Mr. MELCHER. Well, but when? Mr. MCGUIRE. We set up a 10-year schedule to reach the fair market value, as you know. Mr. MELCHER. You mean by 1985 we reach it? Mr. MCGUIRE. Our original target date was 1978 and is now 1980. Mr. MELCHER. Well, then, do you want to reach fair market value by 1980? Mr. MCGUIRE. Well, we have had two full moratoria and one partial moratorium on increases so far and I believe we will still hit fair market value in 1980. Mr. MELCHER. 1980, and what would be the grazing fee then? Mr. MCGUIRE. The grazing fee in 1980 under the present system would be $1.23 plus an increment for inflation. Mr. MELCHER. Well, I don't suppose you can project those increments, but can you give us an idea? Mr. MCGUIRE. The private land index which is used to indicate inflationary prices has gone from $3.47 in 1966 to $5.82 in 1975. So that would be about a 50, 60 percent increase in 8 years. Another 5 years, I would estimate another 35, 40 percent, if it continues at that rate. Mr. MELCHER. You mean then-you increase the calculated fair market value in 1975 from $1.96 under the current procedures to $2.03 under the proposed procedures. Now, I am not sure from your testimony whether you think a fair market value for 1975 is somewhere between $1.96 and $2.03 or whether you think in 1975, the current year, the fair market value in the appropriate place for Forest Service grazing fees per AUM would be $1.25 or $1.32 or whatever you had in mind. Your testimony confuses me because I don't know what you mean here on page 6. Mr. MCGUIRE. Well, our preference is in the last paragraph on page 6 and all we are saying there is that, sure, $2 is approximately what fair market value is now, and if you continue to have a statutory floor of $2, it might be all right. Mr. MELCHER. Yes. Mr. MCGUIRE. But there could be times when we would want to go below $2 and we would like to retain the flexibility to go that way. Mr. MELCHER. Well, I understand that, but you think $2 is about fair market value now? Mr. MCGUIRE. Yes, sir. Mr. MELCHER. But you are not going to charge that for 1975 permits. Mr. MCGUIRE. That is correct. Mr. MELCHER. So maybe there is a reason for putting it into law rather than leaving it to the discretion of the Secretary. Mr. MCGUIRE. But if you do, we would like to Mr. MELCHER. Have it go down. Mr. MCGUIRE. We may have to come back at some time and say $2 is too much. Mr. MELCHER. You would rather have a formula so it can go down. Mr. MCGUIRE. That is correct. Mr. MELCHER. Something to do with the cost of doing business and price of cattle. Mr. MCGUIRE. And the comparable cost of grazing on private lands. Mr. STEIGER. Mr. Chairman Mr. MELCHER. The gentleman from Arizona. Mr. STEIGER. I would just like the record to reflect at this point that given the present state of the cattle market it is entirely conceivable. that the $1.11, if you used the combined index of the grasslands value and the price of cattle, $1.11 could well be too high because the grasslands price as I am sure you are aware is also declining now under great pressure, and so all I can say to the Chair, I hope we stay with the concept of what it is that we are going to do after we set the base price and, of course, I think the up or down has never been better justified than the present market conditions. I thank the Chair. Mr. MELCHER. I thank the gentleman. Thank you very much, Chief McGuire. Mr. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to place a statement in the record on this point and also to include extraneous material. What I had in mind, Mr. Chairman, is, as you know, I mentioned to you informally that the late Jerry Pettis had a great interest in the California desert conservation area, and was working very closely with you in an attempt to advance that section into the Organic Act and incorporate it into law. Recently his wife, Mrs. Shirley Pettis, came back here to me asking for an indication of the progress of the legislation. I stated that we were in the process of holding hearings and that the chairman had scheduled hearings which are now being held here today. She expressed her strong interest in this, and I am sure. Mr. Chairman, she would like to submit to you a letter indicating continuing interest on her part as a follow-on to the efforts of her husband, Jerry Pettis. Mr. MELCHER. Without objection, the gentleman from California's request will be accepted and it will become part of the record at this point. I would also like to place in the record immediately following, a letter from Congressman Norman Y. Mineta, California, dated March 12.1975. [The material referred to follows:] Hon. JOHN MELCHER, MARCH 21, 1975. Chairman, Public Lands Subcommittee, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CHAIRMAN MELCHER: As you know, during my most recent stay in Washington, I discussed the progress of the California Desert Conservation area legislation with Congressman Don Clausen of your Committee and with other Members of Congress. You were most gracious and cooperative. Mr. Chairman, in your relationship with my late husband as he attempted to establish and protect this invaluable area. You undoubtedly know that over 40 Members from throughout the nation joined Jerry in this effort, and I am delighted that your Committee is now considering the matter as part of your hearings on the Organic Act, Title IV of which will establish a California Desert Conservation Area. Although many people consider it only a barren wasteland, in the past 25 years the California Desert has become a recreation area for millions, a source of livelihood for many and a home for others. Having held hearings in the 37th Congressional District last year, you know the wide range of uses made of the desert, the fragility of the ecology and the historic and archeological relics it contains. Time is running out for the California Desert. Last December about 