. aoc1 G. E. CoanoUy. 1982. 

Deet-u.atodt rclallooship5 in tbe Wcs<cm-... f'a8es ~ 

420 in L Nelson,). M. Pttlt. and P. D. Dalke, edlt<>r$. Pl<>ceedlnp of tbe Wilclli.-,-tl•.-a<od: tdatioaships symposium. Forest. Wildllfc, and Range Eltpcriment Station, Uoivet3ity ofld>ho, 

Moocow, ldabo. 

~'II'. M., A. L'l.apcnDcc, M. Mone.llJ. MKidc. D. L Neal, H.~. D. Swidtard, P. T. Tladlcr,'P.). Umess,-aod 

). D. Yoololm. 1983. Uva~od: alld Wild UJl8Uialea. Pajjes 42-61 

iD J, W.- <dl-. ~ ol tbe wodtlbop oo U..· 

-""" Spttiol --~ ... tbe Gfa1 Basin. l'llbllalloo ~301. ~ al Apicultural SdeDca, 

I.Jalftnity al CaiMomla, Bcatoolcy, cal-. 

IDwe, c.H. 1985. Amphlbiaas aod tq>tilcs in Soudrwat riparIan ea>oyStemS. Pajjes 359-341 In R.ll J-. CD. Ziebell, 

D.ll PaDoo, P .F. FoWon. and F.H. ~. teebDIC:al coordioa· 

ron. llporiiiD ecooy1ltttlll and - ......._.,~ recoaclllDg c:oalllc:da8 ...._ Gmenl Tecbolal Rcpon RM·I20. U.S. for. 

est Semele, lodty Moun- Fotc!o aDd Range EltpcrimeDt 

-. Fori'CoWm, Colorado. 

Loopc, W. L, mel G. F. Gilford. 1972. IIIIIUCDC10 ala soU microlion! auot Oil odect- ot lOlls uader piayoo-juolper iD ..,..-., Utab. )oumal al SoU and Watt <:onoan11oo 

Z7:164-167. 

~LN. 1981. bmoslon al B"""w- L into wat· 

cro North ~ All <COiofP<:al cbronick. Apo-Ecooyslcma 

,,145-165. 

Mack, LN., aod J. N. "'bompooa. 1982.. Evolutioo in steppe 

with few large, booved mammals. American Naru·rallst 

119:757-773. 

' Maddc. Jlj. 1978.1mpocu of Uvaroclt ........ oo wild UOI!U· 

lates. Trmsactioao allhc Nonh Amc:rican Wlklllf<: and Natwal 

~~aoun;,. Confaence 43,-162-476. 

Medin, D. E., aod W. P. Clary. 1989. Small mammal populations 

in 

Paper 

a pu<d 

1NT -413

and 

. 

liD8fiZed 

U.S. Fotc!o 

rtporlaa 

Scrvicc, 

habitat 

IDtCI'IIIOWUain 

la Ncvoda. 

11aean:b 

~ 

Station, Ogden, Utab. 

Menke, J, mel G. E. Bradford. 1992. llaDgelandl. Agrtculn=, 

EcosyRcms, and Eavironmc:at 42:141-163. . 

Moocool, S. L, IDd R. L Huno. 1982. lbe dka altlfliZIDI oo. 

tbe laod bUds of a westcm Mooboa rtporiaD -. ...... 

221-233la L Neboa,J. M. ..-, aod·P. 0 . Dllloe, edlron. ProC«diap al tbe ---rclatioall>lpo oympooklm. U.S. Forest, Wlldllk, and Range EspcrimaJo SWion, Unl'f<lllly 

alldabo, Moocow, Jciabo. 

otua.c,Jt D,oad B. W. Alldenoc1. 1982. NonbAmerlaockocrtrlporiaD_ ...... 43~791DG LBcodcr,­

--00 tbe-.. al Nonb Amc:rla. Grul> wood Praa, WcstpOft, CoanecticuL. 
377 

-

Ooqoa-WIIIIIiDI<Oa Ill~ Wlldllfe Committ= 1979. 

~ riplrian <cosyslCJDS fo< 1111> and - in ...cern .. Orqon and COSicm WaslliJ>IIlOR. Orqon·Waslling<oo ID!Ct2· 

amcY Wildlife Committee, available from Wallington Stare 

Library, Olympia, WaobingronOrodbo. A. B .. M.J. Trlica, and C. D. Boabom. 1990. Loog-lcrm 

.....,......,. dl'ttu oo oo11 and .....-in die Four Coenen rqion. Sou-.:m- 35.9--1~ . 

Orr,IL K. 1960. Soli poroolty and bulk dcmity on JlnZcd and 

proccacd Kemucky bl._-.._in !be Bladt Hllls.)oumal 

of ... Maoqcmcul 1,_. 

<>-mJre. T. G. 1963. The dkas ot JIRZUII.upoo bab1W 1111-

Uzadoa oldie cllc:l<c*el (Spt.... -}and Bell's YlrcO 

(Virlo !M/111} in nonbcemrol oo- Ph.D. dlsscnatlol>. 

Oldaboma SWc UOI'Rnily, Sdllwuc<, Oldaboma. 

Reed, P., G. Haas. F. Ileum, and L Sherrick. 1989. Non· 

rcaa-.:.1 ,_ oldie NuionaJ llVUdcmcss i"rcscrnlloo - tcai: A 1988 1dcpboac ourvcy. P2&<> 22~228 in H. FrciJid.. 

compiler. Wilclcmcsa bcncluDatl< 1988: Procccdb>p ollbc notional wtldcrncss colloquium. GcDcnl Tcchnk:al 11cpon SE51 . U.S. Forest Scrvlce. Soulhaslcm Fotat. &pcrimcm Station. AsbcvWc, North CaroUna. 

ltqDolcb. R. T .. R. T. Grabam. M. IL Reiser. R. L -.._ P. L 

Kau>cdy, D. A. Boyce:. G. Goodwin. R Smith. and E. L filhcr. 

1992. ~· rccommcndaDoas fo< lbc .-.. - - iD the IOU-.rtl United SWcs. GcDcnl Tcdmial llqJon IIM-217. U.S. Focac Scn1cc. llocky MOUDDID Forcst 

md ._ Elq>crlmallSadoo. Foot CoiUns,·eo-. 

ac,nok1o, T. D., md C.IL Troot. 1980. The .fCIPOIIIC of"nad,.,; 

- populations 10 cn:stcd wbC21 ...... plaoliDg ond 

....... ..,. sbccp. )oumal olJtaaac Maaq<mcnt· 33:122'-125. 

a..lh. L R., aad W. C. Jtrucsu. 1982. Caalc ....... la8ucocc o-.>_ D. F., and R. G. Wlqcrt. 1976. Do C'OCI5UZIICn muJmlz<: 

planr llmc:sa!.Qikoo :z?-2. . Oil • - rtpod&ll """'· )Quraal' of ... ~ 

Painter, E. L , and A.). Bdoky. 1993. Applk:adoo olbcrbiw>rc 

optimlDlloo theory to r.llljiCW>cb ol tbc' WCS1C111 UOilcd 

SWcs. Ecolopcal Applk:adoos 3:l-9. 

!'men_ D. T. 1993. Hcrblwn: optimiDIIoo and cnercompell- -= Docs -"" babloory 00 ........... I'1IQICiands suppon lbcsc theories! Ecolotlial Applk:adoos 3:35-36. 

!'bas, w.s. 1979. u.acoc:k ....... and tlplt-=n ceo- .,...,..._, ~ . ...... 39-15 ID 0 . B. Cope, cdlto<. Procccdlnp ot dlc forum--.srozin& and riplrialllstre1111 ccooystcms. Trout UnlinUtcd. Dcmu, . 

Platts, w.s. 1981.1D1luc:oce of- and .._land 111l1018"-

mcnt oa anadromous filb babkat iD Water~~ Nonh Amcria.. 

No. 7. EJrccls ol Unstod< sruin8. GcDcnl Tedlnlal R<pon 

PNW-Il~. U.S. Forest Service, Padlk: Nonbwcsl Forest and 

Rmgc Expcrimcol SWioo. Portland. OrqJoo. 

!'bas, W. S. 1983. VCJC121io<l rcquin:tDcms fo< llsherics babiua. ...... IM-188 inS. B. MomcD and N. Sbaw, editors. Man-

'8inl IDicrmoullllin ~ ot .._ and 

wiJdll(e bablws. GcDcnl Tcd>nlalltcpon INT-157. U.S. Forest~ locc:rmountalD - and ... U:pcrimcnl Sta- tion, Ogdc:n, UtOb. 

Platts, W. S., and It L Ncboo. 1989. Olanctaisllcs of dpariao 

plant 

~ 

communlllcs and-wtlh _. 10 grazing 1o 

U!Ob. ...... ~I lnR. E. Gn:swdl. B. A. llsftoo. 

and ). L K<nbacr, -.. l'rtlcllc:al opproocbc:s 10 riplrian 

raou.rce =r 8 K· AD educaUoaal WCI'bhop. Bureau of 

lad .............,.lliiiiDp, Monlllla. 

Qult>n. M.A., and D. D. WaJaatbocb. 1990. ID8ucncc ol gnzing 

blaiAxy 00 !be c:ommualty IIUIIClUn: ot ~Jl~S~boppcn ol • 

mb:cd-arus praldc. En.uonmcntal Entomology 19:1756-

1766. 

