PREPARED STATEMENT OF MIKE DOMBECK, ACTING DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, Department oF THE INTERIOR I appreciate the opportunity to testify on S. 852, the Livestock Grazing Act. Over the past two-and-a-half years, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has worked with thousands of western citizens to develop collaborative approaches to public rangeland management. After all of our western town hall meetings, public input, and briefings, we are well-equipped to speak about S. 852. The bill would change many provisions of existing law and regulation and essentially replace the BLM's new cooperative relations and grazing administration rules. The Department would default on its responsibility to the thousands of Western citizens who helped to shape BLM's approach, if the Department did not represent their views. I speak to you today in opposition to S. 852 a bill that turns back the clock on rangeland management and in defense of BLM's "healthy rangelands” strategy that resulted from our new approach and consensus building effort. As stated many times by the BLM, the public rangelands are beginning to regain their health. In many places, they are in better shape today than they were fifty years ago. This is due, in part, to a deeper understanding of range ecology and improved grazing practices implemented by ranchers and the agencies that manage these public lands. But we have only begun this effort that will eventually lead to better public resources for all Americans. We must do more to pass on sustainable resources to our children, because: • Millions of acres of public land remain in poor condition; • Too many watersheds are not producing their full range of benefits; • Too many soils continue to lose fertility; • Poisonous, exotic weeds are a "biological nightmare" that reduce the land's ability to sustain itself; and • Too many streams and riparian areas are still degraded. We must restore the ability of the public rangelands to produce • more clean water, • better quality fish and wildlife habitat, and • more quality forage. The BLM's strategy to improve rangeland health is built on the collective wisdom of 60 years of applied science. It was shaped by two years of public discussion that resulted in 20,000 letters proposing 38,000 recommendations. Our program will improve rangeland health through a balanced and practical approach that demonstrates how collaborative stewardship can meet the basic needs of both people and nature. We have prepared a detailed comparison and analysis of BLM's old livestock grazing regulations, our new regulations, and the provisions of the Livestock Grazing Act, S. 852 that I am submitting as part of our written testimony. Our analyses make clear our many strong objections to the bill. I am also including in the written record a piece entitled "Just the Facts," to clarify several misunderstandings of our new regulations. Now, I will speak to two of the principal differences between the bill and BLM's healthy rangeland strategy. First, the grazing bill • focuses public rangeland allocation and management on the single use of livestock grazing de-emphasizing other uses and values of the public lands such as mining, hunting, recreation and wildlife. Many are surprised to learn that over 65 million people visited public lands last year for recreation alone. In comparison, our strategy focuses on maintaining the health and productivity of all the resources and values of the public lands. Experience has proven that we cannot emphasize a single use of the public lands without compromising other uses and values. Where S. 852 concentrates exclusively on livestock production, our approach encourages collaborative management to sustain the land's overall productivity. I firmly believe that our approach is more responsive and will better serve all of those who use and value the public lands. Second, the bill would severely limit public involvement in the management of the public lands. Over the past 20 years, it has become clear that the most effective stewardship for both natural resources and people occurs when the many public land interests ...work together for what President Theodore Roosevelt called "common solutions to common problems for the common good." We must move beyond public land users sitting at opposite ends of the table arguing over the use of shared resources waiting for court ordered "solutions." If we regress to such management the public lands, and the people who depend on them most, suffer. S. 852 limits the ability of anyone who does not graze livestock to have a say in public land management and planning. To deny citizens a seat at the table a voice in the process would be a major step backward. In contrast to the bill, our program to improve public rangeland management would assist all who value the public lands to work in a collaborative manner to define a common vision for their health. In order to bring together all of those who use and care for the public lands, we have met with Governors Marc Racicot, Roy Romer and all other western Governors, or their staffs, to select a model for creating diverse and balanced citizen advisory councils. BLM's approach is not one-size-fits-all. In fact, it is the opposite. We intend for local citizens to be in the lead. Our Resource Advisory Councils are tailored to best meet the needs of all those who use and appreciate public lands, be they families on outings, ranchers, anglers, or oil and gas developers. Over time, our approach will restore the productivity and diversity of 100,000 acres of riparian areas; enhance recreational opportunities such as fishing, hunting, hiking, tourism, The health of our watersheds is what ultimately sustains livestock production in the West. BLM's program will improve watershed health and • reduce erosion; • increase the quality and quantity of forage; • increase water quality and ground water recharge; and ⚫ restore or enhance streamflows. We cannot meet the needs of the people if we do not maintain the health of the land. BLM's healthy rangelands approach moves resource decision-making from offices in Washington, D.C. to rangelands of the West. In contrast, S. 852 offers 93 pages of detailed instruction and top-down direction to local managers and public land users. With all due respect, we think that those who live closer to the resources have a better understanding of how to meet people's needs within the limits of sustainability. This bill is a departure from traditional multiple use