[Senate Hearing 109-245]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-245
GRAZING
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TO
REVIEW THE GRAZING PROGRAMS OF THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AND THE
FOREST SERVICE, INCLUDING PROPOSED CHANGES TO GRAZING REGULATIONS, AND
THE STATUS OF GRAZING REGULATIONS, AND THE STATUS OF GRAZING PERMIT
RENEWALS, MONITORING PROGRAMS AND ALLOTMENT RESTOCKING PLANS.
__________
SEPTEMBER 28, 2005
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
25-686 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RON WYDEN, Oregon
RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina, TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
CONRAD BURNS, Montana MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey
GORDON SMITH, Oregon KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
Alex Flint, Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho, Chairman
CONRAD R. BURNS, Montana, Vice Chairman
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming RON WYDEN, Oregon
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
GORDON SMITH, Oregon BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
Pete V. Domenici and Jeff Bingaman are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
Dick Bouts, Professional Staff Member
David Brooks, Democratic Senior Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Byrne, Michael, President, Public Lands Council, on Behalf of the
National Cattlemen's Beef Association.......................... 20
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator From Idaho.................... 1
Dorgan, Hon. Byron L., U.S. Senator From North Dakota............ 13
Hughes, Jim, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management,
Department of the Interior..................................... 3
Knight, Dr. Richard L., Professor of Wildlife Conservation,
Department of Forest, Rangeland and Watershed Stewardship,
College of Natural Resources, Colorado State University........ 30
Norbury, Fred, Associate Deputy Chief, National Forest System,
Forest Service, Department of Agriculture...................... 8
Salazar, Hon. Ken, U.S. Senator From Colorado.................... 13
Smith, Hon. Gordon, U.S. Senator From Oregon..................... 2
Whelan, William S., Director of Government Relations, The Nature
Conservancy.................................................... 25
APPENDIX
Responses to additional questions................................ 39
GRAZING
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of Public Lands and Forests,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room
SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Larry E. Craig
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
Senator Craig. Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome.
Today's oversight hearing is on grazing programs of the Forest
Service and the BLM administered on Federal Lands. I am hoping
Senator Wyden will show along with other members. A variety of
committees are meeting right now, so I know there's a cross
conflict with a good number of my colleagues.
I also want to welcome our witnesses on our first panel. We
have Jim Hughes, Deputy Director for the Bureau of Land
Management and Fred Norbury, Associate Deputy Chief of the
National Forest Service System. On our second panel we have
Mike Byrne, chairman of the NCBA's Federal Lands Committee from
Tule Lake, California; along with Will Whelan, with the Nature
Conversancy from Boise, Idaho; and Rick Knight, wildlife
ecologist, from Colorado State University, Fort Collins,
Colorado.
The ranching industry continues to be under assault.
Whether by benign neglect, lack of adequate priorities,
interest, or intention, anti-grazing actions of the past
decade--we've reached a state of urgency for addressing our
Federal grazing programs. This administration has shown a
commitment to solving these problems and maybe we are beginning
to turn the corner, but there still is much to do. It is my
intention to continue with oversight hearings in the future
until I'm confident and my colleagues are that there has been
sufficient progress that we have sustainable programs on the
ground that will support a viable industry.
I expect within the next year this subcommittee will expand
this oversight effort to other aspects of the Federal Land
Management Programs. I would like to ask my colleagues to help
us identify the priorities of programs we might address first.
As a former rancher I know the benefits and the challenges of
grazing. In Idaho the cattle industry is one of our most
valuable agriculture industries and products from our State.
I've proudly stated my support for the use of public lands
for grazing because I believe that multiple use on public lands
is a win/win situation. Ranchers are good stewards of the land.
They know that their livelihoods are dependent upon the land
and if they abuse it they will not prosper, and in some
instances they could lose the right to use it.
I am confident that we can preserve the historic use of
public lands while protecting our environment. I know I'm not
alone in this perspective and we will hear more of that from
our witnesses today.
It's becoming increasingly clear that the circumstances
that our ranchers and our land managers operate under today
have changed dramatically from the past. We have processes that
no longer seem to serve us well. I've asked my staff to begin
exploring opportunities for legislative reform that will
streamline the time-consuming and costly permitting and
decisionmaking procedures that seem to hamstring our land
managers. It's not my intention to abandon or waive
environmental law, but we must find a better way to administer
our public lands and get land managers out of the courts and
back on the ground, and get our lands back into the hands of
professional managers.
Today we will hear from the administration. They will
discuss the current status of their grazing programs and their
progress on rangeland management. I've asked the agency
witnesses to speak on the current management situation with
respect to finalizing new grazing regulations, the status on
the permit backlog and the use of monitoring funds. I look
forward to their testimony on what I believe is really a
fundamentally important issue on public rangelands.
I've not yet been joined by my colleagues so we will move
to our first panel. I'd ask Mr. Hughes and Mr. Norbury to come
forward, please. Once again, Jim Hughes, Deputy Director Bureau
of Land Management and Fred Norbury, Associate Deputy Chief of
our National Forest System.
Gentlemen, welcome before the committee. Jim, we'll start
with you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Gordon H. Smith, U.S. Senator From Oregon
I believe that this hearing is well-timed to address the concerns
of my constituents. The cost and delays of legal challenges to public
lands grazing is truly threatening their livelihood.
The eastern part of Oregon, where I come from, is largely owned by
the federal government. Places like Harney and Malheur Counties are
over 70% federally owned and managed. These places are literally
surrounded by the great ``unshorn fields'' of the West. Eastern Oregon
is cattle country--not because it's romantic or trendy--but because
that's what has worked there for a hundred years. Public lands grazing
is more than a ``way of life''--but it is one that is in jeopardy.
I am astounded by the complex web of regulations that land managers
must implement. I heard about them first-hand just a few weeks ago in
John Day, Oregon. I also recognize that appeals and litigation are
often encouraged by declining federal budgets and the attrition of
experienced employees. On the Malheur National Forest alone, there are
two grazing lawsuits on appeal in the 9th Circuit. Environmentalists
have announced that they will file a third.
I have already seen this pattern with the federal timber program in
Oregon. I have seen what it does to communities, and ultimately to the
land itself.
Updating our regulations is necessary. Strengthening partnerships
with stakeholders and land grant universities is necessary. Legislation
may be necessary as well.
Our goal should be to return range management to local expertise,
rather than legalese.
STATEMENT OF JIM HUGHES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Hughes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and especially for
this opportunity to discuss the work we're doing at the BLM to
provide good stewardship of the public rangelands and to
discuss livestock grazing on public lands in particular. With
me today, I just wanted to recognize him, this week we're
having a national monitoring strategy conference in town and
one of our key leaders in that effort is our Idaho State BLM
Director, K. Lynn Bennett, who is here with me today.
Senator Craig. Thank you for recognizing Director Bennett.
K. Lynn, thank you for being with us and thank you for your
leadership.
Mr. Hughes. We submitted our testimony and in the interest
of time I'll summarize my written remarks for the record.
The administration recognizes that the conservation and
sustainable use of rangelands is especially important to those
who make their living on these landscapes, and is vital to the
economic well-being and cultural identity of the West and to
rural Western communities.
The BLM continues to work in collaboration with our
partners to make progress in our understanding and management
of rangelands and we are working diligently to evaluate and
improve rangeland health, to update our regulations, to improve
grazing management and assure stability of ranching on public
lands, and to make progress in reducing the grazing permit
renewal backlog.
The BLM manages grazing on nearly 160 million acres of
public rangeland, with grazing use authorized by approximately
18,000 permits and leases on about 20,600 allotments.
These permits and leases allow the sustainable annual
harvest of up to 12.7 million animal unit months. In fiscal
year 2004, actual use was approximately 6.6 million animal unit
months primarily due to fires and the drought of the past
several years.
In 1999, BLM began evaluating the health of the rangelands
based on land health standards developed in consultation with
local Resource Advisory Councils. The BLM collects monitoring
and assessment data to compare current conditions with the land
health standards and land use plan goals. This information is
used to complete environmental assessments, develop alternative
management actions, and to modify management as needed to meet
these land health standards and objectives.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, the BLM is in the process of
finalizing the documentation associated with new proposed
grazing regulations. These regulatory changes were proposed
with the objective of improving grazing management and
continuing to promote stability for ranching on public lands.
This has been a lengthy but productive process that has
involved extensive public review and comment. And we anticipate
publication of a final rule in 2006.
The proposed changes are, we believe, an important step
forward to improve BLM grazing administration, and will draw
upon the lessons learned since the previous revisions of more
than 10 years ago. The BLM undertook this regulatory initiative
in recognition of the economic and social benefits of public
lands grazing, as well as the role of ranching in preserving
open space and wildlife habitat in the rapidly growing West.
The major objectives set forth in the proposed rule are to
improve the agency's working relationships with public land
ranchers, conserve rangeland resources, and address legal
issues, while enhancing administrative efficiency. It should be
noted that the new regulations would not affect the Resource
Advisory Council System, and would leave intact the substance
of the rangeland health standards and guidelines developed in
consultation with the RACs. Additional details about the
proposed regulations are included in my written testimony.
Another emphasis of BLM's range program is dealing with the
backlog of grazing permit renewals and the spike in grazing
permit renewals in 1999 and 2000, when over 7,200 permits were
due for renewal, as compared to the annual average of about
1,800.
The BLM is in its sixth full year of reducing the grazing
permit renewal backlog created by the spike and at the end of
fiscal year 2004, we have fully processed nearly 85 percent of
the grazing permits that have expired since fiscal year 1999.
Processing a permit consists primarily of analyzing
environmental impacts using appropriate National Environmental
Policy Act documentation and, where applicable, Endangered
Species Act consultation.
While other workload demands on range personnel can reduce
the number of grazing permits that can be fully processed in a
given year, the BLM's goal is to eliminate the backlog of
grazing permits and to issue permits in the year they expire by
the end of 2009--as we have indicated in the past. We will
continue to keep the committee informed of our progress in this
regard.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the BLM is dedicated to the
future well-being of the public rangelands, and is committed to
managing them for the many uses that serve the broad public
interest. We look forward to continuing to work with the
committee to ensure their long-term viability and health.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on this
important issue. I would be happy to answer questions from the
committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hughes follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jim Hughes, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land
Management, Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the work
we're doing at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to provide good
stewardship of the public rangelands and to discuss livestock grazing
on public lands in particular. Our nation's rangelands provide and
support a variety of goods, services, and values that are important to
every American. They conserve soil, store and filter water, sequester
carbon, provide a home for an abundance of wildlife, provide scenic
beauty and the setting for many forms of recreation, and are an
important source of food and water for domestic livestock. The
Administration recognizes that the conservation and sustainable use of
rangelands is especially important to those who make their living on
these landscapes, and is vital to the economic well-being and cultural
identity of the West and to rural Western communities.
The BLM takes seriously its challenge to conserve and manage this
vital component of our Nation's natural resource base and great legacy
of the American west for current and future generations. We continue to
work in collaboration with our partners--ranchers, other Federal
agencies, state and local governments, researchers, conservation groups
and others--to make progress in our understanding and management of
rangelands.
As I will discuss further below, as part of these efforts, we are
working diligently to evaluate and improve rangeland health; to update
our regulations to improve grazing management and assure stability of
ranching on public lands; and to make progress in reducing the grazing
permit renewal backlog.
RANGELAND MANAGEMENT BACKGROUND / FACTS & FIGURES
The BLM performs its rangeland management duties under the
authority of several laws, primary among which are the Taylor Grazing
Act (TGA), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), and the
Public Rangelands Improvement Act (PRIA). The BLM manages grazing on
nearly 160 million acres of public rangeland, with use authorized by
approximately 18,000 permits and leases on about 20,600 allotments.
These permits and leases allow the sustainable annual harvest of up
to 12.7 million animal unit months (AUMs; or the amount of forage
necessary to sustain a cow and her calf for a month). In Fiscal Year
2004, actual use was approximately 6.6 million AUMs due to drought and
fires. As the Committee is well aware, much of the West has been in the
grip of a drought during the last five years, affecting the
availability of forage and water in many areas, resulting in reduced
grazing use. These reductions were the most pronounced in 2002, 2003,
and 2004.
LAND HEALTH STANDARDS
In 1999, BLM began evaluating the health of the rangelands (``Land
Health Evaluations or Assessments'') based on Land Health Standards
that were developed in consultation with local Resource Advisory
Councils (RACs). These standards are based on the four fundamentals of
rangeland health found in BLM's Grazing Regulations, and address 1)
water quality, 2) wildlife habitat, 3) soil stability, and 4) energy
flow and nutrient cycling. By the end of FY 2004, approximately 45% of
the allotments had been evaluated, and about 78% of these were meeting
all Land Health Standards under current management. About 16% were not
meeting at least one standard because of current livestock grazing
management, while the remaining 6% of allotments were not meeting at
least one standard due to other, non-grazing, factors. Adjustments in
livestock grazing management have been made on 85% of the allotments
where it was needed, and BLM is coordinating appropriate adjustments on
the other 15%.
The BLM collects monitoring and assessment data to compare current
conditions with the Land Health Standards and land use plan objectives.
This information is used to complete environmental assessments, develop
alternative management actions, and to modify management as needed to
meet these Land Health Standards and objectives.
ASSESSMENT, INVENTORY & MONITORING INITIATIVE
In order to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of BLM's
assessment, inventory, and monitoring efforts, the BLM in August 2004
initiated a multi-year strategy (``Assessment, Inventory, and
Monitoring Initiative'') to manage the collection, storage, and use of
data regarding resource conditions and uses across the Bureau. This new
effort is working to aggregate certain local and site-specific resource
information so that it can be more easily utilized to address regional
or national management questions.