llauzl, F. and C. L Hoaooa. 1966. Water iDiake and runolr as 

~~~~'ectal..,. -,ot~)ooamalol--~ 

19-.351-356. . 

llauzl, F. md F.M: Smtih. 1973-IDIIltradOa rucs; lbrec IIOils 

- ..._ gnzinglc;ods ID--.., ~.}ourtiOI ol ._ .._..... Z6.126-129. 

35:100-103. . 

ltummd, R.5. 1951. SOme dl'ttu olllvcolodt ....... Oil--

- p1Dc fot<sl ...S ......, In cco!nl WaolliDplo. Ecology. 

32:5~7. . 

Rycbcn, R. C., J. Slaljina, D. 5orcDscn_ and D. Fon:dla. 1978. 

Nilr<Jtal ll:allon ..,. lidlcoa and fn:c' Uvfng ltllcroolpllllm In 

dcscns-· ...... ~30 ID N.E. WCR mdJ. Sialjlna. editors. Nl-

- In clcac:rl ccooy-. Dowdca, HutcbiDson, and R.ooa, IDe.., StroudsburJ, l'alalyiYmiL 

Sampsori_ A. W. 1919. Plant 1UCCCS51on in rd2tloo 10 ....... 

- Bullclln 791. u.s. 'Dcpsnmcot ol AplcUitutt, 

Wasbinpla. D.C. 

Sorory, A. 1988. Holistic raourcc Jllalla8CD1CDL illaDd Pras, 

WasbiDp>n. D.C. 

Schulz, T. T., md W. C. LciniDgcr .. 1990. Dtlfcrcnccs in dparian 

--..n.c:twe bctwccn JI'2Zcd ..,.. and co;i::looutcs. )oumal of._ ~t oi3:295-299. 

Scvcrooo, K. E. 199o. Summary: UYCStoc:k Jrt1Z1n1 u a wtldllfc 

babltat ~ 1001 ....... 3-61n 1(. E. Scvcnon. ICCbDI-. 

aJ coon11Da10t. Cao UYCSIOCI! be uacd u a 1001 to -.: 

wtldlllc habitat? GcDcni Tccbnlal ~ IIM 1~. U.S. fotal 

Service, Rocky Mountain Forest ond llang<o Expcrimatt Station, Fort Colllns, Colorado. 

Smith. C. C. I~. The dlb:l of overgnziDg and ...,...,;.; upon tiM! biota d the mb::ed ...... pntrtc ol Ok1aboma. EcolotJY 

21:381-397. 

Smith, ll). 1977. Conclusions. Paaes 117-118 In ).E. 

T~ and R.J. 5mllh. cdlton. l'rc>c=dinp of a IICIIdoor oo 

iiDprQYIDs llsb and wtldllf<: bCDdlll 1D .._ ....._.....,. 

F'WWBS-7711. flllt and Wlldlit.: Scrvtcc, lliolcJtlal - ~'rot!<-. WasbJDston, D.C. . 

Snyder, J. M., and L IL WuiiRciD. 1973. The role of clcac:rl 

cryptopmS 90-.257-265. iD 01-lludon. --- . . · 

St. <lair, L L, B. L Webb, J. L jobmacn_ and G. T. Nebe:l=. 

1~. Crypcopmk: 1011 c:rulll.: Enb CJDt!Dl ~ 5o -tlodlslwt>cdmd __ aras._ - ~-3:129-136.. . 
- G. L 1981. Cocvolutioo of - and bcrbl-.ores. Aonals of lbc Missouri BowUcal Gonlcn 68•7s-86. 

Scevens, L E., B. T. Brown, ). M. Slmpoon, and R. R. Jobnson. 

1977. The importance of ripad2n babilal 10 JDigr2WI& birds. 

Pqcs 156-t~ iD R. R. Jobnaoo and D. A. Jones. ICCbolal coonllnaton. Imponancc, prcxrvatioo, and maDa(ICIIIellt of riparian babita~o A symposium. General Tcdmical llq>ort RM· 

43. u.s. forest Service, Rocky MOUllaiD forest and IWI(Ie 

EzpcrimeruStation, Fort Colllns, ~-

Stoddart, LA., and A. D. Smich. 1943.1WI(Ie maDa(ICIIIellt Me· 

Gnw-Hill,NcwYorlc. 

SCr2ssman, B. L 1987. mcc.. at cacdc grazing and baylna oil 

wildlife conservation ac National Wlklllfc ldup:l iD lbc 

United Scaccs. Enviroruncntal Manqcmcnc 11•3~. 

SCubcr, R.). 1985. Trout b2bl12t, abundance, and fisbiDa opponunitics iD fenced ..... unfenced rtporian babilac alontl Sbccp 

Creek, Colondo. Pqcs 31~314 iD R.R. ~C. D. Zlc· 

bell, D. R. Pac!on, P. F. Frollloa, abd F. H. llmln:, ICCbolal coonllnaton.lllparlan ccooystcms and·cbclr _.. Rec· 

oncillng conllicting 115CS. General Tccbnial Rq>ort RM·I20. 

U.S. Fares< Service, Rocky Mouncaln Porcsc and IWI(Ie Expcr· 

imcnt Station, Fort Collin5, Colorado. 

Szaro, R. c. 1989. Riparian forest and scrubland cnmmunity 

cypcs of Arizona and New Mexico. Desert Planes 9(3-4~ 

138. 

Sz:!ro. R. C., and C. P. P2se. 1983. Sbon·tcrm clJaDacs iD a COl· 

tonwood·ash-willow association oo a grazed and an unsrazed 

portion of little Ash Creek iD Ccncral Arizona. Journal ofiWI(Ie 

Management 36•382-384. 

Szaro, R. C., S.C. 8clfi~). K. Alddn, andJ. N. Rinne. 1985. Jm. 

pact of grazing on a nparian pncr snake. Pqcs 359-363 iD 

R. R.Johnson. C. D. ZicbcU, D. R. Pacton, P. F. Fl'ollloct,and F. H. Hamre, technial coordinators. Riparian ecosystems and tbc:tr 

management: Reconciling conA.icting uses. Gc:ner.d Technical 

Report RM-120. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mouncaln forest 

and Range Experiment Sutlon, Fort Co!Uns, COiorlodo. 

Taylor, D. M. 1986. Elfccts of cattle grazing oo _.me birds 

nesting iD riparian b2bitaL Journal of Range Management 39:254-258. 

Ta)rlor, D. M., and C. D. Ll.ttldield 1986. Willowtl:ycw::be:raod 

yellow warbler rcspoosc to canlc grazing. Alncrican Birds 

48•1169-1173. 

Thomas, J. w., c. Mucr, ondJ. E. Rodick. 1979.11lparlan zones 

iD managed rangclmd>-cbclr Importance to wildlife. P2&cs 21-31 in 0. B. Cope, editor. ProcccdiDp of the Forumgrazing and riparian/stream CC00)'1tCmS. Trout Unllmkcd, Denver, Colorado. 

U.S. Gcncral Acc0Uillln8 otlk:c. 1988a. Rangeland """"'''C· 

grazing 

mcnt• More 

allotmcnu. 

emphasis 

~OIRCJID.88.80. 

needed oa dcdiniDg 

U.S. Gcncral 

and ~ 

Accouot· 

iDg O!llcc, Washlngton, D.C. 

u.s. Gcncral Accounq Olllcc. 1988b. Public rmgclaDdso 

Some riparian areas rcs<orcd but wldcoprcad improYmlcnt 

will be slow. GAOIRCJ!D.B8.105. U.S. Gcncral Acc:ountiDg Of. 

lice, Washlngton, D.C. 

U.S. Gcncral AccounciDg otlk:c. 199ta Rangeland ....._. 

mcn~o Comparilon of nn.-d coodllion reports. GAOl 

RCED-91-191. U.S, Gcncral Accounq Olllcc, Washlngton, 

D.C. 

378 

u.s. Gcncral Accouolinl omcc. t99tb. Public land management: Atteodoo to wUdlifc is limited. GAOIRCE0-91-64. U.S. 

Gcncral Accounq omcc, Wasbington, D.C. 

Van Veloon. R. 1979. mcc.. of livestock grazing upoa r2inbow 

trouc iD Otter Creek, Ncbrasb. Pqcs H-55 iD 0. B. Cope, 

cdito<. ProcccdiDp of !be Forum-grazing arid riparian/scream 

ccooystcms Trout Unllmiccd, Dcmc, Colorado. 

Van Vurcn, D. 1982. Comparalloe ecology of bison and cattle 

In lbc Henry MoumaiDs, U121L Pqcs 449-457 iD L Nclson, 

J. M. Peck, and P. D, Dalke, cdlton. Procccding5 of the wildlife. 

u.atoc:t rdatlonsblps symposium. Forese, WUdlifc, and IWI(Ie 

Expcrtmcm SCation, Unncstty of ldabo, Moocow, 1dabo. 

Vm Vurm, D,IDCI F. C. Dcla. 1993. Evidence of Bison biWn ID 1bc Grac-. Grac __ Naturalis< S3•318-319. 

V1ar1, ~ and D. R. llazdy. 1993. Do grasacs fiBI1t badt?lbc 

C111C for lllllillcrbmJn: dd'a>ccs. Trends iD Ecology and Evolutiool:l37-141. 

W-, F. H. 19'78. Uwsod< grazing and 1bc livescock Induscry.~ 121-145 iD H. P. Brolczw, cdlcor. Wlldllk and Amcr· 

lea. Couodl on l!nvin>omcntaJ Qualley, Wasbington, D.C. 

Wold, J, and D. Albcnwcth. 1989. Our alliDg public range· 

laadso ldll liliDg. ~ llq>ort 1989. National Wlldllk 

Federaclon and NllDn1 Rcooun:cs Dc!ense Councll, Washing· 

ron. D.C. 

Warcm, P. L, and L S. Andcraoo. 1987. Vcgcw;oa rttavery 

lilllowlo8 u.atoc:t remcm1 ncar Quitobaqulto Spring, Organ 

Pipe Cactus - MOIIUIIICIII. Tcdmical Report No. 20. 

Cooperattre National Put< Rcooun:cs Srudlcs u~ Unlvenicy 

of Arizoaa, Tuaon, Arizoaa, 

Webb, R. H., ond J. L 11c1mcoun. 1992. CliDwl~ varlabillcy 

and llood li'cqucncy of 1bc Soma Cruz River, Pima County, 

Arizoaa. Waccr-Supply Paper 2379. u.s. Gcologlcal Survey, 

WaabiDgton, D.C. 

Webb, R. H., ond S. S. SCiclstra. 1979. Sbccp grazing dl'ects on 

1\lojm: Desert vqctatioo and soils. Environmental Manage· 

mcnt 3•517-529. 

Wclc:b, J. L, R. Ralalt, and B. C. Kondratldt 1991. E1l'cct of 

canlc anziD8 on 1bc dcmlcy and opcclcs.of graosboppcrs ( Qr. 

Cboprcra: 

~ 

Acrtdldae) of the Ccncral Plaim Expcrlmcmal Range. 

A ~~ after two dcadcs. Joumol of lbc 

Kansas Entomolot!bl SOCiety ~•337-343. 

Wcstoby, M., B. Walker, and L Noy-Mclr. 1989. Opportunistic 

managcmc:nt for' nDFlands not at equilibrium. Journal ol 

IWI(Ie Management 42o266-274. 

Whlcllcld, C.J., and H. L Andcraoo. 1938. Sccondaty succession iD lbc dcscrc plalna grassland Ecology 1~171-180. 

WiDcgac, H. H. 1977. Cacnp Crec1t channel fmciDJ-Ptan~· 

wildlite,IIOII, and -.r rcspoascs. Rangctoan's )oumal ••I~ 

12. 

Yort,). C.. and W. A. Dlc:k·Peddic. 1969. vcgcw;oa clJaDacs 1D 

IOUibcm New l\la;lco during cbc post buodred yean. Pqcs 

1S~t66 In W. G. 1\lc:GiDnics and B.). Goldmoo, cdlmrs. Arid 

- In pcnpccdoc. Unlveniey of Arizona p._ Tuaon, Ar· 

- . 

Zndolf, S. L 1988. 1\lammab of lbc 1nccrmountain Wcsc. Unl· 

venicy of Ucab 1'.-, Sole Lalrc Ocy, Utab. 
379 

SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY POSITION STATEMENT: 

Extent of Livc.stock Grazing in the Region 

Grazing by r.Jomestic livestock is the most-ubiquitous l.:~.~t.l 

management pr..~cticc in the wCstcm United St:ucs. Approximately seventy percent of the ele.,en western states ;uc currently 

grazed, including virtually all western ecosystem typessubalpine. mc:)t.Jows, fo.rc:sts, gr:tSSiands, deserts, wOO<J):mcJs, and 

charwr.:~.l and other shrublands. All types of public lands 3rC 

graicd, inchx.ling· nO&tional forests, lands m:ulagcll by the Dun:iu 

of Und Ma~agcmcnt. wildlife refu,cs; miliWy installinioni 

wilclemcss ·OIJ'C:lS, even national p;1rks and monuments, :u well :as· 

a v:u-icty of sl:ltc, regional, :md county l:1nds. This represents :a 

d~m01.tic c:eological change bcc:1usc most western ecosystems 

supported few, if omy, IOU"gc g~z.inc mammals before Eur~ 

Amcric~n sculemcnt. Those large mamm.11s 1tut did exist 

previous!)., such ;u bison and prons;hom, had very different food 

habiLs, bc::havior. and ecological effects. · 

Ecological c:mscs for concern. 

Most r.mgda~d~ ~ currendy iri deteriot'ilted ccologie:ai condi· 

lions. Past gr:Wng pr.lCticcs h:avc had detrimental effects on the 

composition, function, ~nd slructurc.of n:ative ecosystems. · 

Livestock graz.ing has led .to a deCrease in noative spcc:ics richness 

in a broad array of ecosystem types~ Additiono11ly, a wide variety · 

of t:u.a' has experienced il decrease in pOpulation densities under 

graz.ing pressure. In addition. to the more conspicuous . 

megafaun:~. and nora, microbiotic t~a. such ;u myc:orrlUuc 

which are essential for higher pl:mLs, have been affected. Of 

particular conCern are r:ue taxa, which can be ptJt at high risk by 

livestock. Other causes for cOncern: about the ~ological ·. 

influence of livestock grazing InClude incteolSCS il) alien spcc;ies. 

alteration of animal foraging guild$, control of native ~tors 

and gr.mland spetii::.s for econon\ic gains, and increases in · 

livestoclc-bornc iSc~ among naiivc.wildlifc species such as 

big nom ~hcep. · 

LivCstock grazing also affects seveR~ ecosystem functionS. suCh 

as nutrient and hydrologic cycling, and succession. The cycling 

of nitrogen, the most importa.ntliatiting nu.trient in arid and . 

semiarid ecosystem, is disrupted through u.mpling damage to 

microbiotic soil crusts~ Western: ecosystems Ollso lose nutrients 

because they are tied ·up in livestock feces. which in some cases 

cannot be recycled due 10 lack orapj,ropriaP.C ckcomposcn (for 

example, dung beetles in the Great B4Sin). When livestock are 

aporied lo nwkcts, nutrients arc lost fiom Wc:stcm·ccosystcms 

on a massive scale·. Livestock interfc.re with cC:ologieal succession, especially in riparian communities. The quality and 

availability or water is al_so dirqinishcd by 'lhc pzuc.ncc of 

livestock.. Ovcnll, these activities lead to.inercascd cvapolr.mSpiratiQn rates ~nd desertification~ 

Physical structure of livcstock-innuenc.cd ecosystems is also 

altered. In lll3ny cases, vegetation ~13 arc lost ~~ plant 

rcgcnc~t io n is disrupted hy foraging and trampling by fi,•cstock. 

Tile activity of livestock. removes rcsic.Juoil ground cover :and soil 

liner, ;sml cOmpilC:ts .soil, leading to decreased w;ucr infiltr.uiun, 

and thus increased water runoff and soil erosion. TI1e net effect 

of such inter.~.ctions is a lo~s o( :1vail3blc water to biotic communities. 

Livestock, espcciollly cat~lc, spend a disproportiomne amO\fnl u~ 

time in rip:l{ian ~i~ts. Thus. these sites, which ~c amons: dtc 

biologically ridiCSt in the region. are·C:Sily damascd~ D~usc 

1~ communities provide csscnt~l habitat for a wtdc V:ll'iety of . 

spccics,lh~ can h3vc severe ciTccu on regional biOias. 

.. . In sum, Jiv~ock gm.ing. which occurs throughout~ majority of 

the American West, has a host of negative ecolocic>ll rCpercussions. Livestock gruin.a; has reduced densities Olnd biomass of 

rit:~.ny p'a~t and ;mim:ll species. rCduced biodiversity, aid~ the 

spre3d of exotic species. intcllUpted cc:olo~:ic.al succession,· 

impeded lhC Cyclin& Of the moSt important limiti~& nutrient, 

c~ngcd habitu s&ructurc, disturbed community Ofianiution. 

·and has been one of the most severe imp:ac:u on one of the 

biologically richest tu.bilil.IS in the n:gion.- While undoubtc41y 

there~ c.xceptio~;U to ~is thc:rfte of.dcstruction. clcnrly much of. 

the ccolosical inccgrity of"' variety of Nonh American habit~lls 

· is ~~ risk from \his land mana.semcnt pr3Ctice; 

A Call for ~ction · 

The ecologi~ evidence is ciCa.r ~t JivCstock gra.ing must be 

: dra.stiC:J!ly reduc:~ in the American West. We urge the public 

land munagement agencies to undertake the following for lands 

and I'CSOUJ1:C$ ufxtcitheir jurisdiction: · . . . . · . 

1 

1. Evaluate the ecological costs and appn)prU.ten~ ol 

livestock grazinc on a~;~ ~stem by t(OSystem basis. 

Th~ public agenCies must analyze the ecOlogical dynamics of 

each ecosystem. type to detcnnine whether, and to .what extent, 

liveStock grazing has an ccoloeicilly justitiDble role. The 

· .. litmus test" Should be tbC following: Cllti l.ivCstock grazin.£ be 

done in such a inanner' that it ttelps · maint.1:1in or imProve the 

health, biological diversity, and long·tcnn prodUCtivity of lhis · 

·ecosystem? Livestock gr.Wng on public r.ange13nds is not 

justifiable unless lhe ansWer is 11 Clear and subst.antimtcd "'yes." 

l. Rr:o:move ~ivestock tmmC':diately from damaccd areu. . 

r:o:xeept where it can be shown that cnWac provides beDdlts. 

·· (os dcsc:ribod in. 13 below). · 

The lancfmanigC!meni aacncics Should~ immcdiatdy to ... 

remove nvc:Sc.ock araz..ini: from JitC$ ~t fit lhc U.S; Bureau of 

Land M:mngem<:nt definitionS of "goocf' with .. SUible or ~lin· 

ing trends." or worse, r.tngcl.and condition,. Riparian areas Me 

of special eo~cm due to their great biological sianllic:uce. 
380 

LIVESTOCK GRAZING ON PU/JLJC u\NDS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMER!Ct\ 

3. Allow lhestoc.:k grazing only whue, ond in such a manner, 

that ilscncs positive ecological roles. 

With a view to the longer tcnn, the public land man<~.gc!Jlcnt 

agencies should initiate steps to phase out livestock grnz.ing from 

those ecosystem types where the practice docs not pass the 

"litmus test" for ecological justification (sec #I above), for 

cx:~mplc, in dcscrtscrub and desert grassland ecosystems. For 

those ecosystem types where livestock gnJ.Zing dot!S have 

potentially beneficial ecological roles (for cxalnplc, ilchicving 

::md sustaining divCrsity of vegetation types or succcssiono.l 

stages at the landscape scillc), the ngcncics should bring gt:lzing 

under mom<~.gcmcnt that ensures its positive contribution to the 

heulth, biological diversity, and long· term productivity of those 

systems. 

4. Help society make informed choices. 

Honestly articulate the ecological costs and consequences of 

livestock gruzing, as wc!l as the beneficial roles grazing can 

serve if carefully managed in ccnaitl ecological scnings. Make 

scientific inform::~tion understand::~blc and ::~cccssible, so that 

society can make informed choices about public l::mds and 

5. Establish a network of significant ar(as when: livestock 

arc txcludcd, to serve as benchmarks for scientific evalua· 

lion of the ecological eiTects of gra.Zing. 

These benchmark areas should be established in all m;;~jor 

ecosystem types of the American West, and should be large 

enough to cv;;~luate landsc;;~pc-lcvcl processes. 

6. Eliminate grazing on public lands where. it is accompa· 

nied by widespread control of native predators. 

Society for Consei;'Vation Biology, 

Public Lands Grazing Committee: 

Thomas L. Flcischncr, Chair 

David E. Brown 

Allen Y. Cooperrider 

Winifred B. Kessler 

Elizabeth L. PainterApproved by the Board of Governors of the Society for Conservation Biology, II June 1994 

This position statcmc~t was developed in conjunction with a 

lengthier review anjcie which includes cixtcnsivc supponing 

literature citations. Sec Flcischncr, T.L. 1994. Ecological costs 

of livestock grazing in western Nonh America. Conservation 

Biology 8(3):629-644. 
S JlliYJ;!J95 

381 

;s. :aooae aaurraail •ll.D 

Associate Professor De~t of Fisheries and Wildlife 

orec;on state University 

corvallis, OR 97331 ~03-737-162~ 

'0~$ •. ·8!1M1;.e walih1Dg:t:gn, .o.c;:. 

aosu 

Ret s.ne~ Bill asa, LivestoCk Grazing Acit 

~tor 

X .. writing to ..... •Y stronq reservati~ ~ 'seraa1ie 'Bill. 

ssa, the ·uvastoclt crazing Act that was i~trc;xiucK by a-tor. Pete DOmenici of •• llBXiQO. This Bill is bad ~ar the -lttern 

rangelands, .bad to~ thtl A1!£ican people and liad. for the livutocl: 

indu8try that is siippOrted by public lands ~iDq. ftaie bill 

wil.l effectively l'imlne 1:}le proqress in illproved land Mna9Qent 

that scientists,, J:atiC18 JIWiaqers, and livelltoCJc raiaeril have . · . ilipla-.nted since the .. pasB&qe of the Taylor qr._ing Act in 2;934. 

Because of the 'potential clevastating cona~ that this ibill 

could have on the productivity of America's rangeland·, wildlife 

and water resources it should be defeated. ' 

I have ~~·. JDQ.IIt ot .y li'fa working with li~ ~ , . , r6ng4!lan~s.. 

aDd Oreqon. . 

. 

FOr 

I . ha~e ·wot;)ted 

. pest ~9 011 

years 

cattle 

I ha'q 

~s <wotJcet 

1.if ~·· 

in r~ lfew · 

~ 

·· · · : •anag-nt end rea~cb. in the Western OSA. This ijlcludea lforlt 

in Texas, Oklabolllll, . New Mexico, Idaho, califcrnia ·anc:l otAh. · I 

have beer!. a prof-sor in the oepartlllent of Rangeland Resourq.-, 

orec;on State onioiarsity for over nine years • . I have pul)lislied over 100 papers on saatural: r-ource sci.- and 'JiaJULgeMilt. ! All 

of ray pract,t:cal and scientific- experience 1-.ds - to conclUde 

that this bill : ie DOt in the beat interuta of .. the pW>lic · 

r&m)el~ or . 1,1•er• ot ~-. 

u a university ~of•esor ''in a Land Grant Instj,tution it is :ay 

privilege . and rea~ibility to teach .-tudantll bow to .!lecoM qoocl •t.ward• of tbe land. X have tauqht cour-• in baaic raJl9• ; wane~, ;fire 8oi~~ and riparian ecolocnr aJd 118Jlaguent • . ~ •~t• inc)~ .• ttae IIC!IlCJ • and daughtera · of rancm. U.;, · f•..._.•, : 

to 

t~

fu~ C)enwation. 

c.s \irbllti ~1~. ot .-ricans. 

This bill 

Ttaat .... 

ie eort ~ 

tan· 

~ 

eoonc-ic !J!.~ vill :t&Jt• pncecleDce over tM 60 r-an ~. aci~fic 

·&Jid 'priacUcal ·. axpari.nce that should quide land -.aM~ ·. ' dsCi~iona. · · ·· · · · 

tn'; ~iticm :to .7q ~ell. · alld teaching rapouiblHtl .. I .. · .. · reft~Pl&Jiollll . i bav. also wor~ed on li~. alit ~1 

.r~ pr~ 1D. Bra.iU, Mexico, VaesU.J,a~ 111111 .Atrica. i ·. · 
382 

Desertification and the loss of the diversity and productive 

capacity of the land is a global concern in these countries. 

working in these countries has given me a strong appreciation of 

the laws and policies of the USA that qovern the manaqamant of our ranqelands. However, it. is important to remember that 

desertification is a very real phenomenon .in our own.Western 

Ranqelanda. Thousands of dedicated scientists, land .managers, 

students, private land owners and the intere.ted public are vorkinq to halt and revers~ this process in the west. Senate 

Bill 1!52 wa~Jld .effectively eliminate the ca~city of tba" 

qroups to improve the productivity and diversity of Alllerica's 

Rangeland Resources. · 

western ranqelands are i.Jlportant for a variety of resourc .. ·in 

addition to liv .. tock. I have research projects in orevon that are diacovarinq aethods to aeet the habitat needs of aalaon, 

trout,· and steelhead on healthy riparian rangeland ecosystems. 

These fish are also am illpiortant ranqeland resource and vital to 

the aconoay of aany coastal and Native American co.munitias in 

the Pacific Northwaat. S!Qlata Bill 852 wQ~Jld dramatically 

decraaae the ability for lillnd aanaqers to illprove the fillh 

habitats of w .. tern ranqel;arids. Froa my acientific penpective 

this bill could r .. ult in a decline of the f.isharies resource with a conc011itant decline in the foraqe ratJOurcas for livestock. 

In abort ranqa productivity will decline to the detriment of both 

the agricultural and fisheries industry. 

Western ranqelands play host to an incredibly rich diversity of 

wildlife and plants. Theae organisms all play a role in the 

functioninq and perpetuation of the ecosystem. A qood ex&Dple of 

wildlife diversity on r11J19elands includes our discovery that 13t 

of all North Aaerican bird species have been observed to utilize ll sinqle mila and a half stretch of riparian habitat in 

Northeastern Oreqon. Birds play an inteqral acolO!jJiCAl role in 

insect regulation. Their decline could exacerbate insect 

problems in both western ~crests and ranqelands. As such, it is 

prudent that we aanaqe their habitats. Manaqinq the incredible 

e0lllp1exity and 'reletionahi;ps that occurs on -•tei:n rangelanda will be n.ac..sary for the ;perpetuation of the livestock industry and all other related economic entities. · 

In BUIIIIIAry, ranqalands ptov.ide a variety of resources iaportant 

for Americans. 'l'his includ .. fish, wildlife, recreation, fresh 

water, and livestock toraqe. The overwhelminq scientitic 

evidence is :that iaproper ;livestock manage-nt will ultiaately result in the precipitous decline or loss of these resources·. senate bill 852 will not help the western livestock induStry because it will ravaree 5o years of scientitic advances in· our approaoheiJ to rU19aland ~eent. Future qenaretions of 

Aaericans 4esarva tha privilege of bene.fitinq fr0111 healthy 

re11CJ8landa. It ia our r~sibility to ••• thtlt we mana98 , thea ~ly. senate Sill. a sa vould make it illpoasible tor us to 

MGt the obligation th•t we have for future qenarations~ 
383 

It you have any add! tional questions or if there ia anything that 

1 can do to help you, plea•• do not heaitata to contact -· 

TDTA... P.B7 
384 

Arizona State University 

Center for Environmental Studies 

Box 873211 

Tempe AZ. 85287-3211 

July 3, 1995 

The Honorable Senator John McCain 

111 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington DC 20500 

Dear Senator McCain: 

(602) 965-4632 

FAX (602) 965-8087 

I'm writing you in response to the recent Senate Bill (#852) introduced by Senator Domenici and 

cosponsored by Senator Kyl. Being born and raised on a farm-ranch operation in eastern New 

Mexico and educated in the Southwest in range and wildlife ecology, I am very familiar with the 

