U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

45–299 CC WASHINGTON : 1998

HEARING ON GRAZING REDUCTIONS AND OTHER

ISSUES ON BLM LANDS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC

LANDS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

SEPTEMBER 30, 1997, WASHINGTON, DC

Serial No. 105–52

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(
(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

LINDA SMITH, Washington

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

GEORGE MILLER, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

SAM FARR, California

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

ADAM SMITH, Washington

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas

LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman

ELTON, GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

LINDA SMITH, Washington

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon

RICK HILL, Montana

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas

ALLEN FREEMYER, Counsel

TODD HULL AND P. DANIEL SMITH, Professional Staff

LIZ BIRNBAUM, Democratic Counsel
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held September 30, 1997 .......................................................................... 1

Statements of Members:

Hansen, Hon. James V., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Utah ........................................................................................................... 1

Chenoweth, Hon. Helen, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Idaho, prepared statement of ................................................................... 12

Additional material submitted by ............................................................ 145

Statements of witnesses:

Atkin, Brent, President, Public Lands Council .............................................. 25

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 49

Bruton, Wesley Neil, Rancher, New Mexico ................................................... 35

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 51

Flake, Ray, Lincoln County Commissioner, State of Nevada ....................... 21

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 59

Gibson, Dr. Chad C., Wilder, Idaho, prepared statement of ......................... 13

Hunt, Frances, Director, BLM Programs, The Wilderness Society .............. 45

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 125

Loper, Dick, Consultant, Wyoming ................................................................. 33

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 80

Menges, Jeff, Chairman, Federal Lands Committee, National Cattlemen’s

Beef Association ............................................................................................ 23

Moyer, Steven, Director of Government Affairs, Trout Unlimited ............... 43

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 117

Sharpe, Maitland, Assistant Director of Renewable Resources and Planning, Bureau of Land Management ............................................................. 2

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 53

Smith, Allen E., Rancher, Utah ...................................................................... 38

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 95

Brown, James L., Manager, Preston Nutter Ranch, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 100
(1)

HEARING ON GRAZING REDUCTIONS AND

OTHER ISSUES ON BLM LANDS

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1997

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NA- TIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS, COMMITTEE ON RE- SOURCES, Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room

1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James V. Hansen

[chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES V. HANSEN, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

Mr. HANSEN. The Committee will come to order.

Good morning, and welcome to the oversight hearing today which

will address grazing issues on Federal lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The BLM oversees the majority of Federal lands used for livestock grazing. This land area comprises approximately 175 million acres, a significant piece of real estate in

the West.

The grazing of livestock, especially cattle grazing, has been an

important part of our heritage, cultural, and development of the

western United States. In fact, most people, if asked to picture

western America, would conjure up visions of cowboys on a cattle

drive. Cattle grazing embodies the very personification of what the

West is. However, as we will hear from much of our testimony

today, this part of our heritage may be in jeopardy of quickly becoming extinct.

In the last few years, nearly every state in the West has experienced reductions, sometimes severe reductions, in AUMs or Animal

Unit Months, along with the actual use of livestock. In fact, according to the Department of Interior statistics, from 1979 through

1996, AUMs authorized by the BLM have been reduced by almost

2 million, nearly one-fifth of the total AUMs for those years. Many

factors are responsible for these cutbacks and include BLM interpretations of law and regulation, a lack of monitoring, conflicts

with other wildlife species, and mandatory compliance by the BLM

of other laws like the Endangered Species Act. Unfortunately for

the permittees, these reductions have been, in many instances,

damaging and even devastating to their livestock grazing operations.

The oversight hearing today is intended to fully explore the reasons why AUM and actual use of livestock numbers have been reduced across the West. Several permittees have been severely affected and have either had to go out of the ranching business or
2

forced them to seriously contemplate that decision. This hearing is

also intended to find solution and remedies to livestock grazing

problems, both for the permittee and for the BLM.

I want to add that the hearing today is primarily focused on

issues surrounding livestock reductions on BLM. It is not a hearing

on the merits of H.R. 2493, a bill introduced by our colleague, Congressman Bob Smith. Testimony given today which directs itself toward H.R. 2493 is not compatible with, and not really appropriate

for, the purposes of this hearing.

I want to welcome our witnesses here today. We will hear from

Mr. Maitland Sharpe, Assistant Director of Renewable Resources

and Planning in the BLM. We will also hear from a number of affected livestock operators representing five different states in the

West and we will mention those as we start going on here. We appreciate all of you being here. And, Mr. Sharpe, we’re grateful for

your presence and you have the floor.

STATEMENT OF MAITLAND SHARPE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF

RENEWABLE RESOURCES AND PLANNING, BUREAU OF LAND

MANAGEMENT

Mr. SHARPE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, members

of the Subcommittee, I’m pleased to have the opportunity to be

here today to discuss the Bureau of Land Management’s range

management program. I would like to address some of the concerns

that the Committee has raised with respect to reductions in authorized grazing use on lands that BLM manages.

As you know, the invitation letter for this hearing indicated that

the Subcommittee was interested in grazing reductions on BLMmanaged public lands. Twenty years ago, BLM authorized approximately 10.8 million Animal Unit Months, AUMs, of forage use to

approximately 20,600 lessees or permittees. In 1991 that figure had

decreased to slightly over 9.6 million AUMs used by 19,482 lessees

or permittees, and by 1996 that number was up to about 9.75 million AUMs and the number of lessees or permittees had declined

further to 18,800. I attached a chart to my testimony that shows

a year-by-year breakout of this information from 1977, 20 years

ago, to the present.

A review of our grazing records reveals that overall restrictions

having significant negative impacts on livestock operations are, we

believe, the exception. Terms and conditions for grazing livestock

on an allotment are designed, whenever possible, to strike a balance between public expectations of more rapid improvements to

resource conditions, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the

needs of permittees to have access to adequate amounts of forage.

There have been site-specific reductions or restrictions that have

been put in place to better manage rangeland resources and to restore the productivity of our public rangelands. The BLM is required to protect the public lands from degradation and seek to improve the condition of the range, while at the same time managing

those lands for a full range of uses, including livestock grazing.

There is no single reason for the gradual reductions in AUMs

that has occurred during the past 20 years. As you noted, the reasons are many, including land lost to grazing through exchange or

disposal of lands, reductions for diminished forage supply or dimin-
3

ished carrying capacity, adjustments for riparian area improvements, adjustments which are usually temporary and restored after

the riparian areas recover, and reductions in order to protect

threatened or endangered species. Also, quite significantly, there

are fluctuations of a temporary nature due to drought or wildfire

emergencies.

Let me give you a couple of examples. The recent Delaware and

Rio Bonito land exchanges in southeastern New Mexico demonstrate the effect of land exchanges on the available number of

AUMs. Through this particular exchange, BLM acquired important

habitat along the Delaware and Rio Bonito Rivers that contains important biological resources and offers enhanced public-access opportunities. As a result of the exchange, about 20,000 AUMs went

into private ownership. So, those are no longer counted as AUMs

on public land in New Mexico, although they’re still available for

grazing. An example of AUM reductions in order to protect the

habitat of endangered species is the BLM’s management actions to

protect the threatened desert tortoise. The BLM has had to impose

seasonal restrictions on grazing on a number of allotments in

northern Arizona, southern Utah, Nevada, and the desert area of

California because it was determined that livestock grazing had adverse impacts on desert tortoises during seasons of peak tortoise

foraging activity.

Additionally, there are occasional but rare reductions taken for

willful, repeated violations of rules or terms and conditions of permits. Over the past 5 years, the BLM has had to impose such restrictions against about 46 operators. Those 46 cases represent approximately two-tenths of 1 percent of our total operators. Most of

our operators are, we recognize, good stewards and care deeply

about the health of the land.

BLM has also made reductions in some allotments where weed

encroachment has reduced the forage supply. Approximately 8.5

million acres of BLM-managed public lands have suffered invasion

by noxious, exotic plants. These weeds continue to spread at more

than 2,000 acres per day. These weed species have little or no

value as livestock forage and contribute to the loss of carrying capacity.

In addition to making reductions where necessary, BLM also restores forage to active use or increases AUMs as conditions allow.

Between 1992 and 1996 about 140 operators received increases, totaling approximately 44,000 AUMs.

In close consultation with permittees, lessees, and interested

members of the public, the BLM will continue to strive to meet

public expectations of improving the health of the public rangelands and continue to work to foster a healthy public land livestock

industry. Livestock grazing remains a central component of multiple-use management and BLM is working to achieve a program

that has broad public support for public land management that includes support for continued livestock grazing.

We believe that one important way to encourage public support

is to provide a mechanism for meaningful public involvement in

rangeland decisions. Public involvement permits ranchers to hear

the views of others and also helps non-ranchers better understand

ranchers and the benefits that ranching uses bring, such as open
4

space, which is certainly an issue that increasingly resonates

throughout the West with people of almost all backgrounds.

Through the Resource Advisory Councils and the collaborative

management approach of the 1995 regulations, BLM stakeholders

are playing a larger role in the land management process. We now

see people working together at state and local levels to find shared

solutions to very real problems. Diverse interests are forging a

common vision of what the public rangelands should look like and

what the land can produce. They are finding ways to put old conflicts aside. The result will be a healthier, more productive rangeland and a more stable future for the public land livestock industry.

The bottom line, in our view, is that the Bureau’s grazing management program is working. We appreciate the Committee’s continued interest in our range management program and I would be

happy to answer any questions. I will be here throughout the hearing to hear what the other witnesses have to say and to listen to

problems that may be occurring on the public lands so that we can

respond to those and try to fix them. That concludes my testimony,

Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sharpe may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. The gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. VENTO. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman for your—for the opportunity to be recognized. Mr. Sharpe, I’m interested in—there’s a

suggestion in my colleague’s, the Chairman’s, opening statement

that there are allotments that are not within BLM that are not

now being permitted. And, can you give us some overview of what

the numbers are?

Mr. SHARPE. Congressman, I can’t give you a number. We can

find that and supply it for the record.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. VENTO. Well, I think it’s important——

Mr. SHARPE. The essential point here is the number of vacant allotments at any time on BLM lands is very, very small.

Mr. VENTO. Yes, I’m concerned. I mean, has there been any reassessment? I know that we have had a number of reports that we

have done over the years, the last 7 or 8 years, which I’m certain

that you, Mr. Sharpe, and others, as the Assistant Director, have

taken a close look at, and they, of course, deal in glowing generalities all the time, and that’s about all we have time for, I guess,

today, is one of the issues had been the hot desert areas, the areas

that have been extended. Has there been any thought about reframing some of those areas we found? For instance, an AUM,

2,500 of acres for a single, you know, AUM on these areas—has

there been any thought of retreating from those areas? They’re

marginally profitable.

Mr. SHARPE. The Bureau is not currently engaged, and has no

plans to engage, in an exercise of reviewing the AUM allotments

westside——

Mr. VENTO. Well——

Mr. SHARPE. [continuing] to make new determinations as to their

general suitability for grazing.
5

Mr. VENTO. Does the research councils—do they undertake that

particular task themselves? I mean, at some particular point, there

has to be some reframing of what are, you know, productive forages

and what is not, I mean, in these areas. In terms of—when you put

a cow, calf, or whatever AUMs you’re putting on an allotment, it

very often ends up being the dominant species. It obviously chooses

out certain types of forages in terms of natural, and we get, of

course, the many exotics that come in there, the sagebrush, the

pinion-juniper-type phenomena——

Mr. SHARPE. I understand.

Mr. VENTO. [continuing] other types of problems that occur.

Mr. SHARPE. Those decisions are being made quite properly, I

think, at the local level through local land use planning efforts at

the allotment level, focusing on the particular physical and biological conditions on a given allotment. The bulk of the reductions in

permitted AUMs over the past years has stemmed from findings on

the ground at the allotment level that the carrying capacity is not

adequate to sustain the previous level of grazing use.

Mr. VENTO. Well, I know, but one of the ways that that’s dealt

with, just by expanding the number of acres that are covered—it

doesn’t always—I mean, one of the ways that that is addressed is

by expanding the number of acres per AUM. It involves a lot more

monitoring in terms of determining whether or not the permittee

is, in fact, moving around the animals in a way that is consistent

with the management of the allotment. I mean, you do reach a

point of diminishing returns here, especially, isn’t it—what has

been the problem in terms of allocating resources and management

and rangers, and so forth, to the monitoring of these types of sensitive areas?

Mr. SHARPE. We have, as you know, limited resources available

to us for monitoring. As for other purposes, we have allocated those

resources very carefully, focusing them on the approximately 25

percent of the total number of allotments that have been placed by

the Bureau in the ‘‘I’’ or ‘‘Improved’’ category. Those are allotments

on which the grazing use is considered to be particularly sensitive,

allotments on which physical and biological conditions may be less

than we would desire and allotments on which there are notable

conflicts among the various multiple uses. We believe that that’s a

rational allocation of limited monitoring capacity and we are monitoring those allotments on, essentially, an annual basis with interim monitoring taking place at, it varies, but roughly 3- to 5-year

intervals.

Mr. VENTO. Are any of the states still doing chaining activities?

Mr. SHARPE. There is some chaining that has taken place on

BLM lands in recent years, almost all of it, I believe, in connection

with trying to rehabilitate rangelands after fires, after wildland

fires. We’ve discovered that, in some areas, chaining is virtually

necessary to bring the seed in proper contact with the soil bed, in

order to get adequate regeneration of vegetation needed to protect

the soil and provide soil stability, reduce erosion, and permit recovery of the productive capacity of the——

Mr. VENTO. What would you—what would be your sentence answer for me or brief answer with regards to riparian issues and

BLM? Of course, as you know, that they have been scored, you
6

know, in the last reports of GAO, some certain years ago now, in

terms of having riparian areas that are in poor quality. And I

guess that deals with this monitoring of these risk areas, I think,

that are whatever the terminology that you use, but accurately depicting it, how would you respond to a question in terms of BLM’s

management of riparian areas these days?

Mr. SHARPE. We are very proud of our response to the need to

place additional emphasis on riparian areas. We feel that BLM has

been a national leader in that regard. We have now assessed, monitored, if you will, 78 percent of the riparian miles in the lower 48.

We have classified those into three categories and we are focusing

our recovery efforts on the middle category, the streams that have

been identified as ‘‘functioning at risk,’’ simply because those are

the streams that respond most quickly to management efforts and,

obviously, from a strategic point of view, that’s the most productive

place to put our resources.

Last year, 1996, we applied management to a little over 1,600

miles of streams in that category, functioning at risk, which

amounts to about 11 percent of the total stream miles in that category. But we could make more progress. We would like to. We’re

committed to doing that, and we are working at it very hard

through every means. It is absolutely a top priority for the Bureau.

Mr. VENTO. One of the suggestions here is that there’s been a reduction in the amount of AUMs, in terms of the western rangelands. Can you give the reason? Is that a weather-related phenomena or is that just reflective of environmental problems or a

meteorological phenomena?

Mr. SHARPE. Well, as I noted in my statement, it’s a result of the

interaction of a great many factors, some of them additive, some of

them canceling each other out, all of them varying from year to

year. It’s very difficult and it would really be a mistake to try to

pin this to any single factor. However, I can tell you that over the

last 6-year period, the data that we have collected from the field

indicates that some 89 percent of the reductions, the AUMs placed

in suspended use, have been attributed to carrying capacity, as opposed to drought or fire or endangered species or wildlife or other

such factors. The reductions have been made in response to limitations on carrying capacity on the ground.

Mr. VENTO. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Mr. Sharpe, maybe I’m missing something here, but I’ve been reading this put out—the Council for Agriculture, Science, and Technology put out a rather extensive report

indicating that the rangeland has been improving rather dramatically in the last little while, regardless of all these factors. At the

same time, the number of slaughter animals on the ranges has

been going down. It seems kind of an inconsistency to me that,

while the range is improving, the number of animals is going down.

I’m sure you mentioned other factors to the gentleman from Minnesota but there must be something else. What am I missing?

Mr. SHARPE. Well, I don’t know for sure why the number of

slaughter animals has been going down. I would point out that

market conditions are also volatile, as we all recognize the market

has been in a deep trough for the past several years. Market prices

have been extremely low and, presumably, the number of animals
7

on the rangelands, public and private, has reflected that over the

past several years. I would expect that, as the market for beef

picks up, that rangelands that are now less than fully stocked are

likely to become more fully stocked. That’s certainly one of the factors that needs to be considered.

Mr. HANSEN. I remember a few years ago reading a very exhaustive report that the managers of public land use grazing as a tool,

as they use other tools. Chaining, for example, which I think has

restored a lot of rangeland; contrary to popular belief, prescribed

fires; thinning, all of those things which land managers, not environmentalists, not developers, but land managers say, something

that’s taken good care of it. Isn’t it true that use of slaughter animals is used as a tool? In other words, keep down grasses, things

such as that.

Mr. SHARPE. Well, the use of livestock grazing by various classes

certainly can be used as a tool in order to achieve particular resource objectives identified for a particular allotment or pasture

area within an allotment. I think that for the largest part, livestock

grazing on the public lands is primarily a commercial use, that the

reason that the cattle are out there is primarily in order to make

economic use of the forage that is available and in order to secure

the benefits for individuals and ranchers and for society at large

from making productive use of that forage. I would point out, at

the same time, that sheep certainly are used from time to time

very directly as a management tool, particularly for the effective

control of leafy spurge and other weeds. In fact, in certain instances, we charge no fee for such use because the Bureau recognizes that that use is being entertained strictly for management

purposes.