The multi-year effort will identify a limited number of natural
resource condition measures that are common to most BLM field offices,
and comparable to measures used by other land managing agencies for
reporting at the national level. We will standardize data collection,
evaluation, and reporting in a way that improves our land use
decisions, and enhances our ability to manage for multiple uses.
Finally, we will refine BLM information gathering efforts at the local
level, thereby improving the BLM's ability to report on land health
conditions.
The initiative is already producing promising results. In the first
year, the BLM conducted pilot projects throughout the Bureau that
tested ways to improve and standardize protocols for measuring the
effects of off-highway vehicle use and energy development on the public
lands. The pilot projects also examined technologies to make our
process of collecting vegetative condition data more efficient, and
identified a common set of land health indicators for use by all
Federal agencies. The initial progress with the initiative suggests
that an overall BLM strategy can be implemented in a way that improves
our efficiency and effectiveness for many years to come.
PROPOSED GRAZING REGULATIONS
The BLM is in the process of finalizing the documentation
associated with the proposed grazing regulations. The regulatory
changes were proposed with the objective of improving grazing
management and continuing to promote stability for ranching on public
lands. As you know, this has been a lengthy but productive process that
has involved extensive public review and comment. We anticipate
publication of a final rule in 2006.
The proposed changes are, we believe, an important step forward to
improve BLM grazing administration, and will draw upon the lessons
learned since the previous revisions of more than 10 years ago. The BLM
undertook this regulatory initiative in recognition of the economic and
social benefits of public lands grazing, as well as the role of
ranching in preserving open space and wildlife habitat in the rapidly
growing West.
The major objectives as set forth in the proposed rule are to
improve the agency's working relationships with public land ranchers;
conserve rangeland resources; and address legal issues while enhancing
administrative efficiency. It should be noted that the new regulations
would not affect the Resource Advisory Council (RAC) System, and would
leave intact the substance of the rangeland health standards and
guidelines developed by State directors in consultation with the RACs.
They also would make no change to the way the Federal grazing fee is
calculated. The following is a summary of the major elements of the
current draft of the proposed regulations.
Improved Working Relationships
The proposed regulations would provide that the BLM and a grazing
permittee or lessee (or other cooperating party) will share title to
cooperatively constructed permanent range improvements--structures such
as fences, wells, or pipelines. This shared-title provision reflects
the Administration's view that ranchers, when contributing financially
to the construction of range improvements, should share in their
ownership in proportion to their investment. In addition, shared title
may help some ranchers obtain loans more easily for their operations,
and may serve as an incentive for livestock operators to undertake
needed range improvements.
Another proposed regulatory change is that BLM would phase in
grazing-use decreases (and increases) of more than 10 percent over a
five-year period. The phase-in would provide sufficient time for
ranchers to make gradual adjustments in their operations, particularly
so they can reduce adverse economic impacts resulting from any grazing
reductions. The BLM would still retain authority to change or halt
grazing immediately when needed to respond to drought, fire and other
resource threats that require immediate action, or when legally
required, such as where necessary to comply with the requirements of
the Endangered Species Act.
The proposed regulations also would make clear that BLM managers
will use National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes to consider
the social, cultural, and economic effects of decisions that determine
levels of authorized grazing use. This change will ensure that BLM
managers across the West consistently consider and document the factors
they took into account in assessing the potential impacts of such
decisions on the human environment.
Conserve Rangeland Resources
The proposed regulations would remove a restriction that had
limited temporary non-use of a grazing permit to three consecutive
years. The existing regulation allows the BLM to approve non-use each
year for up to three consecutive years, but does not allow for a fourth
year of non-use, whether it is needed or not. This change would allow
BLM to approve non-use for one year at a time for conservation or
business purposes with no limit on the number of consecutive years. The
removal of this three-consecutive-year limit will promote rangeland
health by giving the BLM more flexibility to cooperate with grazing
permittees to rest the land as needed or to respond to changing
business needs.
The proposed regulations also would require BLM to use monitoring
data in cases where our agency has found, based on our initial
assessment, that a grazing allotment is failing to meet rangeland
health standards or conform to the guidelines. By using monitoring
data, the Bureau will be better able to determine the reasons for an
allotment's failure to meet such standards, and to what extent, if any,
grazing practices are at issue.
Another change to the regulations would allow the BLM up to 24
months to develop corrective management action in cases where existing
grazing management or levels of use are significant factors in failing
to meet the standards and conform with the guidelines. Under current
regulation the BLM is required to implement corrective action before
the start of the next grazing year, which, due to the period needed for
completing planning and consultation, was often an unrealistic
timeframe. The proposed revisions provide a reasonable timeframe for
the BLM, permittee, and interested public to develop an appropriate
action plan to improve conditions.
Address Legal Issues While Enhancing Administrative Efficiency
The proposed regulations include numerous changes that address
legal issues while enhancing administrative efficiency, several of
which are summarized below.
The proposed regulations would remove the existing provision that
allows BLM to issue ``conservation use'' permits, which would authorize
the holder to not graze. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in
1999 that the Secretary is not authorized to issue such permits.
The proposed regulations would expand the definition of ``grazing
preference'' to encompass the rancher's public land forage allocation.
This expanded definition would be similar to one that existed from 1978
to 1995, and reflects that the meaning of the term ``grazing
preference'' has two parts: first, a priority over others to receive a
livestock forage allocation on public lands; and second, the amount of
forage actually allocated.
The BLM attaches grazing preference to a rancher's private ``base''
property, which can be land or water, and upon approval by BLM would
allow the preference number to be transferred to a purchaser of the
base property, or to another qualifying base property.
The proposed regulations would modify the definition of
``interested public'' to cover only those individuals and organizations
that actually participated in the process leading to specific grazing
decisions. This regulation change seeks to provide for a more orderly
and timely decision-making process by ensuring that those who would
identify themselves as interested public participate in the decision-
making process before exercising their right to appeal and litigate
such decisions. The BLM will continue to involve the public in grazing
planning activities, such as allotment management planning, providing
comment on and input to reports the BLM prepares, and range improvement
project planning. The public would continue to receive BLM grazing
decisions.
In contrast to the current regulations, the proposed grazing
regulations would provide that BLM has flexibility to seek a variety of
water right arrangements under state law and would not have to only
seek ownership of the water right in the name of the United States.
This proposed provision, which would revise the 1995 grazing
regulations, would give the BLM greater flexibility in negotiating
arrangements for the construction of watering facilities in states
where the Federal government is allowed to hold a livestock water
right. The BLM would still have the option of seeking to acquire the
water right, consistent with state water law.
GRAZING PERMIT RENEWALS
Another emphasis of BLM's range program is dealing with the backlog
of grazing permit renewals. By regulation, grazing leases and permits
are normally issued for 10-year periods. In a typical year, the BLM has
1,800 permits up for renewal. The BLM experienced a ``spike'' in
grazing permit renewals in 1999 and 2000, when over 7,200 permits were
due for renewal. The BLM is in its sixth full year of reducing the
grazing permit renewal backlog created by the ``spike'' of 1999 and
2000. At the end of Fiscal Year 2004, BLM had fully processed nearly
85% of the grazing permits that have expired since Fiscal Year 1999. In
addition, BLM is actively working to prevent a recurrence of the 1999
and 2000 ``spike'' by processing and issuing permits scheduled to
expire in the future. As a result, about 5,700 (reduced from the
previous ``spike'' of 7,200) of the 18,000 permits are scheduled to
expire in 2009 and 2010.
Processing a permit consists primarily of analyzing environmental
impacts using appropriate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
documentation and, where applicable, Endangered Species Act Section 7
consultation. The BLM has been incorporating information from
monitoring and land health evaluations to develop reasonable
alternatives to be considered in the NEPA documents. This information
is also used to coordinate and consult with permittees and other
interested parties and to make informed decisions when issuing the
permits.
The BLM's goal is to eliminate the backlog of grazing permits and
to issue permits in the year they expire by the end of FY 2009. The BLM
continues to prioritize the collection of monitoring data to make sound
grazing management decisions and to meet land health standards, as well
as to ensure that the decisions are legally-defensible. Other workload
demands on range personnel--such as oil and gas permit processing,
wildfires, emergency rehabilitation projects, and land use planning--
can reduce the number of grazing permits that can be fully processed in
a given year. Nevertheless, we are committed to eliminating the backlog
of permit renewals, and will keep the Committee informed of our
progress in this regard.
CONCLUSION
The BLM is dedicated to the future well-being of the public
rangelands, and is committed to managing them for the many uses that
serve the broad public interest. We look forward to continuing to work
with the Committee to ensure their long-term viability and health.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on this important issue.
I would be happy to answer questions from the Committee.
Senator Craig. Jim, thank you very much.
Fred.
STATEMENT OF FRED NORBURY, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY CHIEF, NATIONAL
FOREST SYSTEM, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Norbury. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
share some information with you on the progress that the Forest
Service is making in the Range Program.
In the interest of time I will submit my testimony for the
record and summarize.
Senator Craig. Both of your full statements will be a part
of the record. Thank you.
Mr. Norbury. In summary, I would really like to make just
three points. First, on the backlog of work we have to do on
permits and allotment management plans, in 1995 we set a target
of 6,886 allotment management plans that needed to have a NEPA
completed and as of today, we have slightly more than 3,000
done. So with two-thirds of the time elapsed, we have slightly
less than half of the work done. And some of the work that
remains is some of the more difficult NEPA work that has to be
done. Between now and the end of the fiscal year we had
anticipated completing another 200. Of those 200, 74 were going
to be completed under the categoric exclusion that Congress
provided to us last year. As I can tell, only one of the 74
would be exempt from the recent court decision. So 73 of those
200 that we had expected to do will run past the end of this
fiscal year, and carry over into the next fiscal year.
We remain committed to the target of finishing up by 2010
and we're still looking for efficiencies that will let us get
that work done more quickly.
On monitoring, we have recent reports that reemphasize what
you've pointed out about the critical importance of monitoring,
about the stubble height review team, and our Idaho and the
Scientific Review Team in North Dakota have reemphasized the
importance of monitoring. The essential position of the Forest
Service is we can't do this alone. In terms of selecting what
to monitor and determining how to monitor it, and in actually
doing the monitoring work, we need the participation of other
Federal agencies, and most importantly, the State agencies and
the permitees themselves. In that respect, we think a bright
spot is the amount of permitee monitoring that we're seeing
now.
Five years ago we had five permitees who were helping us
with the monitoring, this last year we had 63 permitees who
were helping us with the monitoring. Small numbers, but a
substantial growth rate. And we're running training programs to
train the permitees on how to do monitoring so they can help us
do this important work.
As you know, the drought conditions in the West have eased
considerably from last year, and we're starting to return
cattle to the range. In the Southwest, stocking levels were
down around 50 percent of the permitted numbers, now they're
running closer to 70 to 90 percent of permitted numbers and we
believe we're able to accommodate all the requests for
restocking, with the exception of the Tonto where that
situation is particularly severe.
Senator Craig. With the exception of the----
Mr. Norbury. The Tonto National Forest. The Tonto is still
down around 30 percent of their permitted numbers. We have an
agreement with the local grazing associations on the restocking
process, that's working very well.
In Idaho, we've been able to accommodate all the requests
for restocking that we face. As you know, the progress in
restocking is limited by ecological conditions. One year of
good rain is not enough in many ranges, it takes 2 years of
good rain before we can be confident that the plants have
regained their vigor. It's also limited in some cases by fire.
This was true in the Tonto, fires burning up some of the fences
and stock tags that help us control the grazing, and it's
difficult to restock without those improvements.
In other cases, ranches themselves face difficulty in
restocking because they've been in a tough financial situation,
so they can't go out and buy all the cows they would need to
achieve full stocking. But the situation is improving. The only
place we see severe drought conditions this year is in the
interior Northwest.
So those are the key points that I would highlight in my
testimony. I'd be happy to entertain questions on these points
or any other aspects of our grazing program.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Norbury follows:]
Prepared Statement of Fred Norbury, Associate Deputy Chief, National
Forest System, Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the
opportunity to present the subcommittee with an overview of livestock
grazing management in the Forest Service. The Forest Service has been
managing rangelands for 100 years, and has a long history of
partnerships with livestock producers who rely upon National Forest
System (NFS) lands. Livestock grazing on National Forests reserved from
the public domain is administered under a number of statutes, including
the Granger-Thye Act of 1950, the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of
1960, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of
1974, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, among
others. These laws augment the authority in the Organic Act of 1897,
which established the National Forests and directed the agency to
regulate the use and occupancy of the forests to protect them from
destruction. Livestock grazing on National Grasslands is also
administered under the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937. This law
authorized a program of land conservation and utilization to improve
past land uses practices.
Today, there are grazing allotments on approximately 90 million
acres of National Forest System lands in 34 states. The Forest Service
administers approximately 8800 allotments, with over 8500 active
livestock grazing permits, and about 9.6 million animal unit months of
grazing by cattle, horses, sheep, and goats. Nearly all this permitted
grazing is located in the Western states (99 percent), with only about
one percent occurring in the Eastern forests.
GRAZING ALLOTMENT PLANNING AND PERMIT ADMINISTRATION
One of the most significant issues associated with our management
of livestock grazing for the past several years has been in allotment
planning. Specifically, the ability of the Agency to insure the
necessary environmental analysis has been completed prior to the
issuance of a grazing permit.
On June 23, 2004, before this Subcommittee, the Administration
testified concerning the Forest Service's progress in implementing
Section 504 of Public Law 104-19 (the ``Rescissions Act''). Section 504
directed the Chief of the Forest Service to identify grazing allotments
that required NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) analysis and to
``establish and adhere to'' a schedule for the completion of that
analysis. The end date established in the schedule was 2010. The
Rescissions Act was needed given the Forest Service's challenge in 1995
of trying to complete the NEPA analysis on most allotments, with
approximately 50 percent of Forest Service grazing permits due to
expire.