issues and problems. For the past 24 years at Arizona State University I have been actively 

involved with federal and state agencies in efforts to improve riparian habitats on public lands. 

These habitats are highly degraded from water management (i.e., dams, channelization, etc.), 

groundwater pumping, and domestic livestock grazing. When domestic livestock are 

unmanaged they are highly destructive to water quality and wildlife populations in riparian areas. 

If Senate Bill 852 were to become law it would continue and intensify the degradation of fish and 

wildlife resources in riparian habitats on public lands. These are resources that future 

generations must have if they are to survive in the arid West. Riparian habitats make up less 

than 1% of the Western landscape and provide water and farmland for our existence, plus 

valuable wildlife habitat. The Bureau of Land Management needs more range management 

control over domestic livestock grazing of public lands if future generations are to have clean 

drinking water and utilizable natural resources. 

Some range managers argue that Western upland conditions have improved over the past 30 

years while others say they have declined. Changes in range condition in the uplands is very 

slow compared to riparian areas, yet riparian areas are heavily degraded and.the continuing 

trend is downward. 

Therefore, for the sake of future generations, I urge you to vote no on Senate Bill 852 and let 

our land managing agencies do their job. To my knowledge, no one is forced to accept a 

grazing permit on public lands and, present laws and regulations were established to ensure the 

long-termed productivity of these lands. 

Sincerely yours, 

1{~fr0.~ 

Robert D. Ohmart, Ph.D. 

RDO/cdz 
385 

Gregory Scott Green 

New Mexico Conservation Voters Alliance 

P.O. Box 40497 

Albuquerque, N.M. 87196 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is responsible for the management of 270 million 

acres that belong to the United States. Under existing law, the BLM must assess the 

impacts of different uses of the public lands on other uses and users, and determine how 

to balance the competing demands on the resources provided by our public lands. 

The main goal of the public land management program is to restore and maintain the 

health of the land, for the public today, and for generations into the future. This land can 

support many uses provided those uses are sustainable and do not destroy the land and its 

resources. 

As a person who grew up on a ranch in Oklahoma I can not even think of leasing land out 

under the Livestock Grazing Act that is pending before this Subcommittee, and that is what 

we are talking about. We, the public, are the land owner and you are proposing to lease 

our land under the conditions in the Livestock Grazing Act. 

Would you lease land that you could no Ionaer hunt, M, backpack, or drive on? 

Today, millions of Americans and visitors from around the world explore and enjoy the 

diversity of resources that can be found on lands administered by the BLM throughout the 

West. 

Most of the 270 million acres of BLM lands are accessible to a wide variety of userincluding hunters, anglers, off-road-vehicle travelers, backpackers, bird watchers. We 

should have every right to use our public lands - the same right as the livestock industry 

using the lands for profit. 

The Livestock Grazing Act could change the way the public lands are managed, and even 

result in lreeping the public off the "public" lands. Access to these lands depends in many 

areas on right-of-way that have been granted by private land owners across private lands 

that are adjacent to the public domain. The bill raises questions about the future of these 

access agn:ements. 

Would you lease land on which you would bave little or no say? 

Under the proposed bill, only "affected interests" will be given an opportunity to comment 

on grazing decisions. Under the restrictive definition of affected interest, ordinary citizens 

who use and care about tbe public lands will not even have an opportunity to have their 

opinions heard unless they can prove, through "substantiated evidence, • that they are 

affected by livestock grazing. In no other branch of administrative law are citizens 
386 

- 2-

required to meet this kind of burden of proof before they can even receive information and 

express opinions. 

Would you lease land when you could only bave a say if you were seekiq consensus 

solutions? 

Under the Livestock Grazing Act no person may serve on an advisory council unless he 

or she "has demonstrated a commitment to seeking consensus solutions to resource 

management issues. • This requirement is inconsistent with the principle that all interests 

deserve to be represented, and it may be inconsistent with the First Amendment to the 

United States Constitution. 

I would only lease out land to a &ood steward. 

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, streamside or riparian zones are in 

the worst shape in this century, due primarily to poor grazing practices. The majority of 

the public lands remain in unsatisfactory ecological condition due to the past century of 

abuses. 

Under the ~vestock Grazing Act, the BLM would be unable to make changes in grazing 

practices because the bill limits the kinds of decisions managers can make regarding 

grazing, even when resource damage due to grazing is occurring. It would take years of 

expensive monitoring before changes in grazing management could even be considered 

under the Livestock Grazing Act. The BLM does not have the resources to establish 

monitoring systems throughout the public lands. Therefore, no action could be taken to 

com:ct the damage from bad grazing practices. 

Would you lease out land when you were prevented from protedin& the watB quality, 

riparian areas, wildlife habitat and an:haeological sites? 

The Livestock Grazing Act states that the only stocking rates changes that could be made 

must be supported by "rangeland studies. • "Rangeland studies" are limited to 

measurements such as utilization, trend, and production, that indicate the condition of the 

livestock forage resource. The impacts of grazing on other resources and use are not 

reflected in the studies, and therefore, could not be considered in the determination of 

stocking rates. 

There are many other things in this bill that as a land owner I would not even think of 

considering wben making a decision about leuing out my land. 1be proposed legislation 

would deny owners of public lands, you and I, their right to enjoy their land. It is my 

opinion this bill is not in the public, the owaers, best interest. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Livestock Grazing Act. 
387 

Affiliated w1th National Wildlife Federation 

NEW MEXICO WILDLIFE FEDERATION 3240·0 JUAN TABO NE 

SUITE 8 

ALBUQUERQUE. N.M. 87111 

TELEPHONE: (505) 299·5404 

statement of Joyce Mandel, New Mexico Wildlife Federation 

Before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands 

ColllDi ttee on Reeourcas, U.s.. House of Representatives 

July 11, 1994 

Good afternoon. My name is Joyce Mendel and I represent the New 

Mexi co Wildlife Federation. Thank you for the opportunity to 

testify before the Subcommittee about the Livestock Grazinq Act, 

H.R. 1713. 

The Livestock Grazinq Act should not be adopted by Conqress. 

The New Mexico Wildlife Federation was formed in 1914 because 

people of the state were concerned a~ut the loss of our wildlife. 

We promote multiple use manaqeaent for the public lands, with a place for wildlife habitat, livestock qrazinq and other public 

lands uses. 

Currently, the Bureau of Land Manaqeaent (BLM) and the Forest 

Service lands constitute about a third of New Mexico's land area and support a larqa part o~ the wildlife related activity in our state. These activities qenerate $750 million annually. 

The New Mexico Wildlife Federation wants the public lands 

manaqad for wildlife ae well as for liveetock, and to provide 

recreation for hikere, photoqraphers, wildlife observers, anqlers 

and hunters. 

The New Mexico Wildlife Federation is concerned about the 

impact of the Livestock Grazinq Act on wildlife on the public 

lands. we are involved with conservation projects to promote 

wildlife habitat on public lande. While we are workinq to improve 

conditions tor wildlife populations on public lands, the Liveetock 

Grazinq Act could. undarwaine theee effort• by makinq livestock 

qrazinq the dominant usa of the land. The BLM would be limited in 

manaqinq tor ueee other than liveetock, which could barm · the 

wildlife that reeide on public lands, or limit their ability to 

protect sensitive areae. · 

In addition, the leqielation could bave eiqniticant lonq term 

impacts tor the public lands. The 1994 Ranqeland Reform Draft 
388 

2 

Environmental Impact statement projects a long term decline in 

riparian and wildlife habitat and recreation opportunities on BLM 

lands under the current grazing management. If the Livestock 

Grazing Act is passed, that decline could accelerate. At best, current levels of grazing use would be mandated under the bill, 

maintaining the current rate of decline. 

The public's role in grazing management on public lands also 

would be severely limited if this bill were enacted. The public 

would no longer be able to participate in decisions about grazing 

permits or decisions about grazing allotments. The Grazing 

Advisory Councils, which are given authority to decide how the 

lands will be managed, will have no members of groups like mine. 

As the demand for many uses from the public lands continues to 

grow, now is the time to broaden public participation, not to restrict it. 

Our ability to use the public lands in the future is at risk 

as well. The bill would waive any consideration of a rancher's 

willingness to provide access to public lands when the BLM grants 

a permit. Access to public lands could be more restrictive. 

The bill would waive consideration of major wildlife 

protection laws for ranchers. The current regulations require that 

ranchers comply with the Bald Eagle Protection Act and the 

Endangered Species Act, or jeopardize their grazing privileges on public lands. But the Livestock Grazing Act deletes these laws 

from consideration. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present our views on this 

legislation. 
389 

Testimony or Frederick W. Obermiller, Professor, Oregon State University 

Before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Lands 

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 

On H.R. 1713 

The Livestock Grazing Act of 1995 

July 11, 1995 

Chainnan Hansen and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for providing all of us who 

are inteleSted in the conservation of the Western Range and a symbiotic way of life and 

economic system with an opportunity to be heard. My name is Fred Obermiller. I am a 

professor of agricultural and resource economics, and a courtesy professor of rangeland 

resources, at Oregon State University. My area of specialization is the "Western Range 

Problem", the problem that the Livestock Grazing Act (LGA) of 1995 may, if enacted into 

law, once again resolve. Resolution of this divisive public policy issue is long overdue. 

It is too bad that we did not learn our lesson the first time around. 

The Livestock Grazing Act (LGA) of 1995 is the most substantial piece of Western Range 

legislation since the Taylor Grazing Act (TGA) of 1934. The two Acts are, indeed, coupled-and in many ways the bill under consideration today reconfums the statutory commitment made during the Great Depression to stabilize the public domain dependent western 

livestock industry. It is a case of deja vu. 

It is my sincere hope that you will expeditiously pass the LGA as clarified and perhaps 

amended through your deliberations and debate, despite the vocal protests we have heard and 

will continue to hear, and the written denunciations we have read and will continue to read, 

just as your courageous predecessors did in 1934. I hope with equal sincerity that President 

Bill Clinton has the wisdom and foresight to sign the LGA into law in 1995, just as President 

Franklin D. Roosevelt did with the TGA in 1934 issuing the following press release: 

'"The Federal Government, by enacting this law, has taken a great forward step 

in the interests of conservation, which will prove of great benefit not only to 

those engaged in the livestock: industry but also to the National as a whole." 

[Reprinted in Edgar B. Nixon (ed), Franldin D. Roosevelt & Conservation, 

1911-1945, Volume I, Hyde Park, New York: Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, 

1957, pp. 312-313.] 

A Brief Review or Relevant History 

In 1934, order was brought to the open and chaotic western range through p~ge of the 

Taylor Grazing Act (48 StaL 1269, Ch. 865; 43 U.S.C. 315 et seq.) and c~tion of the 

Division of Grazing, subsequently renamed the Grazing Service, in the Department of the 
390 

Interior. Despite vigorous opposition by some ranching interests, and equally vigorous 

support from other ranching interests, the economic ruin and prolonged drought of the 

previous five years led Congress to pass the Taylor Grazing Act (TGA) "to stop injury to the 

public grazing lands by preventing overgrazing and soil deterioration, to provide for their 

orderly use, improvement, and development. to stabilize !.he livestock industry dependent upon 

the rublic range" (Preamble , Taylor Grazing Act of 1934). 

The wheel turns. Section 103 of the Livestock Grazing Act of 1995 restates the policy goals 

of the TGA as the continuing objectives of the proposed Western Range legislation that is the 

subject of today' s hearing, including the ''orderly use, improvement, and development of 

federal land, enhancement of productivity of federal land by conservation of forage resources 

and reduction of soil erosion ... , and stabilization of the livestock industry dependent on the 

public rangeland." We are reliving history because special interests opposed to public land 

livestock grazing and others have not attempted to learn from the historical lessons that 

brought order to the Western Range. 

Essential Provisions of the Taylor Grazing Act 

Under the TGA, a grazing permit and grazing lease system was implemented to regulate the 

use of the western range. "Rights" or "privileges" (depending on one's perspective--.;oun 

interpretations have been inconclusive and contradictory) to graze specific parcels of federal 

land at certain times of the year and at certain stocking rates were allocated to "commensu· 

rate" parcels of privately owned hay land and water sources. Allocations were based on 

historical and customary local grazing patterns by established ranch units. Traditional 

intermingled and adjoining private-federal land use patterns were confmned and recognized 

by Congress. 

This statutory recognition of pre-existing grazing patterns assured fairness in the issuance of 

the original permits and leases and promoted industry and community stability. And by 

recognizing the preference in and for traditional joint uses of deeded and public domain lands, 

overgrazing associated with the "Tragedy of the Commons" carne to an end leading to 

resource conservation and range recovery that continues today. 

While the Taylor Grazing Act was a great success, the administering agency was not Many 

bureaucracies, once created, grow in number of employees and budget and strive for greater 

power. So it was with the agency responsible for implementing the TGA: the Grazing 

Service, a bureau in the Department of the Interior. ProteSts by the regulated ranchers 

became increasingly strident. The Service was attacked on the floor of both the House and 

Senate as arrogant, dishonest, and spendr.hrifL In 1946 Congress reduced the appropriations 

to the Service by one-half. The Director was relieved of his duties and two-thirds of the 

Service's staff were dismissed. The Service was dissolved by Presidential order, and its ashes 

were merged with the General Land Office to create the new Bureau of Land Management 

Reemergence of the "Western Range Problem" 

From 1946 to 1976 the BLM remained a small and relatively innocuous land management 

agency. But with passage of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) in 

2 
391 

1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), the BLM received a fonnal multiple use and land use planning 

mandate. Number of employees and budget grew. The grazing management focus of the 

agency began to diminish. Grazing fees climbed; regulations proliferated. Ranchers and local 

community leaders became increasingly restless. 

Members of Congress not supportive of the western ranching industry had the General 

Accounting Office do a number of studies on the BLM and the ranching industry it regulates. 

'The "fmdings" were used to generate public support for fee increases and even more 

regulations. A number of House and Senate hearings on the "western range problem" were 

held beginning in 1987, but no legislation passed both chambers. Lots of smoke, but no fire. 

The fire broke out in August 1993 when Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt released a 

draft administrative rule-"Rangeland Refonn '94." (Federal Register, August 13, pp. 

43203-43231 and 43234-43237). Regulations would proliferate. The Refonn would virtually 

eliminate livestock grazing on some parts of the public domain, especially riparian areas, 

given the proposed national "standards and guidelines" and associated penalties for noncompliance and/or failure to achieve mandated conditions of "rangeland health." Grazing fees 

would more than double-a "nonmarginal" change in the jargon of economics. The western 

livestock industry and affiliated groups rebelled. 

Late in 1993 an attempt was made in the Senate to legislatively enact the secretary's refonns. 

A filibuster ensued and the attempt was thwarted. But the Secretary persevered in what had 

come to be known as the "War on the WesL" 

On February 22, 1995 the new fmal regulatory refonns were printed in the Federal Register 

(pp. 9894-9971). The Secretary said the new regulations would take effect in six months (on 

August 21). That gave Congress 180 days to pass countervailing legislation. Many regarded 

the challenge as "mission impossible" since, as in 1934, the industry's position on 1995 

grazing legislation was divided on. the fee, explicit grazing rights, and composition of 

advisory committee issues, among others. 

The Livestock Grazing Act of 1995 May Re-Resolve the "Western Range Problem" 

Because of the efforts of leading western Senators-Domenici (NM), Craig (ID), Bums (MT), 

Campbell (CO), and Conrad and Dorgan (ND) and others; and Representatives-Cooley (OR), 

Hansen {U'I), Herger and Doolittle (CA), Skeen {NM), Crapo (lD), Vucanovich {NV), and 

others-<>n May 25 the Livestock Grazing Act of 1995 was introduced in the Senate (S. 852) 

and House (H.R. 1713). The LGA substituteS the intent of Congress for the will of the 

Secretary of the Interior. If the public land dependent western livestock industry is to 

survive, the bill must pass and be signed into law by the President. 

The text of the LGA is of necessity very long, because the rangeland refonn rule and 

regulations are detailed, complex, and sophisticated. To avoid misinterpretation, the framers 

of the legislation feel that they must unequivocally state its full intent in the LGA text. 

3 
392 

Key Provisions of H.R. 1713 and S. 852 

In my view, the Livestock Grazing Act as proposed has many strengths. For example, local 

decision-making based on verifiable scientific facts rather than individual beliefs and on 

bottom-up logic rather than top-down mandates is a dominant theme in the LGA. Incentives 

for good stewardship and private-public partnerships create a positive atmosphere for grazing 

administration and management Non-confrontational "concerned, knowledgeable citizens and 

public officials" who have "demonstrated a commitment to seeking consensus solutions to 

resource management issues" and who are residents of the state (Resource Advisory Councils) 

or local communities (Grazing Advisory Councils) sit on advisory boards. 

Historical levels of grazing intensity and other grazing "rights" or "privileges" are acknowledged and protected. Renewal of grazing permits and leases creating stability for federal land 

ranchers is assured for all who abide by relatively modest and realistic terms and conditions 

of grazing contracts. Grazing contracts are given a longer term: 15 years rather than ten. 

Ownership of rancher-fmanced improvements is awarded to the investor. The supremacy of 

state water law is reaffirmed in that (I) "In managing livestock grazing on Federal land, the 

Secretary shall follow State law with regard to water ownership", and (2) "Nothing in this 

title shall be construed to create an expressed or implied reservation of water rights in the 

United States." 

The grazing fee provisions of the bill result in a reasonable fee level, assuming that a 

reasonable fee is such that the average total cost of grazing livestock on public domain versus 

privately owned rangelands are approximately equal. There are some questions about the fee 

formula in that it reflects i10 clear underlying pricing principle, but the bottom line is that the 

formula generates a fee level consistent with the equal grazing cost per AUM pricing 

principle that underlies the existing "PRIA" grazing fee formula (Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978, 43 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.). 

Like the TGA. no one is satisfied with all parts of the LGA. Areas in need of improvement 

include extending the provisions of the bill to encompass the Forest Service grazing program: 

this surely will be done via amendments. Greater attention needs to be given to excluding 

frivolous and confrontational interests from the planning, administration, and management of 

public domain livestock grazing. Rangeland planning standards and guidelines need to be 

localized to the maximum possible extent The surcharge arrangement for "subleases" could 

be improved. Some have expressed concern that the LGA may give too much judicial power 

to BLM line officers and too little room for administrative appeal to permittees and lessees. 