Mr. HANSEN. No, I think there’s a basic philosophy that seems

to permeate around here and in some places in America, that management versus non-management. For years, we’ve managed the

forests. We’ve managed the public lands. I think it’s interesting

that some people now feel we shouldn’t manage it. Out of that

through 100 years or so, as history in my State of Utah shows, that

the forests, the public lands, are in much better shape than the

days the pioneers came to those valleys because people have managed it and they’ve used many tools—cutting, when they had to;

thinning, chaining, which, in my opinion, is a good management

tool.

And this report that I was referring to went on to talk about our

friends to the North and Canada, who, at one time, cutoff animals

on the public graze and later put them back on, even paying people

from Montana to take stock across the border to keep the grasses

down, so they wouldn’t have fires in the fall in dry years. So, I look

at that as somewhat as a management tool, and that you folks who

are charged with use of the public land cannot go to the idea of just

let Mother Nature do it. Mother Nature, in my opinion, I know

that’s speaking against deity almost, but she manages by wind,

fire, earthquake, areas that I totally disagree with, and I think

man has to be a good steward of the ground. I do feel, even though

I’m very pro-grazing on the ground, I do feel that some ranchers

have violated their privileges. I know personally I have been kicked

off ground before, as a young man, and went back to the county
8

recorder and found out that it was public ground. I went back to

the rancher and he apologized, said, ‘‘I didn’t think you’d look it

up.’’ And I was also in the legislature at the time, and it kind of

irritated me that some of these people feel that they’re owners of

the land when they’re merely or only have one use. I hope all the

ranchers are cautioning your people not to do that, because that

really hurts your cause. And, of course, I can’t say as I blame you.

Somebody coming in and messing up an area but you mess it up

to a certain extent, also, so I’d be a little careful there, if you would

be.

The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Shadegg, is recognized for 5

minutes.

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Sharpe, for being here. I’m sorry I missed the

very first part of your testimony. Let me just begin with a question

that you may have answered and I’m not sure I heard the answer

clearly enough. Do you agree that the trends do, in fact, show that

rangeland conditions are improving in the West?

Mr. SHARPE. The data available to us for the entire sweep of this

century certainly indicates that range conditions have gotten better

over the last hundred years. In the 1970’s, Thad Box, the distinguished range professor from Utah State,tried to assess the available data and concluded with the much-quoted observation that the

rangelands were, then, in the best condition that they had been in

in the twentieth century.

Mr. SHADEGG. At what time——

Mr. SHARPE. I would not dispute that conclusion.

Mr. SHADEGG. How recent was that?

Mr. SHARPE. That was in the mid-1970’s. BLM data, gathered

since then has shown a modest but continued improvement in

range condition overall. And we’re very proud of that. At the same

time, I should point out that this does not apply evenly across all

the public lands. There are areas, there are sites, there are allotments that don’t reflect that general upward trend and the additional management steps that the Bureau has been taking in recent years to put in place more effective management, which sometimes involves reductions in livestock use, and often doesn’t, is in

response to the continuing need, and the continuing opportunity, to

improve the productivity for the full range of uses of those areas

that have been somewhat laggard in terms of this general pattern

of recovery.

Mr. SHADEGG. I appreciate that. It seems to me, and I think the

Chairman already alluded to it, stated in a rather blunt fashion,

which is kind of my way to do things, some ranchers do a good job

of managing the range they’re entrusted with and some don’t as

good a job. Have you found—well, I guess two questions. One, do

you have the ability now to identify which ones are doing a good

job, and to either improve their management or deal with the fact

that they aren’t managing properly by perhaps reducing or taking

away their allotment, as one question.

And second, are the advisory councils, resource advisory councils,

helping in the education on both sides? That is, of those who have

the land, and of those who kind of want to manage it from some
9

other venue, such as the cities or a particular environmental group

with a concern about it.

Mr. SHARPE. Taking your questions in reverse order, our experience to date shows that the resource advisory councils and the entire climate of collaborative management, of which the resource advisory councils are a salient part, have been very successful in

terms of fostering those productive conversations from both perspectives. I believe that the most important thing we can do in

order to provide for a stable future for the Western public lands

livestock industry, is to continue to foster that kind of conversation.

We need to improve the condition of the public rangelands and the

riparian resources, including protecting endangered species and so

forth and, further, to demonstrate to all of the parties who are interested in this, that, in fact, we are making progress and that the

trend is up, and that the lands are getting healthier and that

there’s more there for everyone. I think it’s that pattern, pursued

and sustained over the years, that is going to put to rest the widely

shared public illusion that these rangelands are in bad condition

and getting worse and, by doing that, provide the foundation for a

stable western livestock industry. And now I regret I’ve forgotten

the first part of your question, if you——

[Laughter.]

Mr. SHADEGG. That’s all right; that answer, I think, adequately

covered it. Let me just—because I’m going to run out of time here

in a minute—there are many people in my district, which is an

urban district in the West, who have become persuaded that grazing on public lands is simply an idea who’s time has come and gone

and that grazing is, in fact, bad for public lands, period. They’d like

to see it completely gone. The responsible ranchers that I know in

Arizona say, to the contrary, that the evidence is quite clear that,

managed properly, grazing is actually very good for the land and,

indeed, improves its condition. Would you agree with the latter

sentiment and do you have, or does the Bureau have, studies which

you could cite for my use to try to make that point with those who

are taking the other view?

Mr. SHARPE. I think that livestock use can benefit the land. You

have to be specific as to what vegetation, what livestock use, the

pattern of use, the precise situation. One of the difficulties in this

entire business is that the truths are specific and the myths are

general. And trying to——

Mr. SHADEGG. Well said.

Mr. SHARPE. [continuing] get the two together, trying to bridge

that gap is always difficult. That, specifically, is the genius of a collaborative approach. If we can get people with very different viewpoints, people who embrace very different myths or senses of the

world, together looking, in detail, at the same piece of turf and

learning to see what’s there and understand the biological processes through the same set of lenses, then the disagreement, the

perceived conflict, tends to dissolve.

Mr. SHADEGG. And the last part of the question was, can you provide me or are you aware of studies that the Bureau has underway

that begin to make this case: that done properly, grazing, in fact,

benefits the land?
10

Mr. SHARPE. I am not aware of specific studies. We will certainly

look into that, do a quick literature search, and provide the information for you.

Mr. SHADEGG. That would be very helpful.

Mr. SHARPE. Be happy to do——

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The information referred to follows:] ————— Mr. Sharpe submitted the following information:

The Bureau of Land Management has not done any recent studies on the issue

of the benefits of livestock grazing to the land, nor do we have any underway at

this time.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. We’ll now turn 5 minutes to Mr. Hill

from Montana, followed by the Republican side by Chenoweth,

Hefley, and Gilchrest. We’ll also get to Mrs. Green on the Democratic side.

Mr. HILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Sharpe.

One of the issues, or at least when we hear complaints with regard to dramatic changes in land management decisions by the

BLM, it often has to do with aspects of the Endangered Species

Act. Would you agree with that?

Mr. SHARPE. That certainly is one of the factors at work here.

Mr. HILL. There are many who would want to reform the Endangered Species Act, including I think Mr. Babbitt has made some

positive statements about putting greater emphasis on making

land management decisions as part of recovery planning. In other

words, one of the things that’s occurring today is that you, evidently, are making arbitrary or rather short-term decisions with

regard to land management’s decisions involving leases. Or there

really is no recovery plan. It’s just a sense that there could be some

threat to habitat. Do you think that those sorts of changes would

be constructive in terms of helping you in cooperating with ranchers if we could put greater emphasis on the recovery plan before

we made those land management decisions?

Mr. SHARPE. I’m not in a position to speak to questions about potential amendments to revisions of the Endangered Species Act.

That falls quite beyond my purview and beyond my expertise.

Mr. HILL. But your——

Mr. SHARPE. I would say that in terms of responding to our statutory and, I think, moral mandate to provide for protection for

threatened and endangered species and their habitat, there are at

least two important steps. The first step is to try to stabilize the

situation when we have a situation of current jeopardy, so that we

are certain that we are not further jeopardizing that species or that

population. I think that the second step has to do with more comprehensive, systemic recovery planning. This often involves the development of recovery plans that involve public and private ownerships working together within a larger scheme designed to provide

for the endangered species and its recovery in ways that make best

use of the available resources and do impose the fewest constraints

on other human uses. And, certainly, that’s the direction in which

society would want to move over the longer run.

Mr. HILL. One of the complaints that I hear is that decisions are

being made without good science and good data. In other words,

the monitoring is done for a short period of time and then decisions
11

are being made on the basis of relatively short or small amounts

of data, I guess I would say. Do you have criteria within the agency

with regard to how long monitoring ought to take place, what the

quality of the data ought to be before you make significant changes

in terms of AUMs or utilization?

Mr. SHARPE. Monitoring within the Bureau is conducted in a variety of fashions, depending on the area, depending on the state

and the resource conditions. In each case, it follows methodologies

that have been developed by range scientists within the universities’ faculties and adopted specifically by BLM and detailed within our internal technical references and other publications. This is

not an activity that is conducted casually. It is firmly based in good

science. There are ongoing arguments over the methodology to be

used. There are a great many methodologies out there; each one

has its adherent and no one methodology is appropriate to all circumstances and no one methodology meets with the full approval

of all observers.

But we are quite confident that our monitoring is conducted according to sound scientific principles, and the duration of monitoring, before decisions are made, is typically 5 to 10 years. The

state that has rendered the largest number of decisions in recent

years is Nevada, and I’m told by our staff that in most of the cases

the decisions are based on at least 10 years of monitoring.

Mr. HILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. We have a vote on, and I would like

to acknowledge Mrs. Chenoweth. Before we go, we’ll have time for

her 5 minutes and then a vote, possibly two votes. I apologize to

the witnesses. We don’t have too much control on that so we’ll

stand in recess while we get through these votes and then we’ll be

back. Mrs. Chenoweth.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am glad

you’re holding this hearing and I wish I could be here for the entire

hearing, but I have to chair another hearing, and so I appreciate

being able to participate for just a short time. Mr. Sharpe, are you

familiar with the BLM satellite network?

Mr. SHARPE. I don’t believe I am, by name.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. OK. On August 7, there was a broadcast from

the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s National Training Center

in Phoenix. Does that ring a bell?

Mr. SHARPE. Yes.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. OK. They introduced the new Director, Mr.

Shea, and he made mention of several interesting things that were

on the satellite. And I know that you’re here on behalf of Mr. Shea,

and I wish he were here so I could ask him directly. But certain

things he said I think we need to get on the record for his benefit

to clarify. And I hope he didn’t mean it as he apparently stated it.

He stated that multiple use takes a back seat to ECA system management, and he went on to say, ‘‘and we would add for our ranching and mining readers that vision does not include mere citizens

having any established rights’’ on these maps. I’m very disturbed

about this because, certainly, the right to the allotments is an established right. It’s not just a permitted right. And so I would very

much appreciate hearing from Mr. Shea on that.
12

Furthermore, Mr. Shea indicated that, on this satellite network,

that he was skeptical of the states taking over duties from the

BLM, saying that oftentimes the states are too lax in their enforcement responsibilities and in enforcing rules set up by the central

government.

And then the third thing was that Mr. Shea indicated, that if

any elected officials gave any employee of the BLM any guff, he

called it, he will not stand for that and that he wants to know right

away and he will put a stop to it. I’d like to know what he means

by ‘‘guff,’’ and I would like to hear from him on that because there

will not be one minute that I will neglect my oversight duties on

the responsibility given to me to oversee what the BLM is doing.

I took a little umbrage at that, and so I would very much appreciate hearing from Mr. Shea on that, Mr. Sharpe.

Mr. SHARPE. I’ll be happy to communicate that to the Director.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you.

Mr. SHARPE. I think there’s been some difficulty in communication here. Those things do not sound like the Director that I think

I know. I did not hear that broadcast myself.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. That’s good and——

Mr. SHARPE. So I can’t speak to it directly, but I think that some

additional conversation may make you feel a good deal better.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. And my door is very open to get to know him

better because that’s not a good start and I’m certain something

must have been lacking in the communication.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could submit for the record my opening statement and also the testimony of Mr. Chad Gibson.

Mr. HANSEN. Without objection, all opening statement will be

part of the record.

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Chenoweth follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. HELEN CHENOWETH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF IDAHO

I want to thank the Chairman for holding this hearing on an issue of great concern to me, the recent and disturbing trends we are seeing on BLM lands with regard to grazing allotments. A substantial portion of my district, the Owyhee and

Bruneau resource areas, depend on their ability to use by permit and by right BLM

lands for the grazing of their cattle. The future of their livelihoods, families, and

communities are literally at stake with what is to me clearly an arbitrary reduction

in grazing allotments.

One of my constituents, Dr. Chad Gibson, was to testify today on this critical

issue, but was unavoidably detained. However, he has offered his written testimony

for the review of the Committee. Dr. Gibson has had over three decades experience

studying the conditions of the range and how BLM policies affect those conditions.

I know of no other more knowledgeable person in this issue than Dr. Gibson, and

I strongly recommend the members of the Committee, and also the BLM, study and

take into account Dr. Gibson’s revealing observations. In fact, his comments center

around how the lack of monitoring by the BLM—one of the key issues we will be

looking at in this hearing—adversely impacts not only the agency’s ability to accurately assess the conditions of the range, but also the trust that must exist between

the agency and the people who have a stake in the use of the land.

Mr. Chairman, monitoring is the essential element of good land management. If

the BLM is not properly monitoring the land, or they are not taking into account

data collected by the county and other state agencies who monitor the land, then

the agency is simply incapable of making good land management policy. It also

means that the information that it does publish is incomplete, and thus incapacitates the ability for that agency to even conduct a legitimate public discussion.

Mr. Chairman, this notion is very troubling, especially in light of the fact that the

BLM is basing its reasoning for across the board reductions in grazing allotments

on this incomplete or inaccurate data. It leads me to believe that the reasoning be-
13

hind the reduction of AUMs has little or nothing to do with science. Rather, it appears to be the result of a political agenda that has infiltrated the basic decisionmaking process of the BLM. Somehow, and tragically, over the past few years, officials within the BLM have become less of land managers, and more of people

policers. Its way of managing the land is to cut humans, or citizens, out of the use

of the land. This is not what Congress intended, and in my opinion, is an outright

violation of established rights.

Mr. Chairman, for the sake of the health of the land and of the people who depend on that land, we need to get to the bottom of this issue. I anticipate that this

hearing will continue to shed light on these problems. It is my hope and goal that

we take this issue out of the political advocacy realm and back into a scientific and

lawful realm where it belongs. That is the message that this Administration needs

to hear.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gibson follows:]

STATEMENT OF DR. CHAD C. GIBSON, WILDER, IDAHO

Dear Chairman Hansen:

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to your Committee. I

hope these comments will help you understand the impact of regulatory abuse on

livestock grazing preference rights and the continued viability of public land ranches

in Owyhee County, Idaho. I am sorry that I was unable to be present to answer

questions. I would be happy to respond by telephone or in writing if you would like

clarification or additional information.

By way of introduction I am a County Extension Educator with the University

of Idaho stationed in Owyhee County. I specialize in range and beef cattle management and public policy, working closely with the Owyhee County Commissioners,

Land Use Planning Committee and the Owyhee Cattlemen’s Association. My concern for the subject of your hearing comes from my work and my interest in ranch

here in Idaho belonging to my mother. I was raised on a ranch and have remained

active in the management of the home ranch since that time.

Owyhee County Idaho has 250 cattlemen operating ranches over nearly five million acres. The Bureau of Land Management administers 74 percent of the surface

area of the county and about 70 percent of the livestock in our county are dependent

upon use of the public lands. Consequently, the County has a significant interest

in the administration of those lands. I would like to focus my comments on a number of areas of regulatory abuse resulting in reductions in livestock grazing use on

the public lands of Owyhee County. These areas include land use planning, faulty

monitoring and junk science, arbitrary terms and conditions, coercion resulting from

alleged violations, and a lack of meaningful Consultation, Cooperation and Coordination. I will also offer a suggestion for correcting some of these negative approaches to administration and management of the public lands.

Land Use Planning

In November 1996 the BLM Owyhee Resource Area released a draft EIS for the

Owyhee Resource Management Plan. It contained four alternatives for management.

One alternative was to continue management under the existing 1981 Management

Framework Plan. This is a standard practice for the no-action alternative and such

alternatives are never given serious consideration. A second alternative (B) was developed by Owyhee County. This alternative was developed with emphasis on rangeland health and multiple use and was developed with input from an array of multiple users. This alternative was presented in the BLM’s EIS in an extremely negative manner and was given a heavily biased and inaccurate negative evaluation of

environmental consequences. It appears that the biased and inaccurate negative interpretation and analysis was intended to slant public opinion against the alternative. A third alternative (C) was developed by the BLM staff and was termed the

staff preferred alternative. This alternative was presented in the most positive manner possible with biased and inaccurate positive evaluations of environmental consequences. Again the apparent intent was to sway public review in favor of this alternative. The fourth alternative (D) was proposed by the ‘‘desert group’’ made up

of environmental groups opposed to grazing. It also was presented in the EIS in a

generally favorable manner.