The 2003 Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, Public Law 108-7
(as amended by the 2003 Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations
Act) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to renew grazing permits for
those permittees whose permits expired prior to or during fiscal year
2003, as the Forest Service was behind the schedule established for the
Rescissions Act and was dealing with pending lawsuits. The NEPA
analyses will still have to be completed on these allotments and the
terms and conditions of the renewed grazing permit will remain in
effect until such time as the analysis is completed.
The 2004 Interior Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-108) further
directed the Secretary to renew grazing permits that expired or were
transferred or waived between 2004 and 2008, and directed the Secretary
to report to Congress beginning in November 2004, and every two years
thereafter, the extent to which analysis required under applicable laws
is being completed prior to the expiration of grazing permits.
The 2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law 108-447)
further directed that for fiscal years 2005 through 2007, certain
decisions made by the Secretary to authorize grazing on an allotment
shall be categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental
assessment or an environmental impact statement under NEPA. To be
categorically excluded the following conditions would apply:
The decision continues current grazing management of the
allotment;
Monitoring indicates that current grazing management is
meeting, or satisfactorily moving toward objectives in the land
management plan, and
The decision is consistent with agency policy concerning
extraordinary circumstances.
The total number of allotments that may be categorically excluded
under this authority may not exceed 900.
The Forest Service has continued to complete NEPA analyses on those
grazing allotments that are listed on the Recessions schedule. As of
September 9, 2005, approximately 3050 allotments have NEPA analysis
completed. An additional 201 allotments are scheduled for completion of
NEPA requirements in fiscal year 2005. Of this 201, there are 74
allotments that have pending decisions that will utilize the legislated
categorical exclusion for NEPA outlined above. The Forest Service
remains committed to completing the NEPA analysis on the remaining
allotments by 2010 without disrupting permitted livestock grazing
activities. We will track our progress and report periodically to
Congress.
GRAZING PERMIT EFFICIENCIES
The Department testified previously before this Subcommittee that
current decision-making procedures to authorize livestock grazing or
other activities on rangelands administered by the Forest Service are
inflexible, unwieldy, time-consuming, and expensive. For several years,
the Forest Service has evaluated alternative procedures that would
satisfy our legal obligations, provide the agency with management
flexibility, shorten the decision-making time, and reduce the cost to
the taxpayer associated with rangeland management decisions. The agency
is continuing dialogue with our colleagues at the Bureau of Land
Management and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to address
the challenges of complying with NEPA in a timely and effective manner.
In addition, the agency is working on methods of prioritization through
the development and use of quantitative tools that assess rangeland
health and sustainability by using indicators that are linked to
existing monitoring data.
NEPA ANALYSIS AND RANGELAND DECISIONS
This year the Forest Service set up guidance for the national
forests and grasslands in order to comply with P.L. 108-447 when
preparing NEPA analysis for allotments. This new authority will help
the agency move forward in completing environmental analysis in an
expedited manner on those allotments still remaining on the 1996
Rescissions Act schedule.
Currently, the Forest Service is in the process of updating and
revising the Forest Service policy and direction in our grazing manual
and handbook. The last major update occurred in 1985. New legislation,
litigation, changing needs on the ground, and the need for consistency
between field units have all shaped the need to update and clarify
existing policy.
In the future, we will propose, and offer for public comment,
changes in the Manual and Handbook that we believe are needed to
improve our management of grazing, discharge our stewardship
responsibilities, and to ensure sustainable grazing opportunities for
farmers and ranchers on national forests and grasslands. We intend to
work closely with all affected parties to address policy issues that
are identified, before a new Manual and Handbook are adopted.
EXPERTISE IN RANGELANDS MANAGEMENT
Rangelands management expertise is necessary to fulfill our mission
to manage National Forest System lands. The Forest Service has
developed a strategy to address the loss of rangeland management skills
and strengthen on-the-ground expertise. The Forest Service, working
with other State and federal partners, has instituted a national Range
School, that provides training sessions focusing on improving essential
collaborative skills for managers, permittees, and other interested
people; focusing on ecology, economy, and social issues regarding
rangelands. The Forest Service has been working closely with the Bureau
of Land Management, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Cooperative
State Research, Education and Extension Service, the Society for
Rangeland Management, and regional Forest Service leadership to present
training sessions in 2006.
A collaborative working group of Forest Service professionals,
university professors and researchers are developing a specialized
training for line officers and managers to be presented April 2006.
This ``Rangeland Management for Line Officers'' course will ensure
critical decision making accurately reflects an understanding of
federal land ranching, rangeland science, and an appreciation for the
vital role ranching plays in reducing the loss of open space and the
environmental benefits that come from grazing.
MONITORING
The ecological conditions of rangelands often affect the social and
economic stability of many rural communities. To assure these lands are
capable of providing sustainable products for future generations, the
Forest Service monitors the ecological conditions of these lands
against specific standards. Implementation and effectiveness monitoring
are two types of monitoring that the Agency uses. Implementation
monitoring is an annual measurement of rangeland resources, such as
vegetation use, to assess environmental effects. Effectiveness
monitoring is long-term (5 to 6 years) where rangeland resources are
monitored to assess whether prescriptions and objectives set forth in
Forest Plans, allotment management plans or other relevant documents
are being met.
The Forest Service has worked with industry representatives over
the years to develop our implementation and effectiveness monitoring.
In 2003 we signed a national Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the
Public Lands Council (PLC) and the National Cattlemen's Beef
Association (NCBA) for the implementation of a cooperative rangeland
monitoring program. We continue to collaborate with our permittees in
order to improve the quality and quantity of short and long-term
allotment level monitoring on National Forest System rangelands.
To further this collaboration the Forest Service, PLC and NCBA in
April 2004 signed a joint letter which was delivered to Forest Service
personnel and permittees requesting volunteers to establish pilots for
monitoring under this MOU to facilitate the process and lead the way
for others to follow. This is a great opportunity for both entities to
collaborate on long-term goals and objectives for sustainable rangeland
resources.
Several National Forests and National Grasslands have established
programs that encourage grazing permittees to conduct implementation
monitoring in cooperation with the Forest Service. Permittees, in
conjunction with the Forest Service, other Federal agencies,
universities and rangeland consultants, have worked to develop
monitoring programs.
In the Southwestern Region, the Forest Service has developed a
cooperative agreement with the University of Arizona focused on
collaborative monitoring. The goal of the agreement is to utilize the
Universities' expertise to assist in the development of agency
monitoring strategies for rangelands. For example, the agreement with
the University of Arizona will focus on improving monitoring data
collection and analysis related to natural resource management;
developing collaborative opportunities between the Forest Service and
non-governmental entities and organizations to monitor the ecological
trends of national forest rangelands in Arizona; establishing uniform
monitoring protocols that everyone understands; enhancing data
collection processes, training, and reporting methods; and increasing
the number of national forest allotments being monitored.
DROUGHT
We continue to work with our partners in the livestock industry to
improve coordination and communication, as we mitigate effects that
drought has had on rangelands in the West. The agency recognizes that
ranching is an important component of the economies of many western
rural communities.
We have actively coordinated drought management with Federal,
State, and local government agencies and officials. The agency is
actively participating on national, state, and local drought task
forces coordinating drought relief to our permittees. We are working
closely with industry representatives to provide up-front information
to facilitate local communications and work together to resolve
resource issues.
On Forests and Grasslands, we have managed drought impacts on a
case-by-case basis. Local managers are communicating as early as
possible with permittees so they are informed and have enough time to
implement temporary changes or a long-term strategy. We continue to
coordinate with universities, other federal agencies, and user groups
to best address the concerns at the local level.
INVASIVE SPECIES
A threat to sustainable use, proper management of our rangelands
and to our permit renewals and monitoring efforts, is the ever-growing
presence of invasive species. The Chief of the Forest Service has
targeted invasive species as one of four most significant threats to
our Nation's forest and rangeland ecosystems. It has been said invasive
species are a ``catastrophic wildfire in slow motion.'' They are
threatening the national grazing interest. Thousands of invasive
plants, insects, and other species have infested many hundreds of
thousands of acres of land and water across the Nation, causing massive
disruption to ecosystem function, reducing biodiversity, and degrading
ecosystem health, including rangelands. Add great economic loss to
massive ecosystem impacts and that is the threat we have.
The Forest Service has taken steps to improve its ability to
prevent, detect, control, and manage invasive species and to
rehabilitate and restore affected rangelands. We are working
strategically with our scientists, managers, and partners. We now have
a National Strategy and Implementation Plan for Invasive Species. It
outlines both short and long term goals. We are working with our
partners to streamline procedures so actions can be taken quickly
before invasions become widespread. We call this early detection and
rapid response. This is a national initiative that supports local
partnerships fighting invasive species. We have a national website
(http://www.fs.fed.us/invasivespecies) available to the public which
provides information and links to many other sites focused on invasive
species. In 2006 we will host a national conference for managers and
partners to improve our efforts and build capacity to combat invasive
species.
In FY 2004 we treated over 100,000 acres for invasive weeds,
greatly surpassing our goal of 67,438 acres. In FY 2005 our goal is to
treat about 75,000 acres and indications are we will surpass this
estimate.
SUMMARY
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. We are
committed to making maximum use of our legislative authorities and
policy direction in order to sustain the health, diversity and
productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs
of present and future generation.
This concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any
questions you may have.
Senator Craig. Fred, thank you very much.
We've been joined by two of our colleagues, Senator Salazar
and Senator Byron Dorgan.
Ken, do you have any opening comments you would want to
make before we turn to these gentlemen for questions?
STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, U.S. SENATOR
FROM COLORADO
Senator Salazar. Chairman Craig, the only thing I wanted to
say is that I fully understand and respect the great importance
of grazing on our public lands both with the Forest Service and
BLM, and obviously for those of us from the West, it's not only
part of our tradition, but it's also something that we want to
continue. So I look forward to testimony from the witnesses.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. Senator Dorgan, any opening comments?
STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NORTH DAKOTA
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I regret
I didn't hear your testimony, I've been down in the
Appropriations Committee mark-up on the Defense Department
Appropriations bill. Mr. Norbury, are you familiar with the
controversy that erupted in North Dakota over the interim
directives with respect to leasing and other issues on the
grasslands in North Dakota?
Mr. Norbury. I have read newspaper accounts on that, and
I've talked to people who have been personally involved in that
controversy.
Senator Dorgan. On July 19, you signed, I believe--or
signed off rather on the original interim directives that
really caused a firestorm of protest out there. I held a
hearing in Bismark and it was a packed house, and we had both
the Regional Forester from Montana, and the Grasslands
Supervisor in North Dakota. And both of them told me at the
hearing that they had not read the interim directives that had
been put out, which surprised me because the interim
directives, among other things, would have prevented a practice
that has gone on at great lengths in North Dakota in the
grasslands and that is the leasing practice of base units. And
this interim directive would have shut that down without
consultation with the ranchers, without even the knowledge of
the Regional Forester, or the local Grasslands Supervisor. You
actually signed that, or rather you approved it, I guess. And
here's the document which says, approved by Fred Norbury. So
how does that happen that in the Service this interim directive
goes out and, by the way, when it goes out we're told that the
rules have now changed. The rules have changed, this is not
notifying people. The rules have now changed and the Regional
Forester doesn't know how it happened, hasn't read it, and the
local grasslands person hasn't read it. The ranchers haven't
been consulted. How does all that happen?
Mr. Norbury. Well, the directives that are being replaced
are 20 years old, and the process to write new directives has
been going on for a number of years. I was told that it had
been 7 years of staff work trying to redraft the entire
package. If you've seen the entire package, you've seen that
it's many, many, many pages. It stacks 6 or 8 inches high.
Because it's a comprehensive attempt to update our directive
system to incorporate all the things that have happened both in
terms of science and in court rulings over the past 20 years.
So the directives rest upon the work of a very large number
of people within the Forest Service. Clearly the process that
produced those directives could have been better. We have not
done as good as we could have done to identify exactly what the
changes were and make sure that everyone understood what those
changes were and felt like they had ample opportunity to
comment on those changes. And once that became apparent to us,
that's why we rescinded those directives. We rescinded the
entire package, and we will do better. We will make an extra
effort to make sure that everyone who has a stake in this has a
chance to know exactly what's proposed, and has a chance to be
heard on their views on those proposed changes.
Senator Dorgan. Well, Mr. Norbury, you did rescind them on
August 16. And when you say ``can do better'', what concerns me
is that the Forest Service is a big bureaucracy, a really big
bureaucracy. You probably know a lot about trees, but in my
judgment the Forest Service knows almost nothing about
grasslands.
I pushed, and pushed, and pushed and pushed for a long
while to get a supervisor in North Dakota that knows about
grasslands. Because what the Forest Service tries to do is put
a template over grassland management that reflects their
knowledge of trees. But grasslands aren't trees. And so we
finally got a grassland supervisor in North Dakota for the
purpose of trying to make sure that you don't think that these
are forests. These are not forests, they are grasslands.
And yet when you review all of these--and you're quite
correct, some of these are 20 years old, these rules. When you
review them, there's no consultation with the ranchers to any
degree, you put out directives and the Regional Forester
doesn't know it, the local person doesn't know it, and when you
say, ``we can do better'', I hope that's a euphemism for ``we
screwed up''. Because clearly somebody screwed up here--using
the vernacular.