Are the Criticisms Valid? 

A number of criticisms of the proposed legislation have been voiced by representatives of the 

Administration, by opponents of public domain livestock grazing, by the press, and even by a 

staff member of the Congressional Research Service. It may be appropriate to comment here 

on some criticisms that seem to have little or no factual basis. 

It is not correct. as the Acting Director of the Bureau of Land Management stated at the 

Senate subcommittee LGA hearing on June 22, that the LGA "would change many 

4 
393 

provisions of existing law and regulation ... " To the contrary, the LGA would reconfirm 

and expand upon existing law-panicularly the Taylor Grazing Act. the Bankhead-Janes 

Farm Tenant Act of 1937 (50 Stat 525, 7 U.S.C. 1010-1012), and the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), among others and would 

codify existing regulations pursuant to existing law. 

Nor, according to professional range scientists who have written in suppon of the LGA, is 

it correct to declare, as the Acting Director did on June 22, that the bill before you would 

"turn back the clock on rangeland management" These university-affiliated and independent range science professionals state that the "Rangeland Reform '94" initiative to which 

the LGA responds, if implemented, would have been to step backward. 

It is misleading to state, as the Acting Director did, that "millions of acres of public land 

remain in poor condition" since the data published by his own Bureau of Land Management (Public Ltmd Statistics) demonstrate steady and significant improvement since 1934 

in public domain range conditions. Based on a detailed survey, in Senate Document 199 

(1936) the Forest Service reponed that fully 84.2 percent of the Western Range was in 

poor or fair condition, conditions called (erroneously, but that is another issue) by those 

who would prefer to see range livestock grazing reduced or eliminated "unsatisfactory." 

Less than 1.5 percent of the public domain grazing lands were said to be in excellent 

condition (The Western Range: A Great But Neglected Resource, Washington, D.C.: 

Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture). 

In 1984,ftfty years after the passage of the Taylor Grazing Act, the BLM reponed that 

59 percent of the western rangelands were in poor or fair condition, and five percent were 

in excellent condition-30% of the "unsatisfactory" Western Range had become "satisfactory" in the presence of regulated livestock grazing. By fiScal year 1991, one half of the 

western rangelands were listed as in poor or fair condition. Another 10% of the range 

had been converted from "unsatisfactory" to "satisfactory" condition in less than a decade. 

again in the presence of regulated livestock grazing. In its Rangeland Reform '94 Final 

Environmental Impact Statement the BLM projected continued improvement in both 

upland and riparian conditions under its "Alternative 1: Current Management. Livestock 

Use." 

H.R 1713/S. 852 does not, as the Acting Director claimed, "focus public rangeland 

allocation and management on the single use of livestock grazing--de-emphasizing other 

uses and values of public lands such as mining, hunting, recreation and wildlife." The 

LGA does not repeal the provision in § 1 of the TGA stating that "Nothing in this Act 

shall be construed as in any way altering or restricting the right to hunt or fish within a 

grazing district in accordance with the laws of the United States or any State, or as 

vesting in any permittee any right whatsoever to interfere with hunting or fiShing within a 

grazing district" The LGA does not amend or repeal any mining, hunting, fishing, or 

recreation law. The LGA, like the TGA, is intended simply to establish a statutory 

framework within which a lawful and recognized beneficial use of the public domain--domestic livestock grazing-is regulated. 

5 
394 

While the Acting Director said that the LGA would "severely limit public involvement in 

the management of the public lands", relative to current provisions for public participation 

the reverse is true. More, not fewer, advisory councils and council members would exist 

under the LGA than currently exist. 

The long and shon of it is that the Acting Director and other members of the Administration 

are opposed to H.R. 1713/S. 852 not because the bills are inconsistent with existing statutes 

and existing regulations, but rather because the LGA would reconfiilll the TGA and thus 

create a major obstacle to an Administrative end run on congressional prerogatives--effectively blocking the implementation of "Rangeland Reform '94." It is up to 

Congress to decide. 

What the Future May Hold 

The Livestock Grazing Act .of 1995 essentially is an update of the Taylor Grazing Act of 

1934. The bills were written under similar circumstances and share a concern for industry 

stability and resource conservation. Both seek to establish a reasonable grazing fee. Neither 

excludes other multiple uses of the public domain, but both protect the leasehold and 

usufructuary interests of grazing lessees and permittees. 

The livestock Grazing Act probably will be amended as it moves through Congress, just as 

the Taylor Grazing Act was amended. Hopefully, House-Senate differences in the two 

versions of the same bill will be quicldy reconciled. Will President Clinton sign the LGA in 

1995 over the opposition of the Department of the Interior just as President Roosevelt did 

sign the TGA in 1934 over the strong opposition of the Department of Agriculture? Personally, I'm a believer in deja vu. 

6 
395 

Statement to the United States 

House of Representatives 

National Parks, Forests and Lands Sulxonunittee 

of the 

Conunittee on Resources 

Presented onjuly 11, 1995 

Longworth House Office Building, Room 1324 

Washington, D.C. 

Prepared by: 

Dr. john M. Fowler 

Box 30003, Ag Econ Department 3169 

New Mexico State University 

Las Cruces, NM 88003 

(505) 646-2841 
396 

U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Resources 

Washington D.C. 

July II, 1995 

I greatly appreciate the opportunity to provide input to the U. S. House of 

Representatives Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands of the Committee 

on Resources. My comments will deal directly with House Bill H.R. 1713 cited as the 

Livestock Grazing Act of 1995. 

It has been over 60 years since the passage of the Taylor Grazing Act (fGA) which 

provided enhanced resource stewardship, financially stable communities and livestock 

industry. Key ingredients to the success of the TGA were; assigned responsibility, skillfully 

crafted incentive packages, peer review, and defined agency management responsibility. 

Permittee and lessee were explicitly recognized as critical wheels to progress and necessary 

for implementation of national directives and priorities. These weren't "squeaky wheels" 

demanding more grease but rather load bearing wheels carrying our national policies 

forward. 

Private Incentive: The federal lands require a high level of management skill by 

permittee, agency, and public alike; however; in many cases the federal lands have 

marginal capacity and have a limited ability to absorb input. That is, projects must be 

carefully evaluated for multiple uses and multiple benefits before scarce federal or private 

dollars are invested. Historically federal and private partnerships were actively pursued, 

jointly funded and benefits dispensed in mutually agreed patterns that fulfilled the 

objectives of agency and permittee alike. That trend is vividly displayed in Figure 1 

entitled Range User Contributions to Improvements on BLM land. It is also readily 

apparent that such partnerships peaked at over $2.5 million in 1985. One can only 

speculate as to the cause and effect of the foreboding decline in private sector investment 

in the future of BLM federal land. 

Regardless of the myriad of reasons for the breakdown of the partnership, there 

exist some mandates for the refurbishment of"TRUST" so necessa.rY"for the enhancement 

of our national heritage and the benefit of future generations. Surely we have assembled 

the wisdom necessary to move into the 21st century from a position of strength. The 

cornerstone is "Responsible Production". Responsible production requires rewards for 

those individuals facing the challenges, risking life and limb and accomplishing the goals 

and objectives of the planning process. Longer tenure for those demonstrating sound 

stewardship, ownership of improvements on a proportional basis to investment, ability to 

capture additional resource response in a timely manner are all positive incentives that 

recognize the permittee as a partner and key player to long run range and forest health. 

Recognition of long term carrying capacity which allows timely increases and decreases 
397 

of a temporary nature without j eopardizing the long term carrying capacity is critical for 

prudent resource decisions. Accelerated on-the-ground monitoring of production and 

trend to quantitatively determine rangeland health and ecosystem wealth is essential to 

reward performance and to protect sensitive areas. However, it is mandatory that industry 

work with agency personnel and make the ever so difficult visit to fellow stockman who 

aren't demonstrating sound stewardship practices and insist on conformance. 

It is my opinion that enticement through incentives achieves and sustains results 

when the parties are involved in the planning, implementation, and the follow-up 

monitoring. Pushing through additional regulation may accomplish short-term objectives 

but falls far short of attaining the long term goals of resource enhancement. 

Grazin1: Fees: There are three givens when it comes to grazing fees: first, there is no 

perfect grazing fee formula; second, a grazing fee will overcharge some permittees on an 

animal unit month (AUM) basis and undercharge others and; third, federal grazing fees 

are not directly comparable to private grazing fees. Strong testimonies have been 

historically presented to this committee documenting the 3 givens. 

The Taylor Grazing Act (Sec. 3) refers to"reasonable" fees and Public Rangelands 

Improvement Act (Sec. 2) refers to a fee which is "equitable" "to prevent economic 

disruption and harm to the western livestock industry". The Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (Sec. 40la) refers to a fee which is "equitable to the United States and 

to holders of grazing permits". FLPMA & PRIA both cite "costs of production" "and such 

other factors as may relate to the reasonableness of such fees". 

Economic theories of efficiency and optimization should not be inappropriately used 

to determine a grazing fee when the value-laden terms of reasonable, equitable, and fair 

are espoused; these are directly related to the equity portions of economic theory which 

require subjective assessments of what exactly fair, and reasonable really mean and to 

whom. We are not maximizing net return over time nor are we extracting every cent of 

consumer surplus from the range livestock industry. Rather, we are working on the 

broader scale of being equitable to the owner of the raw resources oeing used as a factor 

of production for livestock i.e. the United States and also preventing economic disruption 

to the user of the raw forage i.e. the holder of the grazing permit. This implies a much 

larger range for an acceptable and fair grazing fee. 

'fhe PRIA and FLPMA language state that cost of production were significant 

factors in determining a fair market value (FVM) and as such were included in the 

formula as the Prices Paid Index (PPI). This approach together with the Beef Cattle Price 

Index (BCPI) were often referred to as the "ability to pay" portion of the grazing fee 

formula. This orientation is consistent with sound business practices by including both 

2 
398 

earnings and expenses and determining the ~ return. An examination of the published 

USDA, Economic Research Service (ERS) U.S. cow-calf production economic costs and 

returns for the last 21 years reveals that the bottom line return to management and risk 

has been negative for all of the last 21 years. Whenever the "bottom line" is being 

evaluated it is imperative to isolate which factors of production are being included to 

arrive at the bottom line; the ERS economic costs include induced costs of cattle 

purchases, unpaid labor, and depreciation i.e. capital replacement; therefore, it would be 

appropriate to look at a different "bottom line" af receipts less ~ expenses. This has 

traditionally been called the Net Cash Returns and is now entitled the Gross Value of 

Production less cash expenses with the new methodology adopted by the ERS for the 

period 1990 through 1992. The net return was negative for 12 of the past 21 years even 

when only considering cash expenses. Even though the bottom line is negative it still does 

not warrant a negative fee for the federal forage as a factor of production. 

Derived Demand: There is justification for valuing an input based on the· value of 

product it produces; that is, the demand for forage is prompted by the demand for 

livestock. The demand for forage is derived from the demand for beef. The quantity 

d-:manded for some inputs is very sensitive to price changes. One of the major 

explanatory factors for this sensitivity is the ease of substitution for the input. Therefore, 

in heavily federal dependent areas and in year-long areas the impact and resultant shift 

away from federal forage due to a change in the price of federal forage will be relatively 

small because of the lack of substitute forage. In yearlong areas permittees will have to 

pay the higher price or go out of business. In seasonal areas the response will be much 

stronger. 

The methodology for determining the basic fee for each animal month of grazing 

has several strengths beyond the most obvious of being simple to calculate. Concentrating 

on the cow as the basic unit explicitly recognizes that the mother cow is the producer and 

other classes of livestock are solely support units. This orientation can be traced back to 

a business production calculation called net-tum-off where the total pounds of livestock 

produced for the year for all classes of livestock are summed and divided by the number 

of brood cows. Tracking over time allows examination of climatic variation, new 

technology adoption, improved genetics and enhanced distribution on a per cow basis. 

The net-tum-off per year is converted to a value of production by recognizing the 

price and quantity of each class of support livestock sold for each cow. This is the whole 

array of products sold on an annual basis and is converted to a gross value of product sold 

per month by dividing by twelve regardless of when during the year the product was sold. 

This figure is the historic cash receipt per cow now labeled the Gross Value of Production 

(G~ on a U.S. basis. This approach is consistent with the derived demand approach 

to factor valuation. 

3 
399 

Grazin1: Fee Formula: Fee= GVP + 12 x .06 

Dividing the GVP by 12 simply converts the annual Gross Value of Production to 

a monthly gross value. The next critical factor in the proposed formula is the rate at 

which the monthly GVP will be multiplied by to determine a fair return to the treasury 

for its forage resource and a reasonable user rate for the permittee. 

Rate Justification: (See Table #I) 

The GVP is for livestock sold from the ranch and is not equivalent to the higher 

inventory value per cow which reflects the value of retained breeding stock. 

6 Month T-Bills: There are several places to examine when determining a fair return on 

gross value; the first would be to look at what the ERS is allowing the producer as a rate 

of return on his/her own operating capital. This rate is documented in the Costs of 

Production--Major Field Crops and Livestock and Dairy, 1992, ECIFS 12-3 pg. 6, as the 

annual average rate on 6-month U.S. Treasury bills. This rate was 4.66 in 1994 with a 

5 year average of 4.87 and 10 year average of 5.90. The 5 and 10 year averages are 

certainly consistent with the 6% average in the proposed formula. 

Discount Rate: The cost of private banks borrowing from the Federal Reserve Bank (Fed) 

is called the discount rate, and is the interest rate charged by the Fed to banks that 

borrow to meet temporary needs for reserves. This rate is what the U.S receives for 

lending. This Discount rate by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York for a 5 year 

average from 1990 through 1994 was 4.46% and 10 year average was 5.51%. Very 

consistent with the 6% proposed rate. 

Federal Funds Rate: When banks run short on reserves they can also borrow from other 

banks that have excess reserves. The cost of borrowing from other banks is the federal 

funds rate. The 5 year average from 1990 through 1994 was 4.91% and the 10 year 

average was 6.29%. 

These options are relatively risk free and reflect the opportunity cost of the Fed's 

capital when lending through the Discount Rate and also the private banks opportunity 

cost through the Fed Funds Rate. In addition the U.S. Treasury was paying 5.9% 

average over the last 10 years to borrow capital. This is strong supporting evidence that 

6% is equitable and reasonable to the United States and the holders of grazing permits. 

Formula Stren~:ths: Concept is equivalent to a gross receipts tax: 

I) Three year moving average keeps fee current. 

2) Fee not nearly as volatile; hence greater stability. 

3) Simple and Based on the market value of the final product. 

4) Uniform fee calculated from published independent federal agency. 

5) Similar method to mining, skiing, outfitting. 

4 
400 

Formula Weaknesses: 

1) Cost of Production primary data last collected in 1990 and indexed forward. 

2) Calculation on Gross Value of Production ignores the cost of production 

aspect. 

3) Data lagged nearly 3 years, 1993 not available until September 1995. 

Formula Performance: The fee formula as proposed would yield a $2.16 fee for 

the 1996 fee year starting March 1st (fable 2). It would be calculated from the ERS 

published numbers for 1990, 1991 and 1992 as a rolling average. Tracking this formula 

backwards reveals that it would have been lower than the actual fee during the 70's and 

early 80's, and above the actual level in mid 80's and early 90's. The relationship is 

plotted in Figure #2. The 1996 fee of 2.16 is S.55 per AUM higher than the current fee 

ofS1.61/AUM in 1995. 

The formula configuration is only as strong as the support data behind it. The 

greatest enhancement of formula performance would be to minimize the lag time between 

receipts for cattle and payment of fee. The Gross Value of Production 3 year moving 

average must be of current years not the 3 year lag. The key to enhanced performance 

is capturing the current price trends and recognizing that the greatest variability is in the 

price side of receipts, not in the quantity sold. 

The National Agricultural Statistics Serv;ce (NASS) collects price data for the 

relevant classes of cattle on a monthly basis and has a published yearly average by the end 

of February for the preceding year. Since this data is needed before this date in order to 

calculate a grazing fee for the current billing year which starts March 1st; it is 

recommended that the Economic Research Service forecast the last two months prices of 

the preceding year i.e. November and December to allow the 3 year moving average to 

entail 34 months of actual prices and 2 months of forecast prices. The end result is a 

grazing fee for the coming year that is based on the average GVP of the immediate 3 

preceding years. Current trends in cash receipts would then yield a current fee 

synchronized with the highs and lows of the market. The quantity side could then be 

adjusted each decade by the traditional cost of production survey to reflect changes in 

genetic performance and other phenological trends. 

Impacts to the Treasury: The number of federal AUM's of actuar use are presented in 

Table 3 for the period 1985 through 1993. Contrary to public opinion the number of 

AUM's actually paid is not directly correlated to grazing fees. As the fees decrease the 

number of AUM's does not increase causing over grazing because the numbers are 

determined from long run carry capacity virtually unrelated to the fee level for marginal 

changes in grazing fees. The relevant question; is a change from $1.611 AUM to 

S2.16/ AUM marginal? This constitutes a 34 percent increase in grazing fees while 

livestock prices are falling drastically (Figure 3). The S2.16 figure would constitute 22.4% 

of the net return over cash costs for 1992. If the demand for federal forage is relatively 

inelastic in this price range, then the BLM and USFS will continue to permit and lease 

an actual use of approximately 16.6 million AUMs; that translates to $9.1 million in 

5 
401 

additional receipts. A portion of which goes directly to the U.S. Treasury by formula. 

There are several reasons why the demand curve is relatively unresponsive to 

marginal price increases in this range: I) the lack of available substitutes for federal forage 

particularly in year round grazing areas, 2) grazing is necessary to maintain beneficial use 

for water rights particularly in water base states, 3) historical market values of permits 

have been paid by a majority of current permittees, 4) the location and value of section 

#4 permits on BIM land prohibits turning back offederal AUM's, 5) federal AUM's are 

necessary for an economic ranch unit and 6) off ranch income is still being used to 

maintain "way of life". 

There may be some marginal ranchers that go out of business. Ranchers in the 

highest risk category are those that are heavily federal dependent and highly leveraged by 

servicing over 60 percent debt. In New Mexico this is primarily the small rancher which 

comprise the majority of New Mexico ranches. The final determination as to reasonable 

and equitable is not an efficiency question rather it is an equity question, as to whom is 

impacted and to what degree. 

The data in Table 4 reflect the increased dollars paid in grazing fees for different 

sized New Mexico ranches. No small or medium ranch is impacted by over $1,100 but 