The BLM staff alternative (C) was chosen as the preferred alternative in the draft

EIS. This alternative establishes initial stocking levels 35 percent below current authorizations. The document contained no justification for this proposal. The 35 percent reduction was arrived at by proposing to close all allotments, with riparian

areas estimated to be in less than good condition, to grazing after July 15. The closure would not apply where approved and implemented grazing plans to address ri-
14

parian issues were in place. The actual reduction ranged from 25 percent to 85 percent for the 40 affected allotments. When it takes 2 or 3 years to get clearance to

install livestock management facilities, there is no possible way even one of the allotments could meet the ‘‘approved and implemented management plan’’ criteria.

Even if an individual plan could be implemented in a timely manner, it would be

impossible to complete all 40 of them in 2 years. Additionally the remoteness of

many allotments and the roughness of the country would prohibit even turning cattle out if they would have to be gathered and taken off the allotment within a

month and in some cases within 6 weeks. Since most of the turnout dates are within

2 to 6 weeks of the closure date the permittees would simply not be able to use the

allotment, resulting in a 100 percent reduction in use.

This is an example of where the BLM knows full well the criteria in the preferred

alternative could not be achieved and would result in significant economic harm to

the affected ranches (small businesses). This action is proposed without regard to

current condition and trend of riparian areas. Many of the streams involved have

only 1978 inventory data and many more have very limited and mostly subjective

estimates of current condition and trend. In many cases there is reliable data demonstrating significant improvement and upward trends on the affected stream and

riparian segments. This blanket reduction approach was selected as the preferred

alternative and the bureau rejected the Owyhee County proposal in Alternative C.

Owyhee County proposed to develop site specific allotment management plans based

on current and comprehensive monitoring data which would adequately consider the

livestock use constraints encountered by permittees.

While the planning process in not yet complete, the bias of the agency in trying

to manipulate the public process in an effort to gain support for unjustified cuts in

use is fully demonstrated in the planning process up to this point.

This example also demonstrates regulatory abuse based on unreliable, cursory,

heavily biased, and largely subjective monitoring, combined with junk science. Much

of the monitoring data is old (1978), based on potentially biased observations of,

often, irrelevant factors, and in some cases good information is improperly interpreted. The national riparian assessment team made up of the most knowledgeable

people in the BLM, USFS and other Federal and State agencies completely discredits one size fits all management such as the July 15 closure, utilization and

stubble height standards. They advocate site specific management plans considering

all of the climatic, soils, hydrologic, vegetation, upland landscape, and grazing use

factors for each site. Such programs have demonstrated repeatedly that site specific

management plans are effective. This is precisely the process proposed by Owyhee

County that was totally rejected by the bureau. Contentions that seasonal closures

are the only answer is simply junk science.

Inaccurate and Inappropriate Monitoring

I have personally been involved in disputes over monitoring results and the application of those results toward reductions in grazing use. In two specific cases BLM

personnel performed utilization studies and indicated to the permittee that livestock

would have to be moved to the next pasture in the rotation. Moving early from one

pasture means that more time will be spent in other units or that cattle will have

to be taken off of an allotment early. Early removal results in a cut in livestock

grazing use. Upon investigation of the first instance we were able to confirm with

a different BLM staff member that the utilization estimates were of the magnitude

of 2.5 times the actual use which had been made. The BLM withdrew it’s demand

that livestock be moved out of the pasture in question. In the second case BLM staff

agreed that the field studies of utilization were significantly higher than actual use

and again withdrew a demand to move livestock.

Often land management agencies are so choked with red tape and paper work

that they resort to use or blanket performance standards (junk science) for making

decisions instead of relying on appropriate monitoring information. Proper and useful monitoring takes time away from meeting the paper work and red tape demands

typical of a bureaucracy. In many of these cases the paper work and red tape take

precedent and the appropriate monitoring is not done. Misplaced priorities lead to

inappropriate standards and increased subjective observation of often irrelevant parameters. In such situations, individual biases and prejudices form the basis for decisions because objective and meaningful data is no longer available. Regulatory

abuse is most often a product of the inability of a bureaucracy to maintain their

statutory function as their primary objective because the focus changes from specific

results to fulfilling procedural and paperwork requirements. Regardless of the reason, regulatory abuse occurs on a daily basis and in the case of the Bureau of Land

Management many of the abuses result in economic harm to permittees through unjustified reductions in grazing use.
15

Improper and unworkable terms and conditions on grazing permits or

leases

The new rangeland reform regulations allow an authorized officer, by decision, to

place any term and condition on a grazing permit which he feels is appropriate. The

new regulations also require a permittee to accept those terms and conditions or forfeit their grazing preference right. Unless a permittee is willing and financially able

to initiate an enormously expensive request for stay of the decision, the regulations

require that permittees live with the decision during the appeal process. In any

case, regulatory abuse through imposition of punitive or unrealistic terms and conditions place extreme financial burdens on permittees.

During 1996 the BLM Boise District re-issued term grazing permits to nearly all

of the permittees in the district. In many instances the terms and conditions on

those permits were impossible to achieve or were simply inappropriate. Many permits contained a term and condition for leaving a 4 inch stubble height at the end

of the growing season on specified riparian areas. Some allotments operating under

a rotational grazing system will without doubt violate this term and condition in

the years riparian pastures are used late in the season. This term and condition was

imposed on every permit in the Owyhee Resource Area where the identified stream

segments occurred. Allotments with demonstrated high rates of improvement in riparian areas and allotments with stream segments where stubble height is clearly

an inappropriate standard all had the same term and condition applied. The National Riparian Assessment Team of experts favor site specific management plans

and reject exactly the blanket one size fits all kind of management resulting from

this term and condition.

Most term permits contained a requirement for obtaining a ‘‘trailing permit’’ any

time livestock are moved on public lands. There is no reference in the law to any

kind of ‘‘trailing permit.’’ A permittee could not move a sick animal to a different

pasture or even back onto private land without first obtaining permission from

BLM. Even moving strayed livestock from one allotment or pasture to their proper

place of use requires prior BLM authorization under this term and condition.

Another term and condition prohibits salting within one quarter mile of any riparian area or wetland. In some allotments one cannot find a location that meets this

criteria.

The term permits also contain a requirement that all grazing be in accordance

with a grazing schematic showing each pasture and dates of planned use for the

allotment. There have been many instances where the BLM has pursued alleged

trespass actions against permittees when a few, or even one animal, is found in a

pasture outside of the dates listed on the schematic, even though livestock are within the allotment. Alleged trespass actions are initiated regardless of the reason an

animal is outside of the use area on the schematic. Gates are frequently encountered along public use roads passing through pastures. Such gates are often left

open by passersby allowing livestock to stray into unplanned use areas. Fences in

good repair at the beginning of a use period are frequently broken by wildlife activity and storm events, again allowing unplanned livestock movement. However, permittees often face alleged trespass prosecution regardless of the reason for livestock

escaping the assigned use area and regardless of how much effort was made to prevent it.

The new regulations allow an authorized officer to suspend in whole or in part

a grazing preference for any violation of the terms and conditions of a grazing permit or lease. Arbitrarily placing terms and conditions on a permit or lease which

the authorized officer knows cannot be met provides an avenue for regulatory abuse

which is perfectly legal under rangeland reform regulations.

Resolution procedures for alleged violation of terms and conditions

There are many instances where a violation of terms and conditions actions

against a permittee is settled through agreement. Such agreements take on the appearance of extortion or blackmail. The fact that a permittee could in no way prevent the violation does not prevent settlement by agreement. One permittee was

forced to give up an established Allotment Management Plan in favor of annual

management decisions by BLM in order to avoid further action for an alleged violation. One permittee was asked to assume maintenance responsibility for a fence previously the responsibility of BLM. Another permittee was asked to build and maintain a new fence to avoid further action. Permittees are often asked to reduce or

change grazing use in order to avoid further action. Since legal action to fight an

accusation of violation is extremely expensive, permittees often take the only avenue

they can afford by agreeing to a settlement. Arbitrary terms and conditions provide

a legal vehicle for regulatory abuse through arbitrary resolution of alleged violations.
16

Fundamentals of rangeland health and grazing administration guidelines

The BLM Owyhee Resource Area has just released their process for addressing

rangeland health through the standards and guidelines procedures. The initial process is prioritizing allotments and the second procedure is determinations of whether

an allotment is meeting or progressing toward meeting the standards and guidelines. In both cases the last step in the process is Consultation, Cooperation and

Coordination. The next two procedures are the selection of appropriate action and

implementation of selected actions. Neither of these procedures even include Consultation, Cooperation and Coordination. It is very apparent that the program for

implementing the rangeland health standards and guidelines will not include CCC

with the permittees who have investments in preference right, who have intermingled private lands and or state lease lands and who depend on use of the public

land for the viability of their ranching operations. It hardly seems credible that the

current governing Federal statutes support this kind of regulatory procedure.

Curbing regulatory abuse through restoration of accountability

There are four primary administrative situations which lend themselves to regulatory abuse. They have been enhanced if not legalized by the new rangeland reform

grazing regulations. (1) Inadequate or faulty range monitoring and use of junk

science to support agenda driven decisions. (2) Authority to impose arbitrary terms

and conditions on term grazing permits. (3) Accusations of violation of terms and

conditions on grazing permits or leases must be disproved by the accused. (4) Legal

recourse for bad decisions is limited to very expensive litigation.

Most of these situations leading to regulatory abuse could be corrected simply by

requiring that an agency or proponent of a rule or order assume the burden of proof

(accountability). This would significantly reduce the use of inadequate monitoring

information and junk science. It would insure that terms and conditions imposed on

term grazing permits or leases are achievable and scientifically sound. It would insure that accusations of violation of terms and conditions would have a demonstrably reliable basis. And it would significantly reduce the cost of legal challenges

to improper decisions. I believe the appropriate language was developed in 1996 in

one of the versions of H.R. 1713 which failed to gain approval in the House. ‘‘When

a grazing decision is appealed to an administrative law judge, the burden of proof

shall be on the proponent of the rule or order. The standard of proof shall be by

a preponderance of evidence in the record as a whole.’’ If this language were made

statutory, the regulatory abuses to which permittees and lessees are frequently subjected would be significantly reduced.

Please accept my sincere thanks for the opportunity to present these comments

before your Committee.

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Thank you.

Mr. Sharpe, in the Owyhee resource plan it is proposed that

there be a 35 percent reduction below current authorizations, and

in some cases the actual reduction was 85 percent. In your testimony, you contend that the cuts in the AUMs by the BLM have

been negligible in their effects, and I’m concerned about that. I’d

like for you and Mr. Shey to take a personal look at that because

there’s no way that our operators can operate on that kind of margin.

And, furthermore, in the Owyhee RMP, I consulted with a national assessment team made up of people from the BLM, the Forest Service, and other Federal and state agencies who examined

the data that the BLM utilized in this alternative. And they found

that it was a staff model and that the data that was used to support the management changes was as old as 1978, and that doesn’t

give us a very good analysis of what the range conditions are today

because the range conditions have continued to improve, even

through our drought years. And so, I would very much appreciate

your looking into that and maybe when I meet with you or Mr.

Shey, we can go over that.

And then, finally, Mr. Sharpe, and Mr. Chairman, Dr. Gibson in

his testimony has asked some questions that I will not be able to,
17

because my time is running out. And I just wonder if I can submit

that to the Committee to ask the questions on behalf of me.

Mr. HANSEN. Without objection, we’ll take that and send it to the

Department for questions. Do you want to respond to that, Mr.

Sharpe?

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. SHARPE. I’d like to respond, particularly on one point, very

briefly. And that is, that we understand that restrictions on grazing use are imposed on particular places. They’re not spread evenly

across the West, and we understand that, as a result, individual

operators, individual allotments may be seriously impacted by

these adjustments. There is no one in the Bureau, certainly no one

at the field level, who does not take those impacts very, very seriously. Area managers agonize, they stay awake nights, before making a decision that it is necessary to impose serious reductions on

grazing use on an individual operator. Those are difficult decisions

to make for very human reasons, and we don’t do that lightly. We

do understand that people are affected.

Mr. HANSEN. We’re going to run out of time here, so I think we’re

going to have to go——

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I, with your indulgence, I just

want to add, though, that they are human decisions and humans

make mistakes. But I would appreciate very much that they evaluate the range condition based on today’s standards. Thank you.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. We’ll stand in recess. We have one vote

on right now; we may have another one, and I don’t know what’s

going to happen. I apologize. It’s above my pay grade to control the

floor, so enjoy yourselves. We’ll try to get back as soon as we can.

[Recess.]

Mr. GILCHREST. [presiding] The hearing will come to order. A

vote is still going on, but I would assume that some other members

will return here shortly, although the full Committee is having

their hearing with Carol Browner, Bruce Babbitt, and Dan Glickman. So, that might have upstaged us, I’m not sure, although we

still have Mr. Sharpe, which I think supersedes all those three people, and some cattlemen in the audience, I’m sure.

[Laughter.]

Mr. GILCHREST. And, to the cattlemen, I offer you some comfort,

even though I’m from Maryland, I guess considered the East, and

I’m in eastern Maryland, to boot. But I have a couple old horses

so that’ll balance some of this out.

Mr. Sharpe, did you have a chance to look at, or are you in any

way familiar with, the bill that came out of the Agricultue Committee dealing with grazing?

Mr. SHARPE. I testified at a hearing that was held on that bill,

although, because we had not received a copy of the bill prior to

the hearing, my testimony was in the nature of background, in effect, on the Bureau’s range management program, rather than testimony on the bill. Subsequent to that hearing, the Secretary of Interior, Secretary Babbitt, sent a letter to Chairman Smith in which

he shared with the Chairman the Secretary’s, the Department’s

view on and objections, concerns about, that draft legislation. I

have a copy of that with me if you would like to have that. It’s certainly part of the public record.
18

Mr. GILCHREST. Could you, then, in the short time that we have,

could you tell us some of your reservations or Mr. Babbitt’s reservations to the bill as compared to the kind of management tools

or reforms you now use?

Mr. SHARPE. Well, most fundamentally, I think it’s fair to say

that the view of the Department and the view of the Secretary is

that, as I noted in my testimony, that BLM’s range management

program is working. That it is not broken, it does not need to be

fixed. We think that range management is proceeding extremely

well across the West through the implementation of the 1995 regulations. We have created, as I noted, a system of resource advisory

councils that covers the West to provide focus for state and local

level input from the full array of interests concerned with public

land management.

Mr. GILCHREST. It——

Mr. SHARPE. Commodity interests, recreationists, environmentalists, wildlife folks, Native Americans, state and local government,

everyone’s at the table; they’re talking together; they’re focused on

the land locally——

Mr. GILCHREST. So, with what you know about the bill, how

would that change what’s happening now?

Mr. SHARPE. Well, the bill would change the structure of—among

other things—the resource advisory councils, so that they were advisory to both the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the

Interior, covering the National Forest System as well as the lands

managed by BLM.

Mr. GILCHREST. So, that doesn’t happen now?

Mr. SHARPE. No, it does not. The resource advisory councils are

unique to BLM at present.

Mr. GILCHREST. Are there any resource——

Mr. SHARPE. We think they are a very good idea, but we don’t

think that this is an appropriate time to, in effect, upset the apple

cart.

Mr. GILCHREST. Are there any resource advisory councils—I

guess you just answered my question. In other words, there are no

resource advisory councils as far as grazing is concerned for the

Department of Agriculture?

Mr. SHARPE. I believe that to be true.

Mr. GILCHREST. And the resource advisory councils that you now

have in place for BLM, in your judgment work, are working very

well?

Mr. SHARPE. Yes, sir.

Mr. GILCHREST. Wouldn’t they act as a positive example of how

things could be done for the Department of Agriculture as well,

and—well, I guess they would—if you’re thinking they’re working

well now for BLM, they would probably work well for the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. SHARPE. I think that they are a positive example. I think

they provide a model from which other agencies could profit.

However——

Mr. GILCHREST. What would the——

Mr. SHARPE. [continuing] in terms of the impact on BLM, we

would hate to enter into a period of turmoil and uncertainty and

change as a result of new legislation and the requirement to draft
19

new regulations and, in the case of the resource advisory councils,

a change in their makeup and their scope and their structure at

the very time——

Mr. GILCHREST. So is that——

Mr. SHARPE. [continuing] when we have a new mechanism that

is working——

Mr. GILCHREST. So, you’re saying the bill——

Mr. SHARPE. [continuing] very effectively.

Mr GILCHREST. [continuing] the bill would not reflect the mechanism that is now in place; it would change the resource advisory

councils?

Mr. SHARPE. As I understand the bill, it would substantially

change the resource advisory councils because their scope would be

different; an additional array of interests would be brought to the

table, logically people whose primary interest is the National Forest system as opposed to the BLM public lands. There would undoubtedly be need for changes in the personnel who are the membership of the resource advisory councils. I’m afraid that there

would be a serious loss of momentum for the resource advisory

councils that we now have in place and we don’t think that the

business of managing the public lands can tolerate that sort of loss

of current momentum.

Mr GILCHREST. I guess I’ll have to take a close look at what you

do now and how it would be changed by this bill. Is there—could

you—I just have one more question. Could you tell me something

about the kind of grass that is grazed on now, whether it’s on—

well, I guess you can speak to BLM land, as opposed to grass that

was grazed on by horses or indigenous species 300 years ago. And

is there a difference as far as nutrient to the animal is concerned?

Is there a difference between the indigenous grasses and non-indigenous grasses to the region as far as the soil is concerned, runoff

is concerned, things like that?

Mr. SHARPE. At some peril to veracity, I will venture a gross

overgeneralization.

Mr GILCHREST. Oh.

[Laughter.]