management in that it appears to elevate one use over other uses of public lands. It changes the standards that courts apply and creates the potential for disruptive litigation for years to come. We cannot allow lawsuits, judicial injunctions, and one-size-fits-all remedies to impede our stewardship responsibilities. Good stewardship must provide managers and local communities with the tools and flexibility to develop lasting solutions for all public land uses and values. BLM's approach provides this flexibility; S. 852 does not. For example, S. 852 eliminates a rancher's ability to apply for conservation use of public rangelands. It also prevents managers from placing decisions in immediate effect in order to avert resource degradation except in extraordinarily narrow circumstances. After 20 years as a resource professional, I assure you that • if we limit the tools available to managers and ranchers; • if we narrow peoples' ability to participate in public land management; • if we emphasize a single use of the public lands at the expense of other uses and values; We will have failed as stewards of the public land. More importantly, we will have betrayed our children by diminishing their natural resource legacy. For these reasons, and for those set forth in the attached analysis, the Department of Interior and the Bureau of Land Management strongly oppose S. 852, the Livestock Grazing Act. Senator CRAIG. Now, I would turn to Chief Thomas. STATEMENT OF JACK WARD THOMAS, CHIEF, U.S. FOREST Mr. THOMAS. Good morning, sir. I appreciate the opportunity to provide the views of the Department of Agriculture on this bill. The Department of Agriculture does not support enactment of S. 852 as it affects this Department. Only two provisions in the bill affect programs under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture, section 137 of title I, concerning grazing fees, and title II, section 201, which would remove national grasslands from the National Forest System. While we concur that the present system of determining grazing fees on Federal lands might be improved, it is not clear how this legislation would accomplish that improvement. The bill as written includes National Forest System lands in our Eastern and Southern regions. These regions currently have a fee system that is separate from that used in the 16 Western States. Changing the fee system for the Eastern and Southern regions would unnecessarily disrupt a system that has been successfully used for many years and may well have unintended PAYGO implications. We object to the removal of the national grasslands and land utilization programs from the National Forest System. The inclusion of the national grasslands in the National Forest System in 1974 reflects the evolution of Federal conservation policy. This action gave the national grasslands equal status with the national forests. At the same time, the original legislative intent that gave birth to the grasslands was preserved. Current regulations require that "The national grasslands shall be a part of the National Forest System and permanently held by the Department of Agriculture for administration under the provisions and purposes of Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act." That the grasslands-it is very obvious that these grasslands have shown dramatic improvement as part of the National Forest System. And such reflects a resounding success story in American conservation, both for the National Forest System and for the permittees. As the condition of the grasslands has improved and more coherent landownership has developed, their value as public resources has increased along with public interest in their management. The national grasslands provide many natural resources, including wildlife habitat, outdoor recreation opportunities, minerals, as well as the long-standing emphasis on important livestock forage. The national grasslands are important public resources on a par with other Federal lands, and worthy of the same protections and considerations as apply to the national forests. They do merit special management approaches and techniques, some of which vary though from those employed on the national forests. A key part of considering any changes is close involvement of those most directly associated with management. This process started with the review of options for grasslands administration undertaken earlier this year. Several options have been outlined and recommendations made. But we have not made final determinations. We do not concur that the present concerns over prominence and effectiveness of national grasslands management would be resolved by removing them from the National Forest System or changing management objectives. We are taking steps to make full use of our existing administrative authority and processes to address those concerns. Title II calls for a program of dominant-use management separate from that currently required by the National Forest Management Act. We are unable to discern a significant improvement or meaningful advantage to such an approach. In fact, such a change may undercut the integrated planning approach and opportunities for public involvement under the National Forest Management Act. Additionally, creating separate, duplicative processes for grasslands does not appear cost effective. Other unanswered questions remain, such as the effect on the oil, gas and coal industries which are extremely important on many grasslands and to the surrounding communities. Implications for more than 300 grazing permit holders who are not members of grazing associations are unclear. It is not clear how well the legislation fits nearly 4 million acres of grasslands located in 12 different States scattered from Texas to North Dakota and also located in California, Idaho and Oregon. Such questions need to be addressed. Thank you, sir. [The prepared statement of Mr. Thomas follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF JACK WARD THOMAS, CHIEF, U.S. FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we appreciate the opportunity to provide the views of the Department of Agriculture concerning S. 852, a bill to provide for uniform management of livestock grazing on federal lands. The Department of Agriculture does not support enactment of S. 852 as it affects this Department. Only two provisions in this bill affect programs under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture: Title I, Section 137, concerning grazing fees, and Title II, Section 201, which would remove