when coupled with reduced livestock prices, extended drought, and uncertainty of pending 

regulation it is obvious why capital and young people are not being attracted into the 

range livestock industry. 

In summary the Livestock Grazing Act of 1995 is a comprehensive package of 

incentives to promote long-run resource stewardship and continued improvement of 

federal range condition. The grazing fee approach of a gross receipts tax is defendable 

and has precedence. The 6 percent rate reflects a fair return to a factor of production as 

evidenced by both the rate of federal earnings and rate paid for borrowed capital. The 

impact to the U.S. Treasury will be positive and only the most heavily federal dependent 

and highly leveraged livestock operator will be forced out of the industry. I strongly 

recommend that the U.S.D.A. Forest Service be included under the Act beyond just the 

grazing fee. 

6 
TABLE 1. Alt r Lend· -· ··----- -------- dB __ ___ orrowmg R t. ·-- 5 . --- ·--- I High Gradel 1 J Prime I Discount I U. S. Securities Corporate Bonds Municipal New Home Commercial Rate Rate 

Bills New Issues Constant Maturities I I Bond• Mortgage Paper Charged by by Fed. YEAR 3-month 6-month 3-year 10-:-iear 30-vear Aaa Baa IS & PI Yields 6-months Banks of N. Y. 

1965 3.954 4.055 4.220 4.280 ... 4.490 4.870 3.270 5.810 4.380 4.640 4.040 

1966 4.881 5.082 5.230 4.920 ... 5.130 5.670 3.820 8.250 5.550 5.830 4.500 

1967 4.321 4.630 5.030 5.070 ... 5.510 6.230 3.980 6.460 5.100 5.610 4.190 1968 5.339 5.470 5.680 5.650 ... 6.180 6.940 4.510 5.970 5.900 6.300 5.160 

1969 6.677 6.853 7.020 6.670 -- 7.030 7.810 5.810 7.810 7.830 7.960 5.870 

1970 6.458 6.562 7.290 7.350 ... 8.040 9.110 6.510 8.450 7.710 7.910 5.950 

1971 4.348 4.511 5.650 6.160 ... 7.390 8.560 5.700 7.740 5.110 5.720 4.180 

1972 4.071 4.466 5.720 6.210 ... 7.210 8.160 5.270 7.600 •. 4.730 5.250 4.500 

1973 7.041 7.178 6.950 6.840 ... 7.440 8.240 5.180 7.960 8.150 8.030 6.440 

1974 7.886 7.926 7.820 7.560 -· 8.570 9.500 6.090 1.920 9.840 10.810 7.830 

1975 5.638 6.122 7.490 7.990 ... 8.830 10.610 6.890 9.000 8.320 7.860 6.250 

1976 4.989 5.266 6.770 7.610 ... 8.430 9.750 6.490 9.000 5.340 6.840 5.500 

1977 5.265 5.510 6.690 7.420 7.750 8.020 8.970 5.560 9.020 5.610 8.830 5.460 

1978 7.221 7.572 8.290 8.410 8.490 8.730 9.490 5.900 9.560 7.990 9.060 7.460 

1979 10.041 10.017 9.710 9.440 9.260 9.630 10.690 6.390 10.780 10.910 12.670 10.280 

1980 11.506 11.374 11 .550 11.460 11 .270 11 .940 13.670 8.510 12.660 12.210 15.270 11.770 

1981 14.029 13.776 14.440 13.910 13.450 14.170 16.040 11.230 14.700 14.760 11.170 13.420 

1962 10.686 11 .084 12.920 13.000 12.760 13.790 16.110 11.570 15.140 11.190 14.160 11.020 

1983 8.630 8.750 10.450 11.100 11 .180 12.040 13.550 9.470 12.570 8.190 10.790 8.500 

1984 9.580 9.800 11.890 12.440 12.410 12.710 14.190 10.150 12.310 10.180 12.040 1.800 

1985 7.480 7.660 9.640 10.620 10.790 11 .370 12.720 9.180 11.550 8.010 9.930 7.690 

1986 5.980 6.030 7.060 7.680 7.780 9.020 10.390 7.380 10.170 8.390 8.330 6.330 

1987 5.820 6.050 ·7.680 8.390 8.590 9.380 10.580 7.730 9.310 8.850 8.210 5.860 

1988 6.690 6.920 8.260 8.850 8.960 9.710 10.830 7.760 9.190 7.680 9.320 6.200 

1989 8.120 6.040 8.550 8.490 8.450 9.260 10.180 7.240 10.130 8.800 10.870 6.930 

1990 7.510 7.470 8.280 8.550 8.610 9.320 10.360 7.250 10.050 7.150 10.010 6.980 

1991 5 420 . 5.490 6.820 7.860 8.140 8.770 9.800 6.890 9.320 5.150 1.480 5.450 

1992 3.450 3.570 5.300 7.010 7.670 8.140 8.980 6.410 8.240 3.800 6.250 3.250 

1993 3.020 3.140 4.440 5.870 6.590 7.220 7.930 5.630 7.200 3.300 6.000 3.000 

1994 4.290 4.660 6.270 7.090 7.370 7.970 8.630 6.180 7.470 4.930 7.150 3.600 

Feb. 1995' 5.800 6.100 7.250 7.470 7.510 8.260 8.850 5.220 8.280 8.380 9.000 5.250 

5-year 

avg. 4.738 6.218 7.276 7.676 8.284 9.14 6.472 8.456 5.166 7.574 

10-year 

flvg. 5.778 Ji,903 7.228 8.041 8.295 9.016 10.040 7.165 9.263 6.356 8.453 

20-year 

avg. 7.278 7.415 8.624 9.160 9.923 11.174 7.691 10.372 7.886 9.981 7.178 

30-year 

6.834_ __ 7.770 8.130 8.848 9.952 6.798 9.347 7.401 8.913 6.564 

Sourcos: Depar1ment of the Treasury, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Housing Finance Board , Moody'a Investors Service, and Standard & Poor's Corporation. 

' Not included in any averages. 

Federal 

Funds 

Rate 

4.070 

5.110 

4.220 

5.660 

8.200 

7.180 

4.660 

4.430 

8.730 

10.500 

5.820 5.040 5.540 

7.930 

11.190 

13.360 

16.380 12.260 

9.090 

10.230 

8.100 

6.810 6.660 

7.570 

9.210 

8.100 

5.690 

3.520 

3.020 

4.210 

5.920 

4.908 

6.289 

7.987 7.416 

0 """ 
Table 2. Gross Value of Production Fee. 

Fee ERS Publication Gross Value of 3 Year Rolling FEE@ 6%2 Actual BLM 

Year Year Production' Averaqe Gr. Value Fee 

1975 1972 140.39 1.00 

1976 1973 174.42 •. 1.00 

1977 1974 126.75 1.51 

1978 1975 119.03 147.19 0.74 1.51 

1979 1976 134.73 140.07 0.70 1.51 

1980 1977 146.91 126.84 0.63 1.89 

1981 1978 244.55 133.56 0.67 2.41 

1982 1979 352.30 175.40 0.88 2.31 

1983 1980 306.91 247.92 1.24 1.86 

1984 1981 260.64 301.25 1.51 1.39 

1985 1982 255.49 306.62 1.53 1.37 

1986 1983 247.18 274.35 1.37 1.35 

1987 1984 258.78 254.44 1.27 1.35 

1988 1985 254.39 253.82 1.27 1.35 

1989 1986 265.47 253.45 1.27 1.54 

1990 1987 323.39 259.55 1.30 1.86 

1991 1988 359.69 281.08 1.41 1.81 

1992 1989 372.15 316.18 1.58 1.97 

1993 1990 441 .59 351 .74 1.76 1.92 

1994 1991 438.23 391.14 1.96 1,86 

1995 1992 413.56 417.32 2.09 1.98 

1996 1993 431.13 - -a: 

'-From Economic Research SeNice. Costs of Production-Major Field Crops & Uveslock and Dally, 1992., ERS-NASS, Augus~ 11194. 

'-Fee~ (G.V.P. • %)112 

PGLLR 

11 State Avq. 

5.75 

6.37 

7.06 

7.11 

7.53 

7.88 

8.83 

8.36 

8.85 

8.861 

8.401 g 

8.10 

7.551 

8.49 

8.70: 

9.19 

9.25 

9.41 

9.70 

10.00 
TABLE 3. Federal AUM Trends 1985-1993 

Year BLM USFS 

AUMs AUMs 

1985 10,876,112 8,337,080 

1986 10,378,724 8,221,131 

1987 11 I 102,250 8,038,771 

1988 10,033,517 7,925,537 1989 10,968,341 7,672,697 1990 10,772,384 7,713,269 

1991 9,539,273 7,012,185 

1.992 10,023,569 7,327,983 

·1993 9,696,410 6,903,876 

Sources: Bureau of Land Management Public Land Statistics 1985-1993. 

Report of the Forest Service Fiscal Year 1985-1993. 

AUMs 

on Federal 

19,213,192: 18,599,855 19,141,021 

17,959,054 18,641,038 18,485,653 16,551,458 17,351,552 

16,600,286 
405 

Table 4. Ranch Impact o~ Proposed Federal Grazing Fee. 

JFrom $1.61 TO $2.16) 

Location Size Federal Change 

Forage $/Ranch 

(AUMS) 

Southwest 

Small 744 409.20 

Medium 1776 976.80 

Large 3180 1749.00 

Northwest 

Small 1248 686.40 

Medium 1896 1042.80 

X-large 3588 1973.40 

Central 

X-small 540 297.00 

Small 1608 884.40 

Medium 1260 693.00 

Combination 684 376.20 

Southeast / 

-·· Medium . . - 1404 772.20 

Large 2556 1405.80 

X-large 3996 2197.80 

Combination 2004 1102.20 

Gila Nat'l Forest 

Small 1248 686.40 

Medium 2532 .. 1392.60 

X -large 5604 3082.20 

Source: Adapted from 'The Economic Impacts m New Mexico Ranchers ar lncraaslng Grazing Fees m Levels 

Proposed In Rangeland Refonn 94' end by Legislative Compromise". Torelf, LA., Lany Brence end 

Weslej B. Word. Range Improvement Task Force, Report 36. New Mexico State University, April, 1 
406 

$INVESTED , 

(Q -· ....lo. ....lo. 1\.) 1\.) VJ r:: 

0 01 0 01 

0 0 0 0 

0 .., 

0 CD 

0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 ....... 

0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 

:::0 

m 

::l 

co 

CD 

c 

0 C/) 

CD 

::l .., 

OJ () 

r- 0 

3:: ::l 

..... 

.., 

r- C"' m r:: ::l ~ 

. 

a. 0 

::l 

C/) 

at 

3 

"'C 

.., 

0 

< CD 

3 

CD 

:J 

..... 

C/) 
)> 

u 

"'Tlc: 

CD D> 

CD OJ 

r 

s: 

0 

0'1 

0 

1975 

1976 

1977 

1978 

1979 

1980 

1981 

- 1982 ·- 1983 

1984 ~ 1985 

D) 1986 .., 1987 

1988 

1989 

1990 

1991 

1992 

1993 

1994 

1995 

1996 

407 

Fee ($/AUM) 

.....Jo. .....Jo. "' . . 

0 0'1 0 

0 0 0 

"T1 

ce· 

r::: !" a 

0'1 1\) 

0 

""C 

;o 

)> 

"T1 

CD 

CD 

Q) 

:::::J 

Q. 

(j) 

a 

en 

en 

~ 2" 

CD 

0 -

""C 

a 

Q. 

r::: 

a a· 

:::::J 

"T1 

CD 

CD 
Figure 3. Cattle Prices, 1985-1995. 

110 

100 

- 90 ~ 80 -- ~ 70 

Q) 60 (,) 

·-~ 50 <X> a. 0 ~ 40 

30 

1985 · 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 May, 1995 

Year 

Steers & C 1 Cows · . aves He1fers Beef & Cull 

--- ---

Source: USDA Nat onal i Agricultural Stat st i cs i Serv cei . 
409 

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE 

THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND LANDS 

ON HR1713 THE LIVESTOCK GRAZING ACT 

by R. Max Peterson, Executive Vice President 

International Association or Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

July 11, 1995 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to share with the Committee the 

perspectives of the Association on HR1713, the "Livestock Grazing Act". We believe some 

reform of the regulations governing grazing use of public lands administered by BLM is long 

overdue, and have provided comments throughout the process. However, while we believe that 

there are parts of HR1713 which may be helpful, we also find that several areas of the bill 

present serious problems both to long term management of important public lands and to the 

relative rights and responsibilities of grazing permittees and other equally valid users of these 

lands. 1n short, we believe that HR1713 sets back the management of our public rangelands 

several decades and changes the focus to single purpose use which is contrary to the multiple 

purpose mandate. This would simply not be responsible stewardship of our public lands for our 

citizens, for whom they are held in the public trust. 

We believe that considerable progress has been made in harmonizing different uses of 

public rangeland, while still maintaining the sustainability of the soil, water, plant and animal 

communities found thereon. Our concern is that this bill will polarize that effort and the many 

diverse users of rangelands by making grazing the apparent dominant use of public ranges and 

severely limiting managers' ability to make important and timely management decisions that are 

vital to long term multiple use of such lands. We believe that scenario is ultimately not 

beneficial to the interest of the livestock industry, rural communities or other uses of the public 

lands. 

The International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, founded in 1902, is a quasigovernmental organization of public agencies charged with the protection and management of 

North America's fish and wildlife resources. The Association's governmental members include 

fish and wildlife agencies of the states, provinces, and federal governments of the U.S., Canada, 

and Mexico. All 50 states are members. The Association has been a key organization in 

promoting sound resource management and strengthening federal, state, and private cooperation 

in protecting and managing fish and wildlife and their habitats in the public interest. 

States have broad trustee responsibilities for the conservation of fish and wildlife 

resources within their borders, including on most Federal public lands. State fish and wildlife 

agencies share concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal government for migratory birds, 

anadromous fish and listed threatened and endangered species. Therefore, while the habitat on 

public grazing lands is managed by the BLM or USFS under multiple use laws, the States retain 

the responsibility for ensuring proper conservation stewardship of the fish and wildlife resources 

on those lands. Close cooperation and coordination between these agencies is obviously a 

necessity to ensure professional management of these lands and conservation of the fish and 

wildlife resources found thereon. Concurrent jurisdiction with respect to fish and wildlife, and 
410 

its application to U.S. Department of Interior administered lands, is also discussed generally in 

the Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Policy: State-Federal Relationships, 43 CFR Part 

24. U.S. Department of Agriculture policy (Secretary Memorandum at 95~3) and regulation 

regarding DWJagement of the National Forests and Grasslands recognize that States have broad 

trustee and stewardship responsibility over fish and wildlife conservation and the regulation of 

their use, even on Federal lands. 

We underscore this long and generally successful history of Federal-State partnership in 

DWJaging fish and wildlife on Federal public lands to share with the subcommittee our member 

agencies' standing on the subject of the bill before the subcommittee. A critical issue for the 

States regarding HR1713 therefore, is ensuring that their role in the planning, implementation 

and monitoring of land management activities as a resource management partner with the BLM 

is maintained and enhanced in the long term interest of the public. 

The International Association supports livestock grazing on public lands under the 

multiple use management concept, and has consistently worked in cooperation with other wildlife 

interest groups and livestock representatives to reduce grazing related conflicts and seek common 

ground. As an example, the International participated in a U.S. Forest Service sponsored 

activity review of rangelands in May of 1990 in cooperation with the Wildlife Management 

InstitUte, National Cattlemen's Association and Public Lands Council. The primary purpose of 

that effort was to identify problem areas between livestock and big game on western rangelands, 

with an ultimate objective of either eliminating, or at a minimum, reducing those conflicts. 

Participants were in unanimous agreement that the future health and sustainability of our 

rangelands was of paramount importance, and must be considered above all other factors. The 

accomplishments of these efforts have been summarized in an activity review report and 

subsequent series of action plans. 

This initial cooperative effort led to a conference in Sparks, Nevada, during September 

of 1991, which· was directed toward "seeking common ground on western rangelands. • The 

conference, which was co-sponsored by the International, was attended by over 700 registered 

participants, most of whom were looking for answers to problems in seeking the desired 

common ground. A number of site specific examples from several different states were 

presented, which showed that conflicts can be resolved to the satisfaction of all interested parties. 

A substantial amount of goodwill and commitment to work to solve problems was generated by 

these efforts. HR1713 would be detrimental to such efforts. 

Since the 1991 conference, a number of demonstration areas have been established in 

various states which show that multiple use objectives can be met for both livestock and wildlife 

needs, without serious confrontation, and in a timely manner. Perhaps the best example of this 

effort is the Habitat Partnership Program implemented in the State of Colorado between livestock 

interest groups and the State Division of Wildlife. The Colorado program not only addresses 

livestock and big game needs on public lands, but also takes into account the importance of 

private property for maintaining an abundance and diversity of wildlife in many areas. 

2 
411 

We are hopeful that these efforts will help to maintain, restore and improve the condition 

of public rangelands, including riparian areas, so that these areas are better able to sustain 

healthy and diverse populations of fish and wildlife, while providing for livestock use and other 

appropriate multiple uses at levels that are compatible with maintenance of proper functioning 

rangeland ecosystems. 

Unfortunately we believe HR1713 will impede rather than advance those efforts by 

apparently giving grazing permittees inappropriate priority over all other users and uses on 

public land, as well as giving permittees the primary voice in future management of these lands. 

Therefore, we must oppose HR1713 unless it is substantially modified to reflect the 

multiple puzpose nature of these important public lands and to include management provisions 

that ensure that such lands are managed in the public interest. 

Turning to the specifics of HR 1713, the areas in the bill we would suggest substantial 

change to include the following. We believe the bill should: 1) recognize the need for broad 

national multi-purpose guidelines for rangeland health and sustainable use under which state-, 

regional- or allotment-specific standards can be developed through local plans; 2) retain the 

flexibility for the BLM professional resource/land manager to include additional terms or 

conditions in the grazing permit or lease to enhance conservation efforts or facilitate other public 

use; 3) delete the exemption from NEPA or other Federal laws in the permit process; 4) further 

ensure and clarify legal standing for State fish and wildlife agencies and other (than grazing) 

users of public rangelands in the public participation process involved in preparation of and 

implementing land use plans; 5) provide that water rights will be acquired by BLM to provide 

water not only for grazing use but other multiple puzpose use including water for fish and 

wildlife resource enhancement puzposes; 6) establish provisions for conservation use of 

rangelands by permittees or lessees, and eliminate the prohibition on conservation use for longer 

than two years; and 7) delete Title II Grasslands, which removes National Grasslands from the 

National Forest System and thus raises serious question as to which laws would apply, how 

management would be funded and whether grasslands are to be managed under multiple use 

principles. 

The Association has been and continues to be a long-standing advocate of allowing the 

professionally trained resource and land manager to make the decisions affecting land and 

·resource uses of public lands. These professional managers bave the background, experience 

and expertise to make the many detailed land manacement dcc:Wons including harmonizing 

multiple use of our public lands, and should be provided the latitude to do so under broad policy 

guidelines established by Congress. We concur that State or region-based standards of rangeland 

health are the most appropriate perspective from which to derive use conditions. 

We bave not advocated national standards because of the tremendous variety of terrain, 

climate, vegetation, soil, and uses of public lands. However, we do believe that Congress 

should eslablish broad guidelines for sustainable use of public rangeland for multiple purposes, 

3 
412 

from which the State or region-based standards will derive. We believe that national guidelines 

for rangeland should include goals to ensure the long term sustainability and productivity of 

public rangelands, and will also affirm and demonstrate the Nation's commitment to proper 

conservation stewardship and multiple use of these public rangelands. The Association concurs 

with the four fundamentals of rangeland health as articulated in the BLMs revised grazing 

regulations, scheduled for implementation after August 21, 1995. These are as follows: 1) 

watersheds are in, or progressing toward, "properly functioning condition"; 2) ecological 

processes are maintained, or progressing toward attainment; 3) water quality meets state 

standards; and 4) habitats for threatened and endangered species are either restored, maintained 

or improving. 

We would also strongly encourage that the bill direct that the development of State and 

regional standards for rangelands be done with the cooperation of the State fish and wildlife 

agency, and be consistent with comprehensive fish and wildlife resource and habitat plans of the 

State fish and wildlife agency. Most States have developed such plans which establish goals and 

objectives to ensure the sustainability or enhancement of fish and wildlife populations and the 

habitats on which they depend. Most of these effort also address fish and wildlife dependent 

recreational use and demand. These comprehensive plans can be of great assistance to public 

rangeland managers for basic fish and wildlife survey and inventory data, identifying and 

highlighting the role Federal public lands can and should play in meeting state-wide fish and 

wildlife resource and habitat objectives, and identifying the role of the Federal public lands in 

providing fish and wildlife dependent recreational use and environmental education. The public, 

including permittees, are active participants in the development of such plans. 

The Association also strongly suggests that the grazing permit terms, which are limited 

by HR1713, clearly provide the authorized agency officer with the professional discretion to 

utilize other permit conditions which would enhance rangeland health, or facilitate continued 

multiple use of public rangelands. Our understanding of HR1713 is that it would limit the terms 

and conditions of permits to livestock grazing issues such as the kind and number of livestock, 

seasons and periods of use, allotments to be used, and amount of use (in AUMs). We further 

read the bill to prohibit the imposition of any term or condition in the grazing permit or lease 

other than these items. There are clearly other requirements developed during the allotment 

planning process that should be reflected in permits so that both the permittee and the authorized 

officer have a clear and common understanding of what is expected. We urge specific 

amendments to bill language which make it clear that the permit conditions should to be tailored 

to Grazing Allotment plans. In this way, the professional resource manager could include 

conditions on the permit that would ensure the sustainability of rangeland condition. Also, to 

facilitate multiple use of public rangelands, grazing permittees, where necessary and appropriate, 

should be required, through permit conditions, to maintain fences or gates at appropriate places 

to permit other uses of the land. We believe that these permit decisions are best made specific 

to each allotment, by the agency resource manager, and will facilitate continued public use of 

rangelands by sportsmen and others. 

The Association is also concerned about the language in HR1713 which raises the 

4 
413 

Slalldard for public involvement in grazinr; decision making and may thus be construed to limit 