3,000 people participated in a motorcycle race over a 168 mile course near near Barstow. We cannot yet completely assess the damage this race caused, but we are all aware of some of the disastrous results. The race clearly demonstrated the need to establish a multiple-use plan to allow the most judicious management and conservation of all desert resources. Lacking sufficient manpower, resources, and authority, the Bureau of Land Management cannot do an effective job of protecting this irreplaceable area. I think it is especially important that the B.L.M. have enough personnel to carry out its role of providing information to the thousands of visitors to the Desert each year. Last October 26th, the first of ten B.L.M. Way Stations in the desert was opened. This Barstow Way Station has most impressive facilities. It provides a means of communication between the managers and the users of the national resource lands. It provides information on the various uses of the desert: camping, off-road vehicles, rockhounding and sightseeing. Mr. Chairman, the desert contains not just flora and fauna and conservation and recreation areas, it has one of the largest and richest concentrations of pre-historic art in the world, Indian rock carvings, known as petroglyphs. Some of them are thought to be at least 5,000 years old. These carvings are being carried away by souvenir hunters and obliterated by vandals using cans of spray paint. As my late husband used to say, "The destruction of the petroglyphs is analogous to the plundering of the Egyptian pyramids by grave robbers. Again, Mr. Chairman, my sincere appreciation to you and the committee for your invaluable efforts not only on behalf of the people of the 37th District, but for all Americans who will use and enjoy the California Desert Conservation Area in the years to come. Sincerely yours, SHIRLEY N. PETTIS. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon. JOHN MELCHER, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Washington, D.C., March 12, 1975. Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Lands, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to speak in behalf of H.R. 3038, the California Desert Protection Act which has been referred to your Subcommittee. I have joined our good friend and late Colleague, the Honorable Jerry L. Pettis, in cosponsoring this bill since I believe, as did he, that the California Desert is a part of this country's historical heritage and, as such, should be preserved and protected from the disregard of vandals and profiteers. Indian rock carvings known as petroglyphs, exist in the Desert in rich concentration, a wealth of prehistoric art, some of which are estimated to be 5.000 years old. Vandals and souvenir hunters presently are destroying this treasure by enffacing them with spray paint and using them for target practice. More significantly, the Bureau of Land Management predicts that 80% of the carvings will be lost in fifteen years due to their removal and sale as decorative pieces. Presently the Bureau of Land Management is ill equipped to do an effective job in protecting the Desert. Circumstances as they now exist require the BLM to control the 15.6 million-acre desert with only a $923,000 annual budget. This bill, H.R. 3038 would establish a multifaceted program which would encourage the most judicious use and management of the Desert. The requirement of public hearings in the formation and regulation of the conservation area represents an important step, by involving the public in what otherwise has been a wholly bureaucratic decision-making process. Additionally, the bill will correct the present inadequacies of the Bureau of Land Management's administration by providing sufficient manpower, resources and authority necessary to secure the protection of the petroglyphs and the desert environment generally. Once again I am pleased to have had this opportunity to address your Subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, on this important matter. I urge your immediate consideration. Very truly yours, NORMAN Y. MINETA, Mr. MELCHER. I might say for the record that title IV of the committee print is specifically the California designate. Mr. CLAUSEN. I will relay that information to her. Mr. MELCHER. Thank you. [The full printed statement of Mr. McGuire follows:] STATEMENT OF JOHN R. McGuire, Chief, FOREST SERVICE, DEPARTMENT Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the grazing programs on National Forest System lands. We understand that you would like to have us discuss present grazing authorities and policies as they compare to grazing provisions as contained in the proposed "Public Land Policy and Management Act of 1974" which the Committee was developing in the 93rd Congress. I will limit my remarks to the effect of such provisions if applied to the National Forest System, deferring to the Department of the Interior for any comparison of their authority and policies. Grazing of commercial livestock on National Forest System lands dates back to before National Forests were established. grazing continues to be a major use of these lands. Of the 187 million acres in the National Forest System approximately 105 million acres are subject to grazing. This grazing involves 16,000 permittees. In 1974 a total of 1.5 million cattle and 1.6 million sheep grazed on National Forest System lands for a total of 7.2 million animal unit months of grazing. Much of the grazing on National Forest System land is seasonal with permittees grazing stock for part of the year on public lands and the balance of the year on adjacent private lands. The basic authority for permitting grazing use on the National Forests emanates from the Organic Administration Act of June 4, 1897, and basic authority for permitting grazing use on the National Grasslands emanates from the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of