Mr. SHARPE. By and large, across the arid and semiarid lands

that the Bureau manages in the West, the native vegetation is

typically an array of native shrubs, sagebrush, for example, and

interspersed bunch grasses. The species of grasses that provide

much of the forage base currently are, by and large, the same species that were there hundreds of years ago in pre-Columbian time,

if you will, and for the reason that they are the species that have

evolved on those sites under those climatic conditions and are best

adapted to those sites. They are, by and large, perennial bunch

grasses. Again, across the West, at the risk of overgeneralization,

with the influence of European man’s use of these lands, there has

been, on a great many sites, a loss of—a degradation of the quality

of the rangeland involving typically a loss of the perennial grasses

and their replacement by annuals, and their replacement, furthermore, by a variety of shrub and woody species—pinon juniper over

a great deal of the hotter portion of the West, for example. Those

species are, by and large, not as effective at holding the soil in

place, providing for capture and rainfall and infiltration. Erosion
20

tends to go up and total productivity for livestock use or for wildlife

tends to go down. The exercise that the Bureau’s managers are engaged in, in terms of trying to adapt management in order to help

restore the full productive capacity, or something closer to the full

potential productive capacity at these rangelands, is very largely a

process of trying to reverse that trend away from perennials and

toward annuals and woody species.

Mr GILCHREST. Is that being successful?

Mr. SHARPE. Slowly. It is a slow process. That’s one of the fundamental points that we Easterners often have trouble grasping

about these lands.

Mr GILCHREST. Are you from Maryland?

Mr. SHARPE. I’m from Virginia.

Mr GILCHREST. Oh, Virginia.

Mr. SHARPE. Virginia, originally.

Mr GILCHREST. But it’s the——

Mr. SHARPE. These are arid and semiarid systems. On the uplands, in particular, the vast majority of the acreage, the rate of

recovery, the rate of change, tends to be very, very slow. So, the

public expectations for rapid change, for a dramatic recovery, with

a change in management, are, by and large, misplaced. Nature

does not allow for that.

Mr GILCHREST. Is it a specific policy of Interior to plant these native bunch grasses? And then, if it is, and you do that, how does

that impact the present allotment system in areas that need the

native grasses?

Mr. SHARPE. We are not, by and large, in the business of planting rangelands extensively. However, we are in the business, frequently, of trying to reseed post-fire where there is not an adequate

seed stock available in the soil or in the area to get sufficiently

rapid reseeding of vegetation to protect the soil. The soil is the

most fundamental element in the equation and we’ve got to make

sure that the soil stays there.

So, typically, post-fire, as in Utah this past year, for example, we

may go in and seed either mechanically or aerially across vast expanses of acreage. In those cases, the policy is now to try to reseed

with a mixture of native seeds and, in some cases, exotics, including primarily crested wheat grass, which regenerates very quickly

and establishes itself very efficiently and is effective at holding the

soil. But, we make sure now that the seed for native plants, including shrub species, is within the seed mix, so that over time, as competition takes place among the seeded species, the total mix of

vegetation on the rangeland will be dominated by native species

and much as it was before.

Mr GILCHREST. Thank you. We, unfortunately, have another

vote. And I think what I’ll do—first of all, Mr. Sharpe, I want to

thank for coming to testify before the Committee, and we appreciate the information that you’ve exchanged with us. I will run

over—I think I’m going to run over and vote. You have another 10-

minute break, but I’ll come right back and then we’ll start with Mr.

Flake, Mr. Menges, and Mr. Atkin—Nevada, Arizona and Utah.

And, hopefully, we’ll have enough time to finish your testimony.

Thank you very much. We’ll recess for 10 minutes.

[Recess.]
21

Mr. HANSEN. [presiding] We have finished with panel one, Mr.

Sharpe, and the second panel, and I apologize for keeping you folks

waiting, but it’s probably going to go on all day: Mr. Ray Flake, Nevada County Commissioner of Ely County, if you’d like to come up?

Jeff Menges, Chairman of Federal Lands Committee, National

Cattlemen’s Beef Association, and Brett Atkins, President of Public

Lands Council from St. George, Utah. Where’s Brett? Send the

Saint Bernards out to find him. Well, Brett Atkins will go third

then. And, Mr. Flake, we appreciate you being here and we’ll turn

the time to you. I apologize, members will be coming in and out because it’s just one of those days. So, if, Mr. Flake, you go right

ahead.

STATEMENT OF RAY FLAKE, LINCOLN COUNTY

COMMISSIONER, STATE OF NEVADA

Mr. FLAKE.. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, members

of the Committee, I’m here today representing People for the West,

as well as Lincoln County Commission.

Our organization, the People for the West organization, advocates responsible, multiple use of public lands, balanced solutions

to environmental issues, and protection of private property rights.

I’m a lifetime rancher and I strive to be an active environmentalist.

I like to say that I’m an active environmental, not an environmental activist. I appreciate the interest of this Subcommittee and

the time spent to listen to our concerns.

Lincoln County is 98.2 percent public land. As you can realize,

it’s a real struggle to provide services to citizens of a county in a

large area with 1.8 percent of the land for a tax base. Public land

grazing is of vital importance to us. Every AUM lost is not only a

loss to the individual permittee, but a loss to the community as

well. In the Ely BLM district, of which Lincoln County is a part,

AUM numbers are down 30 percent since 1980. This represents a

loss in permit value of $3 million and an annual direct economic

loss to the livestock sector of $1.9 million. When this is factored

into the turnover of money, this represents an annual loss to the

communities involved of nearly $4 million.

In my testimony, I’ve outlined four areas of concerns and examples of AUM losses. No. 1, improper and incomplete range monitoring. BLM personnel are constantly changing. Monitoring methodologies are constantly changing and are not consistent from one

district to the next. Overutilization of forage is frequently cited as

a problem, but valid justification is not always provided. Regardless, reduction in cattle AUMs is the result. In my opinion, the

problems found are often the result of improper livestock distribution and control and not overutilization. Distribution problems are

best solved with water developments and more intensive management and not just by reducing numbers. Unfortunately, the policy

seems to be just make cuts without attempting to solve the real

problems.

No. 2, the Desert Tortoise Recovery Plan. As a result of designation of critical habitat for the endangered—Nevada County Commissioner of Ely County—desert tortoise, many of the permittees in

Southern Lincoln County and Northern Clark County have been so

severely impacted as to nearly put them out of business by a full-
22

force-and-effect decision issued by the BLM which removes livestock from the range from March 1 through June 15 each year, and

has closed some allotments altogether. Currently, the BLM and the

Callyanty Office is preparing a recovery plan that will close over

1,000 square miles in Lincoln County to a single-use desert tortoise

habitat—all this based on flawed and inaccurate data.

The recover plan affects 19 allotments, 25 permittees, over

900,000 acres in 37,000 AUMs in Lincoln County. No scientific evidence has been given to prove that cows are harmful to the desert

tortoise. In fact, studies show they seem to do better in the areas

where cows are grazed.

No. 3, the Wild Horse and Burro Act and its management and

problems. The wild horse and burro numbers in Nevada have

grown to such proportion as to cause serious degradation of the

public lands in many areas. In these areas, the rancher has no

choice but to reduce his cattle numbers to keep from causing and

adding to the damage to the resource. These voluntary reductions

would not be necessary if the BLM kept the wild horse population

at the numbers they themselves have established. Frequently, even

though wild horses and burros are the source of damage, only reductions in cattle AUMs are required. It’s easier to write a letter

to the permittee and tell him to remove cattle than it is to get

horses off the range.

Nevada is home to over 20,000, or 60 percent, of the Nation’s

wild horses, yet Nevada receives only about 20 percent of the wild

horse and burro budget. Funding deficiencies are partly to blame

for the BLM’s lack of action but, even when ranchers volunteer to

help the BLM solve this problem, their help is refused. The wild

horse and burro program should be a quality program and not a

quantity one.

No. 4, probable AUM loss due to BLM acquisition of water rights.

In Lincoln County, most water rights are tied to—most grazing

rights are tied to water, rather than to private property, a piece of

land as such. In Nevada, as well as other states, water rights can

only be held in perpetuity if the user can continuously prove beneficial use. As a result of range reform, the BLM has applied for

stock watering rights and some of these actions have been denied,

and they’ve filed suit in Nevada for this reason. Why, after 50

years, without water rights does the BLM suddenly need them to

manage public land? I’m also concerned with the BLM’s attempts

to gain ownership interest in privately held water rights.

I’m concerned about the overall direction of the BLM, the continued erosion of AUMs; a little here and a little there adds up to be

an enormous impact on the local communities. Overregulation and

micromanagement handed down from Washington bureaucrats undermines the local BLM employees’ ability to make sound decisions. We must double and redouble our efforts for local, community-based consensus-building land management. We challenge

you, our elected representatives, to review BLM policies in order to

remove unnecessary regulation and eliminate top-down micromanagement from Washington, DC and to insist that BLM policies

respect state laws and our individual property rights. These policies must protect the local citizens’ opportunity to provide for themselves and their families. The continued loss of AUMs harms
23

ranchers and their families and the communities. It also harms the

public land because it eliminates the ranchers’ continual monitoring stewardship, improvements, protection, and maintenance of

the range itself.

There’s been a lot of talk that public lands, ranchers, are welfare

ranchers. But I tell you there is no such thing as a welfare rancher

until he is literally out of business and standing in the welfare

lines. If AUMs continue to be lost at the current rate, ranchers will

be on welfare all right, but they won’t be ranchers anymore. Thank

you.

[The statement of Mr. Flake may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Commissioner.

Mr. Menges?

STATEMENT OF MR. JEFF MENGES, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL

LANDS COMMITTEE, NATIONAL CATTLEMEN’S BEEF ASSOCIATION

Mr. MENGES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name’s Jeff Menges.

I’m chairman of the Federal Lands Committee for the National

Cattlemen’s Beef Association. My family and I currently have three

BLM allotments and, although it is too soon to determine the impact of Secretary Babbitt’s Rangeland Reform grazing regulations,

I have found the BLM to be basically a reasonable agency to deal

with. However, it is becoming increasingly difficult to ranch profitably on the public lands, and today I would like to articulate some

of the problems public land ranchers face, and offer some possible

solutions for those problems.

Implementation of the Endangered Species Act by the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service and the BLM is one major area of concern. We

do not need two agencies duplicating administrative actions for the

same purpose on the public lands. This is simply multiple layers

of government working to accomplish the same result: protect and

recover endangered plants and animals. These responsibilities

could and should be administered by the land management agencies only. This would solve financial and administrative problems

for both agencies.

Secretary Babbitt’s grazing regulations required development of

Grazing Standards and Guidelines which were required to address

restoring, maintaining, or enhancing habitats of endangered species. Arizona’s Standards and Guidelines were developed with

input from the Resource Advisory Council and signed by the Secretary of the Interior. However, in the Draft Biological Opinion, for

the BLM Safford and Tucson Field Offices in southeast Arizona,

implementation of the Standards and Guidelines will be overridden

by the terms and conditions in the Biological Opinion.

Our Smuggler Peak allotment is just one example. Since implementation of a winter grazing program on the Gila River pasture

on the allotment in 1990, the riparian area in the pasture has been

determined to be in ‘‘proper functioning condition.’’ This area will

easily meet all requirements of the Standards and Guides. However, implementation of the terms and conditions of the Draft Biological Opinion will require complete removal of cattle from the riparian areas on my allotment and on 11 additional allotments. It
24

further requires suspension of grazing on nine allotments, all to

avoid habitat modification of habitat for pygmy owls.

Pygmy owls do not exist on any of these 21 allotments. It is not

occupied habitat, nor has it been designated as critical habitat; yet,

modification of this potential habitat for pygmy owls will be considered take. The resulting effect to the 21 permittees will be financially devastating as well as being contradictory to the Standards

and Guidelines.

It is difficult to imagine any area that could not be considered

potential habitat for some species that is listed, or may be listed,

as endangered. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service needs more avenues for local input. Expanding the BLM Resource Advisory Councils to include recommendations to the Fish and Wildlife Service

should be considered.

The Standards and Guides require allotment evaluations. This

will require accurate monitoring. In recent years, monitoring has

been a low priority item that has not withstood the budget cuts.

We believe that vegetation monitoring is very important and

should be a high priority. We recommend making monitoring a

line-item so that money that is appropriated for this purpose, will

have to be spent accordingly.

Another major area of concern is the lack of accountability by

state wildlife agencies for the impacts their actions have on the

Federal lands. The number of elk on public lands have increased

over 1,000 percent since 1960. There are also substantial increases

for other big game species. Much of this increase can be attributed

to livestock management and industry-initiated programs like the

screwworm eradication effort, which have benefited wildlife as well

as livestock. The result of these additional grazing wildlife has

been reduction in available AUMs for livestock, without compensation to the permittees who pay for the use of the forage.

Some states provide depredation permits to compensate ranchers

for loss of forage on private land. We would support expanding that

system to include other lands. My suggestion is that state wildlife

agencies should enter into MOUs with Federal agencies regarding

resource outcomes. Local experts should be involved in determining

the outcomes. They should also be held to strict levels of accountability, as Federal grazing permittees are for range condition and

trend and for mitigating damage done to permittees, either in

terms of private values diminished or private penalties imposed on

permittees for failure to abide by his or her permit terms and conditions as a result of state wildlife agencies’ action or inaction.

Temporary issuance of some type of permittee-owned hunting

permits, to compensate the permittee for their economic loss could

be an option. Some ways to achieve compliance from state wildlife

agencies might include suspension of some portion of transfer payments from Federal Government to state wildlife agencies and

making availability of Federal funds to state wildlife agencies contingent on compliance. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Menges may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. I have an unanimous request, Mr. Bob

Smith, to enter his statement as part of the record. Is there objection?
25

Hearing none, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bob Smith may be found at end

of hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Atkins, the gentleman from St. George, Utah,

I turn the time to you.

STATEMENT OF MR. BRENT ATKIN, PRESIDENT, PUBLIC

LANDS COUNCIL

Mr. ATKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the chance to testify

today. I would like to talk today about some of the issues facing

Federal lands ranchers with BLM allotments today that have arisen as a result of agency application of the Clean Water Act, the

Clean Air Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act. These

laws were well-intentioned by Congress, but regulatory agencies

have converted the mandates from these laws into some rather

heavy regulatory burdens in situations where Congress never imagined that these laws would be used.

Earlier this year when grazing legislation was being considered

by this Subcommittee, I had the opportunity to be out here with

my son, T.J. You may remember that, Mr. Chairman. One day

when we were in your office talking with you, T.J., who was 10

years old at the time, asked you, ‘‘Congressman Hansen, what is

the future of grazing livestock on public lands?’’ Your answer was,

‘‘I don’t know.’’ And I’m sure that was an honest and open answer.

This is instability.

As a rancher and as a father, I would like to be able to tell my

children that they will be able to continue our family’s tradition of

ranching and feel good about it. As things are, I don’t feel good

about it because I don’t know if it’s true. After ranching for six generations, we have taken good care of the land, and in return, it has

given us the ability to make a living doing what we love to do. It

is really hard for me to remain optimistic about the future of my

family’s ranch today. This is really a shame because, regardless of

the distorted half-truths and outright lies about the effects of grazing on public lands that some interest groups continue to propound,

ranchers really are stewards of the land. Abusing the resource only

hurts their ability to make a living.

In my 25 years of dealing with the Bureau, with the BLM, I am

finding that more and more frequently land management decisions

are being made based on factors not at all related to sound land

management practices. They are being caused by the applications

of other laws. Ranchers are anxiously awaiting the appellate decision in a 1996 court case called Oregon Natural Desert Association

v. Chief Jack Ward Thomas, better known as the Camp Creek

Case. In that case, an Oregon Federal District Court judge held

that pollution caused by cattle grazing constitutes a discharge into

navigable waters under section 401 of the Clean Water Act, and

therefore, the Forest Service was required to get a state certification before issuing a grazing permit. The case is being considered

by the Ninth Circuit.

If the Ninth Circuit upholds the original decision, this will mean,

in essence, that livestock grazing is equivalent to a water treatment plant for the purposes of section 401. It would also mean that
26

the EPA would become yet another partner agency with BLM to

help manage the livestock grazing. This, again, is instability.

Likewise, the Clean Air Act is having adverse effects on proper

land management. In some instances, burning of rangeland is necessary for proper management of some types of grasses and shrubs.

The Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest Service have

adopted policies to improve the approval process of prescribed

burns. The EPA is limiting these necessary management activities,

citing clean air concerns. With the President recently announcing

new particulate matter regulations, I can only guess that prescribed burning will become a thing of the past at some time. When

that happens, the range conditions in areas where burning is appropriate will deteriorate, which will lead to reductions in AUMs

available for grazing. This, again, is instability.

The National Historic Preservation Act is basically being implemented on public lands through Memoranda of Agreement between

the states and BLM or the Forest Service. But there are many inconsistencies between these agreements. In Montana, for instance,

areas that have been grazed for the past 100 years really aren’t

being adversely affected by archaeological restrictions. In California, however, the MOU is resulting in restrictions on areas containing lithic scatter, basically pieces of stone leftover from making

arrowheads, even though these areas have also been grazed for

many years. Having different standards on Federal lands in different states does not add to stability.

Considered one at a time, most of the negative effects from the

laws that I have described could probably be manageable. However,

these negative impacts are cumulative. By the time a rancher is

facing requirements from three, four, five, or six different statutes,

his ability to graze livestock on Federal land is uncertain, at best.

The same situation is also faced by BLM. Agency employees spend

more time consulting with other agencies on how to administer

those agencies’ laws and dealing with paperwork or appeals than

they do actually doing the on-the-ground monitoring to safeguard

the resource.