This is not the way to do business. Now, can you tell me
how you're going to go forward? Because you issued the rules,
that caused a stink, I held a hearing, and you then rescinded
the rules. And it was embarrassing for the folks who came to
that hearing. They worked for you all and they had to admit
they didn't know anything about this. And despite the fact that
apparently it was supposed to have gone through their hands. So
what are you going to do going forward at this point with
respect to these issues, because it will affect whether some
people who are engaged in grazing in western North Dakota,
which, by the way, is fast becoming a wilderness area?
I've got all these folks asking me to support wilderness
designations. I say, I don't need to have any designation out
in western North Dakota, it's becoming a wilderness area. I
want exactly the opposite to happen, I want ranchers to be able
to work out there and be able to graze cattle and to keep
ranching, and these rules, as you know, would have forced some
of these folks off the land, because the only way you can get
young people started in those circumstances is to lease base
property. So what are you going to do now, now that that's been
rescinded?
Mr. Norbury. Well, the first step is going to be what I
would regard as an essential point of completed staff work,
which is to do a very, very careful, side by side comparison of
the package we have now, and the proposed package, to make sure
that we have identified all the changes that people might get
interested in. We're going to get some fresh eyes involved in
reviewing these pages. And we want to make--there are some
changes that people who've been working on the package might
not regard as significant that someone with fresh eyes might
spot as significant. We want to make sure that we get all that
out on the table.
The second thing we want to do is actually go talk to
people about how they would like to be involved. Now this is a
more complex issue than it might appear. We have grazing on 90
million acres of the National Forest System. And we have
grazing interests throughout the West and actually some in the
East as well. So there's a very, very large community of people
that have a stake in this outcome. And we want to talk to them
about what they think would be the best way for them to work
with us. In the classic model, we put something out, we
published it for comment, people send in written comments, then
we analyze them and add them and categorize them and all that,
and think about them, and then we make a final decision. And
that's the minimum requirements of the Administration
Procedures Act. We think, in this case, we need to go beyond
that.
Senator Dorgan. But that wasn't done, was it, in this case?
Mr. Norbury. There had been conversations over the long
number of years that this package had been in preparation.
Senator Dorgan. No, no, that wasn't done in this case, you
know that.
Mr. Norbury. We are looking for a broader involvement, more
of a collaborative involvement next time around. And the
structure and the collaborative involvement will depend a lot
upon what the people affected by this package want to do. And
so we'll have those conversations with them. Once we've done
that, then we will be in a position to describe exactly how
that process is going to unfold.
Senator Dorgan. My colleague from Idaho has been very
patient. It normally would be my colleague from Idaho that's
beating up on an agency here. I've seen him do that from time
to time. Now I'm the one that is furious with the bureaucracy
because you still haven't suggested that what you did was
wrong. You didn't go out and consult. You issued an interim
directive that said it's effective immediately and now you've
had to rescind it. I don't like the way bureaucracies work when
they do that.
And as you consult with everybody--I have a sense of
history, and you probably understand, if you don't go look at
it. The Bankhead-Jones Act, by which most of that land in
western North Dakota was gotten by the Federal Government, and
the conditions under which the Federal Government took over
land from bankrupt folks out there that had to get rid of it,
it was going to be used for agriculture, and that land is
supposed to continue to be grazed, and we don't want people
putting handcuffs around ranchers out there who are trying to
make a living. So that's why I'm a little irritated.
I just came to the hearing, Mr. Norbury, because your name
was on this and I hope you do better. I mean you used that
term. I would use other terms. But we can't have the agency
doing this, and surprising even your own employees in a way
that would disadvantage a lot of ranchers that are working real
hard to try and make a living. So that was therapeutic for me
to say.
And, Mr. Chairman, I feel better now, but I'll feel a lot
better once you get through this process and have new rules,
after the old ones are rescinded, and we have new rules that
make sense, rules that I can support and ranchers feel are
fair.
Senator Craig. Doctor Craig will send you a bill. But I do
appreciate your passion, and I think everybody's frustration on
the ground when the process gets ahead of where it ought to be.
Fred, let me stay with you, because you just mentioned
something in your testimony that is a frustration to all of us.
Last week, Judge James Singleton ruled that you will not be
able to utilize categorical exclusions to implement forest
plans related to projects. Is it true that the categorical
exclusions that this Congress authorized to expedite the
grazing permit renewal will be impacted by that?
Mr. Norbury. Absolutely. The categoric exclusions that are
authorized for the NEPA for allotment measurement plans are
impacted and it's far broader than that. It affects the
legislative categoric exclusions for oil and gas that was in
the energy bill this year. It effects the silviculture
treatment categorical exclusion that was in the Healthy Forest
Restoration Act, as well as all the categorical exclusions that
are in our existing agency NEPA procedures. The effects of this
are going to be far reaching on people who make use of the
National Forest. One example I can give you is the Willamette
Pass Ski Area in the State of Oregon. It's a small ski area, it
has two lifts. One of their lifts was damaged by an avalanche
last year. They were trying to repair that lift so they could
get back into operation this winter, operating under a
categorical exclusion, and we had to tell them to stop. They're
in a real quandary right now, because they basically think they
have 2 weeks before the snow flies and they're not able to
repair their lift.
We face similar dilemmas with firewood gathering and with
mushroom gathering. We have a film company that's making a
movie that we've told are operating under a categorical
exclusion, and we've told them they're going to have to stop.
Senator Craig. You mean a lift that was preexisting, under
a special use permit, was damaged by an avalanche and you used
a categorical exclusion to allow them to go in and repair it?
This is not a new lift, this is not a new run development?
Mr. Norbury. That's right.
Senator Craig. Why would you even do that? Why couldn't
they be allowed to repair based on an existing facility and an
existing permit?
Mr. Norbury. Well----
Senator Craig. Under maintenance.
Mr. Norbury. All of our facility repairs are done under
categorical exclusions. That's a routine use of categorical
exclusions. The way the law is written we're basically--anytime
we're making a decision that involves manipulating the physical
environment we have to either do an EIS, an EA, or conclude
that it can be excluded from documentation under a preexisting
category established in procedures.
So approving the repair under a categorical exclusion is
routine and a long standing agency practice. It wasn't a
problem until we had to face the consequences of a recent court
decision.
Senator Craig. What is the current backlog of grazing
permit renewals and how will Judge Singleton's decision impact
the Forest Service's ability to renew these permits then?
Mr. Norbury. Well, it's going to stretch out the process.
We have slightly more than 3,400 to go, according to my
arithmetic. Basically, when you allow an appeal and if--you've
got to allow a comment period, which is a minimum of 30 days,
then the appeal emerges, then there's another 105 days to
resolve the appeal. So potentially it could add 135 days to
each and every one of the permit renewals that we're going to
do under the legislated category. As I mentioned, the
legislative cap was 900, so potentially as many as 135 days to
each and every one of those.
Senator Craig. While this is not a grazing question, how
will Judge Singleton's decision affect the Forest Service's
ability to undertake needed hurricane cleanup work in the Gulf
States for us?
Mr. Norbury. At the moment, we don't think that the
decision will affect the cleanup. We've been able to work with
the Council on Environmental Quality, and we think that
everything we need to do in the way of hurricane response can
be done under our existing authorities and in cooperation with
the Council on Environmental Quality and will not get stopped
by the need to offer [inaudible] opportunities.
Senator Craig. Well, we'll see if we can work with you on
our dear Judge's decision.
Jim, it appears the BLM is continuing to make real progress
in meeting its objective of eliminating the backlog of permits
by 2009. Once BLM has addressed its backlog are you confident
we won't get in this bind again?
Mr. Hughes. Yes, we are. Mr. Chairman, I think a couple of
things. We now have a system in place where we've identified
those permits that need a closer look, and we've prioritized
which areas we have problems with. This helps us sort of divvy
up the workload a lot better than when this thing first hit us.
I think we've learned how to better approach this and in many
cases we can use somewhat of a template, if there's really no
change in use out there, to renew these permits. Then we also
have the ability to put folks in there where we do have the
problems. As we get more information, through our monitoring
program, it will make that renewal process go much smoother,
because we know what's out there.
Senator Craig. Well, I hope somehow we can effectively
streamline and legitimately deal with our environmental
concerns, and at the same time--as I mentioned in my opening
comments--be timely in these processes. Obviously we've created
a very complicated process for the land manager, so spoken to
by Fred, your obvious concerns. Fred, you mentioned in your
opening comments about some of the range conditions changing
because of moisture, I suspect my State of Idaho this spring
produced one of the greatest grass years on record, or nearly
that. And if you had walked across that range a year ago versus
this year, you could have been absolutely convinced that it
doesn't take 2or 3 years to recover. It can be done almost in 1
year. That was certainly the case, yet we have seen very little
flexibility on the part of the Forest Service, in some permit
considerations, a little flexibility of time. There's still
been a substantial rigidity even though grass was hitting the
stirrups of the horses and cattle couldn't be found because
they were laying down. I mean it was a phenomenal grass year by
every measurement. And I must tell you that I'm tremendously
frustrated when there can't be a little flexibility on the
margin that deals with some of our livestock needs under those
kinds of circumstances.
High costs of fuel today are obviously creating an
environment where cost of production is substantially higher,
when we talk of moving cattle off a range on a lockstep basis
because that's what the regulation says. And I guess my
frustration is, where are the range managers? They're in the
office buildings doing EIS's, they're not out on the ground
checking things. And so we've got to walk down this road, when
in fact, as I said, if any of you had spent time out on the
range a year or two ago, and then this year, you would have not
felt you were in the same place, under the conditions that we
fortunately experienced in certain areas of the West.
I don't know what to say to you other than I think all of
us under certain circumstances were increasingly frustrated by
an agency that seemed to not have viewed the condition but only
have read the print. And I felt that in certain circumstances
some of our range managers had some discretion; is that not
true?
Mr. Norbury. First let me say that most of the people who
work for the Forest Service didn't start working for the Forest
Service because they wanted to write NEPA documents. Most of
them started working for the Forest Service because they liked
the outdoors and they wanted to work outdoors. And a lot of
them feel very frustrated at the amount of time they're having
to spend in the office preparing thicker and thicker
documentation as the years pass, and their inability to get
away from the computer screen and go out and experience
firsthand those things they love and that really are their
fundamental passion.
We've worked hard to try to increase the flexibility that
our range managers have. And one of the most important things
that we've done is the way we've restructured the NEPA process
that they're going through. I'll give you an example.
It used to be when we did the NEPA on allotment it would
specify the on/off dates. And so--because the dates were
specified in the NEPA document--if you were going to vary from
those dates, then you had to make a new NEPA decision, which
took you back into all those onerous NEPA processes again. What
we're trying to do now is use an adaptive measurement approach
where we wouldn't specify the on/off dates, we would specify
the ecological conditions that we're striving for and give the
managers a lot more flexibility to choose the practices that
would move the ranchland toward the desired ecological
conditions.
As we get more and more NEPA completed and more and more of
our allotment measurement plans modernized, they're going to
have more and more flexibility to adjust year to year to those
fluctuations.
The third point I would make is that my experience has been
that range issues are really variable from place to place
around the country. Some places you're dealing with perennial
vegetation, and some places annual vegetation. Soils are
different. The grazing practices are different. So we encourage
our range managers to take a problem-solving approach and to do
their best to work with the permitees in ways that address the
problems that they bring to our attention.
A more recent example, of course, is the rising fuel prices
which have made it more difficult, or more costly at least, to
move stock around in trucks. And so you always have to think
about, is there some way that we could work with the permitee
to reduce the cost, because many of these people have
operations that are at the financial margin. But the solution
to those things really are site specific, because trucking from
pasture to pasture may occur in some places but it doesn't
occur everywhere. So the solution needs to be different from
place to place, and that's why we are encouraging flexibility
and are encouraging flexibility and are encouraging a problem-
solving approach.
Senator Craig. Well, all that you've said I think is true,
but it takes people on the ground monitoring. If you're going
from date specific to site specific and condition specific,
somebody's got to be out there monitoring and I'm not sure
that's getting done as well in some instances as it should. I
mean if you were monitoring this year, there would have been
flexibility. And in some instances, from some of our permitees,
we've sensed a tremendous rigidity. And like I said, when they
said, we couldn't remove the cattle because we couldn't find
them, they were hidden in the grass, that's a phenomenal
statement, but it was a reality in some circumstances.
And you're right to assume cost and trucking and all of
that, but you know it's that kind of reasonable flexibility and
monitoring I think that is site specific and does recognize all
of the conditions you've talked about that are variables on our
Western rangelands, and so you know, all I can say is I hope
the Forest Service continues down this road. You've got a
backlog to get beyond, and 2010 is approaching, and we'll watch
very closely and stay with you and attempt once again in some
form to gain you some flexibility.
Obviously, the Judge has spoken. Congress once spoke and
we'll try to speak again, in a slightly different language that
maybe he doesn't understand as clearly. And maybe that way we
can dodge his rulings. And it is in no way to dodge
environmental concerns. It's to allow management to go on.
Environmental concerns are at risk when that doesn't happen.
And so we had hoped in certain circumstances that categorical
exclusions would offer you the tools that you needed. They
seemed to be moving us in the right direction until the Judge
spoke.
Gentlemen, thank you very much for your time before the
committee. We'll stay tuned to you, and please you stay tuned
to us, and we'll see if we can't resolve some of these problems
as we move down the road.
Gentlemen, thank you very much for being with us. Mike
Byrne, chairman, Federal Lands Committee, the National
Cattlemen's Beef Association. Will, it's good to see you. Will
Whelan, the Idaho director for government relations for the
Nature Conservancy. And Dr. Rick Knight, wildlife ecologist,
Colorado State University, College of Natural Resources.
Gentlemen, again, thank you very much for being here today.