State fish and wildlife agency involvement and participation, or that of fish and wildlife 

depaldent m:reational usen of these public rangelands, such as· hunters, anglers and birders. 

The Slandard in HR.1713, as we n:ad it, would Rquire the "affected interest" to provide 

"subSiantiated evidence that the management of the public lands will affect the individual or 

organization". This significantly narrows the opportunity for public participation, and, in 

conjunction with the elimination of public involvement in development of Allotment Management 

Plans and in the development of state and regional standards and guidelines, could place other 

usen, such as sportsmen, at a decided disadvantage in advocating for other than grazing use of 

these public lands. Further, without any additional qualification of what constitutes 

"subSiantiated evidence", or the tenn "will affect the individual or organization•, this process 

could lead to extensive and expensive litigation to detennine who qualifies as an affected 

interest. We encourage language be added to HR1713 to provide that State fish and wildlife 

agencies have legal Slanding uilder this Act to ensure that the agencies' concerns, comments, 

plans and recommendations are given full consideration by the Federal agency in decisionmaking relating to use of public rangelands. We also strongly believe that opportunities should 

be re-instituted to provide for participation by other rangeland users in the decision-making 

process. Otherwise, we will likely see continued serious controversy about the equity or fairness 

of other than grazing uses of the range resource. 

The Association strongly encourages changes to HR.l713 to clearly allow for public 

ownership of water rights on public rangelands, consistent with state law. For National Forest 

Lands the Forest Service has consistently obtained water rights for multiple purpose use 

including grazing. That procedure has worked well and should be followed on lands 

administered by BLM. We have long advocated water rights on Federal lands should be 

acquired under appropriate State and Federal law. However, because water on Federal public 

lands, including public rangelands, is used for many purposes in addition to grazing, specifically 

for fish and wildlife conservation and habitat enhancement, these water rights should be acquired 

in the name of the United States. 

It is also our understanding that the language of HR1713 would effectively :ilili1 or limil some existing fedml water rights and may prevent perfecting some water rights whether held 

by BLM or other Federal agencies that have some connection to livestock grazing. We are 

vitally concerned that this language would virtually pre-empt the Federal land managing agencies 

ability to provide water for the enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat on public r;razing lands. 

We concur that there should be adequate process to reconcile competing uses of water on public 

rangelands, but pre-empting Federal ownership of water rights is fundamentally inconsistent with 

proper stewardship of these public rangelands. We urge the restoration of the water rights 

ownership for BLM and other Federal agencies. 

For both water rights and other improvements where the permittee makes a substantial 

investment there should be procedures such as those in the BLM proposed rules that 

permittee/lessee contributions are reimbursable should they cease to hold a permit or lease, or 

if the land is devoted to other public purposes. We do, however, disagree with the provision 

s 
414 

in HR1713 which would give the federal government only a proportional title to the 

improvements based upon the investments made respectively by the rancher and the government 

and allows maintenance to be included in determining proportionate ownership. We firmly 

assert that this is DOt good public policy, and is tantamount to someone leasing or renting out 

a residence, and granting the lessee partial title to the property proportional to maintenance and 

improvements made to it even though the rental rate may reflect such tenant responsibilities. 

Reimbursement for improvements under appropriate circumstances is fiscally sound public 

policy, but, since these are public lands of the United States, all improvements should remain 

under title to the United States. 

Finally, we are disappointed that HR1713 contains disincentives for conservation use of 

these public rangelands by the permittee or lessee. We firmly believe that conservation use 

should be encouraged. We further believe that most landowners want to be good stewards of 

their land, including those properties that they rent or lease. Provisions for conservation use of 

public rangelands would provide ranchers with an additional tool, available at their discretion, 

to conserve and restore other rangeland values and uses such as big game populations, healthy 

fish habitat, habitat for upland ground nesting birds and other wildlife species. Further, some 

State fish and wildlife agencies, or non-governmental conservation organizations, have acquired 

the necessary base properties and associated grazing permits and leases to ensure conservation 

use of key public rangelands. Some of these public rangelands provide essential habitat for fish 

and wildlife species, and/or valuable opportunities for public fish and wildlife dependent 

recreational use where it may otherwise be unavailable. We strongly support the continuation 

of these conservation provisions, and encourage the adoption of language in the bill to endorse 

conservation use. Further, we strongly urge that the langua&e which makes conservation use 

for more than two years a prohibited act be deleted; this simply sendS the wrong message about 

stewardship of these public lands. 

In summary, the Association believes that under proper management integrated multiple 

use of public rangelands is compatible with livestock grazing, and that these objectives can and 

should be accomplished consistent with maintaining the health and sustainability of these 

rangelands. We believe that our recommended changes to HR1713 will improve the integration 

of all uses of these public lands, ensure participation by the appropriate Federal and State 

agencies in the long-term management and enhancement of these lands, and provide 

opportunities for our citizens to continue to participate in the decision-making process for the 

future of their public rangelands. Unfortunately, we believe that HR1713, as introduced, will 

be opposed by the vast majority of the public and will in the long run not be a positive step for 

either grazing permittee or other uses of the public lands. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share our perspectives and I would be glad to address 

any questions you might have. 

IIV\0~171l 

6 
Mr. Chairman: 

415 

Wild I ife Management Institute 1101 14th S1reet, N.W. • SIJ~e 801 • Washing1on, D.C. 20005 

Phone (202) 371-1808 • FAX (202) 408-5059 

Statem<:nt of Lonnie L. Williamson 

before the 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands 

House Committee on Resources 

on 

H. R. 1713 (Livestock Grazing Act) 

July 11, 1995 

I am Lonnie L. Williamson. vice-president of the Wildlife Management Institute, which is headquartered 

in Washington, D.C. The Institute was established in 1911 and is staffed with trained and experienced wildlife 

managers and scientists located throughout the country. 

Although we agree with some of the fmdings in H.R. 1713, we believe that most of the bill's provisions 

are devisive and, thus, we oppose enactment. This measure would serve foremost to drive a wedge between 

wildlife conservatiooists and wildlife users, including hunters and the public land livestock community. Since 

ihese groups depend to a large degree on federal rangelands, they should be working closer together rather than 

becoming polarized. 

We strongly support the finding in H.R. 1713 that "maintaining the economic viability of the western 

livestock industry is essential to maintaining open space and habitat for big game, wildlife and fish .... " Private 

lands provide significant amounts of winter range and other habitat for wildlife. This important habitat could be 

lost if ranching were to be discontinued and the land developed. Since ranching provides this benefit to a public 

resource, wildlife interests should be aware of and amenable to rancher needs and desires. For example, we agree 

wilh the ranchers' desire for more permit tenure in order to plan business operations better, and we support that 

part of H. R. 1713. As wildlife conservationists and sportsmen, we should do our best to help public land 

ranching continue. By doing so. there is reciprocal benefit. We should be partners, not antagonists, because 

wildlife and livestock of necessity should share public rangelands. 

Unfortunately, there have been and are what we view as extremists in both the wildlife and livestock 

camps. These people seem always to prefer confrontation rather than to seek common ground upon which all 

interests may benefit Because H.R. 1713 apparently would disenfranchise wildlife to a large degree on public 

rangelands, the bill will serve as a focus for more unnecessarily rancorous bickering and fmger-pointing. 

The threats to wildlife and its use appear throughout H.R. 1713. Overall, the proposal seems to make 

livestock grazing the dominant use of public lands. It does this by excluding sportSmen and conservationists 

from the decision-making process, allowing pennittees to operate above conservation laws, giving livestock 

essentially all public land forage, prohibiting reductions in livestock use for any reason, disallowing ranchers to 

reduce allotment use voluntarily for conservation purposes, prohibiting scientific method to determine if 

permittees are in compliance with the rules, allowing water developments now available to wildlife to be fenced 

for livestock use only, and reverting national grasslands primarily to agricultural use and subjecting them to 

disposal. 
416 

2 

We believe lha!lhis bill is a serious threat to wildlife and its recreationalllliC. Livestock grazing cannot 

become .!he dominant use of rangelands wilhout wildlife suffering terribly, which has serious economic as well as 

conservation consequences. 

The Institute was organized by !he sporting arms and ammunition industry 84 years ago. It has been 

mainly funded by thai industry since that time, with the sole purpose of restoring and improving the management 

of wildlife resources in North America. More than 80 percent of the industry's business depends on healthy 

wildlife populations. Federal public land is especially importan~ providing most of the habital for such species 

as elk. bighorn sheep. mule deer, pronghorn and prairie grouse. The industry's 20,000 employees and $600 

million payroll have a ID.l\ior economic interest in how wildlife is treated on public land. 

Considerable research in recent years into the economics of fish and wildlife and their use supports our 

long-held contention that these resources are among this nation's most valuable assets. Fishing in America 

generates $19.7 billion in personal earnings, $963.8 million in federal income tax, $398.2 million in state income 

tax, and $1.3 billion in state sales tax annually. Hunting has a total economic impact of $34 billion annually in 

the U.S., which exceeds the sales of such companies as Coca Cola, Ca!erpillar and RJR-Nabisco. For every 50 

hunters in the U.S., enough economic activity is generated to create one job, which works out to 380,000 jobs 

nationwide. 

Add to the sportfishing and sporthunting dollars the economic activity generated by nonhunting 

recreational uses and commercial uses, far more than I million jobs are dependent on how well governments 

manage basic resources in the public trust Federal public lands account for a large part of this economic engine. 

Instead of pursuing enactment ofH.R. 1713 and forcing the outdoor recreation industry, conservationists, sportsmen and the general public to bal~e public land graziers, we urge the Committee to lend strong 

support to a budding range management effort that is supported by all public land interest groups and has proven 

itself over a number of years. The program is called "Seeking Common Ground.~ It originated from a 

symposium held several years ago aimed at solving livestock/big game conflicts on public and private land. 

Following that symposium, the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, state wildlife agencies, 

livestock groups, wildlife conservation groups, sportsmen's organizations, and the National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation developed a partnership whereby range management problems are addressed at the local level by all 

concerned and the needed work funded by all concerned. The program bas been nolhing short of spectacular! y 

successful. A brochure describing the "Seeking Common Ground" movement is attached. 

Mr. Chairman, for the "Seeking Common Ground" approach to become standard operation, it needs the 

support of this Committee and Congress. No legislation is required, but the Committee could serve sigrtifican~y 

to begin with oversight bearings that inform the members and rela!e bow all interests really can support one 

another on public rangelands. These people need to be showcased in order to encourage more to participate in 

the program. Your interest also would encourage those of us in the privale, professional conservation community to continue investing money and time in assuring productive rangelands for the enjoyment and prosperity of 

all users. 

We would be pleased to work with the Committee and others to make "Seeking Common Ground" apply 

to all public rangelands. 

Thank you for considering our views. 
417 

,- ',sE'i1KING coMMoN GRouNo 

Partnerships to the Future 

LEADERSHIP IN: 

Communications • Cooperation 

Science 

Collaborative Learning • Adaptive Management 

Ecosystem-Based Stewardship 
418 

Join "Seeking Common Ground" I ht.'IL" ~~ !It• lilUil 10th(" 

tHullh~·r <-•I p<tHlh'f" who 

~.m tw 111\•dH'\l lhcrl.' 

I.~ llot 1llli!llo ••HI" o,:.,ll..:l 

llld: -lhihl\' to -..~>·J~ fO· 

.t:~~'h"·r LH·ryt•lll' h.:n~~ 

lit- k\ h;utnr r~· 

\.puli~l" .mJ 

It'• hlh!lnj,:\ hi<..h>.trl fh.'\1. 

hHilltt.·t·.., in t••Of'l{"!,tliou .md pt>..iCU 

~·;tlll~<lural ft-'''*'"-'·-' ut..~na~·rtn.:-rn. 

1"•1)..: tlll'l. •n· ,_ iUl tilt prove rang~ 

LutJ lw tlh .wd hum.11i rdatiort 

:!ohlfl'-. ( 'un-;ilki whal yuu ha._(.:" tn 

olh•r. .Old lo ·•.tul J In\\ tnight )OUr 

l..'l•ntributiull'i h.:lp r.: ... oht> t:Hil 

llh.:·r-. .wd bnn¥ 1hc t>c ... t JlO~..,i~k 

lll:Jil:l).!~'!lli"lll 1•11 \~ (">,ll'Til r.lli~CI:llld" • lkir n,,J._..:- ,, diHl':rcrKc 

\\ !h.:l\.' 11 L't!\llll.., •.lH !ht: ytound. 

h~1n u-. 111 <..,! l t-.1:-..:<i C'0'1~t0!'. 

(,llOI 1\iD' 

I nr m•H·t· ini•IIHhUI•IIL piC'a:>!C" ~atl 

.u,~ ~~~ th,,; H;Jli"n;li "Pnthnr. lp-.1l"1.1. 

.·m ilh' Jlr,:\i•UP· J"l;l _£''-' ur \llrrth:-

~...,1 lh.I"'Ci C0\.1\IO;o..; GkOt;~O 

... o \ml'rtt~lfl t unn Bur.:-tw F .. -..-.Ie-rali"ll Put-lit- l'•·h..:• Dnt ... J'•11- ~:!':; 

hlith~ hdHil' Park Ku.Jgc. IL 

(,!ttl{.~ 

Where are the 

Demonstration 

Projects? 

A~1z a 

Thio:. pmpt~t l.""tdl'tli!-hed ,t 

proco::,~ to ~reate- ttnd 

'ilrengthen rartnership 

CUJl\JJ\IUI."t':"- stah-wid(' Hl 

AriL.ona. The-~e p.utm·r· 

~tup1 ,tddress the- us<~ ttf 

both public .tnd prn·att> 

land~ to impn•vc.ArizL-m.-, s 

clk h.lhJtdJ and redtu:c ('On~ 

fil(ts W'lth otJ-wr fMbitJt li!'("S 

MftftWi@ ~// 

H-ab- t e>ii.-tner· 

~ p Pro;;ramAx1al B;zsm 

Coo'dtnat~a 

R&.sourc-~ 

Management 

Lc atedmJl£Jr.h--

c:m.tr-oll Cobat1o . 

ttw> AWl Basin 

demonst-ra tton 

lS d.evclopi.n~ a 

W.ltlfl.S syslern 

and ''~--ater de· 

\.dor•nwrtt tb.Jt , . .,_, U m) 

rrT•\.l' '·•·~et;;Lt•l' {,) t··•'Pdit tnldld• ,md Ji•\hrl<-' 

np,Hl~'in .-Ht:'<~ dc•n~ 

~1,nH.llitw ,lJl~l lhl,dd<•f 

Crt.·~·k.:; lhtc"t' Pl"i~:ct..; 

\\'l]J Ln•tblt• l.H1.dUWI\t'l" 

tn kt'•'f' tn·&..;to.._!. 11UI •f 

nv•·t h;.•itont-. .111d •·II 

cnh· <1! -dJ•t•r wtni••J ri"l:ll}!t' 

arre., n1 public and pn\-,lh__• 

l.:tnd. Th(' t-h~mnn ... tr~1tiou 

takes nn ~,.,no;;\ "'tem ,lppn.>~'-h tr• \vPrlin~ with 

rri\'it!t' larHJtH\I'Wf'- iln-._-t 

publ1.::: dj;,;nKit"~ in ~tn·ngthtmin~~ 

lon~·h•nn pri\dtt.~ ran._hlll!-'!. opt•r<J~ 

tio~ while iJt•nht\ in~. ,:;pl'Lin~ .md 

prt.•\'Cntlng Pi~ ~·li'lll' o:tnd otlwJ 

wtldhft> reo:;tlUfCt· ron.tlids ft i-.. 

COfl'"ldt>r£1\:1 .l prvtut\T'e' 
• !.1 ,( :;o·•H: "I H ·kn; oth! 

·•u:l ·! ( 1n .•! !~;!h tht' 

Jwn l:llfo .n~ln!cl"- ·t.~· h 

i'od rih' \1.,1)1.!1\,( I kp .Ui 

',lk'J'rl vi J ,,.h, \\ ,kihh' ;tC.J P:u ~ ·~ I bo:· 

thiUlC I•' •'/'[ll<l\l/,".,t!d) 2,:"0ii 

,·1~ . .'.ilio() lw.h1 111 t:.i!lit• ',lt(l\l ,t,, 

419 

, n[>,mu;:uwnt Z\fnn~ \han jX.•.:kit• 

iH res ~-.t pi.dll,, tnd 

}'tl\.\h Lm.l ,11, 

il1'>1lh't:'d Jj( ;HI 

••tk•rtlo,nop 

' ; lf l ~ "'! \ 

f<" ·t·~t<lhli,;;h 

nat'\'•.' wildht• 

!Jllfl'>.i\•· •tpl1nd 

h•-tal:<• 1 .\nd np,in,lll c•·tllfl)',Hutlt"' 

und HMii!LJHl Ut ,, h»: \.. ~~r,l:-"111~ in lht 

Hn . .nlo.·,r.l f..;•,er t",l.,ll 

.n\. 1k .it;;, I' '"" \\('~1 "'' J.:u. bi~J1•na W•J, l•l441 

rhi·~ 11; a ..,IM··~\ 11..h-:· J·t•'l''' t dt·..,i.~;ncd 

to Lmprnn• tnJni!~t'nH·nl ld r.lnl.';l'· 

!<Jnd r• ':'<OOrct·~. J-lilftiC'ubdy !nr tho.::· 

long h·rm h:m·!it nt h\ , . .:;Uck ,'lnd 

wlldLic Tlu. t •lD-lmiH.-t• .::nmrnu~ 

n~>.:~Ht.''i 'lll..:t-i.""Jo'ifu! r,Hlgld<lnd 

I1l<H'I•lgt"fl1t:•nt ~trJie~it'~ h) il \ ;HH_ t'\1 

et lb•'l gnlUP'> hKus i-; on pt-t'-

durtion ;.lt ,1 fihn tn ;;,hare ttu~.:;£" 

str..:tkgit•" 

M NttrtQI 

. ;ttvd ln hni st~lh-.-s, nurti~C'il':ll Ne-\·aJa and .;.outhwcst ldahn lhe 

Hrt11.1t'i1U Rn'N prOJt."'t:l lnch.lde-t both 

s-ptCH'" f(•-i.ntrod.tKtum .md hl'lbJtoll 

1ht·:-.: pruwch .ue !flt,Jh_•d ~~~ 

nc•rtht ,1 I Or•')I;Oii .lth! ~no. J~ 

~:\·t:nl<.ld lh rt'JlMnb,11t t:lk tn 

puHtL Ltnd>, .'!~.H fror:n pri;.".lh' 

r.ln..:.h•"l. I{"' 0<:. t"i Pn t'nh.1nnn~ 

!ora,.,t and h.tbiut "{'-cuntr tm 

r">Jblh l<Hld.~, lhu~ H1illiHI.iliflg 

l'~'t'""l?"nn:· ,lH•i di\tl1,t~t- n pli\',Jh• 

:'iHt;.:i"w:->.ir .. lfdfll':~ T{H<>pgf..,ul llh 

l H-(,1t1·t1 in snu~li· 

'~:n!r,d Lt.H1, thf' 

',!onn>e \1ount.nn 

pro1• d i~ Hu· I.u~··"t 

tl-t d''Jl\l)fl">lJ"JtiOH 

rr'i}PCtS lll\<)kin,:;' 

Hl .;'1 l~(l,(~~~ ,11._1\.'" -Hf 

... t,H~ ft,der,d iH~d 

pn\'il{<' l;md..._ fhl:)Jd 

rro~fdfll ('b]:!':diH·" 

iln> IM"'h.1L1H the' ·dJOr..:t-pt th:1t .._flluu;;::•no; to 

pn:_1Ht':Jn"- and .::qnu,~·t can t·mer~.;· 

tf,·!n ;1n ,_.,' "' >. ' Hl nhll\-<t~(·tn• n! 

tr,.1l1•'"'· •• r} dirt·• t· d .11· Ll1f'H'\'Ifi)! 

'' l·ra!l u.' 'I"·'t.ti:ioJ-. bd;\C('fi !n • 

... t, '1-:k _;nd wiklht•· inte-tt:·:ct.o;- <lfj>l\ 

in~ .... ucnt!ti, ifl;tfjil~;.:nl_t:tl$ t' HH 

f" 1\ l' '" <·lir I· LDlldtlinli'i .:k\ t•!np 

•tif!.l-I\:'.;1(;\'(' 0011 lt,'khti-1!\<tj "-\\)Uti--in<; 

tn t>~t·btf•zn..:; •wt•r•nchng tt:j((i=!lliy L·ik 

rn;H· •. J. <'flliJiu;-.;t ..;.n.;niii,.,-'U.lct--...:.r--;, 

Mhf ~~· hn••k -..,y ,1nd "'H!'I-"l··d n~ 

I< A 1! :·-ur-dJ dt: 1•1'•POH'l t t.:"tfon 

I l• ,th'd 1ll llHth· ·' ''~.tJ,t( \\j,>fl1111i'; 

on o.,.,., 2'4•./,(ICII, an•'" n! rn(l'o.tlv priYcllt- l;md lh.1 pru;l t ~ll11•h·rtlt'Tlh .1 

Coor..:lm.-th·d R··~nurct:• '\twa~:• m~nf 

prt'(t:""i~ lo ,:J,prou'' aohc<tl r.-tn:;•· t'-lr 

,•ik, Jnh':''Pt' ,ilJd t.h·t..,_t (;t-·.li"' 

) nc huJe ~ iemort"tt ,li u;g_ C'or'np.'llibil:t·i 

PdWl".:n h'>~"'t.-,_...:~ gratm~ .1nd ,, ~n­

-'LIW!"tl t' Jnd 11~•il·l<H!>o\lt!lp1i\ t' 

\dkl.hit:> uses. n·-...t,·r,lliOP <>t tlp<trtan 

habt<.lL md •mrr<~\·en·;ent •1t ur/..,nd 

h~lbit.~t 
420 

What is 

"SEEKING 

COMMON 

GROUND?": 

''Sreb it12 Comwou Gnwwl'' ,.., .1 nat11•rully "'Pt10">oft'd JMrlnt.'r>hip c tfiH·t 

to ~upport dt:mon~trahon f'·rOJt"'t..ls th.tt 

Common Threads to "Common Ground" 

JmprtiH'fl ( OIHIIHII1kiltiHn' • \u4--\.'l''' ('(Hllt;"-. Vtoih..'ll ..tiJ pamt.:' CUOl· 

llUifll\.,lll up1.:11h 

Contwrntitm and \luttwl c' Jl~'t. t • Succc,., ~.:nlllt'' \\hen Wt: ,,mt., 

1H)!i.'lht:l· 1n ~• lll•HHtt:r lhat tkrnon .. tr.HC"i wr care -lhour the 'alue-. ami 

op!I}!Pfh 1ll olhcr .... i."'\en \\<hen \\t.' dl' .. .tgrce. 

\ppli~o atinn j' \uund Sdt>nlilir \la nagrmwLJ•nJhE> t!IJ!und .. \n 

.~hund.m .. ~.· PI ~~·uJ '-Cil:llllfit.: lno" leJ,gc JI~Jd) C" \1 \h .md '' (an tit 

lll.dl\ ... ltll.l(l\1\h 

CttllahnraliH: LearninJ! • .Mah .. :h1ng '-,olulHlfl' ttl plt•hlt.'m' tal..t'" comllluHK.HJon_ ''I h.JvC th~ n;;ht •lnr,\\er .. hJ, no plan' 111 thh pn_x·l"''· -\II 

p~Hlh.· \\or!... t••~.:thrr until''"" hJ\C! an a~rCC-tl-lo ..,olutu.m:· 

\danth ~..~ \lau~tlt!tll.L ! .. ,\JI p.ulu:s mu't rem~un tle\.thk· '0 t.ht.>: ~;jn 

mlpli..'l!h.'OI ,o(utmn-..that m.t~ reat.h be unJ their n.,nnal "'·'~'of dotng 

hH\til\.'"'1 

'.<' 0"'-.!'ll'III On...,t~Q ~lt'" _j}r(hhip • R.mgdand Ct"~JlJlH. I" l''t.n he..,t be 

... oh.l·d ll'lllg an tppro;..Kh th .. Jt C\lll\ltkr-> the enure t:l·n-. ~-.tem I hat 

app1nadl m~,.·lth..l~..,. thl· human llunl..'n'ttln. 

Why? ...... f,:tlirt!.! ( 11 111111 11 11 (,JIJIJIHf '' 

prtntrtH.:nl- r:1 1!:, \\ I • tf',\2 ·LH<·l 

.. ·~·o,, -.1~·ut I J, !iP~P 11 .tl'iHI ,,,. . . >· ••1 

"'~''<.'U ~t.lt. :,~._, ln1 ·ul p.HHL·J l•lf'• 

uuun~ prl\~1.' brnln~lllf II c .!tl~·t. 

Jll1l ''lhllilt: inta .. :·l' .. 1ml h:~kr.JI. t.t!... 

.111J h• .. 1! '''"Hil't...l' Jll.tnar: ·m .. ·nt ·~· ·n 

t'f~· J..l\ h d~'IIH•U~Ir.lll••ll of( t l..l..ll!lhilil'.., 

puflh, potnu ... ql,Jti·•ll \.l.rth ... ,,:otrl! .. n•,lfl 

Ji,!l'lll .. 'fJI I<• llllpl<l\l~ \I •IHil!h•ll i<>l W•t 

tl'ro..fa·l.l.., l.\lldl1h: li\o:.· "" \.. .md ,,u1L11 ~ 

r.: .. n~; Ji h'll 
421 

statement .oe Jaaaa Earl Xannamer 

N•tional Wild TUrkey Federation 

before the 

subcommittee on National Parka, Foresta an4 Landa 

House Ca.a~ttee on Resources 

Mr. c:bain~an: 

on H.R. 1713 (Livestock Gra&inq Act) 

July 10, 1995 

I am James Earl xsnnamer, Vice President for Conservation 

Proqrams of the Natdonal Wild TUrkey Federation (NWTF), a 120,000 

aeml)er not-for-protiit orqanization dedicated to tha-eonservation 

and wise aanaqeaent: of the wild turkey and ita hallitats, I would. 

like to taka this opportunity to discuss the senator Domenici 

proposed. Livestock Grazing Act H.R. 1713. The NWTF has serious 

concerns with this t.ct. 

The National Grasslands ware oriqinally ~urchaaed with public 