I know that it is unrealistic to think that these laws will ever

be quickly changed to alleviate our problems. However, because

most of the problems caused by these laws today are because of

how the agencies are administering them, I don’t think it would be

unreasonable at all for the agencies to at least be able to work together in a manner that would allow both BLM and ranchers to do

our jobs, rather than fill out papers and go to meetings. If the goal

of BLM and ranchers is to protect, preserve, and improve the resource, which I think it is, then this kind of change is certainly

needed.

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to be here today.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Atkin may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. I get the impression you would rather

be a rancher than fill out papers and go to meetings, is that right?

Mr. ATKIN. That’s exactly right.

Mr. HANSEN. How often do you see BLM fellows out on the

ground?
27

Mr. ATKIN. Well, if I make an appointment to go with them, I’ll

see them, but on a normal year we probably won’t see our range

con. maybe but once or twice throughout the whole year. Generally,

that needs to be a—we line up appointment to go look at some——

Mr. HANSEN. So, maybe once or twice a year they come out to

monitor things?

Mr. ATKIN. They’re probably out there a little more—as far as

our range con., I’m sure he’s out there a little bit more than that.

But, as far as us seeing him, actually I’ve only seen him—I’ve only

visited with him once in the last 2 or 3 years. My dad’s, I think,

seen him a couple of times. He’s a good range con., too.

Mr. HANSEN. What affect has the environmental community had

on your ranch, your ranching process?

Mr. ATKIN. Specifically, ours, in our operation, on our individual

basis, probably the biggest effect that they’ve had right now is our

headquarters is right on a—kind of the main road coming out

there. And, instead of getting good decisions of land management,

now the BLM, through pressure from the environmental community, wants to manage that main valley where our ranch headquarters is by perception, rather than if the public—and especially

the environmental community doesn’t perceive that it looks good,

then they want us to move our cattle. It’s had a upward trend for

years. We’ve had the goal to help another species of grass come

into there. There’s more of that grass now than there ever was before, but yet, we’ve had a dry year or two and if it doesn’t—isn’t

perceived by the public to look good, then they won’t—that’s how

they want to manage that valley.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Flake, I was a little disturbed about your comment where you said something about, if I got this right, that help

from ranchers is always refused by the BLM for the wild horse and

burro program. Can you elaborate on that?

Mr. FLAKE.. Yes, sir. If I could, thank you, by an example. Last

year when we had a drought in our area and we were—it was determined to gather a lot of wild horses. And the cost, of course, of

gathering these horses is very great, very large amount. In our

area, I talked to them about the horses that needed to be gathered

and they said that there was a limitation on finances. And I said,

in our area, in our particular range, there’s an area there where

you can gather horses and have to drive them for 12 miles with a

helicopter to get them out to where you can corral them and load

them. I said, let’s don’t do it; let’s just wait. They’ll all come over

on this side the hill and I can water trap them over here. And if

you would give me permission, I would water trap these horses and

tell you when I had them in.

And I was told—it was told me that that contractor is paid a certain amount for gathering these horses and we don’t care how

much is costs him to gather them; he’s paid so much to get them

out. I said, you don’t understand me. I would like to see more

horses gathered and I’m willing to make a sacrifice and I would

make the effort to water trap those horses myself and call you and

tell you they’re in.

The reply was, well, we have to have a load before we can haul

them to the holding facilities.
28

I said, with your permission, I’d take them to my ranch and hold

them with hay until I had a semi-load for you to take out.

And they said, well, we could never do that because the horse

groups would not agree to it. Later, as I visited with the horse

groups, they said that water trapping would be a way they would

like to see horses gathered.

I would like to see more effort in that area, but I’m willing to

make the sacrifice also. I realize there’s budget constraints, but I’m

willing to help. But you can’t help where it’s not——

Mr. HANSEN. Commissioner, have you seen Representative Jim

Gibbons’ bill on wild horse and perils?

Mr. FLAKE.. I know of it some, but I haven’t studied it any great

deal. Sorry.

Mr. HANSEN. He wants to restrict the number of horses in each

state to one herd of—I can’t remember the amount of animals—to

be watched very carefully by a veterinarian and hold it at one size

because of the damage they do to riparian areas and areas such as

that. You haven’t looked at that in much detail yet?

Mr. FLAKE.. I have not, no.

Mr. HANSEN. I would very appreciate hearing a comment from

you if you would get a chance to look at it. If you’d let me know,

I’d kind of like to know because we will probably be doing a hearing on that bill and I’d kind of like to know where the western

folks, the environmentalists, the cattlemen, everybody, ATV folks

are coming from on that issue.

Let me ask Mr. Menges, you, in your testimony, talked about

range allotment monitoring has been a very low priority of the

BLM. Can you elaborate on that a little bit?

Mr. MENGES. Yes, sir. I’ve been on these allotments since 1979.

Until about 6 years ago, the BLM did trend monitoring and utilization monitoring nearly every year. But then it was cut out, as the

budget crisis got more intense; and they’re saying there’s just not

enough money to go around to do that. We liked the monitoring.

We’ve always contended that the rangelands are getting better and

that monitoring did, in fact, reflect that. But now we’re not getting

it, and so we’re much more vulnerable to them coming by with a—

coming out during a crisis.

For example, last year there was a severe drought down in our

area. The BLM was getting hundreds of letter from people, environmental groups, I think, probably saying that a lot of damage is

occurring out there, and so the BLM came out and did one-time assessments and then asked the ranchers to remove livestock ultimately. If we would have had monitoring data for the previous

years to reflect that the rangelands were improving; then we’d

have been on a stronger leg to stand.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. I hope you folks realize the warfare

going on on the floor right now. Some of our friends want campaign

reform, and I understand another vote is almost imminent. So I’ll

turn to my friend from Maryland for any questions that he has and

also hand him the gavel, and I will be back at the conclusion of

your—if you just hold it in recess, I’ll get back as soon as I can,

OK?

Mr. MENGES. OK.

Mr. HANSEN. After your comments.
29

Mr. MENGES. OK.

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, and then we’ll go to the third panel. We

won’t be long, but we’re going to have another one, and I’m sorry,

but, as I say, I don’t control what goes on over there in the House

of—the bigshots.

Mr. GILCHREST. [presiding] I don’t have too many questions, but

I understand the nature of bureaucracy and the nature of farming

and, to the extent that I can, the nature of ranching and all of the

environmental questions that come into play, especially over the

last 10 years or so. People are learning more about the best management practices, learning more about discharges, soil erosion, native species, non-native species, problems with drought and things

like that. So, it’s my position, as far as this bill is concerned and

this oversight hearing, is to learn as much as I can in a way that

is beneficial to the ranchers and to the land. So, the question I

have, basically, is: Can you graze on public land and do it in such

a way—Mr. Atkin, you made a comment about the Clean Air Act

and the Clean Water Act, and you have to get a discharge permit,

if you want to graze in a certain area, because of soil erosion in

the nearby stream. Can you graze, limit the grazing in such a way

to stop sediment getting into nearby streams? Given there is no

perfect solutions, but can you graze without negatively impacting

a stream which is going to impact somebody downstream?

Mr. ATKIN. That question, for me, is a little bit unique because

there is no running water in our—in our whole grazing——

Mr. GILCHREST. Oh, that’s interesting.

Mr. ATKIN. [continuing] vicinity. So, it’s a little bit out of my

area, but proper grazing can reduce erosion. It can actually stimulate growth of the grasses, which will reduce the erosion. In our

area, the worst erosion places that we have are the places that are

grazed the least, that have sagebrush and pinon juniper that have

invaded that area, and that’s the area that’s been grazed the least

and that’s where those plants flourish the most. Mr. Vento referred

earlier to something to the effect that overgrazing caused that. I

think it’s the reverse of that. And where we have the most erosion

is where that takes place.

I think if there was a way to increase the grazing and stir that

ground and help—well, if you could actually light it afire and burn

some of those off and then stimulate the ground by grazing, that

you would actually decrease the erosion.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Menges, would the—you said that for a long

time, while there was monitoring from the BLM, you had fewer

problems than you do now. What did the BLM people do to make

things better when they came out to monitor that? Without that

monitoring, things seemed to be worse? Whether it’s soil erosion,

whether it’s the juniper woody shrub, would you suggest that there

be a directive or somehow more monitoring by BLM?

Mr. MENGES. Yes, sir. When the monitoring was occurring on an

annual basis and the monitoring included rainfall data, vegetation

data, then it was easy to establish the trends from year to year.

You would get some ups and downs, but over the long period of

time you were able to establish——

Mr. GILCHREST. So, it was——
30

Mr. MENGES. [continuing] trends, which was basically an upward

trend when you could look at it over that period of time.

Mr. GILCHREST. It was a lot easier to manage that way instead

of managing in what seems to be a periodic crisis situation?

Mr. MENGES. Well, we manage the same way now as we did

then. It’s just that with the monitoring data available to review

and to make available to the public, we had that information and

could show it to people that, you know, this is actually what is happening out on the ground. Since we haven’t had that for 6

years——

Mr. ATKIN. Did——

Mr. MENGES. [continuing] then we’re subject to, particularly in

dry times, people coming out and making one-time assessment and

saying that country looks terrible.

Mr. ATKIN. Could I respond to that——

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Atkin?

Mr. ATKIN. [continuing] Mr. Gilchrest? There’s the old saying

that people are generally down on what they’re not up on. And the

monitoring itself doesn’t do anything as far as helping the resource,

but it does let them know where they’re at. And all that Mr.

Menges is saying is then we knew where we’re at. You know, by

monitoring, we had a record of—and if we’re doing something that

we shouldn’t do, you know, if we’re affecting the resource in a negative way, we want to know that as soon as anybody does. But,

where the monitoring has taken place and your trend is up, it’s

easy to get along with people. But if you don’t know, then it’s common to start thinking that something’s wrong.

Mr. GILCHREST. My district is predominantly agriculture—soybeans, chicken, dairy, you name it. And we have Agriculture Extension offices where the Agriculture Extension agent goes out on—

and every county has one and they have an assistant, so they are

constantly not only monitoring and gathering data and helping

with best management practices and nutrient management of the

soil, and so on and so forth, but they constantly are in touch with,

for example, in our State, the University of Maryland, the soil scientist, and the latest techniques and innovative methods of farming, to not only reduce soil erosion and reduce the amount of pesticide you use or herbicide or all—all that other stuff, but they also

save the farmer money when they see how they can manage in a

much more scientific method. Does the BLM—did the BLM monitoring program come out and, not only gather data, but also relayed information about how to improve the range and how to

move the livestock from place to place, that kind of information?

Is that forthcoming from BLM as a regular course of action?

Mr. MENGES. Is that directed toward——

Mr. GILCHREST. I guess any three of the gentlemen can respond.

Mr. MENGES. I think it varies from operator to operator. Some

operators are much more knowledgeable about range management

practices and are much more up to date with the latest and they

know their allotments and know what’ll work and what won’t, and

it’s just a matter of getting with—then, there’s also range conservationists that work for the BLM that have that knowledge also.

They keep up to date. Right now it’s more of a riparian focus,

whereas 10 years ago it was more of an upland focus. But I think
31

it’s just a matter of sitting down with your range conservationist

and getting out on the land and determining what is the best management prescription for that area between the rancher——

Mr. GILCHREST. Do you have easy access to the range conservationist?

Mr. MENGES. Well, that’s diminishing over time. Right now our

range conservationists are in the office doing NEPA compliance

and endangered species consultation nearly constantly. We’re just

like Mr. Atkin; we see them only whenever we ask them and set

up an appointment. Otherwise, we haven’t seen much of our range

con. in the last 5 years or so.

Mr. GILCHREST. Yes, sir?

Mr. ATKIN. I’d like to respond to that, too. You asked if that

helped, you know, if there is that help. I think that varies, like Jeff

said, between your range conservationist and your permittees. Our

ranch con. right now is—he’s helpful, he understands range. The

one we had before him, that range con. had a forestry degree and

was no help at all when that. And so, it varies a lot.

Mr. GILCHREST. Yes, sir?

Mr. FLAKE.. I also have a good range con., but he’s been off on

other projects, as was mentioned here, and we don’t see him that

often. I never go out with him, but what I learned something. And

hopefully it’s the same as we have an exchange of information with

each other as we’re out there on the land. You know, you’re going

to think about it and do more and make more wise decisions out

on the land than you are sitting in an office where you’re not thinking about it. That’s where to make the decisions, is out there where

you’re looking.

Mr. GILCHREST. I think I would agree with you. Do you have—

unfortunately, Mr. Hansen was right; we have another vote. Can

you, in your perspectives, can you—is there a way to manage the

land to retain the allotments on public land where you could reduce

the amount of unwanted woody shrubs, have more native species

that seem to be—would, I would assume, seem to be able to thrive

on the harsh conditions that are out there, the drought conditions.

What would be your recommendation? We have a bill that came

from the Agriculture Committee that we’re going to work on in this

Committee. We have the Interior Department saying that these Resource Councils and their methods are beginning to work now.

Could each of you give me one or two things that you could recommend to us as this legislation is developing that would be helpful for the ranchers? Mr. Atkin, you said you want—you’ve been

ranching a long time; you want your children and your grandchildren to stay on the land. What are a couple of things that we

could do to help this process and become more informed?

Mr. ATKIN. You say, what could you do?

Mr. GILCHREST. We, as Members—we’re going to develop the legislation here. What do you see as some of the priorities we should

look at? Riparian problems, burning problems, prescribed burns,

things like that? More money for the——

Mr. ATKIN. I come from a particularly dry area, so Jeff will be

more of a specialist on riparian, but one of the areas that—in our

operation, if we could burn some of that country that—the sagebrush and the pinon juniper have kind of started to dominate, the
32

production off that land, and I think this would be a conservative

estimate, would quadruple.

Mr. GILCHREST. Can you burn that pinon juniper and then manage the land so it doesn’t come back again?

Mr. ATKIN. It would take quite a long time before it would come

back. I don’t know whether I can guarantee you that it wouldn’t

come back, you know——

Mr. GILCHREST. What caused it to come there in the first place?

Mr. ATKIN. Well, I don’t know for sure. We were just in Yellowstone Park Saturday and they, the Federal agencies there, told us

that lack of grazing is what stimulates sagebrush growth in that

area. I know, in our country, when there’s been quite a use change,

they used to bring a lot of winter sheep herds into that country and

winter those sheep herds in that area. And it was when my dad

was a younger man and he seems to feel like the sagebrush was

a lot less dominant then. Now, the sheep herds have all left that

country and so that grazing quit. We use it in the summertime

with cattle and it seems to be—the areas that we graze the least

is where it has flourished the most.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you. Mr. Menges?

Mr. MENGES. I believe that the invasion of pinion and juniper

was primarily caused by fire suppression because there would be

a wave of fires come through on a fairly regular basis that would

take the little ones out. Prior to the time that the fires were being

suppressed aggressively, well, I don’t think that we saw near the

invasion of those species.

As far as the riparian and what can we do to enhance all those

things, infiltration, endangered species, we have standards and

guidelines that we just developed that address all those issues.

We’re mandated to graze in compliance with those standards and

guidelines but, unfortunately, we don’t get the chance to work with

the Bureau who is the land management agency. The other agencies, administering the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species

Act, and other acts that Brent mentioned are really causing havoc

with us. We’re meeting the standards and guidelines. We’re progressing toward the goals, but then we’re getting lawsuits filed

against us with regards to endangered species management and

site-specific micromanagement-type of things that are making it

very difficult for us to stay within the management plans that

we’ve developed with the land management agency, the BLM.

Mr. GILCHREST. Is this—is BLM—if you meet the standards and

guidelines that are set up, I would assume you would also directly

or indirectly meet the standards of the Clean Water Act and the

Endangered Species Act?

Mr. MENGES. You’re supposed to but the lawsuits that have been

filed have mandated consultations and biological opinions and——

Mr. GILCHREST. So, are the——

Mr. MENGES. So the biological opinion for my allotment, take,

where it says we’re meeting the habitat requirements described in

the biological opinion and yet, for some reason, the Fish and Wildlife Service has come up with the idea that we’re taking cactus ferruginous pygmy owls by grazing cattle in riparian——

Mr. GILCHREST. Is this a problem between Federal agencies,

then, to some extent?
33

Mr. MENGES. Absolutely.

Mr. GILCHREST. The lawsuits are filed against BLM?

Mr. MENGES. The lawsuits are filed against the BLM, yes.

Mr. GILCHREST. By private citizens? Fish and Wildlife

through——

Mr. MENGES. Environmental groups.

Mr. GILCHREST. I have to run before I miss this vote. Mr. Flake,

do you have any comment?

Mr. FLAKE.. Just shortly—that local decisionmaking will really

help in trust between the rancher and the Bureau people and more

freedom to do things locally. And I know it’s public land and everyone should have an input, but decisions should be weighted toward

those people that live there and understand and have lived there

for generations and know that land when decisions on grazing are

made.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Atkin has one more comment as I run out

the door.

Mr. ATKIN. You ask things that you could do. In our particular

area, there’s one thing that’s kind of concerning to me that you

may be interested in. The fire budget for our BLM district is just—

it’s unlimited. They can spend any amount of money they want on

fire. I have never seen a bad fire on our district, and when my dad

was a little younger they just—they kind of deputized the livestock

producers out there and said, if you see a lightning strike, go over

and put it out, and if they went over and put it out, they paid them

like dollars or something to do that. I don’t know how high that

fire budget has gotten but it’s unlimited. They can spend almost

whatever they want.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very——

Mr. ATKIN. That’s kind of out of control.