Mike, we will start with you. If you'll please turn your
mike on, let's visit.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL BYRNE, PRESIDENT, PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL, ON
BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S BEEF ASSOCIATION
Mr. Byrne. Okay. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the
opportunity to discuss the issues facing the Western ranchers
throughout the United States. My name is Mike Byrne, and I am a
cattle rancher from northern California and southern Oregon,
the Klamath Basin, and I'm also president of the Public Lands
Council, a national organization representing the interests of
public lands ranchers. My brother Dan and I are fourth
generation ranchers in the same area.
The Public Lands Council represents sheep and cattle
ranchers in 15 Western States, over approximately 300 million
acres.
Today's ranchers represent some of America's last living
embodiments of true environmentalism. The American public and
the ranching industry benefit tremendously from the continued
economic vitality of the public land ranching industry. As we
look to the future of public lands ranching throughout the
West, the PLC and NCBA is concerned about a number of important
issues.
National Environmental Policy Act. The Public Lands Council
owes a debt of gratitude to this Congress for its attention to
grazing issues on Public Lands. In recent years, Congress has
made more funding available for monitoring of allotments, has
ensured that permit renewals would not be set aside because of
the agencies' inability to complete their responsibilities
under the National Environmental Policy Act, and has worked to
restore a balance between wild horses and burros and other
multiple uses. For these things, we applaud you.
But there is much work yet to be done. Grazing permit
administration remains a challenge that trips up the agencies.
As you are no doubt aware in your own State, in the Western
Watershed Project versus the BLM, the court enjoined grazing on
several hundred thousand acres of land in southeast Idaho,
involving almost 100,000 animal units, and 28 allotments
because the agency failed to meet the basic requirements under
NEPA. In the view of our members, a significant portion of the
grazing industry in southeast Idaho, and the families and
communities that depend on grazing, it should be overturned. We
would like the same protection as we have in permit renewal.
Because of the agency's inability to perform, the permitee
should not bear the brunt of this problem. It should fall back
to the agencies.
This cannot be the standard of business in the Government.
Part of the agencies' challenge in completing environmental
documentation can be addressed by more closely tailoring the
paperwork requirements to the actual environmental profile
presented by grazing or an activity ancillary to grazing.
We have an idea that we can try to tailor more of these
environmental documents to ones that are already done, instead
of doing them over and over, being redundant. As you have heard
from both agencies, there's thousands and thousands of
allotments, and thousand of grazing permitees, and we feel that
the same analysis is going on over and over again. We should be
able to tier onto previous ones, put in the different
documentation, let the public speak as they may and then let's
get on with the job and not do it over again.
We also believe more CE's should be available. As you've
already alluded to, there are some court problems, but when you
fix it, make it broad enough that we can use very many more
CE's. I testified in 1998 in the House in front of Don Young,
but the same thing holds true. Why should we analyze an
activity that's gone on for decades, relatively unchanged, over
and over again and spend the capital, both human and resources,
when we're going to come up with the same conclusion?
National Historic Preservation Act. This is also another
law which causes great concern, because it precludes positive
projects from taking place on the public lands. It is
administered very, very differently between agencies in the
same geographical area where different agencies say you can do
some things and you can't do other things. Some archaeologists
feel it's real significant, where other ones feel that it's
been studied and we can move it forward. We'd like your help on
that.
Wild and Scenic Rivers. Americans are rightfully proud of
the many beautiful rivers that course through our Nation.
Unfortunately, as things so often happen, management of these
rivers, and particularly those with segments that have been
designated under the Wild and Scenic River Act, has brought
harm to other segments in society. As you know in Oregon, there
have been suits brought on the Wild and Scenic River Act on the
Donner und Blitzen, the John Day, the Malheur, and the Owyhee
Rivers. More than 50 operations are affected by this.
I know you're also aware that the Oregon Omnibus Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act was authored by people from Oregon. Senators
Mark Hatfield and Bob Packwood, as well as Bob Smith and Peter
DeFazio, all wrote that after this law was passed it would not
have adverse effect on grazing, and much to their disdain, it
has had an effect 100 percent of the times it's been challenged
in the court. Because the standard is to enhance the quality of
the river, even though the grazing occurred before they were
Wild and Scenic, and therefore it's only logical that the
grazing helped create the value that the people wanted before
they designated it. And now they're trying to preclude that use
and that was not the desire and intent of Congress.
Wilderness Study Areas. When Wilderness Study Areas were
put in, they were mandated by Congress to be looked at for 10
years and they were supposed to be decided on whether to be
included in wilderness or to be let go. These areas are not
being let go as required by law. And they are what we call de
facto wilderness, because they're managed as wilderness, even
though they haven't been designated as wilderness. We ask your
help in that area.
Bureau of Land Management Grazing Regs. We just ask that
you monitor the process and help get them out as fast as you
can.
Endangered Species Act. As you know, tomorrow's a big day
in the House. It's a No. 1 priority for Public Lands and
National Cattlemen. Federal lands is causing great expense to
our people. Right now the wolf issue is very hot and we want to
sort of have the same protection, that when the United States
feels it needs to reintroduced wolves it should not be at the
expense of the people who are working the land, and have worked
it for centuries. The North Dakota situation was extremely
troubling to our membership. It's already been discussed, but
we're watching it carefully.
Also applicant status, it seems to be evolving, but we
would like your help in making sure that when there are
significant decisions, that us as land managers and the grazing
permitees are allowed to be at the table.
I would like to conclude at that point, and take any
questions that you may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Byrne follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael Byrne, President, Public Lands Council,
on Behalf of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to discuss the issues facing ranchers throughout the
western United States. My name is Mike Byrne, and I am a cattle rancher
from northern California and President of the Public Lands Council, a
national organization representing the interests of public lands
ranchers. My brother Dan and I are fourth generation ranchers in the
same area.
The Public Lands Council (PLC) represents sheep and cattle ranchers
in 15 western states whose livelihood and families have depended on
federal grazing permits dating back to the beginning of last century. I
am also here today on behalf of the National Cattlemen's Beef
Association (NCBA), the trade association for America's cattle farmers
and ranchers, and the marketing organization for the largest segment of
the nation's food and fiber industry. Both PLC and the NCBA strive to
create a stable regulatory environment in which our members can thrive
and continue to produce the safest and most nutritious meat in the
world.
The federal government manages over 450 million acres of land, and
nearly 300 million acres are classified as rangelands. Since the mid-
19th Century, ranchers have depended on the vitality of America's
rangelands for their survival, and as a result, ranchers have developed
an innate love for the land and personal stake in its preservation.
Nearly 40% of all cattle raised in the west spend some of their lives
on public land allotments. The public lands are critical to the
functioning of the livestock industry in the west. Environmental
services provided by ranching operations include open spaces, wildlife
habitat, clean air, clean water, and fire and weed control.
Today's ranchers represent some of America's last living
embodiments of true environmentalism. The American public and the
ranching industry benefit tremendously from the continued economic
vitality of the public land ranching industry. As we look to the future
of public lands ranching throughout the west, the Public Lands Council
is concerned about a number of important issues.
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
The Public Lands Council owes a debt of gratitude to this Congress
for its attention to grazing issues on Public Lands. In recent years,
Congress has made more funding available for monitoring of allotments,
has ensured that permit renewals would not be set aside because of the
agencies' inability to complete their responsibilities under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and has worked to restore a
balance between wild horse and burros and other multiple uses. For
these things, we applaud you.
Much work remains to be done. Grazing permit administration remains
a challenge that trips up the agencies. Our understanding is the
agencies are not processing enough permits to meet the schedule
Congress anticipated when it enacted legislation to postpone the
deadline for completing NEPA for permit renewals. When it tries to do
the NEPA it also fails with sometimes disastrous consequences for our
industry.
In the recent case of Western Watersheds Project versus the Bureau
of Land Management, the court enjoined grazing on several hundred
thousand acres of land in southeast Idaho, involving almost 100,000
animal unit months, and 28 allotments because the agency failed to meet
basic requirements under NEPA. In the view of our members, a
significant portion of the grazing industry in southeast Idaho, and the
families and communities that depend on it, was overturned through the
court injunction because the government failed to complete its
paperwork.
This cannot be allowed to be the standard of business for the
government. Businesses, families, communities cannot fail because the
government cannot complete paperwork that does little to affect
conservation on the ground, and certainly adds little to a ranching
operation. The Public Lands Council strongly supports the multiple use
sustained yield of public lands and the related consideration of
environmental factors in processing grazing permits. We also strongly
believe that a more sensible balance must be struck between
environmental paperwork and actual conservation as this dynamic relates
to grazing.
Part of the agencies' challenge in completing environmental
documentation can be addressed by more closely tailoring the paperwork
requirements to the actual environmental profile presented by grazing
or an activity ancillary to grazing. For example, it seems irrational
to produce full-scale NEPA documentation for longstanding continuing
activities that have long-ago made their imprint on the landscape. Once
the environmental baseline has been established in environmental
analysis, and no new information emerges, what sense does it make to
spend scarce federal resources on additional NEPA documentation? We
strongly urge this Committee to consider enacting legislation that
provides for categorical exclusions to be available for such classes of
grazing activities.
We also believe that categorical exclusions should be made
available for range improvements such as installation of fencing or
water facilities. These activities have a minimal impact on the land
but can play a critical role in putting in place a well-managed grazing
program resulting in important benefits for the resources.
NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT
Similar issues arise with the intersection of grazing with the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) as with NEPA. Federal land
managers have used the NHPA to block or significantly delay grazing in
areas where grazing has taken place for years and where no cultural
artifact of any significance has ever been identified.
A significant part of the land on which my cattle run have been
overtaken by invasive juniper trees. These trees turn grasslands into
fields of dirt eliminating habitat for wildlife, and forage for cattle.
Removal of junipers is considered to be a key practice for helping to
restore habitat for the sage grouse. Juniper encroachment on western
landscapes is of epidemic proportions. Again, NHPA has been invoked to
block my effort to clear the junipers from my federal allotments. All
Americans appreciate the importance of preserving our cultural
heritage. Still, ranchers and undoubtedly most Americans would have a
hard time understanding how this Act can be used to block activities
that would clearly benefit the resource, particularly in the absence of
any information indicating that cultural significant resources are
present in the area proposed for juniper clearing.
WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS
Americans are rightfully proud of the many beautiful rivers that
course through our nation. Unfortunately, as things so often happen,
management of these rivers, and particularly those with segments that
have been designated under the Wild River and Scenic Act, has brought
harm to other segments in society, in this case the state's rural
ranching communities. A better balance between ranching and river
protection needs to be struck under the Act.
The Wild and Scenic River Act protects existing uses along
designated river corridors, such as grazing. However, the Act also
requires these existing uses to protect and ``enhance'' the values for
which the river corridors were designated under the Act. PLC and NCBA
believes that properly managed grazing can be compatible with
maintaining healthy river corridors. Many of the rivers currently
designated achieved their status with years of grazing on their sides.
Unfortunately, as interpreted by the courts, the ``enhance''
standard in the Act poses a virtually impossible hurdle for grazing to
meet. This is a national issue in scope as there are more than 1.2
million acres included in the Wild and Scenic River system in the
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management land throughout the west.
Very roughly, it has been estimated that permitted grazing may occur on
one-third of these acres. In each instance in which environmentalists
have brought suit challenging grazing management plan for corridors
along rivers designated under the Act, grazing has been eliminated.
In Oregon alone, environmentalists have brought suit challenging
grazing under the Wild and Scenic River Act on the Donner and Blitzen,
the John Day, the Malheur, and the Owyhee Rivers. More than 50
operations ran cattle along the subject area of the Donner and Blitzen,
Owyhee, and Malheur Rivers, involving hundreds of people if you
consider that each operation often consisted of several different
families. Elimination of these ranch operations means the elimination
of a way of life that has been in place for generations in many cases.
Without the ranches and their economic activity, the local communities
obviously suffer as well, and ultimately the fabric of life in rural
Oregon and throughout the west.
The original congressional sponsors of the Oregon Omnibus Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act certainly believed grazing would continue in the wild
and scenic river corridors and communicated this belief to the local
ranching community. Congressman Bob Smith explained that he was seeking
to ensure the maintenance of the grazing status quo along the river, in
a letter to Senator Mark Hatfield dated August 29, 1988. Congressman
Peter DeFazio wrote that ``grazing and Ag practices are fully protected
under the Act,'' in a letter dated September 28, 1988. Senator Hatfield
wrote on October 3, 1988, that grazing under the Oregon legislation
would be allowed ``to the extent currently practiced.'' Senator Bob
Packwood wrote on January 13, 1989, to assure a constituent that
grazing ``will not be affected by this [new] law.''
PLC and NCBA ask this Committee to bring a better balance between
grazing and river protection to the Wild and Scenic River Act in line
with the expectations of congressional authors of wild and scenic river
legislation for Oregon. The people whose lives are rooted in rural
Oregon deserve the respect and attention of this body. The law should
prevent degradation of river values. It should also prevent degradation
and harm to rural families and communities in Oregon and throughout the
west. We would be pleased to work with the members of this committee to
bring a better balance to the Act.
WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS
PLC and NCBA understands, even if we do not support, the interest
in part of the public in creating new wilderness areas in the west. As
much as we oppose the creation of additional areas removed from
multiple use management, we even more oppose the way wilderness study
areas are administered. It is a fundamental abuse of the law and should
be stopped.
Federal agencies law provides for the designation of wilderness
study areas for periods of ten years after which the administration is
to make a recommendation to congress whether to establish a wilderness
in that area. In practice, once an area has been designated for study,
it is managed as a de facto wilderness past the time limit on the study
period.