money. However, H.~. 1713, it passed, w1ll effectively privatize 

these lands tor a few ranchers without requirinq them to pay tor 

the land.a or even to pay taxes on thea. We do not support 

aellinq ot these lands, aa they were oriqinally purchased to 

benefit' the nation's citizens, not just a select few. 

We are co~cerned wi~ establishing livestock 1n4uatry as the 

dominant management objective. The Act seta management 

objectives to •promote secure occupancy and economic stability of 

taraa•. Under existing aanaqement, it ia difficult anouqh to 

manaqa wildlife habitats on qrazinq allotments; paasaqe ot this 

Act would make it impossible to continue even these small 

programs. 

We are concerned that H.R. 1713 would require qraainq leases to 

l:le iaauec:l. Virtu~l~y all ot the National Grasslands are currently in qrazin; allotaanta, even without any requirement to 

issue qrazinq lea•••· Under the propoaad bill, areas that have 

unique recreational , potential such •• badlands and lNttea, could 

never be manaqed with ~•creation aa the priae objective. 

Jtacrutional opport~mitiea such aa the development ot tiah ponds 

would be lost under ithe direction in this Act. 
422 

Thia Act require& ~~ ~aainq l .. aea ba iaauad in •cooparation 

and coordination• .with graaing aaaociationa. Mowbara are the 

atata vildlite agenci .. inclUded in any public involv .. ant in the 

aanaq ... n~ of thue lancia. For aaa. a tate• aucb aa North Dakota 

theae landa (Little' Miaaouri National Graaalanda) are ~ly their 

recreational vildarneaa. 

Under the proviaiona ot H.R. 1713, recrea~ional hunting and 

tiahing could ba prpbibited without a ainqle bunter or fiaheraan 

bavinq a chance to ~ heard, aucb l••• involved in tbe daoiaion. 

Tbeae landa ware once in private banda and the national 

government purcbaae!l th .. to oorrect •aaladjuataenta•. The 

intent vaa to aana~ tor atability of the land and to include 

qrazinq and wildlit• habitat• aa priaary concerna. Tbe propoaad 

Liveatock Gra•inq Act aubVarta thia intent by aliainatinq 

wildlife •• a aanag~t objective. It alao ignore• the 

interests of tbe reat ot the public in the United Stataa vho 

helped pay for tbU~ landa and vho have dittarinq id .. a on how 

they ahoulcl be managed. 

The NWTF reco;niaa~ the need for economic atability, particularly 

in aaall c011111uniti•'-· We aupport effort• to atrenqthen local 

econo•iea, but not ~ aacrificin9 other public valuaa to one 4oainant use. 

We believe that tba Liveatock Gra•inq Act (H.R. 1713) ia not in 

the baat public intereat and ahould not be pasaecl. 

'l'hanlc you for tbe opportunity to be heard on tbb iasua. 
423 

Foundation for tlorth American Wild Sheep 720 ALLEN AVENUE • CODY, WYOMING 82414·3402 • PHONE (307) 527·6261 • FAX (307) 527-7117 

OtTICEitSAND 

DlllECTOIIS 

2928 U.t Wu hinswn 

f'tloeaix .AZ.85()l4 

l602J27S-1096(0J 

160lJI!otO-!I749cHt 

l.ct.d Spake:~., Jr. FinlYil't-l'nl-., 

P.O. Box 1073 

Cleveland.MS 317J2 

(601)84~-2751/ 0) 

1601)1!43-201~ !HJ 

_.

160118·0-1001 /FAX I 

, .... s.r-t~Y .. .--~ 

P.O. Boxl46 

DooJI"'· WY 11263.\ 

C\07).1~li-J69J/Ill 

130713S8-32621FAXt 

o. ... Gildu'isl .........., 

P.O. Boxthtl 

C~lio>. MT mll 

1406tW..I-•BI4 

PhyllbCarhoft 

Trwu ... r 

7111~ 132ndSt Wc-.t 

Apple V~lk:y. MN ~~IN 

16121 4.'1-4411IIPII.IFAX 

Gllf1'YVbtu 

--

P. O. BoxMIIII 

FonS1.John.BC 

CANADAVIJ4H'll 

161141711~-llS<N!Hl 

1604) 7117-IS~ /F.o\XJ 

MlbBaiiiiUIIa 

61UIW.641h Awnut" 

Arv:Jlb. CUJIIUI.l ~10 

(.lll,\)411-41107 

O.nKI A. Pedmetl 

SO:IN.ShorelincRI•·Il. 

Suittt;il241ll 

0 "1*•Chri .. i,TX7l4401 

t~llllllt4-24J t0l 

2t<N1~2lH I 

CSI2JIIII-I- IIl"oocFAXt 

TftiSdM!tk 

SSS41801hSI 

Sihley. lA ~~~4'J 

(71217~,372\IIH t 

r1 1217~-:NI14 1FAXI 

DooSdoonah 

P.O. Bu>.61W 

Cudy, W¥112414 

(.l07J!\.M7-:W~1 l 

Ro,a .. wood, .. Wood 

'11!-MlW.Red C<...:hlwtt. 

Loo_, Vc~a,_NVK~J !o,J 

t7mtM:'i-%UI J01 

f7(l~fM.1- 07UIH1 

17021M.1-71tWifAX1 

K.nt~W..-rbdow 

bnllli•·rDi,...·wr 

Statement of Karen Weroelow 

before the 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands 

House Committee on Resources 

on 

H.R. 1713 (Livestock Grazing Act) 

Honorable Don Young, Chainnan: 

I am Karen Werbelow, Executive Director of the Foundation for North American Wild 

Sheep, which is headquartered in Cody, Wyoming. The Foundation was incorporated in 

1977, and is one of the leading wildlife conservation organizations in North America. 

The threats to wildlife and its use of public land appear throughout (H.R. 1713 ). Overall, 

the proposed bill seems to make livestock grazing the dominate use on public lands. It 

does this by excluding sportsmen and conservationists, from the decision making process, 

allowing permitees to operate above conservation laws, giving livestock essentially the 

great majority of public land forage, prohibiting reductions in livestock use for any reason. 

It prohibits ranchers from reducing allotment use voluntarily for conservation purposes, 

and prohibits scientific technology to determine if pennitees are in compliance with rules 

governing water developments now available to wildlife, to be fenced in for livestock use 

only. It reverts national grassland usage primilary to agriculture and subjects them to 

disposal. 

We feel this bill is a serious threat to wildlife and recreational use. Livestock grazing 

cannot become the dominate use of rangelands without a longtenn sustained lost of 

wildlife; which would have serious economic as well as conservation consequences. 

Considerable research in recent years into the economics offish and wildlife use supports 

our long known heliefthat these resources are among our nations most valuable assets. 

Fishing in America generates 19.7 billion dollars in personal earnings, 963.8 million dollars 

in federal income tax, and 392.8 million dollars in state income tax and 1.3 billion dollars 

in state sales tax per year. Hunting has a total economic impact of 34 billion dollars 

annually in the United States which exceeds the sales of companies such as Coca-Cola. 

and RGR-Nabisco. For every 50 hunters in the United States, enough economic activity is 

generated to create one job, which is equal to thousands of jobs nationwide. 

Inclusive of fishing and hunting revenue, there is also large economic activity created by 

recreational non-hunting and commercial uses. Federal public lands account for a major 

part of this economic revenue More than I million jobs are dependent on how well these 

lands are governed and managed as basic public resources. 

A NONPROFIT ORGANTZA TION 
424 

Instead of pursuing the enactment of (H.R. 1713), and forcing the outdoor recreation 

industry, conservationists, and the general public, into a dispute with public land grazers, 

we urge the committee to support a range management plan that is conducive for the 

interest of all public lands groups which include, conservationists, sportsmen, outdoor 

recreationists, and the public land grazers. 

Do not allow public range management to be set back fifty years. Do not allow (H.R. 

1713) to tum much of America's public lands over to the grazing community. Support 

responsible land management and prudent resource conservation. Vote against (H.R. 

1713). 

I thank you for this opportunity on behalf of The Foundation for North American Wild 

Sheep. 

Sincerely, 

~u~l~~t~ Karen Werbelow 

Executive Director 
425 

DOMINANT USE ANALYSIS FOR THE LIVESTOCK GRAZING ACT 

The following analysis is provided in response to questions raised in the July II, 1995 

Subcommittee on National Parks, Forest and Lands hearing. Many provisions of the Livestock 

Grazing Act appear to elevate one use, livestock grazing, over other multiple uses on the public 

lands. The following references illustrate sections of the bill v;hich, if enacted, could be 

interpreted to result in livestock grazing dominance or preferential treatment for livestock 

grazing on the public lands at the expense of other uses. 

SUBTITLE A - GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Sec. 103 OBJECTIVES 

(2) enhancement of productivity of federal 

land by conservation of forage resources 

and reduction of soil erosion and by proper 

management of other resources such as by 

control of woody species invasion. 

(3) stabilization of the livestock industry 

dependent on the public lands. 

Sec. 104 DEFINITIONS 

(19) Grazing Preference- is the number of 

A UMs of livestock grazing attached to the 

base property. 

Emphasis is on production which implies 

li vestock use rather than the overall health 

of the land. Healthy rangeland resources 

are productive for all uses. Rangeland 

resources managed for enhanced production 

of forage for livestock may not be 

productive for other resource uses. 

Emphasis on stabilizing one industry 

dependent on the public rangelands 

conflicts with the multiple use concepts of 

FLPl'v!A which, among other things, calls 

for a combination of diverse resource uses. 

The TGA recognizes grazing preference as 

an order of priority for individuals to be 

eligible to receive grazing privileges. This 

provision would be a first time link by a 

statute to the term "pref~rence" as a 

number of AUl' .. ts. 

1 Congressional Response 
426 

Sec. 106 LAND USE PLANS 

(d)(!) livestock grazing activities and 

management actions not clearly prohibited 

by the LUP are considered to be in 

conformance with the LUP. 

(d)(2) Livestock grazing activities and 

management actions shall not require 

consideration under NEPA in addition to 

those supporting the LUP. 

(e) exempts renewal of permit or lease 

consistent with LUP from review under 

NEPA. 

Provision applies only to livestock grazing 

activities and management actions; nongrazing uses may require costly and time 

consuming LUP amendments to be 

considered in conformance with LUP. 

Short circuits analysis and public input 

process. Provision applies only to 

livestock grazing activities and 

management actions, actions in other 

programs will require compliance with 

NEPA. 

NEP A exemption for renewals does not 

provide a process to factor in multiple uses 

needs and public views as required for 

other activities. 

SUBTITLE B - QL'ALIFICA TIO:'<S AND GRAZING PREFERE:\CE. 

Sec. 111 MANDATORY QUALIFICATIONS. 

(I) requires that applicant be engaged in 

the livestock business. 

Requires that applicant be currently 

engaged in livestock business. Strictly 

enforced, it would excl ude new operators 

trying to get a start in the livestock 

business, as well as lien holders, major 

corporations, insurance companies and 

conservation groups all of which currently 

hold permits and licenses. 

2 Congressional Response 
427 

Sec. 113 GRAZING PREFERENCE 

(a)(2) after coordination with applicant 

only AO shall specify length of time base 

property shall be considered capable of 

supporting livestock. 

(c)(4) transferee may elect to accept or 

reject the terms and conditions of the 

terminating grazing permit and any related 

cooperative agreement or Range 

Improvement Permit or to accept those 

terms and conditions with such 

modifications as the transferee may request 

and the authorized officer approve or with 

such modifications as the AO may require. 

(d) requires coordination with only 

permittees/lessees in designation and 

adjustment of allotment boundaries. 

Period of time base property is capable of 

supporting livestock is directly related to 

the period of time and the seasons of use 

of Federal land. Exclusion of other 

interested parties and new definition of 

CCC gives priority consideration to 

livestock use over other uses. 

Provides the transferee with unprecedented 

option to accept only the terms and 

conditions he chooses in the permit or 

lease. Terms and conditions which have 

been careful! y developed with prior 

operators to address allotment specific 

conditions could be rejected, resulting in 

the requirement for new monitoring, 

negotiations etc. to develop terms and 

conditions and no progress toward dealing 

with resource needs or problems terms and 

conditions were developed to address. 

Adjustment of allotment boundaries often 

affects other interests as well, most notably 

state land offices who may administer lands 

within the allotment boundary. 

Requirement does not provide for CCC 

with other parties. 

Sec. 114 CHANGES IN GRAZING PREFERENCE STATUS. 

(b) requires that a change in stocking rate 

shall be supported by monitoring, as 

evidenced by rangeland studies conducted 

over time, and as is specified in LUP or as 

necessary to manage, maintain, or improve 

rangeland productivity . 

Sound resource decisions can often be 

made without costly long term monitoring. 

The requirement for long term monitoring 

in all cases serves to delay decision making 

at the possible expense of the resource. 

Requirement places emphasis on 

productivity rather than rangeland health. 

3 Congressional Response 
(d)(l)(B) action shall be taken to close 

allotments or portions of allotments or 

modify grazing use for "emergency 

situations". 

428 

(d)(2) Permanent suspension-requires 

evaluation and implementation of all 

reasonable and viable alternatives prior to 

reducing active use to improve rangeland 

productivity. 

(e)(l) requires that change in active use 

greater than 10% be phased-in over 5 

years. 

(e)(2)(C) requires coordination with land 

grant university and state department of 

agriculture when monitoring data not 

available. 

SUBTITLE C - GRAZING MANAGEMENT 

Even though this contemplates action to 

protect resources, there is no provision for 

immediate implementation of decisions. 

As a result, tools to address "emergency 

situations" involving grazing decisions will 

be hampered. 

"Permanent suspension" is a contradictory 

term. Suspension is defined in the bill as 

the temporary withholding of grazing from 

active use. Requirement to evaluate all 

uses and implement all reasonable and 

viable alternatives and consider all other 

uses prior to making adjustments, serves to 

delay action necessary to deal with 

resource problems and gives preference to 

grazing over other uses. 

Gives preference to livestock operations 

over the health of the resource by limiting 

the managers flexibility to immediately 

deal with critical resource problems. 

Requirement to coordinate as directed 

likely would result in delay of needed 

actions as well as increased costs. Bureau 

has professional resources staff capable of 

developing monitoring in consideration of 

all resource values while state department's 

of agriculture do not have the expertise to 

address multiple use considerations 

required by FLPMA. 

Sec. 121 ALLOTMENT 1\lAt~AGEMENT PLANS. 

(a) AMPs are to be developed in 

coordination with lessees/permittees, 

landowners, RACs, GACs and states with 

land in the allotment. 

Implementation of AMPs can have serious 

effect on other resource values and uses. 

Isolation of development of AMP from 

other uses can result in narrow use 

considerations. 

4 Congressional Response 
429 

Sec. 122 RANGE IMPROVEMENTS. 

(a)(5) requires terms and conditions to 

provide incentive for investing in range 

improvement. 

(b)(5) livestock use of stock ponds shall be 

controlled by permittee or lessee holding 

improvement permit. 

(c) limits consideration of stipulations to 

standards and design, construction and 

maintenance criteria. 

Incentives are undefined. Normally the 

incentive is to achieve the management 

objectives and/or efficiencies. This 

language could be interpreted to mean 

reduced fees, additional active use, or 

consideration of expenditures on 

improvement in calculating fees, any of 

which is unique to grazing among uses of 

the public lands. 

Confusing definition of livestock in this bill 

seems to include wild horses and burros. 

This provision could cause confusion 

resulting in operators attempting to limit 

the use by other livestock i.e., wild horse 

and burros. If so, this could limit use by 

wildlife, as well. 

Bill does not provide for stipulations other 

than standards and design, construction and 

maintenance criteria. Limitation on 

stipulations affecting other resource values 

does not protect other uses that are affected 

by range improvements. 

5 Congressional Response 
430 

SEC. 123 MONITORING 

(a) limits monitoring to permittee, qualified 

personnel, and consultants hired by the 

permittee or agency. 

(b) requires that the permittee be invited to 

be present for all monitoring before 

data/information can be placed in the file. 

Automatic qualification for permittee 

regardless of training or experience. Often 

times permittee does not actually run the 

operation. It is unclear if automatic 

qualification applies to permittee's agent as 

well. Agencies typically use resource 

specialists other than range conservationist 

to conduct routine monitoring and 

compliance which would be prohibited by 

this section. Prohibits the inclusion of 

observations or information collected by 

others. Credible information (photos for 

example) should be able to be considered 

from other sources including hunters, 

fisherman, recreationists, etc. The 

determination of credible data must reside 

with the land manager. 

Defeats the purpose of some inspections 

e.g., trespass. A permittee could 

effectively block any monitoring or 

inspection by simply saying he or she was 

unavailable, thus leading to delays in 

acquiring monitoring data and ultimately 

grazing decisions. 

6 Congressional Response 
431 

SEC. 124 WATER RIGHTS 

requires water rights connected with 

livestock grazing to be acquired, perfected, 

owned, controlled, maintained, 

administered or transferred in accordance 

with state law. 

Bill language is very sweeping and is not 

confined to water rights used specifically 

for grazing. All kinds of water uses (such 

as firefighting, erosion control, wild horse 

and burro management) might be swept 

into broad usage of the term "connected 

with". It is not clear what the effect will 

be of directing the Secretary to comply 

with State law regarding the administration 

and use of water. For example, what if 

State law does not recognize or permit the 

use of water for wildlife or recreation 

purposes in ways considered necessary by 

Federal managers. 

SUBTITLE D - AUTHORIZATION OF GRAZING USE. 

Sec. 132 GRAZING PERMITS OR GRAZING LEASES. 

(b) establishes term of permit as 15 years. Extends term of permit established in TGA 

by 50%. Term of permit has never been 

an apparent problem in securing loans. 

Length of permit gives livestock operators 

privilege enjoyed by no other public land 

users. 

Sec. 135 OWNERSHIP AND IDENTIFICATION OF LIVESTOCK 

(c) prohibits imposition of marking or 

tagging requirements. 

Renders trespass investigation nearly 

impossible in certain cases. 

7 Congressional Response 
Sec. 136 TERMS AND CONDITIONS 

(b) prohibits imposition of additional terms 

and conditions (f&C) except requirement 

to comply with AMP. 

(c) requires coordination with only 

permittees and lessees in modifying T &Cs 

when use does not meet LUP or 

management objectives. 

Sec. 137 FEES AND CHARGES 

(b)(2) progeny born of an animal on which 

fee is paid are not counted and no fee 

charged. 

432 

Restricted to T &C direct! y related to 

livestock management. Prohibits use of 

T &C to assure compliance with standards 

and guidelines or protection of other 

resource values in support of healthy 

rangelands. This conflicts with the 

provisions in FLPMA. 

Does not provide for input regarding other 

resources or from resource users in 

modification of T &C to meet LUP or 

management objectives. 

As written, could be interpreted to allow 

an operator to pay no fees as herd is culled 

and replaced by progeny born to livestock 

for which a fee is paid. 

Sec. 138 PLEDGE OF GRAZING PERMITS OR GRAZING LEASES AS SECURITY FOR 

LOAi"lS 

(a) requires renewal of permit or lease 

when it has been pledged as security for a 

loan for a period of 15 years. 

Articulates a presumption of renewal thus 

making it difficult to assert non-compliance 

·with even the provision of Title I or 

establish non-compliance with relevant 

regulations or renew for a period of less 

than 15 years when land is scheduled for 

disposal for other public purposes under 

sec 115. 

8 Congressional Response 
SUBTITLE E- CIVIL VIOLATIONS AND FAILURES OF COMPLIANCE 

Sec. 141 CIVIL VIOLATIONS AND FAILURES OF COMPLIANCE 

(a) (2) subjects permittee/lessee who violates 

other Federal law to penalty under that law 

only. 

(b) requires that persons knowingly and 

willfully violate the prohibited acts. 

no penalty for failure to pay fees. 

Prohibits AO from taking action against 

pennit when violation is related to grazing 

activities. This is like requiring a landlord 

to honor a lease when the property is being 

used for illegal activities. 

Establishes ignorance as an acceptable 

excuse. 

No civil penalty for failure to pay fees and 

leaves trespass as the only course of action 

available to the AO. Monitoring 

requirements make trespass investigation 

nearly impossible. 

SUBTITLE F - UNAUTHORIZED GRAZING USE 

Sec. 151 LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES 

(b)) requires impoundment be conducted in 

accordance with State Law or forfeit 

impoundment costs. 

SUBTITLE G - PROCEDURE 

Attempts to restrict Federal administration 

of livestock grazing to state law. 

Sec 172 House version (162 Senate version) Protests 

provides for only applicant, 

permittee/lessee to protest a proposed 

grazing decision. 

Language might be interpreted to provide 

no opportunity for other parties to protest a 

proposed decision which may adversely 

affect their interests. Such an 

interpretation would have the effect of 

disenfranchising some of our most longterm partners, such as the State fish and 

game departments. 

9 congressional Response 
Sec. 164 APPEALS 

(a)(l) provides for only applicant, 

permittee/lessee to appeal a decision. 

434 

(a)(2) requires that the proponent of the 

rule prove their case by the standard of the 

preponderance of the evidence. 

(b)(l) appeal suspends the effect of the 

decision. 

(b)(2)(A) provides for DM to order 

decision on grazing permit application to 

remain in effect where imminent and 

irreversible damage would result. 