national grasslands from the National Forest System. We defer to the Secretary of the Interior concerning other provisions of the bill. GRAZING FEE FORMULA REVISION Title I, Section 137, would replace the current grazing fee calculation formula and require the National Agricultural Statistics Service to collect certain data and calculate grazing costs. While we concur that the present system for determining grazing fees on federal lands might be improved, it is not clear how this legislation would accomplish such improvement. The bill as written would include National Forest System lands in our Eastern and Southern Regions. These regions currently have a fee system which is separate from that used in the 16 western states. Changing the fee system for the Eastern and Southern Regions would unnecessarily disrupt a system which has been successfully used for many years, and may have unintended PAYGO implications. Such a change would also negatively affect the ability to fund needed range improvements in these regions since they do not have access to range betterment funds as do the 16 western states. If a change in fee systems is made, we recommend that the Eastern and Southern Regions be excluded from such change and continue to be governed by provisions in 36 CFR 222, Subpart C. We defer to the National Agricultural Statistics Service and Economic Research Service concerning the technical aspects of fee determinations in S. 852. NATIONAL GRASSLANDS Title II, Section 201(b) would remove the national grasslands and land utilization projects (LUPs) from the "National Forest System" as that term is defined in the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974. Section 201(c) would amend Section 31 of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (BJFTA) by requiring that the Secretary develop a program of land conservation and utilization "as a basis for grassland agriculture, to promote secure occupancy and economic stability of farms. . ." which would in turn assist in reaching a number of other resource management objectives. Section 201(c) would also require the Secretary to issue renewable livestock grazing leases in "cooperation and coordination with grazing associations" in order to achieve the land conservation and utilization goals of section 31 of the BJFTA. Finally, Section 201(d) would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to continue to establish and implement conservation programs in administering livestock grazing on national grasslands under Title I. We object to the removal of the national grasslands and LUP's from the National Forest System. The inclusion of the national grasslands in the National Forest System in 1974 reflects the evolution of federal conservation policy over many years. This action gave the national grasslands equal status with the national forests. At the same time, the original legislative intent which gave birth to the national grasslands was preserved. Current Department_regulations require that "the National Grasslands shall be a part of the National Forest System and permanently held by the Department of Agriculture for administration under the provisions and purposes of title III of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act." The national grasslands had their origin in the "Dust Bowl" era of the 1930's. These native grasslands were homesteaded and farmed under previous federal policy which encouraged such use, but ultimately proved unsustainable. The unintended consequences of massive soil erosion and deterioration of the grasslands led to passage of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act. This act provided for the retirement of submarginal land and required the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a program of land conservation and utilization to correct maladjustments in land use. Since then, federal agencies, in close partnership with livestock producers in particular, have worked to improve grassland productivity for a variety of multiple uses. The national grasslands rose from the dust of worn-out land and impoverished and abandoned farms. Due to the natural resiliency of the grasslands and federal agency stewardship, the land again supports healthy ecosystems with diverse wildlife and other values. This represents the healing of a near environmental disaster. That the grasslands have recovered and become part of the National Forest System reflects a resounding success story in American conservation. As the condition of the grasslands has improved and more coherent landownership patterns have developed through land adjustment programs, their value_as public resources has increased along with public interest in their management. The national grasslands provide many natural resources, including wildlife habitat, outdoor recreation opportunities, and minerals, as well as important livestock forage. The national grasslands are important public resources on par with other federal lands, and worthy of the same protections and considerations as apply to the National Forests. They do merit special management approaches and techniques, some of which vary from those employed on the national forests. A number of those differences are already recognized in current agency direction. We believe it is timely to thoroughly explore current approaches to administering the grasslands to see if changes need to be made to fit today's circumstances. The fact that we are discussing Title II of the bill before us today is a clear indication of the need to take this look. A key part of considering any changes is close involvement of those most directly affected by national grassland management. We remain committed to the principle that successful management requires a high degree of coordination and cooperation with individuals, organizations, and local, state, and federal agencies. This process has started with a review of options for grasslands administration that was undertaken earlier this year. Several options were outlined and recommendations were made to me, but final determinations have not been made. We would be pleased to work with the Committee to ensure that concerns you may have are addressed as we consider these recommendations. We do not concur that present concerns over the prominence and effectiveness of national grasslands management would be resolved by removing them from the National Forest System or changing management objectives. We are taking steps to make full use of existing administrative authorities and processes to address these |