If Congress intends to restrict access to still another class of
lands, it should debate the issue and pass a law to this effect. Until
that time, the authority to create study areas suggests that the
appropriateness of creating a new wilderness area will be studied, and
then at some point a decision will be made whether to do so or not. The
law needs to be clarified as to Congress' intent for the treatment and
disposition of these areas. We also ask Congress to release those areas
for which the study periods have expired.
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT GRAZING REGULATIONS
We are grateful to the BLM and this administration for considering
grazing in a systematic manner and nearly completing grazing
regulations that help restore the balance of multiple uses on public
lands. As are many, we are concerned with the delay in their issuance.
We urge this Committee to monitor the situation and do all it can to
ensure the regulations are issued as expeditiously as possible.
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
The number one resource priority for PLC and NCBA federal lands
members is to reform the Endangered Species Act. Livestock producers
are concerned with minimizing the red tape associated with species
protection and maximizing conservation efforts on the ground. We would
like to see a greater focus on the recovery of species. If a species
must be put on the list, there should be at least a concerted effort
made to identify the criteria needed to recover the species and then
take them off the list. We want these efforts to be based on reliable
information, not the biases of individual federal officials.
A significant effort has been made to pass ESA legislation in the
House. We will learn tomorrow whether this effort succeeds. The effort
in the Senate has moved at a slower pace. Anything the members of this
Committee can do to speed the process in the Senate will be greatly
appreciated by our members.
Senator Craig. Mike, thank you very much. That's a full
list.
Mr. Byrne. Yes.
Senator Craig. Now let me turn to Will Whelan, Idaho
director of government relations, The Nature Conservancy.
Will, it's great to have you before the committee.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM S. WHELAN, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT
RELATIONS, THE NATURE CONSERVANCY IN IDAHO
Mr. Whelan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
invitation to come and talk with you today.
Much of the focus today, as it seems on most days, is about
the conflict between environmentalists and ranching, and about
the intricacies of the rules and regulations that administer
our public lands. I would like to shift that focus, at least
for a few minutes, to a basic idea, and that is that ranchers
and conservationists have interests in common and that it is
imperative that they work together.
First, a word about The Nature Conservancy. As you know,
Senator, our work is grounded in pragmatism, in partnerships
with landowners, and achieving tangible results in local
places. An important part of our experience as conservationists
is the fact that we are a landowner. Many of our preserves in
the West are actually working ranches and we manage, with our
partners, grazing in an ecologically sustainable manner.
So the first point of common interest is the most
fundamental. And that is that ranching and wildlife both
benefit from healthy rangelands. It's the prime obligation of
these agencies, and I would also say the public and the
ranching industry, to preserve and protect the health of those
rangelands. I think there are many ways in which
conservationists and ranchers ought to be working together. I'm
going to highlight briefly three of those: weeds, the
conversion of ranch lands into subdivisions, and the issue of
monitoring.
There's nothing that unites people like having a common
enemy, and noxious or invasive weeds are about the scariest
villain imaginable and they are spreading with breathtaking
speed across the public lands in the West. Several years ago,
the Idaho Department of Agriculture estimated that 8 million
acres of rangelands in Idaho were infested with weeds. That's
about 15 percent of the entire State. It's a soft number, but
nevertheless one that ought to set off in our minds a real
alarm bell.
In Idaho, The Nature Conservancy is working with local
cooperative weed management areas that are composed of the
management agencies and landowners, and groups like ours, to
put together projects on the ground to fight these weeds.
In Hells Canyon, where we work with the Tri-State CWMA to
fight yellowstar thistle and actually have put onto the ground
SWAT teams, Conservancy SWAT teams go out and do early
detection and rapid response to new patches of yellowstar
thistle.
We want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your work with your
colleagues last Congress to pass the Noxious Weeds Control and
Eradication Act. This effort would provide Federal funding for
CWMA's. Finding an appropriation for this act should be a high
priority for this Congress.
A second area of common interest focuses on the loss of
private, working ranchlands to subdivisions and residential
development. As you know, the Western States lead the Nation in
population growth. And while this growth brings many economic
benefits to our region, it also is changing our landscapes very
quickly. So when ranchland gets developed we irretrievably lose
the wildlife habitat that is there, and importantly, we also
lose opportunities for good stewardship. Whether it's
controlling noxious weeds or improving water quality or
restoring fire adapted ecosystems, it's far better to practice
conservation when you're dealing with a few relatively large
and packed working ranches than when you're dealing with a
landscape that's been split up into ranchettes or subdivisions
with many owners--and many of them absentee landowners.
We have some success stories. As you know, we celebrated
earlier this summer at Henry's Lake, a landowner agreement that
would protect habitat from development right on the doorstep of
Yellowstone--one of the many projects around the country that
has been funded through the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
On a broader scale, programs like the grassland reserve, which
was part of the last farm bill, protects working ranches from
subdivision and conversion to other more intensive uses that
would sacrifice both the prime ranchlands and the other values
that those ranchlands offer.
My third suggestion for an area to work together deals with
rangeland health monitoring. Monitoring is a mundane label for
something that is absolutely fundamental to good management,
and that is understanding the condition and trend of the
rangelands. Our partners in the ranching industry have, like
us, made strong calls for improved monitoring.
We think that a key to success in rebuilding trust and
providing managers the flexibility that Mr. Norbury talked
about in responding to the condition of the land is to have
better information about what is happening with our rangelands,
their ecological condition, and their trend. That is a key
predicate for giving the land managers the authority to
respond. And we hope as the agency shapes these monitoring
programs that they will reach beyond the government agencies
and involve organizations like ours and the universities and
really put the best minds in the country together in thinking
about how best to approach this.
So, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, The Nature Conversancy
believes that it is possible, and even essential, that
environmentalists and ranchers work together. Whether one calls
it ``cooperative conservation'' or just being good neighbors on
the range, our most productive work is done when we find common
ground.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Whelan follows:]
Prepared Statement of William S. Whelan, Director of Government
Relations, The Nature Conservancy
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to address livestock grazing on the public lands of the
West. I am Will Whelan, Director of Government Relations of the Idaho
Chapter of The Nature Conservancy.
Much of the discussion on the topic of grazing today--and most
days--is focused on the high level of conflict between environmental
groups and public lands ranchers. I would like to shift that focus to
the proposition that conservationists and ranchers have important
interests in common and that it is imperative that they work together
to promote healthy rangelands. Although I believe this proposition to
be true throughout the West, my comments will draw primarily from our
experience in the sagebrush country of the Intermountain West.
First, I would like to say a few words about The Nature
Conservancy. The Nature Conservancy is dedicated to preserving the
plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of
life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive.
The Conservancy has more than 1.1 million individual members, including
4,500 in Idaho. We currently have programs in all 50 states and in 30
other nations.
Our conservation work is grounded in pragmatism, sound science,
partnerships with landowners, and tangible results in local places. An
important part of our experience as conservationists comes from the
fact that we are a landowner. Many of our preserves in the West are
working ranches where we and our partners manage livestock in an
ecologically sustainable manner. Some of these preserves include
grazing allotments on federal lands. In other words, we are a federal
lands grazing permittee at places like Red Canyon Ranch in Wyoming and
Pahsimeroi River Ranch in Idaho.
The starting point for my comments is also the most fundamental:
ranchers and wildlife both benefit from healthy rangelands.
Healthy rangelands produce more forage for livestock, resist
invasive weeds, and are more resilient after fire. Each of these
qualities is critical to successful long-term ranching operations. One
study of bluebunch wheatgrass-mountain big sagebrush sites demonstrated
that healthy range produces more than double the forage than degraded
range. Healthy rangelands also provide essential habitat for a wide
range of plants and animals.
The prime responsibility of public land agencies and grazers alike
is to manage human activities to ensure rangeland health.
There is cause for all of us to be concerned by what we are seeing
across the rangelands of the West. The rapid pace of degradation,
fragmentation, or total loss of sagebrush ecosystems presents a grave
threat to both the livestock industry and everyone else who cares about
the land. Sagebrush once covered roughly 150 million acres. Perhaps 50-
60% of the native sagebrush steppe now has either exotic annual
grasses, such as cheatgrass and medusahead rye, in the understory or
has been totally converted to non-native annual grasslands. These
annual grasses produce poor quality livestock forage compared to the
season-long forage provided by the native perennials. Large areas of
sagebrush have been entirely lost to subdivision, roads, alternative
crops, and other human development. Sagebrush habitats are now among
the most imperiled ecosystems in North America.
The speed of change in western landscapes is illustrated by the
Clover Fire, which in just a few days last summer covered nearly
200,000 acres in southwest Idaho. Such fires are increasingly common.
Incredibly, sixty percent of the land affected by the Clover Fire had
already burned in the previous 5-10 years. Highly flammable weeds such
as cheatgrass gain a foothold in the wake of these large burns and, in
turn, accelerate the frequency of fire in sagebrush country. Post-fire
assessment and appropriate restoration are essential in breaking the
cycle of fire followed by invasive weeds followed by yet more fire.
Public policy makers need to comprehend the scope of this threat to
rangeland health and recognize that our current land management is not
equal to the challenges that face us. If public lands ranching and
wildlife are to thrive in the Intermountain West, we must find new ways
to be effective together.
There are many ways in which ranchers and conservationists should
work together. I will address three: weeds, conversion of ranchlands to
subdivisions, and the need for better rangeland monitoring.
Nothing unites people like having a common enemy, and noxious or
invasive weeds are about the scariest villain imaginable. Alien plants
such as yellowstar thistle, leafy spurge, and rush skeleton weed
degrade the value of rangelands for both livestock and wildlife.
And, they are spreading with breathtaking speed. Several years ago,
the Idaho Department of Agriculture estimated that 8 million acres of
rangelands were infested in Idaho alone. That's about 15% of the entire
state.
In Idaho, The Nature Conservancy has made a major investment in
working with local cooperative weed management areas or CWMAs. These
local organizations bring landowners, all levels of government, and
groups like ours together to develop projects for fighting weeds. Here
is what we like about the CWMAs: they are responsive to local needs,
they are a vehicle for earning the support of landowners, and they
permit us to extend our reach by pooling resources with partners.
Our flagship project is taking place in Hells Canyon, where we work
with the Tri-State CWMA to implement a weed control strategy based on
prevention, early detection, and rapid response. Using innovative field
survey and remote sensing techniques, we are tracking the spread of
yellowstar thistle and other invasive plants. When we find a new patch
in an area of ecological importance, we send in a Conservancy SWAT team
to eradicate the weeds before they have a chance to spread. This is
challenging and sometimes frustrating work. We still have much to learn
about how to control a highly invasive plant in this rugged landscape.
But, our effort is beginning to produce results and is growing. This
year we added a second SWAT team and expanded our area of work to
include Adams and Owyhee counties in western Idaho.
We want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for working with your
colleagues last Congress to pass S. 144, the Noxious Weeds Control and
Eradication Act. This law authorizes federal support for local weed
control efforts such as CWMAs. Funding this effort should be a high
priority for this Congress.
The second area of common interest focuses on the loss of private
working ranchlands to subdivisions and residential development. The
western states lead the nation in population growth. This growth brings
many economic benefits to our region. But, it is also changing the
landscapes we cherish.
In 2002, the American Farmland Trust conducted a study of
ranchlands in seven western states. They found that over the next
twenty years, these states stand to lose 11 percent of all prime
ranchlands to urban development. As cities and subdivisions grow, many
ranchers are looking for ways to stay on the land and keep their local
communities, custom, and culture alive.
There are good reasons why conservationists should support working
rural landscapes that are in danger of being chopped up into ranchettes
and subdivisions. Most importantly, these private lands contain
essential wildlife habitat. For instance, in Wyoming, more than fifty
percent of the winter habitat for big game species is on private land.
In Idaho, the Conservancy is concerned about wildlife habitat losses in
places such as Henry's Lake, the valley bottoms of the Upper Salmon
River country, and the Boise Foothills.
Numerous studies show negative ecological effects from conversion
of ranchlands. A study in a Colorado watershed compared bird, predator,
and plant biodiversity in sprawling areas with that in nature reserves
and ranchlands. Researchers found that rural residential developments
supported the highest number of human adapted bird species and domestic
predators (dogs and cats) at the expense of native plants and bird
species.
Moreover, the fragmentation of working ranches into small parcels
closes off options for good stewardship. Whether it is controlling
noxious weeds, improving water quality, or restoring fire adapted
ecosystems, it is far more feasible to practice good conservation in a
landscape that has intact ranches than in an area with dozens of small
parcels--often with absentee owners.
There are success stories across the West. For instance, this
summer, we celebrated a voluntary landowner agreement that will keep a
large ranch at Henry's Lake, virtually at the doorstep of Yellowstone
National Park, from being turned into subdivisions. For years, the
Moedl Family had turned down lucrative offers from developers. With
your help, Mr. Chairman, the Bureau of Land Management received a Land
and Water Conservation Fund appropriation to secure a conservation
easement on important wildlife habitat. The Nature Conservancy
negotiated the agreement with the Moedls. This was a win for wildlife
and a multi-generational ranching family.
The Grassland Reserve Program is another success story. This
program within the Farm Bill gave financial incentives to ranchers who
agreed not to convert their ranchlands to other uses. The program was
strongly supported by both the National Cattlemen's Beef Association
and The Nature Conservancy. We hope that the 2007 Farm Bill will
continue this important effort.
It is clear that we can work together for voluntary incentives,
such as GRP, that protect family ranches while providing clean water,
natural areas, and wildlife habitat
My third suggestion for working together involves rangeland health
monitoring. Monitoring is a mundane label for a thing that is
absolutely fundamental to good management: understanding the condition
and trend of the land. If we do not know what is happening on the land,
we cannot make sound decisions. Our partners in the ranching industry
have, like us, made strong calls for improved monitoring.