If language is interpreted to exclude parties 

whose interests are adversely affected then 

this has the effect of disenfranchising some 

of our most long-term partners, such as the 

State fish and game departments. 

Establishes a unique appeals standard for 

livestock use which could invite appeals, 

increase the costs of defending the agency, 

and increase the need for even more 

paperwork. 

Effect of filing an appeal would be to cause 

the decision to be suspended, perhaps for 

years. Unique to livestock grazing. 

Staying the decision is potentially harmful 

to resource conditions, provides no 

opportunity to the AO to take immediate 

action where warranted. 

Rarely if ever is action as a result of a 

decision on a grazing permit application 

likely to cause such damage. 

SUBTITLE H - ADVISORY COMMITTEES · 

Sec. 177 GRAZING ADVISORY COUNCILS 

(a) provides for establishment of Grazing 

Advisory Board where requested by a 

majority of permittees. 

No other public land user has an advisory 

body devoted solely to that use. 

10 Congressional Response 
435 

This report was requested by the BLM and Forest Service from the 

USDA Economic Research Service to analyze the fee proposal 

contained in the Livestock Grazing Act. The assessment was 

requested from the ERS due to their expertise in the area of 

economic analysis. 
United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Ecor.omic 

Research 

Ser•1ice 

436 

1301 New York Avenue NW 

Washington, D.C. 

20005-4788 

July 28, 1995 

L"iFOR:'-L-\ TIO~AL M:EMORA .. -...--ne;..I FOR TIM SALT, WESTER" RASGELANDS 

TIAM LEADER, BL!U:Au OF LAl'ID MANAGE:\I:E!'iT, DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTIRIOR 

FROM: 'r j_ 

• 

JohnDunmore 

Acting Administrator 

~~ 

SL13JECT Grazing Fcc Analysis 

(Staff Analysis No_ 95-380) 

We are resj)tmding to your request for assistance in preparing an analysis of the fee proposal in 

the Livestcck Grazing Act Our analysis, which is attached, was prepared by Ken Mathews, Jr., 

(219-0255). It follows the list of items in your request. 

Attachi!'lent 
437 

Grazing Lands Act (S. 851, H. R. 1713) 

Briefly discuss this fonnula in relationship to past fee studies: 

The General Land Law Revision Act (1891} allowed setting aside forest reserves from the 

unreserved public domain; these lands later became FS (in 1905) and BLM (m 1934) 

lands. The public domain lands had been grazed by introduced livestock before 1891, but 

fees have been charged for grazing privileges since the 1906 grazing season when the 

Secretary of Agriculrure set fees at a third of what comparable private grazing was worth. 

The fees were originally charged to protect forest reserves and finance range 

administration. 

The base fee of$1.23 per animal unit month (AUM) was established in 1969 as the 

residual value of forage after the difference between the costs to producers of raising 

cattle on private leased lands versus on public lands was accounted for in 1966. The base 

of$1.23 was derived from results ofthe 1966 Western Livestock Grazing Survey. The 

base fee was to equalize the costs of raising cattle on public and private lands. nus fee 

v;as to be updated according to a single index of the annual changes in private land lease 

rates (forage value index-FVI-NASS gathers data for this index). 

Congress, in 1978, through the Public Rangelands Improvement Act (PRIA), took over 

fee structure responsibilities from the Secretaries of Agriculrure and Interior. The fee was 

modified to reflect producers' "ability to pay" by adding an index of beef cattle price 

changes (Beef Ca~Je Price Index-BCPI) and an index of changes in ccsts of production 

(Producer Price Index-PPI). The PRIA formula has been criticized for double counting 

ability to pay. In 1985, the fee structure was set by Executive Order to follow tbe PRIA 

formula, but with a Sl.35 per animal-unit-m<;>nth (AUM) floor. Fees are now set through 

the formula developed legislatively in 1978· (PRIA) and continued beyond the I 0-year trial 

period through Executive Order No. 12548 (February 14, 1986). The formula fee for 

grazing public lands in 1995 is $1.61, down from the 1994 fee of$1.98. The fee formula 

proposal that was earlier attached to but dropped from the Administration's Rangeland 

Reform '94 would have raised the base fee to SJ. 96 and shifted the base year to 1996. 

Recently, identical bills that would alter the way the public lands are administered and 

require a new fee formula were introduced in the House (H.R. 1713) and Senate (S. 852). 

The formula proposed in tbe legislation is based on a three.year moving average of value 

of production multiplied by an arbitrary .06 and divided by 12. The fee according to the 

proposal for 1993 would have been $2.16 and a projected fee of S I. 96 for 1995. 

Define and analyze the basis of a cost of production element in the formula: 

T'he cost of production (COP) element in the formula, "total, gross value of production per 

ored cow, • comes from Economic Indicators of the Farm Sector--Costs ofPro<luction· 

Major Field Crops and Livestock and Dairy. published by the Economic Research Service 
438 

(ERS) of the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. These "total, gross value of production" per bred 

cow estimates are derived by multiplying pounds of various categories of cattle and calves 

bv appropriate prices, then dividing the aggregate total by the number of cows represented 

in the aggregate. Current COP estimates are based on the 1990 Cow/Calf version of the 

1990 Farm Costs and Returns Survey for the beef cow/calf enterprise. There are no 

c:.:rrent plans or funding for additional FCRS cow/calf surveys because cow/calf is not a 

program commodity for which annual COP estimates were legislatively mandated. Only 

mandated program commodities are currently being surveyed and then only once every 3 

to 5 years. Estirnate3 published in August 1994 for the 1992 commodity year are the most 

recent cow/calf estimates. They were derived by applying indexes to the 1990 data, the 

standard procedure for updating COP estimates. To use the formula in the legislation, 

projections of gross value of production would be required for the most recent two years 

since observed estimates usually lag the current year by about two years. 

Analyze and discu:s~ the market sensitivities of cost or production data: 

Curing nonsurvey years, the gross value of production elements of the COP estimates are 

b se-year estimates indexed according to average annual price changes following the base 

y:ar. Using annual average annual price changes removes within year highs and lows. 

:his means the gross value of production per beef cow does not reflect the within-year 

j:rice changes. The result us a more stable series that reflects the longer term year to year 

r-rice changes occurring in the beef cattle industry. By incorporating a 3-year average, the 

proposed fee formula would also reduce the year to year volatility of the annual COP 

g:·oss value of production. 

Define and analyze the basis of .06 element in the formula: 

1 he logic of the . 06 i~ not intuitively clear. The . 06 element of the proposed fee formula 

appears to be an arbitrary number with little or no economic basis. The legislative 

j::roponents indicate that the .06 is a "rate ofretum• (House testimony, July 11, 1995). 

however, the more common and more appropriate application of a rate of return applies 

to the costs or investment side rather than to receipts. 

Analyze and discuss relationship of factors to be considered, Sec. 137(c)(3)(E), in 

developing the surcharge: 

: he survey mandated in the proposed legislation is intended to provide data that would 

ll ow a market lease rate to be e~timated . The mix of data requested is confusing. Some 

of the data is not directed towards estimating a market lease rate. The additional data 

VJculd not be sufficient to derive estimate~ of costs of production or returns from grazing 

the lease. Some items required by the proposed legislation would duplicate data the 

S ational Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) already collects with its June Agriculture 

Survey with respect to Private Grazing Land Lease Rates . 

.Jata that pertain to lease characteristics are similar to those gathered in the appraisals 

aone in conjunction with the 1986 Grazing Fee Report and the update in 1992. These 

appraisals were cone to determine the market value of public grazing and similar private 

grazing. The appraisals were subject to much criticism, espe6ally in their inability to 
439 

separate the impacts of various lease characteristics. It is difficult to see how the data that 

are proposed to be collected would be any more useful now than in the past in determining 

a surcharge or tre~pass lease rate. 

C:her items like State and county location of the lease (item (ii)(IV)), the term of the 

g:2.Zing lease (item (iv)), or payment if not grazed or "taken" (items (v)(I) and (II)) might 

1: ; useful as identifiers or characteristics, but yield little or no information on lease rates. 

The ite= in (vi) appear to be an attempt either to reestimate "total" or "nonfee costs," a 

methodology whose validity has been seriously questioned byERS (Appendix G, Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement for Rangeland Reform '94) and others (Torell, ~The 

Value of Public Land forage and the Imolications for Grazing Fee Policv New Mexico 

A3ricultural Experiment Station Publication Bulletin No. 767, Las Cruces, NM, December 

1993), or to obtain data to be used in revising weights for the Input Cost Index (ICI). The 

ICI has been proposed before (but not in the currently proposed legislation) as a substitute 

br the Producers Price Index of the current PRIA fee formula. 

Discuss wailability of this illformation: 

The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) currently gathers limited information 

un private grazing land lease rates in terms of dollars and cents per unit (head month, 

<c,limal unit month (AUM), and pair} that is used to calculate a forage value index (FVI) 

t;;;<:d in the current PRIA fee formula This data is gathered during the summer as part of 

a 'arger general agriculture survey. This information seems to coincide with what is 

proposed to be gathered in item (I). 

I ,ems (ii)(I) and (ll) would be virtually impossible to obtain accurately in any lease where 

the livestock were not weighed immediately before being put on the leased pasture and 

iE:mediately after being removed from the leased land. Weighing livestock before and 

r,iter occupying a leased pasture is not commonly done on leases unless the leases are 

b:ised on (III) per pound of gain or {IV) per hundredweight of gain. Estimates or guesses 

<lf pounds gained from a lease would be highly inaccurate in most cases and would be 

bghly susceptible to many subjective &ctors. 

Knowing the acreage in the grazing lease is of little or no value except on a very local 

6~sis because of the wide variation in gnzing quality. FS estimates that less than half of 

national forest acreage actually provides grazing. Riparian areas can supply several times 

:!;e amount of forage as can more upland areas per acre. 

Discus8 .:ost to eolleet and analyze llllJ additional data: 

1ne current Farm Costs and Returns Survey costs about $250 per contact. The 1990 

::ow/calf version of the FCRS from which national and regional estimates were derived 

h~d an estimated cost of about $500,000. Costs would increase significantly if the survey 

'>bjective were to obtain county and State estimates of various lease rates. Costs of 

o:Jtaining sufficient estimates for statistically-reliable county or State estimates could be as 

'"3h as 15 percent of annual fee receipts, or $4.5-$5 million. 
$ /A1.7M 

I 

I 

3. s i3 

2 . S 

2 1-

. I :L . 51_ 

:L r 

440 

Fee Formu~as Compared 

li'S/:BLM ~-- (l'lUA) 

o . : ~---~~~-r~,-~~~~PR-r~x~~~>-.~-.-r,-~r-~-.-r,-.-r-_J UQI i u-72 
441 

T1ble ,_,._ raiN lnd fM r.c...,.., 1t7...._ 

Ndonllllllo ........ 

FM IILM . Domtnlol AIIII.M AI~ Dy .. r- '-• propooal 

IM181e' 

IMNII ,.,. 

Dolwa 

perAIJM ,.,.Heed 

111711 1.00 -0.74 111,000,000 11 ,Q;W,OOQ 3,1181,000 1117e 1.111 0.!0 :aa,ooo,ooo 10.-.000 12,1 ... ,000 

1IITT 1.111 o.u :aa.-o.ooo 8,1112.'1'110 11,11'1'.200 

11178 1.D1 0.07 U,IIIIO,OOO 10.0111,7GO 12,833,2110 

111711 1.011 ~ zueo.ooo 13,1114,7110 111,111.200 1810 2.311 1.24 30,400,000 16,8N,OOO 1e,eoe.ooo 

11N11 2.31 1.111 M,OOO,OOO ZZ.IIM,OOO 12,08$,000 

1882 ue 1.53 2'7,1100,000 ZZ,III8,ZIIO 4.803.780 

1983 1.40 1.37 21 ,000,000 zome.ooo ..a.4,000 

111114 1.37 1.27 20,050,000 11,1112,7110 1,487,2110 

1818 1.311 1.27 20,2110.000 11,1130,2110 1,213.7110 

1NII 1.311 1.27 20,2110,000 11.000,'780 1,Z.1,2110 

11187 1.311 uo 20,2110,000 18,4418,000 '1'114.000 

18H 1.114 1.41 ~.100,000 21,081,2110 2,0111,?110 

1111111 ue U8 27,1100,000 23,713,'780 4,188,2110 

111110 1.81 1.78 27,1110.000 18,3110,1110 781.2110 

11191 1.87 ue 28,11110,000 211,330,710 214.2110 

111e2 1.112 2.011 28,100,000 31,211,2!10 ·2,400,250 

11183 1.611 2.111 27,100,000 32 ~,100 ~.434.11110 

19e4 1.1111 2.15' 211.700,000 32,181,1112 -2,411,111Z 

111911 1.81 Ur' 24.1110,000 2U111.1112 .a.407,112 

1IJIJ8 1.ae" 1.&3' 23,312,111 21,314,402 -4,011,873 . 

~~ 1.30' 1.112' 20,200,000 24.2811,1100 038,100 

191111 U&' U7" 20,200.000 23,<1e5,100 -3,Zol4,000 

1111111 1.3111 1.811 20,280,000 24,128.1100 -3,8'1'11.1100 

2000 1.311' 1.70' 20,280,000 211,488,000 .a,2o48.000 

2001 1.3111 1.81' 20,200,000 27,082,000 .a,a..a,ooo 

2002 1.311" 1.82' 20,200,000 U-.210 ·'1'.0118.2110 

2003 1 .311' uzt 20,2110,000 . 2'1'.212.110 ·7.002.210 2004 1.3&' 1.13" 20.200.000 2.7,418,000 -7,103,000 

2006 1.301 1.N" 20,280,000 %7,713,'780 -7,1143,7110 
442 

Discuss rdatioaship to other fees, market value, etc.: 

Figure 1 shows the relationship of the proposed fcc formula and past fee formulas. The 

Fair Market Value (FMV) formula in effect before PRIA would have resulted in the 

highest federal grazing fee rate. The proposed fee formula follows PRIA fee rates. Over 

the past 20 years, the fee would have been below the PRIA rate in the early years and 

above the PRIA rate in recent yean. 

Other Federal, State, and local agencies clwge their own grazing land lease rates, 

although 10me are based on the Federal grazing fee rate. 

Compare bistoric PRIA fees coUected with projeded LGA fees over past lO yean: 

Permittees would have had hi&ber oet returns by a~>!>ut $80 million since 1975 if the 

proposed formula had been in eirect (table 1). Feci! prior to 1992 would have been lower 

than PRIA fees actually were. Since, and including 1992, fees would have been higher. 

Project the fee reveaues iato the 10 year future: 

See table I. 
ESTIMATED COSTS OF IMPLEMENTING THE LIVESTOCK GRAZING ACT 

The following is a seclion by section analysis of the estimated cost of implementing the Livestock Grazing Act beyond those costs of administering the current 

regulations. Since, it is difficult to develop a quantifiable estimate of the cumulative costs associated with implementation of the Act as a whole, the analysis 

only estimates possible costs of individual sections of the Act. 

Sec. 106 LAND USE PLANS 

(b) Establish allowable resource uses, related 

levels of production or to be maintained, areas 

of use, and resource condition goals and 

objectives to be obtained 

(d) Activities and management actions (I) not 

clearly prohibited by LUP are considered in 

conformance (2) shall not require consideration 

under NEPA 

Requires a level of planning beyond current 

standards for all resources and resource uses. 

Level of detail is much greater than contained 

in existing plans Will require extensive 

revisions and rewrite of existing LUPs. 

No cost or time savings is anticipated from 

exemption from NEPA. LUP is last 

opportunity to review actions under NEPA. 

Will result in much greater level of detail in 

LUP than has been required before. LUP will 

be required to address activity plans and site 

specific project plans as well as traditional 

broad management ohjectives and direction. 

Sec. 114 CHANGES IN GRAZING PREFERENCE STATUS 

(b) Changes in stocking rate shall be supported 

by monitoring. 

The requirement for long term monitoring to 

support any increase or decrease in stocking rate 

will add additional monitoring costs. This 

provision is similar to the former BLM 

regulations. 

Land use plans under current standards cost 

$850,000 and take 3 years to complete. It is 

assumed that lhis provision alone could raise 

LUP costs to $1 mill for the ISO RMPs. 

This provision will easily double both the time 

and cost to complete a basic LUP. 

Additionally, inclusion of activity plans in 

LUP's will greatly increase complexity and 

cost. There are currently only 3107 AMPs 

completed for the 22,000 allotments. 

Development of the additional 19,000 AMPs 

would cost $285 million and, at current 

funding levels, lake over 50 years. 

Assuming 1/2 work month/year to monitor each 

allotment and tbal half the 10 000 , I category 

allotments require. monitoring for a full five 

years, total cost for monitoring would be $10 

million annually. At current funding levels it 

would take 25 years to complete monitoring on 

all 5,000 allotments. 

t ~ 
{e){2){C){i) Where monitoring data is not 

available additional data will be collected in 

coordination with land grant university and 

department of agriculture. 

Sec. 121 ALLOTMENT MANAGEMENT PLANS 

See Sec. 106 LAND USE PLANS 

Sec. 122 RANGE IMPROVEMENTS. 

{a)(S) Requires cooperative agreement contain 

terms and conditions that provide incentive to 

permittee for investing in range improvements. 

Sec. 123 MONITORING 

{a) Requires that all monitoring be conducted by 

"qualified personnel" 

Sec. 137 FEES AND CHARGES 

{b ){2) Provides for progeny born during the 

authorized use to pay no fees. 

Coordination with land grant university and 

agriculture departments will require development 

of cooperative agreements or contracts for this 

consulting work. 

Incentives are undefined, could be interpreted to 

mean reduced fees, additional active use, or 

consideration of expenditures on improvement in 

calculating fees. 

Bureau typically uses other resource specialists 

and volunteers, who may be working in the area 

on other projects, to supplement the routine 

monitoring work of rangeland specialists, such 

as trespass inspections, range improvement 

inspections etc. This requirement will greatly 

reduce the efficiency of monitoring efforts for 

these routine tasks. 

The provision makes no reference to age or to 

periods of use. It appears that the provision is 

indeterminate. Ultimately, through culling and 

keeping replacement cows it is conceivable that 

an operator could pay no fees. 

It is assumed that this requirement will result in 

6-8 contracts or agreements in each state at a 

cost of $25,000 per agreement for a total of 

$1.75 million. It is also assumed that it will 

take one year to develop and execute each 

agreement. 

Under any interpretation, incentive will cost the 

taxpayer. Assuming I ,000 cooperative 

agreements per year at a value of $8,000 per 

improvement and assuming an incentive valued 

at I 0% of the value of the project the total 

annual cost would be $800k. 

Assuming that monitoring efforts currently 

completed by "non-qualified personnel" 

accounts for I 0% of all monitoring, this 

requirement will increase Bureauwide 

monitoring costs $400k annually. 

The cost of this proposal in the form of lost 

revenue is difficult to quantify but over time 

could result in no fees being paid for any 

grazing permit or lease. 

t 
(C)( I) Requires the Bureau lo calculate fees 

annually base upon data collected by ERS. 

(c)(3) Requires calculation of surcharge by the 

administering agencies .. 

Sec. 162 PROTESTS 

(a)( I) Only a pennillee/ lessee can file an 

appeal 

Sec.I64 APPEALS 

(c)(2) Places the burden of proof in an appeal 

on the proponent of the rule. 

(b) Stays decision pending appeal. 

The bill will have impact on both the ERS and 

the agencies administering the fee. 

Calculations based on a complex and 

unexplainable set of criteria. Expected lo be so 

expensive thai it will cost more than the revenue 

generated for surcharges. 

Since appeals are limited to permillee/lessee, the 

litigation costs will doubtless be higher. Other 

interests will go directly to Federal court since 

they have no administrative remedies. 

Shifts the burden of proof to the proponent 

rather than the appellant as has been the historic 

practice. This shift will further invite harassing 

appeals, increase I he costs of defending the 

agency, and increase the need for even more 

paperwork to make BLM decisions litigationresistant. 

Eliminates the right of affected interests or 

anyone except the permittee or lessee to file appeals to formal decisions. It also speeds up 

the road to Federal court for non-lessees who 

believe that a formal decision is adverse to their 

interests, since they do not have to exhaust their 

administrative remedies, having none. 

ERS estimates cost to collect this data to be 

$500K per year. 

Unknown additional cost to calculate surcharge. 

Assuming two major lawsuits per state per year 

and $500,000 cost to the BLM and the 

Department of Justice per case, then the 

additional cost will be $1 million per year. 

Undetermined additional cost to meet excessive 

burden of proof and deal with additional 

appeals. 

Undetermined additional cost of dealing with 

litigation that would he otherwise handled 

through appeal. 
Sec. 175 GENERAL PROVISIONS 

(a)(2) Requires amendment to advisory council 

charters only by act of Congress. 

0 Sec. 177 GRAZING ADVISORY BOARDS 

The Bill requires the of a GAB for 

each district where requested by a majority of 

the permittees. 

Bill will result in the creation of 300-400 new It is assumed that 2% of all charters will 

councils and boards in both the BLM and Forest require some sort of amendment each year. 

Service. The cost to amend each of these by an act of 

Congress is unknown. 

This provision could result in up to 50 GABs for 

Bureau aUministered lands. 

It is estimated that it will cost $50,000 annually 

to operate each GAB for a total annual cost of 

$2.5 mill 

C) 

ISBN 0- 16-052029-0 

90000 

9 780160 520297