Mr. GILCHREST. Gentlemen, thank you very much. Welcome to

the Nation’s capitol. We’ll stand in recess.

Mr. ATKIN. Thank you.

[Recess.]

Mr. HANSEN. [presiding] Our third panel is Dick Loper from Wyoming, Wesley Neil Bruton from New Mexico and Mr. Allen E.

Smith from Utah. If those folks would step up to the plate, I’d appreciate it.

I think that’s pronounced Bruton, is that right?

Mr. BRUTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. HANSEN. I apologize.

Mr. Loper, we’ll start with you, sir. What part of Wyoming are

you from?

STATEMENT OF DICK LOPER, CONSULTANT, WYOMING

Mr. LOPER. Lander, sir. We’re in the west central part of the

state.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman—I guess it’s afternoon now but

anyway.

[Laughter.]

Mr. LOPER. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify

here today. I’m Dick Loper, I live in west central Wyoming and I’m

here today on behalf of the permittees in Wyoming represented by

the Wyoming State Grazing Board Central Committee, and we
34

have about 2,500 permittees that have section 3 BLM grazing permits.

Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Loper, could you pull that microphone just a

little closer to you, if you would please? Thank you.

Mr. LOPER. Thank you. I’d like to bring to the attention of this

Committee an example of how public land AUMs are being reduced

from the level that ranchers have been led to believe that they

were have consistently available to them. In the early 1980’s, the

BLM policy on how to determine when changes in livestock AUMs

available to ranches and wildlife were needed changed from a policy of reliance on one point in time inventories to a policy of reliance on a variety of studies over time. This secondary process that

I’m talking about is called monitoring. This change in BLM policy

was supported and still is, to my knowledge, by the range science

community and the livestock industry, because monitoring is a

much better way than an inventory procedure to determine if allotment objectives are being met over time.

Range management is still 90 percent art, 10 percent science, at

best. And adequate quality and quantity of monitoring data from

a variety of sources on the rangeland ecosystems will provide the

manager a data base from which to manage the land. If we don’t

have that variety of data, though, the task of range management

becomes difficult, if not impossible.

But for reasons most of us outside the BLM in this range profession don’t seem to understand, the BLM policies over the last few

years have encouraged and even allowed their decisionmakers to

make decisions on a very limited amount of data, in some cases virtually no data at all. If we don’t have a knowledge of whether or

not a plant community is changing over time, and the annual studies, such as utilization, provide little more than a visual and cosmetic view of the rangelands, the levels of utilization being used

as maximum limits allowed by some of these BLM proposals are

not considered by the majority of the range science community to

be use levels that would be normally detrimental to plant communities grazed under typical BLM grazing programs. As support for

this statement, I’ve attached to this testimony the results of a symposium sponsored by the Society for Range Management last winter on this subject.

I’d now like to provide some actual examples of the BLM livestock grazing plans that contain language that place utilization

limits on livestock grazing programs without the support data to

confirm that these limits do, in fact, have a detrimental environmental impact on the public land. For example, Allotment 1803 in

the Lander BLM Resource Area, a quote: They want to improve the

distribution of livestock grazing by managing the utilization of perennial grasses on uplands and ephemeral drainages at 35 percent

of the forage or less in all sub-units of the allotment by the year

2002. The plan goes on to say they want to decrease utilization of

perennial grasses at the end of the grazing year from a moderate

use today of 41 to 60 percent, to a light use in the future of 21 to

40 percent by the year 1999.

In the Cumberland allotment in the western part of Wyoming

and in the Smithsfork allotment, the annual operating plans, the

last 2 years they’ve had this statement in it: When a 60 percent
35

seasonal use level is met on key species, a closure notice will be

issued for the affected area. The permittees will have 3 days after

the receipt of the notice to remove all livestock from the Federal

lands in the use area. Mr. Chairman, most of the livestock permittees are running the Cumberland live in the Randolph area in

Utah. You know most of these people, I’m pretty sure: ranchers

such as Charlie and Connie Rex, Ed Brown and Burdette and

Simeon Weston; these are people you probably know.

These restrictions by the BLM on their grazing program at the

end of the grazing season on real short notice have caused them

a lot of money and management problems. It’s my professional

opinion that the resource conditions in the Cumberland in 1996 did

not support the type of action taken by the BLM to impose utilization limits and livestock closure limits.

If the forage production in the particular allotment is consistent

with the allotment production levels that were there during the adjudication of the allotment, it is my testimony on their behalf that

they have a right to assume that a deal’s a deal. These types of

reductions of AUMs will not show up publicly because this method

is largely hidden from the view of the industry, the public and from

Congress. To make matters even worse, if they own private land

in the allotment being closed, they can’t even use their own land

for grazing because their private lands are unfenced and intermingled with the BLM lands under closure. Livestock don’t know

the difference in ownership and they’re subject to trespass and

even seizure by the BLM on these lands that are closed to grazing.

In 1995, BLM was in the process of revising their technical

manuals when the Association of Rangeland Consultants was

asked by the Bureau to review those manuals. I’d like to close my

testimony with a quote from our review. ‘‘Over the past several

years, the land management agencies have abandoned the historic

practice of using broad monitoring information and the art of range

management to work through people in the resolution of rangeland

issues. Instead, they have adopted an approach to manage rangeland issues based mainly on empirical data and established numbers or standards. The documents under review appear to continue

this trend.’’ I’ve seen the final documents, Mr. Chairman, and they

haven’t been changed to reflect our comments.

Thank you for this opportunity.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Loper may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. Mr. Burton?

STATEMENT OF WESLEY NEIL BRUTON, RANCHER, NEW

MEXICO

Mr. BRUTON. Chairman Hansen and members of the

Committee——

Mr. HANSEN. Pull that microphone just a little tad closer to you,

if you would, please. Thank you.

Mr. BRUTON. First, let me thank you for the opportunity to speak

before you today. My name is Wesley Neil Bruton. I am from San

Antonio, New Mexico, where I live with my wife, son, and daughter. We are part of an agriculture operation that has been in
36

central New Mexico since 1880, when my great grandfather moved

there from south Texas.

With my parents, we ranch and farm on private, state leases,

and Federal lands. In the West, you acquire lands and the public

permits that go with them by inheriting them or purchasing it. As

a family, we built the operation purchasing private land along with

state leases and Federal leases. I am proud that my father is here

with me today, Neil Bruton, and our intentions are to pass what

we have on to my daughter, Brittany, who is 12 years old today,

and son, Wesley, who is 4.

Our operation includes Bureau of Land Management land, BLM

land, as well as Bureau of Reclamation lands that are administered

by the BLM. In many cases, these lands are commingled with state

and private property, with no fencing. Frankly, Dad and I would

rather be home today doing what we do best, caring for our livestock and our lands. Actions of the Federal Government have made

that impossible. We have heard the stories about how our Government—our Government—is taking away citizens’ rights. We

thought those things happened to other people.

We were wrong and we should have known better. It has happened to the family before. The Federal Government took land from

my grandparents back in 1941 for White Sands Missile Range. At

that time, it was patriotism that was the standard-bearer of land

grabs. We are a patriotic people. My father served in the Korean

conflict and we do believe in fighting for what is right and what

is ours.

We are here today to tell you about what the Federal Government has done to us in 1997 in the name of a bird. We learned this

spring that Federal employees, or persons contracted by the Federal Government, trespassed on our private lands in search of endangered species, specifically the southwestern willow flycatcher.

They then used the information they obtained while trespassing on

our lands, our private lands, to remove us from our Federal lease

lands. In that area, we ran 175 mother cows. The spring and summer of the year is the best time, for the forage is at its best, and

it will also be the time that most of our cows are calving, lactating,

and breeding back.

Based on the information gained through illegal entry, the Federal Government issued a decision to eliminate grazing in the area

for three-and-a-half months during the prime portion of the year.

That was bad enough. However, this decision was a full-force-andeffect decision, which requires immediate compliance. That immediate compliance, in our case, was for 6 days. We had only 6 days

to remove 175 cows, along with many calves of varying ages and

size. The river was high and flooding and the brush was in full foliage, making it virtually impossible to use horses or any other

method of gathering the live—the cattle. We had to go in on foot

and in small boats. We ended up hauling one heavy pregnant cow

in a boat. We generally gather this area in the fall, when there is

little foliage, and bait the cattle out with feed. Then it usually

takes us 3 to 4 months to get the job done.

In addition to getting the cattle out of the river bottom, we had

to find other pastures for them. That was no easy chore and was

extremely expensive because most of our area was just recovering
37

from a drought. The pasture we found was over 150 miles away.

In all, we spent more than $32,000 in additional pasture rent,

labor, and trucking to move livestock.

If we hadn’t, if we had not complied with the order, removal

order, within the 6 days allotted, we would have been guilty of willful trespass on Federal property which could have resulted in the

impoundment of our cattle as well as large fines. In addition, all

of the other permits on Federal lands would have been in jeopardy.

With that full-force-and-effect decision, any appeal which must

initially be done through the administrative process cannot take

place under after compliance with the order. We did try to use the

courts to at least get more time to remove the cattle. However, in

only 6 days to comply, by the time we got the lawyer hired and the

proper paperwork filed, the time was up. We were denied the stay

near the end of July, better than 90 days after we had to remove

the cattle. We have filed an appeal administratively and have yet

to hear anything about it.

The driving force behind this nightmare is the Endangered Species Act which caused the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to issue

a notice to the Bureau of Reclamation that grazing could result in

a take of the southwestern willow flycatcher. A take of an endangered species can result in criminal action as well as stiff fines. The

southwestern willow flycatcher is a bird listed in March 1997 and

it is a subspecies that can only be identified by the way it sings.

If you have not heard one, you wouldn’t know one. It amazes me

that Federal employees can identify such a creature by sound

alone, but they do not have the ability to identify property lines between Federal and private lands on a map.

Since this mess started, we have learned that inventories were

done on our private land in 1994, 1995, and 1996 for the southwestern willow flycatcher. In 1996, cowbirds were also trapped on

our private land without our knowledge or permission. The primary

concern with grazing in area where there may be willow flycatchers

is a cowbird. It is believed, but not scientifically proven, that cows

attract cowbirds. In any event, we are told that cowbirds lay eggs

in the flycatchers’ nests; then the Flycatchers end up raising baby

cowbirds instead of their own. There is also some concern that cattle knock down nests, but most of the low nests are over water, and

our cows, at least, are not big swimmers.

The last 5 months have been a nightmare that I would not have

believed could have happened to me or anyone else in this United

States. And, it appears to me that it has only just begun. We have

been unable to get any commitment from the Bureau of Reclamation about our future in utilizing the grazing land. There is a land

use plan in the works, but grazing has yet to be addressed. At the

present time, there is no stability in our agricultural operation. We

don’t know whether, when, or whenever we’ll be able to have to remove the cattle. Our private land has no resell value. Who in their

right mind would want to get involved in this ranch?

We were allowed to go back on the area August the 1st of 1997,

but we did not know when we will have to be removed again. We

want to leave this ranch to our children, but who would wish such

a thing on their kids?
38

I know you are here today to discuss the reduction of the use on

BLM lands. From my perspective, until and unless the Endangered

Species Act is modified, future use of BLM lands will continue to

be a target on the Fish and Wildlife Service, and citizens, like my

family and I, are in serious trouble. There is no avenue in the Endangered Species Act for individuals to have any meaningful input.

Science means nothing; economic impacts mean nothing; customs

and culturals mean nothing. The Fish and Wildlife Service is a

kingdom of it’s own and a predator to Federal funding.

Other Federal agencies are being forced to spend millions on endangered species consultation and assessments. There are no

checks and balances. Few of us have money to hire attorneys to

protect our rights; that’s why we elect people like you.

In 3 years of Federal research, we were never once contacted

about the presence of this willow flycatcher on our property. Our

local government was never consulted and there was never been an

economic or culture analysis done on the area in relation to this

issue. Common sense indicates this would have been an ideal year

to study the true affects of grazing on the willow flycatcher.

The Fish and Wildlife Service issued a permit for the Bureau of

Reclamation for trapping cowbirds. We had out-of-bank flooding on

the river and the cows were happy. Instead, we were put through

hell. Not only have we been put through a great deal of personal

stress and expense, but our own tax dollars had been paying for

the oppression upon us.

I thank you again for your time and consideration. My family

certainly hopes and prays that you here in Washington can see

what is being done to those of us the country—in the country—before too many more of us are put out of business. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bruton may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Bruton.

Mr. Smith?

STATEMENT OF ALLEN E. SMITH, RANCHER, UTAH

Mr. ALLEN SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Allen

Smith and I am here on behalf of the 22,000 members of the Utah

Farm Bureau Federation, many of whom, like me, are BLM grazing permittees. I’m also past chairman of the public lands for the

Utah Cattlemen’s Association.

We have deep concerns about the reductions of grazing on the

western BLM lands. Back in 1934, in support of establishing the

BLM, my grandfather, Maroni Smith, testified on the importance

of protecting the stability of the livestock industry and sustainable

grazing on public lands. As a third generation rancher in northeastern Utah and a recipient of a BLM environmental stewardship

award, it is somewhat ironic for me, 63 years later, to be back here

opposing what we believe to be unwarranted cutbacks in BLM

grazing.

We’ve heard rumors of BLM pressuring the Hanley Ranch in Jordan Valley, Oregon, to reduce grazing. Other concerns are outlined

in my extended statement. Papercuts, as they are often called, reduce permits from preference use, which the permittee bought, to

actual AUMs used. Over the years, many ranchers have voluntarily
39

have taken non-use in times of drought, et cetera, with the promise

of getting their suspended AUMs back when ranges improve. Too

many times these suspended AUMs were subsequently left, for

wildlife, never returned to the permittee. No doubt this Committee

will hear other examples. But I am here with a specific example

of BLM grazing reductions on an historic ranch in my area, a ranch

with which I am very familiar. My written extended comments and

exhibits will more fully illustrate this situation.

The Nutter Ranch in my area began grazing in 1860’s. When the

BLM acquired control of the public lands in 1934, grazing continued on the Nutter under a BLM permit. For 18 years, this ranch

has been managed by a university-trained range conservationist. A

recent range evaluation by Utah State Extension Range Ecologist

James Bown shows livestock are not damaging the ranges in question, a fact concerned by a letter from Dr. Bown in my extended

comments.

The authorized AUMs on the Nutter in 1979 were 8,584 active

and 5,416 AUMs suspended, for a total of 14,000 AUMs under the

year-around grazing permit. By August 1997, the BLM had reduced the Nutter permit to 3,038 active AUMs, a loss of 5,546 and

1,783 suspended AUMs. Recently, the BLM acquired ownership of

756 acres of private bottom land from the Nutter Ranch on the

Green River near Nine Mile Canyon as a mitigation agreement.

These 756 acres had been part of the ranch’s private grazing area

since the 1860’s.

Now, the BLM has notified the Nutter Ranch that they can no

longer graze these acres plus an additional 1,331 acres of adjacent

public land. This closure will effectively make it impossible for the

ranch to use much of their private grazing land and adjacent state

school trust land sections because the closure shuts off water accesses and trailways. Like a missing link in a chain, this administrative decision denies the ranch a place to raise cattle from October 15 to February and between November and April 15.

A draft Environmental Assessment for the acquired Nine Mile

Canyon and the Green River area was released August 29 with a

closing date of October 2. Farm Bureau did not receive a copy of

this EA until September 22, when I personally took one to them.

Farm Bureau usually received BLM draft EAs in Utah because the

Farm Bureau tries to help ranchers work through the proposals in

a cooperative way. We have requested 30 days more comment period and we await formal reply on that request. In my view, the

EA is very biased in favor of recreational river runners on the

Green River.

Particularly disheartening to us was the EA justification for excluding livestock listed as, one, protect natural values; two, protect

cultural resources, and three, provide a wilderness quality recreational experience.

Mr. Chairman, this is not a wilderness area. If it were, the 1964

Wilderness Act would have specifically protected continued grazing.

We must ask where in the BLM charter do these stated objectives

take precedence over the multiple use such as the continued, wellmanaged grazing and continued stability of the livestock industry

provided for in the Taylor Grazing Act and other Federal laws?
40

Another serious concern is that now, all these many years after

the fact, BLM is threatening to levy agricultural trespass charges

against the ranch for corrals that have been on the ranch, land,

over 100 years, long before a permit for such facilities was required. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, it looks to me like the BLM may

be trying to harass the ranch until they agree to provide public access across private land as their—a condition of this grazing permit. We will let the Committee form your own conclusions on this

after reviewing the extended comments which include letters from

the BLM to the ranch on these matters.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of this Committee, for

your oversight on the BLM on these issues. I appreciate the opportunity to present these comments to you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Allen Smith follows:]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Smith.

I hope you folks realize that down the hall from us there’s a

hearing going on regarding fire as a tool on the public land and

Secretary of the Interior Babbitt and Secretary of Agriculture

Glickman and a few other heavyweights are down there. So, our

Committee, I think, meandered down near the end of the hall. But,

most of this will be looked at in great detail.

I’m a little concerned on what each one of you said about things.

And Mr. Smith, maybe got this wrong on this Nine Mile Green

River EA? You say part—BLM, did they identify wilderness quality

experience in justification for livestock inclusion? I mean, BLM—

wilderness is abundantly clear that livestock can go in wilderness.

Mr. SMITH. In the EA I read, and I think it is a very—it was the

most biased EA. I’ve read many over the years, Mr. Chairman.