One way to think about the importance of monitoring is imagine what
highly successful public rangeland management might look like. Imagine
that we make all the right decisions today and in ten years we return
to this committee to celebrate our success. Here are some of the
elements that would make us proud. First, we would talk about how we
have achieved a broadly shared understanding of the condition of our
rangelands as well as their ecological trend. Public land managers have
both the capacity and the policy support to manage grazing in response
to range condition. Our improved understanding of the land and its
needs has allowed us to direct the public's money wisely to places and
projects that make the most difference for rangeland health. Ranchers
are regarded as part of the solution--not merely the source of the
problem.
Where problems are identified, the agencies and ranchers have the
flexibility to shape management measures that work for the rancher and
are accountable to the condition of the land. ``One size fits all''
thinking is a thing of the past. There is trust among the public land
managers, the industry, and the public.
Needless to say, that scenario does not describe what we have
today. What needs to change? The Conservancy believes key success is
having a scientifically sound, cost-effective, and fully implemented
system for monitoring rangeland health. Unless and until we have a
strong grasp on what is happening on our public rangelands, the trust,
the flexibility, and the support for action will remain elusive.
For the last four years, The Nature Conservancy has been working in
a collaborative effort with ranchers, recreationists and
environmentalists in Owyhee County, Idaho. Interestingly, when the
various groups first came forward with their proposals, the Owyhee
Cattle Association and the Conservancy both arrived at the meeting with
very similar calls for improved landscape monitoring. Monitoring is not
an uncomplicated issue but it is one that can unite different
interests.
Here are some suggestions:
Reach beyond the land management agencies. Universities,
industry groups, and non-governmental organizations have much
to contribute. The level of their understanding of and support
for the monitoring system will do much to determine the level
of conflict in rangeland management.
Conduct monitoring at multiple scales. In addition to
allotment or pasture monitoring, we need to look at the
landscape and even regional scale to comprehend the truly huge
changes we are seeing in rangeland health. These broader views
will help us allocate resources to the places where they are
most needed and fashion landscape-specific strategies.
Exciting, new, and cost-effective methods for large-scale
monitoring using a combination of remote sensing and on-the-
ground data offer real promise.
Increase the agency's capacity to put people in the field
for monitoring at all levels and strengthen agency-wide systems
for continuing education for field staff.
The need to improve monitoring is not unique to the federal land
agencies. The Conservancy has examined its own programs throughout the
world and determined that we need to greatly improve our own capacity
for monitoring and measuring success. We have created an organization-
wide team to address this challenge and made a commitment that we will
change the way we work in response to what we learn.
CONCLUSION
In the public policy arena, Americans today tend to focus on what
divides us. Battles over rangelands will undoubtedly continue. But, the
Nature Conservancy believes it is possible--even essential--that
environmentalists and ranchers work together. We face many of the same
threats. We share important interests in promoting rangeland health.
Whether one calls it ``cooperative conservation'' or just being good
neighbors on the range, our most productive work is done when we find
common ground.
Senator Craig. Well, thank you very much for that
testimony. Now let me turn to Rick Knight. Dr. Knight is a
wildlife ecologist from Colorado State University.
STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD L. KNIGHT, PROFESSOR OF WILDLIFE
CONSERVATION, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, RANGELAND, AND WATERSHED
STEWARDSHIP, COLLEGE OF NATURAL RESOURCES, COLORADO STATE
UNIVERSITY
Dr. Knight. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Please
listen to this: ``Livestock grazing has profound ecological
costs, causing a loss of biodiversity, disruption of ecosystem
function, and irreversible changes in ecosystem structure.''
Now please listen to this: ``The trend of U.S. public
rangelands has been upwards over a number of decades and the
land is in the best ecological condition of this century.''
Could both be right, or wrong? In fact both of those
statements were lifted from peer reviewed science papers
published during the last 2 years.
Because the American West is half public and half private,
and because so many Western ranchers are dependent on public
grazing lands for an economically viable operation, one cannot
discuss public-lands grazing without acknowledging the half of
the American West that is privately owned. Their fates, and the
fate of the New West, are entwined.
Approximately 21,000 ranch families who operate
approximately 30,000 Federal grazing leases own approximately
107 million acres of private land. Private lands in the
American West are the most biologically productive. They have
the best soils, they occur at the lower elevations and they're
the best watered. These lands are critical for the maintenance
of the West's natural heritage.
What gives urgency to the future of ranching is the rapid
conversion of ranchlands to rural housing developments in much
of the West. As ranches fold and reappear in ranchettes 20
miles from town and covering hillsides, people are increasingly
wondering what this New West will resemble. For, with the end
of ranching and the beginning of rural sprawl comes the
question most central to conservationists like me: can we
support our region's natural heritage on a landscape that is
half public and half private, but where the private lands are
fractured, settled and developed?
Now, some people might think it's a far stretch to connect
livestock raising with former city people, now living country,
but I see it differently. Ranching and exurban development are
part of a single spectrum of land use, representing the
principal alternative uses of rangelands in much of the New
West. This is so because the protection of open space, wildlife
habitat and the integrity of rural communities runs right
through agriculture. At one end stands the rancher, at the
other end a developer. As we transform the West seemingly
overnight, we see the region's private lands reincarnated as
ranchettes, those ubiquitous estates, ranging from mobile homes
to ``McMansions'', that are covering hillsides faster than
herefords can exit.
We have arrived at a point in our history where
conversations about western lands and land health, grazing and
ranchettes cannot be separated. They must be dealt with
simultaneously when discussing the future of our next West. The
science needs to be accurate, not value driven, and the
conversations about culture and natural histories need to be
honest, not mythologized.
Below are five observations that are explained in my
testimony and supported by good science that pertain to
ranching in the West. One, ecologically sustainable ranching is
possible. Two, rural cultures matter. Three, ranchers protect
open space. Four, ranchers practice husbandry and stewardship.
And five, the movement to end public land grazing is
detrimental to a healthy American West.
Ranch families, working viable ranches that sustain
biodiversity and contribute to the social fabric and local
economies, are critical to a West that works.
Aldo Leopold, a pioneer in the American conservation
movement and the father of wildlife management, wrote 72 years
ago in his seminal work Game Management this: ``The central
thesis of conservation is this: game can be restored by the
creative use of the same tools which have heretofore destroyed
it--axe, plow, cow, fire, and gun.'' Leopold's words
anticipated today's time when land stewards, such as ranchers
and loggers, would be needed to restore health to degraded
range and forest lands. We run a great risk if we lose ranching
as an economy in the New West. I suspect, in the not too
distant future, public land agencies, such as the Forest
Service and BLM, will be taking Leopold's words to heart and
using livestock to help restore degraded rangelands. This may
seem a far stretch in the eyes of some, but only for those who
have not walked the land, and listened to what it says.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Knight follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Richard L. Knight, Professor of Wildlife
Conservation, Department of Forest, Rangeland, and Watershed
Stewardship, College of Natural Resources, Colorado State University
Listen to this: ``Livestock grazing has profound ecological costs,
causing a loss of biodiversity, disruption of ecosystem function, and
irreversible changes in ecosystem structure.'' Now this: ``The trend of
U.S. public rangelands has been upwards over a number of decades and
the land is in the best ecological condition of this century [the
20th].''
Could both be right, or wrong? In 1994, the research arm of
America's most august group of scientists reported that inadequate
monitoring standards prevented them from concluding whether livestock
grazing had degraded rangelands in the West. Critically, they concluded
that, ``Many reports depend on the opinion and judgment of both field
personnel and authors rather than on current data. The reports cited
above [this report] attempted to combine these data into a national-
level assessment of rangelands, but the results have been
inconclusive.''
Because the American West is half public and half private, and
because so many Western ranchers are dependent on public grazing lands
for an economically viable operation, one cannot discuss public-lands
grazing without acknowledging the half of the American West that is
privately owned. Their fates, and the fate of the New West, are
entwined, indivisible.
The future of Western ranching and the role of science in shaping
public policy regarding ranching is a topic still under discussion.
What gives urgency to this issue is the rapid conversion of ranchland
to rural housing developments in much of the West. As ranches fold and
reappear in ranchettes, 20 miles from town and covering hillsides,
people of the West and beyond increasingly wonder what this New West
will resemble. For with the end of ranching and the beginning of rural
sprawl comes the question most central to conservationists, ``Can we
support our region's natural heritage on a landscape, half public and
half private, but where the private land is fractured, settled, and
developed?''
Some people might think it is a far stretch to connect livestock
grazing with former-city-people-now-living-country but I see it
differently. Ranching and exurban development are part of a single
spectrum of land use in the West, representing the principal
alternative uses of rangelands in much of the New West. This is so
because the protection of open space, wildlife habitat, and the
aesthetics of rural areas runs right through agriculture; at one end
stands a rancher, at the other a developer. As we transform the West,
seemingly overnight, we see the region's private lands reincarnated as
ranchettes, those ubiquitous estates, ranging from mobile homes to
mansions, that are covering hillsides faster than Herefords can exit.
We have arrived at a point in Western history where conversations about
Western lands and land health, grazing and ranchettes, are entwined,
cannot be separated. They must be dealt with simultaneously when
discussing the future of our Next West. The science needs to be
accurate, not value driven, and the conversations about cultural and
natural histories need to be honest, not mythologized. Science is
important in these discussions, but to be useful, the science must be
done carefully so that the answers are the best we can get. Ranchers
and scientists and environmentalists need to look better and listen
more carefully. Below are five observations, supported by social and
ecological science.
a. Ecologically Sustainable Ranching is Possible. Ranchers
understand that to be economically viable on a sustainable basis
requires one to ranch in a way that is ecologically sound. Rangelands
co-evolved with grazing and browsing (natural ecological processes). In
the absence of grazing and browsing rangelands shift into something
else. Science is just now catching up to what many ranchers already
know--that by letting animals behave within ``nature's model'' they can
have their grass and eat it too.
b. Cultures Matter. Ranching in the American West is over 400 years
old. Indeed, it is the oldest sustainable use of Western lands. More
than any other justification, the timeless traditions of ranching
legitimizes its existence and continuation. An irony hard to ignore is
evident when Americans argue for the maintenance of biodiversity
without realizing the equal legitimacy of different cultures.
c. Ranchers Protect Open Space. It is estimated that the
approximately 21,000 ranch families who operate approximately 30,000
federal grazing leases own at least 107 million acres of private land.
Private lands in the American West are the most biologically productive
(deepest soils, best watered, lower elevations). These lands are
critical for the maintenance of the West's natural heritage. The
alternative uses of these lands (residential and commercial
development) are ecologically and economically flawed. In the only
scientific study to date that has compared biodiversity (carnivores,
songbirds, and plant communities) on lands that are grazed with
equivalent ungrazed lands, the ranchlands supported more species of
conservation concern and fewer invasive species; while the ungrazed
lands were dominated by non-native species. In addition, the
alternative land use to private ranchlands is residential and
commercial development. Studies to date show that these rural lands,
once they have been sub-divided, support the same human-adapted species
that one finds in city suburbs. This occurs at the expense of species
of conservation interest, hastening the day that these species become
candidates for Federal protection. There is a perverse economic twist
to this land-use conversion as well. Property taxes from exurban
development (former ranchlands now in ``ranchettes'') fail to cover the
economic costs of county governments and local school districts. For
example, in Wyoming, for every dollar of property taxes paid by
ranchette owners, the cost of county services and schools is $2.40;
whereas, for every dollar of property taxes paid by ranchers and
farmers, county and school costs are only $0.69. As the saying goes,
``cows don't drive and wheat doesn't go to school!''
d. Ranchers Practice Husbandry and Stewardship. Husbanding domestic
animals and stewarding open lands are traditions in America practiced
by ranchers. These skills no longer exist in any other American
enterprise. By their very scarcity, they are being increasingly valued
by Americans who are paying attention.
e. The Movement to End Public-land Grazing is Detrimental to a
Healthy American West. The reciprocal demonization of ranchers and
environmentalists--the so-called ``rangeland conflict''--has dominated
public debate for too long. It has not contributed to on-the-ground
solutions. Instead, it has enraged rural Westerners, paralyzed agencies
and frustrated public leaders. It has divided people who might
otherwise be united by common goals: the conservation of magnificent
open spaces, scarce water resources, and imperiled wildlife. If it
continues, both sides will lose what they purport to defend. The
increasing popularity of rancher-led initiatives (community-based
conservation, cattlemen land trusts, grass-banking, healthy beef
initiatives, cooperative conservation initiatives) demonstrate that
cattlemen are an essential pillar in an American West that works
better.
Ranch families working viable ranches that sustain biodiversity and
contribute to the social fabric and local economies are critical to a
West that works. Indeed, in most of the arid West, ranching is now the
only livelihood that is based on human adaptation to wild biotic
communities. Its ultimate competitive advantage is equivalent to its
ecological sustainability; grass and cattle can grow on their own, with
minimal human inputs. No matter how grave its flaws or its historical
misdeeds, ranching now stands out for its dependence on native biota
and unaltered landscapes.
Aldo Leopold, a pioneer in the American conservation movement, and
the father of wildlife management, wrote 72 years ago in his seminal
work Game Management:
``The central thesis of conservation is this: game can be
restored by the creative use of the same tools which have
heretofore destroyed it--axe, plow, cow, fire, and gun.''
Leopold's words anticipated today's time when land stewards, such
as ranchers and loggers, would be needed to restore health to degraded
range and forest lands. We run a great risk if we lose ranching as an
economy in the New West. I suspect, in the not too distant future,
public land agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management, will be
taking Leopold's words to heart and using cows and sheep to help
restore degraded rangelands. This may seem a far stretch in the eyes of
some, but only for those who have not walked the land, and listened to
what it says.