July 22, 1937. The Granger-Thye Act of April 24, 1950, supplements those authorities by providing that the Secretary of Agriculture may, upon such terms and conditions as he may deen proper, issue permits for the grazing of livestock for periods not exceeding tem years and renewals thereof. The Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of June 12, 1960, affirms that the National Forests are established and shall be administered for multiple purposes, including range purposes. DURATION OF GRAZING PERMITS Pursuant to the Act of April 24, 1950, the Forest Service issues grazing permits on either an annual basis or for a term of 10 years. Nationally, approximately 85 percent of the grazing is now administered under 10-year term permits. In the West the amount is in excess of 90 percent. These permits are normally renewed for subsequent 10-year terms. The term permit applies to ranges where a long-term commitment to grazing is appropriate. On other ranges, grazing is authorized under temporary permits on an annual basis and these may be extended or reissued where appropriate. Temporary permits are common on eastern National Forests and in other areas where grazing occurs on transitory ranges. Also, in the East, we find that grazing can often be effectively handled through short-term permits, because permittees in the East often have a greater management flexibility and a larger number of feed sources than usually occurs in the West. The provisions on duration of grazing permits as contained in the legislation permits be issued for periods of 10 years, except shorter permits could be granted where land is pending disposal or will be devoted to a public purpose prior to the end of the 10-year term. To facilitate our efforts to balance grazing with the available range resource, and to coordinate grazing with other resource uses, we believe it is important that we continue to have authority that provides flexibility in determining the duration of grazing permits. This includes flexibility to issue a term or temporary permit to fit a broader range of situations than provided for by the proposed legislation. Another concern is that the wording of the proposed legislation implies that land disposal is an inherent policy and that grazing lands are not considered as lands devoted to public purposes. Both implications are inconsistent with the purpose for which National Forests are established and maintained. RENEWAL OF GRAZING PERMITS on As a matter of policy and regulation, permits are renewable based the continued availability of the forage resource. The season of use and number of livestock permitted on an allotment may be adjusted annually. Regulations of the Secretary of Agriculture provide that term permits are renewable at the end of each term period provided the provisions and requirements under which they are issued continue to be met and as long as it is in the public interest to renew them. The provisions on renewal of grazing permits as contained in the legislation proposed in the 93d Congress, would guarantee the renewal of a permit if the following conditions were met: (1) the lands remain available for grazing, and (2) the permittee has complied with the Secretary's regulations and terms of the permit. By guaranteeing renewal if certain conditions are met, the proposed legislation departs from all other authorities relating to the occupancy and use of National Forest System lands. The proposed legislation also places limitations on the discretion of the Secretary in determining whether it would be in the public interest to renew a permit. CANCELLATION OF GRAZING PERMITS AND PERMITTEE COMPENSATION IN THE EVENT OF CANCELLATION Although the Secretary has the authority to revoke or suspend a permit at any time if a determination is made that this would be in the public interest, such actions are very rare. Range improvements on National Forest and Grassland allotments are normally constructed cooperatively with the permittee and Forest Service sharing the cost. Permanent improvements such as earthdams or stock trails are considered part of the land on which they are located and are considered the property of the Government. However, the calculation of grazing fees reflects that the permanent improvements are considered the property of the government and cannot be removed after the term of the permit. Other improvements such as fences or windmills which could be moved may be either Government owned or permittee owned depending on how they were constructed. Title to improvements is vested in the Government where any part of the construction cost is borne by the Government. In the event that a permit is not renewed or is evoked or suspended within its term, the permittee may remove temporary improvements in his ownership. Under the terms of the permit he is not entitled to compensation for any improvements, or to any other compensation. Provisions contained in the legislation proposed in the 93rd Congress require that a permittee receive compensation in the event a permit is cancelled to devote the lands to another public purpose. Such compensation would be for any authorized permanent improvement placed or constructed on Federal lands by the permittee. We believe that it is important that the Federal Government not be placed in the position of having to compensate permittees for range mprovements. We are also greatly concerned that the legislation, where it reads "permittee's interest therein." could be interpreted to also compensate the permittee for "permit value." Such obligations would limit the administering Federal agener in its ability to devote the lands to a higher public use or uses. The provisions under consideration in the 93rd Congress concerning compensation and permit renewal could also convert a grazing permit into a property right. This would seriously alter the existing relationships between the United |