This one would have been impossible for a layperson that hadn’t

studied the EAs to even understand it. But they listed three objectives, three objectives only, for the acquisition of these properties.

I fail to see—I’d like to see the original documentation. I don’t

think that those three objectives that I listed here, in fact, are the

true objectives for the acquisition of these 756 acres.

Mr. HANSEN. Now, some of this is private land that you own and

some of it is contiguous to public land?

Mr. SMITH. The Nutter Ranch. I don’t own it, but it’s a neighboring ranch to me.

Mr. HANSEN. I see. That’s——

Mr. SMITH. But it was private and it was acquired by the BLM

through a mitigation agreement.

Mr. HANSEN. I missed another thing. You mentioned cowbird

trapping that took place on your property. What was that about?

Mr. SMITH. Then pardon me? I didn’t——

Mr. HANSEN. But that was Mr. Bruton——

Mr. BRUTON. Yes, sir.

Mr. HANSEN. OK, could you respond to that? I kind of—what

was——

Mr. BRUTON. OK, we weren’t aware of it. In fact, we didn’t even

know of the 3 years of the studying being conducted on our private

land. We had noticed some cages up, but we never seen any personnel around them. We never was able to find anyone. And they

were doing the trapping as of last year on our private land.

Mr. HANSEN. Well, did they trespass on your ground?
41

Mr. BRUTON. Yes, sir, they did.

Mr. HANSEN. What justification did they have for that? Did they

ask for your permission to come on the ground?

Mr. BRUTON. No, sir, they did not. They——

Mr. HANSEN. Did you talk to them about it?

Mr. BRUTON. We did talk to them about it. We told them they

were in trespass. Actually, to a field trip that was on the grounds

with the Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of Reclamation, and the BLM,

they showed us the spot where all the nest sites were at. And that

was on our private land. We notified them, told them at that time,

this is all private property. And they said, ‘‘Oh, we’re sorry, we

might have made a mistake, but we still think we own it.’’

Mr. HANSEN. Did they leave when you said that?

Mr. BRUTON. No, sir, they did not.

Mr. HANSEN. Well, I guess if they have a warrant, they can come

on, or with your permission they can come on. And they had neither one of those, is that right?

Mr. BRUTON. No, sir.

Mr. HANSEN. It’s kind of arrogant, I would think. Mr. Smith,

have you ever seen where they have increased AUMs in the last,

say, 20 years?

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, I’ve been very active in Federal land

issues since I’ve been a full time rancher since 1960. To my knowledge, I don’t know of one rancher that has ever received their suspended AUMs back. Matter of fact, it’s my personal knowledge, the

last land use plan that was made for our BLM further stated that

any increases that forage may be available will automatically go to

wildlife. No, I don’t know of any place that has—any rancher that

has received their suspended AUMs back.

Mr. HANSEN. Any of the——

Mr. SMITH. It could have happened, but I’m not aware of any.

Mr. HANSEN. Any of the rest of you?

Mr. LOPER. I know of a very few examples, Mr. Chairman, but

they’re few and far between.

Mr. HANSEN. Now, Mr. Loper, I don’t know if I understood what

you’re saying, but you’re talking about intermingling land ownership patterns causing management problems. Explain that a little

more, would you?

Mr. LOPER. Yes, sir, and I’d like to show you a map, if I could,

please, of part of the area. It graphically shows an extreme example of the problems we face with the intermingled ownership. Even

though it’s a long ways away, you can probably see it’s a checkerboard pattern. As you know, this came about as a result of the railroad situation——

Mr. HANSEN. Typical western thing, though. You look at our

western states, it looks like a patchwork quilt. It’s like when the

President came in and declared the monument in Utah: 1.7 million

acres, 200,000 acres that belongs to the State.

Mr. LOPER. Yes, sir, that’s the problem we have, of course, is that

these lands are unfinished and intermingled and, as a result, when

the Bureau of Land Management makes a decision on grazing that,

you know, has their policies as a basis for that decision, a lot of

our private and state lands don’t necessarily want to fully comply

with that. They have other high-priority objectives, but we don’t
42

have any choice but to go along. So, basically, we don’t have any

private and state land rights if we’re unfinished and intermingled.

Mr. HANSEN. You also got into something about riparian areas,

if I note you right, carrying more BLM grazing allotments and how

important they are. Can you elaborate on that just a little bit?

Mr. LOPER. Riparian areas are kind of a critical thing around

here and——

Mr. HANSEN. Personally, I think that the worst thing for riparian

areas is the Wild Horse and Burro Act, but I won’t elaborate on

that. They go in there and mess up those areas more than anything

there is around. I hope Jim Gibbons introduces his bill and I will

promise him a hearing on it immediately, and I would think all

these environmentalists should jump right on that one. This is

where you and the environmental crowd could all get along, I

would think. But, you want to elaborate on that?

Mr. LOPER. Yes, sir, and with respect to wild horses and the excess wildlife numbers, not traditional, but the riparian areas are

the areas, of course, that are well-watered all year long and have

the most luscious types of forage production. They represent only

1 or 2 percent of the lands in the West. Most of it’s arid uplands

and most of the arid uplands are owned by the BLM. And a high

percent of the riparian areas are owned by private individuals or,

in some cases, state lands. And most of those lands, riparian areas,

are unfinished, intermingled within the BLM allotment. So, ranchers that own these riparian areas are more than happy to share

the forage that they own on riparian habitat with wild horses and

wildlife, so long as they feel like they’re receiving fair and equitable

treatment from the BLM. But, it’s getting less and less of an ability

to get along with the Federal agencies as a result of the policies

that have evolved over the last 2 or 3 years. They’re just getting

hard to get along with.

Mr. HANSEN. Well, Mr. Sharpe, I hope you’re taking notes on all

this.

Mr. Smith, you want an additional statement?

Mr. ALLEN SMITH. I would like to just make a comment. It’s coming secondhand to me by Jim Ecker, who represented the Utah

Cattlemen’s Association on our riparian committee in the State of

Utah. He once made the comment to me and I think it—I put it

in my mind. I think it’s very apropos at this time. But he said, in

the West, much of the riparian areas are owned by the private

landowners, the ranchers, the farmers. But us public land users

out there, us that use the BLMs and the forest, sometimes the decision by the Federal land managers putting us off of the uplands in

the forest in the BLMs earlier or in other times puts a severe

amount of pressure back on the riparian areas. And so, in effect,

their decisions, by sending home a lot of the permittees early, in

many cases it’s putting an additional riparian stress down on those

private riparian areas.

Mr. HANSEN. You notice on the back wall lights are flashing on

again. A couple other questions I have, I’ll just submit them in

writing; hope you folks would respond to them. Appreciate that.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thanks for this panel. Let me get the next panel

on, the last panel, if we could. We’re going to run out of time and
43

I’m embarrassed that we’ve played musical chairs with you folks

like we have.

Steven Moyer, Director of Governmental Affairs, Trout Unlimited, and Frances A. Hunt, Director of BLM Programs, the Wilderness Society. If you folks would come up, we’d appreciate it. We appreciate you being with us and apologize to you, as we have the

others, for keeping you here this long. This is a relatively short

hearing that turned into a long one, and I said, I can’t control the

floor.

Mr. Moyer, I appreciate you being here and we’ll turn the time

to you, sir.

STATEMENT OF STEVEN MOYER, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT

AFFAIRS, TROUT UNLIMITED

Mr. MOYER. Thank you. I think you should get credit for being

involved in the debate that’s happening today. We just have to sit

here and wait for you to come back. Our job is easier, I believe.

I’m Steve Moyer. I’m the Director of Government Affairs for

Trout Unlimited. Trout Unlimited is a national fisheries conservation group dedicated to the conservation and restoration of our Nation’s trout and salmon resources, and the watersheds that sustain

those resources. We have about 98,000 members in 445 chapters in

38 states.

Our members have a major stake in land management decisions

that affect resources on our public rangelands because trout and

salmon are often found there, as well. Our members generally are

trout and salmon fishermen and women who voluntarily contribute

a lot of time and energy into protection and restoration of streams

and rivers around the country, including those on our public rangelands. Many TU members fish on streams and BLM lands and numerous TU chapters work directly with the BLM. We have a partnership agreement with them to conduct stream restoration

projects on streams on BLM lands. So I’ll comment today from our

experience with working with the Forest Service and BLM on

rangeland and grazing management, and our experiences with

working with ranchers directly on cooperative projects where we

manage—help them manage—their rangelands that help them and

also help the fish.

Grazing can be compatible with healthy rangelands and riparian

zones and fisheries, if it’s managed properly. And like I’ve said,

we’ve had first-hand experience of working with ranchers to do

that. We’ve worked with ranchers from Mossy Creek, Virginia, to

the Blackfoot River in Montana, to the Crooked River in Oregon to

protect and restore riparian areas that are grazed.

But also, clearly, if not managed properly, overgrazing can destroy riparian areas and fish habitats, associated sport fisheries

which are sometimes extremely valuable, and lower range productivity. The Forest Service and BLM manage about 270 million

acres of rangelands and on those lands we see substantial economic

value coming to communities from fisheries that can be affected by

rangelands. On Forest Service rangelands, for example, a substantial portion of about $1.8 billion worth of expenditures from fishing

is sustained by the fisheries that come from rangelands. But, loss

of riparian habitat and widening of streams, raising of tempera-
44

tures, can diminish the productivity of streams for trout and salmon.

And a paper that was done by the American Fishery Society, the

professional society of the fisheries biologists of this country, in

1994, found that about 50 percent of western rangeland streams

were damaged, at least to some degree, by grazing. Overgrazing

has been a factor, sometimes not the largest factor, but a factor in

just about all the endangered trout and salmon species that have

occurred in the country. There are now 18 species of trout and

salmon that are listed as threatened or endangered, including extremely valuable fisheries, like steelhead, which are now listed as

threatened from the Canadian border in central Washington

through Idaho and all the way down to Los Angeles. So, we have

widespread problems with grazing affecting fisheries. Sometimes

it’s not the biggest problem that affect fish, but it—it often is a

problem.

And, for those reasons, we think that there has to be change that

occurs in Federal grazing management practices. It’s a big job, but

we think that ranchers, conservationists, and the agencies can be

up to the task. We’re hopeful about it, and one of the reasons we’re

hopeful about it is because we see some positive developments that

are occurring, one of which is the Resource Conservation Council

that had been put into effect by BLM. TU members are all RACs

in several states, in several places, and they report to us that those

RACs are making headway in bringing people together to find solutions to difficult problems and to work on the standards and guidelines that will guide grazing. I think that’s one very important example of important improvements that are occurring that should

not be undercut by Federal legislation that’s now pending before

Congress.

There are other positive developments as well. I listed some of

those in my testimony, but one of the most important things that

I think hasn’t really been discussed here but we keep talking

around it is the need to get more funding to the agencies to do

things, like monitoring and management. It seems like we’re all

agreeing that monitoring could be better, that management could

be better. It seems to me that we ought to figure out how much

money that costs and how to get that money to pay for either the

agencies or consultants, like the one that’s here at this hearing, to

do the work that would make us all happier.

And we would like to work with Congress and the agencies to get

them to figure out how much more money is needed to get the people out on the ground to do a better job, rather than passing legislation, such as pending before the Committee, that we think would

undercut the progress that we think is occurring.

So, with that, I’ll end my testimony and again, thank you very

much for the opportunity to testify.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moyer may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Mr. Moyer. We appreciate your testimony.

Frances Hunt, we’ll turn the time to you.
45

STATEMENT OF FRANCES HUNT, DIRECTOR, BLM PROGRAMS,

THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY

Ms. HUNT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the interest of time, I’m

going to focus on four key concepts affecting range management

today. But, before I begin, I’ll note that there are several attachments to my statement, and one of those is an open letter to Representative Bob Smith signed by over 100 national, regional, and

local wildlife and fish, conservation, fiscal, and environmental

groups.

The first of the points—four points—I’ll make today is this, and

that is, that we must never forget that our public rangelands do,

indeed, belong to all Americans and that no one group or interest

has the right to use these lands in such a way as to impair their

productivity or to deny other legitimate range uses and benefits.

Now, grazing is absolutely one of many appropriate uses of the

public lands, but private ranchers do not have an absolute right to

graze the public’s land, and private ranching operations on our

Federal lands cannot be allowed to degrade fish, wildlife, water,

recreation, or other public values. This longstanding distinction between rights and privileges is clearly delineated in the Taylor

Grazing Act, and I’ve attached that section of the Taylor Grazing

Act to my statement.

The second important concept to remember is that, because the

Federal rangelands belong to all Americans and because they

should be managed for the greatest benefit of all American citizens,

it is completely appropriate that these lands be managed to a very

strict standard of resource conservation. Private livestock operators

who choose to seek to graze livestock on Federal lands must expect

that they’re going to be required to operate their activities so as to

safeguard the public’s resources. And they shouldn’t necessarily expect that the land management practices that they use on the private lands or state lands that they own or lease are going to be

adequate or appropriate for the protection of the valuable and diverse Federal resources that Federal rangelands contain.

Third, it’s unfortunately clear from a review of both BLM and

Forest Service data that our Nation’s rangelands are not currently

in a very good condition. Although in certain areas of the western

United States Federal land grazing is, indeed, well-managed and is

managed with limited negative environmental impacts, too often,

still, and in too many places, still, livestock grazing permitted by

the Federal agencies is having serious negative environmental impacts: damage to fisheries, damage to water resources, damage to

recreational opportunities. And, of course, the sad irony of this situation is that resource damage harms both the ranchers and the

rest of the American public, who seek to use, enjoy, and benefit

from these lands.

The final point I’m going to make today is related, again, to resource conditions. An examination of these resource conditions, and

BLM and Forest Service policies and activities and funding levels

all clearly indicate that the agencies need to do a much better job

of monitoring, managing and protecting our public rangelands.

I have three charts attached to my testimony, Mr. Chairman.

This is a chart put together with BLM data. It depicts current

rangeland conditions, current as of 1996. The first bar here is the
46

total Federal acreage of rangelands managed by the BLM for grazing, some 156 million acres. The two bars that come next depict

that amount of acreage that is in excellent and good condition. The

two bars following that, the red bars, show the amount of rangeland that’s considered by the agencies to be in fair or poor condition. And the final red bar is an unclassified or an unknown. And

one thing you see, unfortunately, immediately when you look at

this chart is that we have far more of our Federal rangelands in

poor condition than are in excellent, and more that are in fair than

are in good. In fact, over 50 percent of the BLM-managed public

rangelands are considered to be in, to varying degrees, a damaged

condition.

Now that data paints a troubling picture but, if you look at EPA

and GAO reports, you’ll see that that data probably underestimates

the data—excuse me, underestimates the damage because it is for

all rangelands and, in fact, our riparian areas, our streams, our

rivers, the very areas that provide the fish and wildlife habitat so

important are actually in even worse condition.

I’ll finish my testimony with one chart that quickly shows BLM

monitoring activities. Unfortunately, as we have heard several

times today, in many ways and in many places, the BLM has too

few resources, too few people, and too little ability to get out and

do the kind of on-the-ground job that needs to be done. That’s

spend the time on the ground, and spend the time with the rancher. If someone had testified to the number of acres that an average

range con. has to manage, I think we’d all be astounded. It’s not

a job I would take willingly a this point.

But this is this chart summarized 1996 monitoring activity by

the agency. Again, this is the total acreage or total number of allotments, a little over 21,000, 22,000 on BLM land. They were only

able to get out on about 4,000 of them. And there are a lot of acres

that they never get to and the result is not only that resource conditions may suffer but confusion and a lack of information between

the agency and the ranchers and the agency and the public. And

we think that one of the reasons our rangelands continue to be in

poor conditions are because the agency just is not able for a number of reasons to get out there and do the monitoring job they

should do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hunt may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. Thank you. I appreciate the testimony of both of

you. I have a number of questions for you, but I also have a clock

ticking on me up there. And I’ve got about 4 minutes to get to the

floor and do something. So, could I submit those questions, not only

to the present panel, but to others that were here? This is something we want to ponder, go over, examine the testimony, work on

a few things, get a little more information from BLM, maybe the

Forest Service and others regarding grazing.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. HANSEN. So, with that, let me thank each and every witness

for being here and, gee, I appreciate your patience. It’s a terrible

thing when we’re running in and out this way. Believe me, they

used to say two things you don’t want to see made: One is sausage

and one is laws, and I can understand that. And today we’re com-
47

peting with some heavyweights down the block, but let me thank

you for coming here to Washington, taking the time to give us your

excellent testimony, and we will look at it. We do expect to be able

to correspond with you on various areas.

With that, this hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 1:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
48

STATEMENT OF JEFF MENGES, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL LANDS COMMITTEE, NATIONAL

CATTLEMEN’S BEEF ASSOCIATION

Thank you Mr. Chairman, my name is Jeff Menges. I am the Chairman of the

Federal Lands Committee for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.

My family and I currently have two BLM allotments in Arizona and one in New

Mexico. Although it is too soon to determine the impacts of Secretary Babbitt’s

Rangeland Reform grazing regulations, I have found the BLM to be a reasonable

agency to deal with. However it is becoming increasingly difficult to ranch profitably

on the public lands. Today, I would like to articulate some of the problems public

land ranchers face and offer some possible solutions for these problems to this Subcommittee.