Senator Craig. Thank you. Thank you very much for that
testimony. It was about 25 years ago when I came to Congress.
And I was bemoaning the fact that if the rancher went away the
land would be broken up, the contiguousness of it would be in
trouble. And I am increasingly alarmed by the ``McMansions'', I
believe you called them Doctor, that are probably growing
faster in Idaho right now than grazing itself. And it will
change, and it is changing fundamentally the character of the
land, from wildlife movement and migration patterns, obviously,
to the land conditions itself.
We've already found that the Forest Service is spending
more time putting out fires to protect large private homes than
they are protecting forested lands and all of that type of
thing. So those kinds of things are all happening, and I must
say that your comments are interesting and reassuring today. I
suspect, though you're suspect, you've got boots on.
Dr. Knight. Well, I came to the Nation's Capitol, sir.
Senator Craig. Excuse me.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Knight. I didn't mean that, Senator. I didn't mean it.
Senator Craig. Does that mean that anticipates wading
through?
Dr. Knight. No, sir. No.
Senator Craig. Let's leave that on the record, it's
probably somewhat appropriate.
Dr. Knight. I'm not Ward Churchill, from the University of
Colorado.
Senator Craig. You wouldn't be before my committee if you
were. I would not give you that respect.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Knight. Yes, sir.
Senator Craig. Okay. Fine enough. But thank you very much
for that testimony. Why do so many think that grazing on public
lands is harmful?
Dr. Knight. Thank you for asking that, sir. As an ecologist
and a scientist I've been trying to figure that out too.
Because I probably came to ranching, as so many contemporary
Americans growing up in a suburb, almost believing from your
mother's milk that grazing was detrimental to land health,
logging was detrimental to land health, and water development
and diversion is detrimental to land health.
Well, I've got my Ph.D., and I've been in wildlife science
for some 30 years, and the best I can understand it is we have
a certain degree, regretfully, of value-driven science. And at
the end of the day, scientists are people before they are
scientists, so you do see value-driven science.
Second--and this is probably the most flagrant violation--
you see lots of published peer review science where it had
inappropriate study design. For example, you might find them
looking at one area on a certain soil type and elevation and
plant community and comparing it to another area, one grazed
and one not grazed, but on a different soil type, in a
different plant community, a different elevation. Naturally the
results are going to vary because of those fundamental
differences.
And then third, because it is such a topical issue, we have
lots of non-scientists mimicking scientists and writing about
grazing as though they are scientists. For example, Debra
Donahue's book about western lifestyle grazing. Mrs. Donahue is
a lawyer, she's not a scientist.
When you exclude those three categories, Mr. Chairman, what
you end up with, by and large, because we can certainly
overgraze landscapes just like we can over-log them or over-
recreate them, but when you eliminate those three categories
and you look at studies that are well designed by people who
understand ecological processes and people that are
appropriately trained, you tend to find the science supports
livestock grazing.
I'm a conservation biologist. I support livestock grazing,
because I've looked at those studies and I've conducted studies
like that myself, and they actually support this
generalization, grazing done well actually is not even benign,
it actually promotes land health, just as Aldo Leopold
suggested it would 72 years ago.
Senator Craig. Well, thank you for your testimony and for
that statement. I think it's tremendously valuable that folks
like you are willing to stand up from your professional
background and speak of these kinds of issues in ways that some
will listen to.
Will, thank you for your positive testimony, and I think
the Nature Conservancy and Idaho has some very interesting and
valuable partnerships underway, and it is important. You spoke
of the monitoring of weeds in Hells Canyon, and a variety of
the weed projects we have underway at this moment that both of
us think are critically important for the health of our
rangelands. What are some of the lessons you've learned from
this effort, especially the Hells Canyon effort?
Mr. Whelan. Thank you, Senator. It's been an interesting
and difficult and at times frustrating, but very valuable 3
years doing this project in Hells Canyon, and I think we can
derive a couple of different lessons from it--lessons, I'll
say, by the way, we intend to fully share with the land
management agencies who are our partners in this project.
First of all, the importance of getting a handle on the
dynamics of the spread of these weeds. We initially thought
that we were going to do this by using satellites, but it
didn't work. Now what we do, we put people on planes and
helicopters, where we can fly 20,000 acres in a day, and find
the leading edge of invasion and get the spots we need to
treat.
The second lesson is the importance of having people who
can get on the ground quickly, regardless of the ownership of
the land in question. Getting people to the right spot quickly
is key. For that we have SWAT teams. And some of this country,
as you know, because it's kind of your home country, is
extremely rugged. Last year we had a fellow who was kicked in
the arm by a mule and sent to the hospital. We have mule teams
going into some of these places, but getting in there while you
have an invasion, just beginning is the key. Mobility and eyes
in the sky are key to what we're learning in Hells Canyon.
Senator Craig. Well, you're right. Some of that country
is--I think there's an expression called steep as a cow's
face--even steeper.
Mr. Whelan. Yes, if you straightened it out, I think we'd
have an extra state hidden in that country somewhere.
Senator Craig. I've tried to convince Texans of that.
They'd be relatively small. Anyway, you did mention, and it
does lend itself in part to the frustration that I think Dr.
Knight has spoken to, when you were dealing with Dennis Moedl--
that's right over in the Henry's Lake area--and the work that
has gone on there to basically save a ranch, and save a
resource, and save a habitat, and save an open space, and save
a vista. Speak to that a little more if you would, please,
because that's a partnership that seems to be applicable in a
variety of areas, if we could get to it.
Mr. Whelan. Thank you, Senator. The issue of growth and
subdivision is not an issue everywhere in Idaho, but you have
to imagine a landscape of really breathtaking beauty, on the
doorstep of Yellowstone, about a 20 minute drive from West
Yellowstone, in an area of private land that sits between
Yellowstone National Park and the Centennial Range. It's a
critical wildlife habitat corridor, for big game and a number
of animals. It's also becoming very, very desirable real
estate. The Moedl family has been in the ranching business for
generations and they were getting offers from developers to
subdivide that ranch, and that would have cut off those
migration routes between those mountain ranges. He also runs a
summer camp for kids, brings kids out there and teaches them
how to ride a horse, how to take care of cows, teaches them, I
think, some character along the way. And he wanted to keep that
ranch and that summer camp in the family, and by working
through the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and the Bureau of
Land Management, the Nature Conservancy was able to negotiate a
deal with the Moedl family, that compensated him for some of
the development value of that land, in exchange for a
commitment to keep the habitat in open space. It's just a
wonderful project, we're very proud of it, and thank you for
your help in making that happen.
Senator Craig. Well, like I say, it doesn't fit in every
instance, certainly, but I think we need to explore that more,
especially as these land values become so phenomenally enticing
to generational ranchers who have really founded a lifestyle
more than an investment of substantial return, as we know that
cattle ranching can be. And it is very frustrating to see some
of these very valuable land resources--that's what I view
ranches to be--broken up in the way that they are in some
instances happening, so thank you for that.
You lay out good reasons for why conservationists should
support working landscapes, do you have sense for why so many
within the conservation community don't recognize this
combination of values at work?
Mr. Whelan. I don't, Senator. I'm not sure I can put myself
into the head of our colleagues and friends in the conservation
movement all the time, you know. And I think Dr. Knight was
correct in saying that it is possible to do grazing in an
ecologically sound manner. If that were not true, we would not
be having cows on preserves like the 45 Ranch, the Pahsimeroi
Ranch, and the Crooked Creek Ranch. Grazing has an effect on
the ground, and it's critical that that grazing be accountable
to the condition of the land and that it is managed for
rangeland health. That's in all of our interests. But it is
increasingly clear throughout the West that we have a challenge
maintaining the pattern of land ownership on private lands and
what we do with rural landscapes will have a lot to do with how
much wildlife habitat remains on private lands and the seasonal
home for wildlife that uses the public lands.
Senator Craig. Well, thank you for those comments and for
what The Nature Conservancy is doing at this moment in Idaho. I
think that there are some very valuable partnerships there that
are working well for the land and the resources and the people
involved.
Mike, thank you for being here and speaking out as you
have. I'm concerned about the situation you've described
concerning the Wild and Scenic Rivers designation and grazing.
It's been my belief that Congress provided protections to
existing grazing uses in the original act. Is there something
unique to the Oregon designations that have facilitated these
court decisions?
Mr. Byrne. I'm not aware if it's unique to Oregon, but I
think the word ``enhance'' seems to be the one that the courts
are getting hung up on. Instead of maintaining high quality
habitat, they're saying that the existing uses are authorized,
but they need to enhance the value of the Wild and Scenic.
Jeff is here, our national director. Do you have anything
to add?
Mr. Eisenberg. Well, Dr. Knight in his very opening comment
made a statement that was really extremely profound. And I'm
always frustrated by--from where you measure, as to what
enhanced is, or what improved is. I was reading the diary of a
cavalry officer in Idaho in the mid-1800's. Now from what basis
he could--he had knowledge, I'm not sure, but he had made the
observation that by the mid-1800's, Idaho rangeland had been
depleted by over 50 percent. And of course that was the years
of massive horse grazing and southwestern cattle movements up
across the rangelands of Idaho and Montana and Wyoming. And
I've always, from that, said where do you measure? Yesterday?
And do you view that as the state of depletion of 20 years ago
and the progress that's been made? And my guess is probably the
word ``enhance'' has frustrated and/or been effectively used as
a tool by some who might otherwise find another tool.
Senator Craig. Well, thank you for your observations. I do
hope that the House is successful in passage of some
modifications in the Endangered Species Act. We will attempt
here to deal with them in a way that can produce a changed law
that allows some flexibility and some management instead of the
lockstep that we've seen largely incorporated in court
decisions over the last several decades that is well beyond
what an Oregonian by the name of Mark Hatfield intended the
Endangered Species Act to be, as did many others. Those still
living who were there at its inception are looking at it now
and saying, no, that is not what we intended. I don't think it
was ever intended that you list and have less than about a 1-
percent recovery of all of those listed. It has really become a
tool for exclusion of activity more than it's become a tool of
effective management to save species, and hopefully we can
change some of that. And it is difficult, obviously, because of
how some interest groups hold the act, or see it as a valuable
tool to accomplish what their perception of land use, or non-
use ought to be.
Well, gentlemen, we thank you very much for your testimony,
and as I said in my opening remarks we will monitor very
closely what our agencies do over the next several years as we
try to rid ourselves of the backlog and create the kind of due
diligence that is necessary within the agency itself. But I do
think that all three of you have expressed what--at least in
some ways--is a growing understanding about the value of
properly managed grazing in the whole of the ecosystems of
our--especially in the West where you have environments that
are by definition fragile and yet can be highly productive and
beneficial to surrounding communities of interest for a lot of
reasons. So, again, thank you very much for you time before the
committee. It's appreciated, and I think the record you helped
us build today is very valuable.
The committee will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon at 3:45 p.m. the hearing was adjourned]
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Department of the Interior,
Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs,
Washington, DC, November 10, 2005.
Hon. Gordon Smith,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Smith: Enclosed are responses prepared by the Bureau
of Land Management to questions submitted following the September 28,
2005, hearing regarding Grazing.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this material to the
Committee.
Sincerely,
Jane M. Lyder,
Legislative Counsel.
[Enclosure.]
Question 1. As you know, the Owyhee court decision asserted that
grazing in Wild and Scenic river corridors must ``protect and enhance''
biological resources in the area. However, the decision disregarded the
fact that grazing existed long before the Wild and Scenic River
designation. It also disregarded the fact that Congress intended
grazing to continue in the area. Is there. a better way for Congress to
assert its intentions when it designates land for certain uses?
Answer. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) states that a river
that is subject to the WSRA shall be administered ``in such manner as
to protect and enhance the values which caused it to be included in
said system without, insofar as is consistent therewith, limiting other
uses that do not. substantially interfere with public use and enjoyment
of these values.'' (Public Law 90-542, Sec. 10(a)). A management plan
for a WSRA river segment ``may establish varying degrees of intensity
for its protection and development, based on the special attributes of
the area.'' (Id.) Thus, the WSRA does not ban activities such as
domestic livestock `razing, but requires that the BLM manage them in a
manner that is consistent with the protection and enhancement of the
river values. The BLM is given the discretion to strike this balance,
while satisfying the mandates of other statutes, such as the Taylor
Grazing Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and the Public
Rangelands Improvement Act.
Management decisions are made through BLM's planning process that.
provide for long-term direction for each of the wild and scenic rivers.
In developing these plans, the BLM works with all interested parties to
balance the wide range of uses that occur on wild and scenic rivers. In
most plans, the BLM does in fact balance the management of the river
resource with grazing, Grazing still occurs along the vast majority of
BLM managed wild and scenic rivers.
In the Owyhee case, a solution for the area's complex management
issues proved extremely difficult. The issue of :razing within the
rugged Owyhee Wild and Scenic River corridor arose as a result. of the
difficulty in reaching consensus regarding how livestock grazing within
the corridor could be economically managed while protecting and
enhancing important resource values. In this situation, while the BLM
attempted to maintain grazing within the canyon, approximately 25% of
the area was identified by the BLM as ``areas of concern'' due to the
impact of cattle grazing. The Court found that. for the ``areas of
concern,'' the BLM management plan was not adequate for the protection
of the areas river values and ordered the area to be closed to grazing.
In the end, the BLM had. to permanently reduce 958 AUMs on 18 miles of
the Owyhee. Grazing continues meanwhile, on the uplands surrounding the
canyon and on the other portions of the Owyhee Wild and Scenic River.
The BLM will continue to work., through its land use planning
process, to balance the requirements of all applicable laws and the
needs of all users.