Implementation of the Endangered Species Act by the United States Fish and

Wildlife Service is one area of major concern. We do not need two agencies duplicating administrative actions for the same purpose on the public lands. To draft a

Biological Opinion for BLM lands, the BLM biologists must first draft a Biological

Evaluation which is then reviewed and rewritten by USFWS biologists as a draft

Biological Opinion. Consultation between the agencies then occurs and the result is

a Final Biological Opinion. On Federal land this is simply multiple layers of government working to accomplish the same result: protect and recover endangered plants

and animals. These responsibilities could and should be administered by the land

management agencies only. This would solve financial and administrative problems

for both agencies. It would also allow more timely, achievable decisions so the land

management agencies and the multiple users can function efficiently.

Secretary Babbitt’s grazing regulations required development of Grazing Standards and Guidelines (S&G’s). These S&G’s in turn were required to address ‘‘restoring, maintaining, or enhancing habitats’’ of endangered species. Arizona’s S&G’s

were developed with input from the Resource Advisory Council (a group on which

I served) and signed by the Secretary of Interior. However in the Draft Biological

Opinion developed by the USFWS for livestock grazing administered by the BLM

Safford and Tucson Field offices in southeast Arizona, implementation of the S&G’s

will be overridden by the mandatory terms and conditions in the Biological Opinion.

Our Smuggler Peak allotment is just one example.

Since implementation of a winter grazing program on the Gila River pasture on

the allotment in 1990, the riparian area in the pasture has been determined to be

in proper functioning condition, the highest category. This area will easily meet all

requirements of the S&G’s. However, implementation of the terms and conditions

in the Draft Biological Opinion will require complete removal of cattle from the river

riparian area on my allotment and on 11 additional allotments to maintain habitat

features necessary to support breeding populations of pygmy owls. It further requires suspension of grazing on nine allotments, again to avoid habitat modification

for pygmy owls. Pygmy owls do not exist on any of these 21 allotments; it is not

occupied habitat, nor has it been designated as critical habitat for pygmy owls, yet

modification of this potential habitat for pygmy owls will be considered ‘‘take.’’

The USFWS takes this position even when Section 2 of the Endangered Species

Act defines ‘‘take’’ as meaning ‘‘to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,

trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.’’ Also, in a recent

decision, the United States Supreme Court stated:

in the context of the ESA, that definition naturally encompasses habitat modification that results in actual death or injury to members of an endangered species.

Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chap. Of Communities for a Greater Oregon, 132 L. Ed. 2d

597, 610 (1995).

Even with this seemingly clear direction, the USFWS continues to determine that

a modification of potential habitat is a taking of an endangered species. The resulting effect to the 21 permittees will be financially devastating as well as being contradictory to the S&G’s which were approved by the Secretary of the Interior.

It is difficult to imagine any area that could not be considered potential habitat

for some species that is either listed or may be listed as endangered. The USFWS

needs more avenues for local input. Expanding BLM Resource Advisory Councils to

include recommendations to the USFWS should be considered.

The S&G’s require allotment evaluations. This will require accurate data to be

gathered from monitoring. In recent years monitoring has been a low priority item

that has not withstood the budget cutting process. We believe that vegetation monitoring is very important and should be a high priority for the BLM. We recommend

making vegetation monitoring a line item so that monies appropriated for this purpose will have to be spent accordingly. An annual monitoring report should follow.
49

Another major area of concern is the lack of accountability by State wildlife agencies for the impacts their actions have on Federal lands. Using BLM’s own numbers,

the number of elk on public lands (excluding Alaska) have increased from 18,278

in 1960, to 142,870 in 1988, to 201,904 in 1996—this is over a 1,000 percent in the

past 36 years. There are also substantial increases for antelope, deer, bighorn sheep,

and moose. For the elk population, much of this increase can be attributed to livestock management and livestock industry-initiated programs like the screwworm

eradication effort, which have benefited wildlife as well as livestock. The result of

all these additional grazing wildlife has been resource degradation and reduction in

available AUM’s for livestock, without compensation to permittees who pay for use

of the forage. Again, accurate vegetation monitoring is needed to accumulate data

needed to address this problem.

Some states provide depredation permits to compensate ranchers for loss of forage. We would support expanding that system to include other lands. A process emphasizing local input need established whereby wildlife population and management

can be incorporated into management of Federal lands. My suggestion is that State

wildlife agencies should:

1. Enter into MOU’s with Federal agencies regarding resource outcomes. Local

experts should be involved in determining the outcomes. Participation with

RAC’s should be encouraged.

2. Be held to strict levels of accountability, as Federal grazing permittees are,

for range condition and trend, to the extent that their actions or inactions impede the meeting of desired outcomes.

3. Be held accountable for mitigating damage done to permitters, either in

terms of private values diminished by some action or inaction, or by the penalties imposed on permittees for failure to abide by his or her permit terms and

conditions as result of State wildlife agencies’ action or inaction. Available options might include:

A. Temporary issuance of ‘‘permitte’’ hunting permits for a special hunting

period to correct adverse wildlife impacts and compensate permittee for economic loss;

B. Issuance of permittee owned hunting permits on an annual basis to compensate permittee for economic loss.

C. Payments by State wildlife agencies to permittees for economic loss.

Some ways to achieve compliance from State wildlife agencies might include:

1. Suspension of some portion of transfer payments from Federal to state governments (particularly those payments that go directly to State wildlife agencies).

2. Make availability of Federal funds to State wildlife agencies contingent on

compliance.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I look forward to working

with your Subcommittee to make improvements with respect to these issues.

STATEMENT OF BRENT ATKIN, PRESIDENT, PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the chance to testify today. I would like to talk

today about some of the issues facing Federal lands ranchers with BLM allotments

today that have arisen as a result of agency application of the Clean Water Act, the

Clean Air Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act. These laws were well intentioned by Congress when they were passed and have no-doubt solved many problems that gave rise to them in the first place. However, over time, as is the case

with many laws, regulatory agencies have converted the mandates from these laws

into some rather heavy regulatory burdens in situations where Congress never

imagined that these laws would be used.

Earlier this year when grazing legislation was being considered by this Subcommittee, I had the opportunity to be out here with my son T.J.—you may remember that, Mr. Chairman. One day when we were in your office talking with you, T.J.,

who was 10 years old at the time, asked you, ‘‘Congressman Hansen, what is the

future of grazing livestock on public lands?’’ Your answer was ‘‘I don’t know.’’ This

is instability.

As a rancher and as a father, I would like to be able to tell my sons that they

will be able to continue our family’s tradition of ranching, and feel good about it.

As things are, I don’t feel good about it, because I don’t know if it’s true. My family

has been ranching for six generations. We have taken good care of the land, and

in return it has given us the ability to make a living doing what we love to do:

ranching. It is really hard for me to remain optimistic about the future of my fam-
50

ily’s ranch today. Some days I even wonder who in their right mind would ever want

their children to ranch on Federal lands. This is really a shame because, regardless

of the distorted half-truths and outright lies about the effects of grazing on public

lands that some interest groups continue to propound, ranchers really are stewards

of the land. They have no choice: abusing the resource only hurts their ability to

make a living from it.

In my 25 years of dealing with the Bureau of Land Management, I am finding

that more and more frequently, land management decisions are being made based

on factors not at all related to sound land management practices that are being

caused by the application of other laws.

Right now, western livestock producers everywhere are anxiously awaiting the appellate decision in a 1996 court case called Oregon Natural Desert Association v.

Chief Jack Ward Thomas, better known as the Camp Creek case. In that case, an

Oregon Federal District Court judge held that pollution caused by cattle grazing

constitutes a ‘‘discharge into navigable waters’’ under section 401 of the Clean

Water Act, and therefore the Forest Service was required to get a State certification

before issuing a grazing permit.

For a while, no one was sure if the government was even going to appeal the

original decision. EPA did not want to appeal, the Forest Service did want to, and

fortunately the Solicitor General sided with the Forest Service. Now, however, the

case is being considered by the 9th Circuit. If the 9th Circuit upholds the original

decision, this will mean, in essence, that livestock grazing is equivalent to a water

treatment plant for purposes of section 401. It would also mean that the Environmental Protection Agency would become yet another partner agency with BLM to

‘‘help’’ manage livestock grazing. This is instability.

Likewise, the Clean Air Act is having adverse effects on proper land management.

In some instances, burning of rangeland is necessary for proper management of

some types of grasses and shrubs. In many areas this burning has not occurred for

several decades, and now that the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest

Service have adopted policies to improve the approval process for prescribed burns,

the Environmental Protection Agency is limiting these necessary management activities, citing Clean Air Concerns. With the President recently announcing new particulate matter regulations, I can only guess that prescribed burning will become a

thing of the past at some point. When that happens, the range condition in areas

where burning is appropriate will deteriorate, which will lead to reductions in

AUM’s available for grazing. This is instability.

Finally, I want to touch on how the National Historic Preservation Act creates instability. As I understand it, this Act is basically being implemented on public lands

through Memoranda of Agreement between the States and BLM or the Forest Service. But, there are some inconsistencies between these agreements, which results in

ranchers in different states being subjected to different standards, even though it

is still Federal land. In Montana, for instance, areas that have been grazed for the

past 100 years really aren’t being adversely affected by archaeological restrictions.

This seems to be based on common sense: if an archaeological site has been subjected to grazing for the past 100 years, any damage that could have been done, has

been done, and it doesn’t make any sense to put restrictions on it now. In California,

however, the MOU is resulting in restrictions on areas containing ‘‘lithic scatter’’

(basically pieces of stones leftover from making arrowheads), even though these

areas have also been grazed for many, many years. Having different standards on

Federal lands in different states does not add to stability.

Considered one at a time, most of the negative effects from the laws that I have

described today could probably be manageable. However, these negative impacts are

cumulative: by the time a rancher is facing requirements from 3, 4, 5, or 6 different

statutes, his ability to graze livestock on Federal land is uncertain at best. The only

thing that is certain is that he will spend more time trying to comply with regulatory requirements than he will spend actually ranching. This same situation is

also faced by BLM: agency employees spend more time consulting with other agencies on how to administer those agencies’ laws and dealing with paperwork or appeals than they do actually doing the on-the-ground monitoring to safeguard the resource.

I know that it is unrealistic to think that these laws will ever be quickly changed

to alleviate our problems. However, because most of the problems caused by these

laws today are because of how the agencies are administering them, I don’t think

it would be unreasonable at all for the agencies to at least be able to work together

in a manner that would allow both BLM and ranchers to do our jobs, rather than

fill out papers and go to meetings. If the goal of BLM and ranchers is to protect,

preserve, and improve the resource, which I think it is, then this kind of change

is certainly needed.
51

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to appear here today.

STATEMENT OF WESLEY NEIL BRUTON, SAN ANTONIO, NEW MEXICO

Chairman Hansen and members of the Committee, first let me thank you for the

opportunity to speak before you today. My name is Wesley Neil Bruton and I am

from San Antonio, New Mexico, where I live with my wife, daughter and son. We

are part of a family agricultural operation that has been in Central New Mexico

since 1880 when my great grandfather moved there from South Texas.

With my parents, we ranch and farm on private, state and Federal lands. In the

West, you acquire land and the public permits that go with it, by inheriting it or

purchasing it. As a family, we built the operation purchasing private land along

with state and Federal leases. I am proud that my father is here with me today.

It is our intention to pass what we have on to my daughter, Brittany, who turns

12 today, and Wesley, who is 4.

We earn everything we have. We do not have Federal insurance or retirement

plans. We do not get paid vacations. We pay our taxes and we’ve never been on welfare.

Our operation includes Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land as well as Bureau of Reclamation lands that are administered by the BLM. In many cases, these

lands are co-mingled with state and/or private property, with no fencing.

Frankly, Dad and I would rather be home today, doing what we think we do best,

caring for our animals and our land. Actions of the Federal Government have made

that impossible.

We have heard the stories about how the government, our government, is taking

away citizens rights. We thought those things happened to other people. We were

wrong and we should have known better. It has happened to the family before.

The Federal Government took land from my grandparents back in 1941 for White

Sands Missile Range. At that time, it was patriotism that was the standard bearer

for land grabs. We are a patriotic people. My father served in the Korean conflict

and we do believe in fighting for what is ours and what is right.

We are here today to tell you about what the Federal Government has done to

us in 1997 in the name of a bird. We learned this spring that Federal employees

or folks contracted by the Federal Government trespassed on our PRIVATE land in

search of endangered species, specifically the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher.

They then used the information they obtained while trespassing on our land, our

private land, to remove us from one of our Federal land leases. In that area, we

run 175 mother cows. The spring and summer of the year is when the forage is at

its best, and it is also the time when most of the cows are calving, lactating and

breeding back.

Based on the information gained through illegal entry, the Federal Government

issued a decision to eliminate grazing in the area for three-and-a-half months during the prime portion of the year. That was bad enough.

However, the decision was a ‘‘full force and effect’’ decision which requires IMMEDIATE compliance. That immediate compliance in our case was six (6) days. We had

only 6 days to remove 175 cows, along with many calves of varying ages and sizes.

The river was high and flooding and the brush was all in full foliage, making it impossible to use horses or any other method of gathering the cattle. We had to go

in on foot and in small boats. We ended up hauling one heavily pregnant cow out

in a boat.

We generally gather this area in the fall, when there is little foliage and bait the

cattle out with feed. Then it usually takes us 3 to 4 months to get the job done.

In addition to getting the cattle out of the river bottom, we had to find other pasture for them. That was no easy chore and was extremely expensive because most

of our area was just recovering from a drought. The pasture we found was over 150

miles away. In all we spent more than $32,000 in additional pasture rent, labor and

trucking to move the animals.

If we had not complied with the removal order within the 6 days allotted, we

would have been guilty of willful trespass on Federal property which could have resulted in the impoundment of our cattle as well as large fines. In addition, all of

our other permits on Federal lands would have been in jeopardy.

With a full force and effect decision, any appeal, which must initially be done

through the administrative process, cannot take place until after compliance with

the order. We did try to use the courts to at least get more time to remove the cattle. However, with only 6 days to comply, by the time we got a lawyer hired and

the proper paperwork filed, the time was up.
52

We were denied the stay near the end of July, better than 90 days after we had

to remove the cattle. We have filed an appeal administratively, and have yet to hear

anything about it.

The driving force behind this nightmare is the Endangered Species Act which

caused the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to issue a notice to the Bureau of Reclamation that grazing could result in a ‘‘take’’ of the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher.

A ‘‘take’’ of an endangered species can result in criminal action as well as stiff fines.

The Southwestern Willow Flycatcher is a bird listed in March 1997. It is a subspecies that can only be identified by the way it sings. If you haven’t heard one,

you won’t know one.

It amazes me that Federal employees can identify such a creature by sound alone,

but they do not have the ability to identify property lines between Federal and private land on a map.

Since this mess has started, we learned that inventories were done on our PRIVATE land in 1994, 1995 and 1996 for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. In

1996, cowbirds were also trapped on our private land without our knowledge or permission. The primary concern with grazing in areas where there may be willow

flycatchers is the cowbird. It is believed, but not scientifically proven, that cows attract cowbirds. The cowbird is also present where there are several other forms of

livestock.

In any event, we are told that cowbirds lay their eggs in flycatcher nests. The

flycatchers then end up raising baby cowbirds instead of their own. There is also

some concern that cattle knock down nests, but most of the low nests are over the

water and our cows, at least, are not big swimmers.

The last 5 months have been a nightmare that I would not have believed could

have happened to me or anyone else in this United States. And, it appears that it

has only just begun. We have been unable to get any commitment from the Bureau

of Reclamation about our future in utilizing the grazing land. There is a land use

plan in the works, but grazing has yet to be addressed.

At the present time there is no stability in our agricultural operation. We don’t

know where or if we will be able to use the land we have paid to use and have

maintained for years. Our private land now has no resale value. Who in their right

mind would want to get involved in this mess?

We were allowed to go back on the area with the cattle on August 1, 1997, but

we do not know when we will be forced to remove them again. We have been told

that we will be allowed additional AUMs this winter to make up for those lost. But,

our livestock are unable to benefit from the prime nutritional value in the forage

that was there in the spring and summer because we were forced to remove them.

And, you cannot make up for the nutritional value lost to the cattle at a critical

time in their life cycle.

We want to leave this ranch to our children, but who would wish such a thing

on their kids?

I know you are here today to discuss the reduction of use on BLM lands. From

my perspective, until and unless the Endangered Species Act is modified, future use

of BLM lands will continue to be a target of the Fish & Wildlife Service and citizens

like my family and I are in serious trouble.

There is no avenue in the Endangered Species Act for individuals to have any

meaningful input. Science means nothing. Economic impact means nothing. Custom

and culture mean nothing. The Fish & Wildlife Service is a kingdom of its own and

is a predator to Federal funding. Other Federal agencies are being forced to spend

millions on endangered species consultation and assessment. There are no checks

and balances.

Private citizens like us cannot constantly patrol their property to keep Federal intruders from trespassing. And few of us have the money to hire lawyers to protect

our rights. That’s why we elected folks like you.

In 3 years of Federal research, we were never once contacted about the presence

of the willow flycatcher on our property. Our local government was never consulted

and there has never been any economic or cultural analysis done on the area in relation to this issue.

Common sense indicates that this would have been an ideal year to study the true

affects of grazing on the willow flycatcher. The Fish & Wildlife Service was trapping

cowbirds, we had out-of-bank flooding on the river, and the cows were happy. Instead, we were put through hell. Not only have we been put through a great deal

of personal stress and expense, but our own tax dollars have been paying for the

oppression upon us.

I thank you again for your time and consideration. My family certainly hopes and

prays that you folks here in Washington can see what is being done to those of us

in the country before too many more of us are put out of business.
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147