The abuses to the California desert are well documented, and I will not burden the record by repeating them. One endangered species in that area, the peninsular bighorn sheep, is threatened by the harassment of off-road vehicles, and BLM is powerless in practical terms to do anything about it.

On the subject of endangered species, I am attaching a paper prepared by BLM which documents the importance of the public lands to not only many endangered creatures, but also to numerous game and non-game species.

Although the Subcommittee seems to feel that BLM has adequate authority to properly control grazing, the allotment management plans are still drawn up with grazing as the dominant use and other multiple use values are often given short shrift. For example, in the Elko, Nevada district some very intensive grazing is being planned. Springs within the area are crucial to wildlife, but unless they are fenced off both the springs and the wildlife will suffer from intensive grazing. If a rancher is guilty of overgrazing, he can continue to abuse the land all during the lengthy appeal process.

Finally, a different type of problem. Crystal Hill, in the Kofa Game Range, has long been a favorite place for rockhounds. BLM developed a small campsite there, but has no way to control the number of people who camp, the length of their stay and what they do while there. Thus, the area has become an urban slum.

Thank you for this opportunity to submit this material. We hope that you will include it in the hearing record.

Sincerely,

CYNTHIA E. WILSON, Washington Representative.

BLM ORGANIC ACT

TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 1974

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS OF THE

COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in room 340, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. John Melcher (chairman), presiding.

Mr. MELCHER. The Committee on Public Lands will come to order.

We are continuing this morning our hearing on H.R. 5441, the so-called BLM Organic Act.

As I have told previous witnesses at other hearings, that while the hearing procedure progresses on this particular bill, it is not the intent of this committee to attempt to amend that bill into a form suitable for the committee. It is our intention to draft our own bill at the conclusion of the public hearings this month. We find for various reasons that H.R. 5441 is an objectionable bill delegating far too much authority to the Secretary of the Interior and removing from the Congress their responsibility to be specific and direct and definite in their directions to the Federal land agencies in dealing with our Federal land problems.

The first witness this morning is Mr. Steve Seater, Fund for Animals.

Mr. Seater, welcome to the committee.

STATEMENT OF STEVE SEATER, FUND FOR ANIMALS

Mr. SEATER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the Fund for Animals is primarily interested in conserving this nation's wildlife heritage. In order to accomplish. this, we have come to realize that the future of wildlife depends largely on the future of the public domain. If wildlife is to thrive, then our public lands must be wisely and carefully managed. For this reason, our organization gives its full support to H.R. 5441. The vast area which the Bureau of Land Management administers is primarily managed for the grazing of livestock. Unfortunately there has been too much grazing permitted on these lands with little or no concern for the ecosystem's health. The National Wildlife Federation estimates that 85 percent of our grazing lands are in poor to fair condition; and according to the National Re(1029)

sources Defense Council, which is presently suing BLM for failure to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, excessive livestock grazing is responsible for the following:

1. The deterioration of vegetative cover and important multistate and intrastate watersheds which has resulted in increased erosion, decreased water yield, and increased water pollution on public lands.

2. The loss of soil fertility, and the replacement of plants which are effective as soil retainers.

3. The production of severe competition between livestock and wildlife for available forage which has led to starvation, increased parasitism, and greater susceptibility to disease.

4. The diminution of waterfowl and fish populations resulting from the failure to restrict riparian livestock grazing.

There is also considerable evidence that overgrazing leads to increased predation of livestock. Many overgrazed sheep ranges do not support normal rodent and lagomorph populations, the chief food of coyotes. Hence, these relatively rodent free ranges tend to have a high degree of sheep predation because the natural food of coyotes is absent. The failure to adjust to the natural carrying capacity of the range leads not only to depletion of the land and wildlife, but, also, to loss of livestock, which ultimately results in a reduced income for graziers.

The relationship between overgrazing and livestock losses was demonstrated by a study conducted in Millard County, Utah. On ranges moderately grazed by sheep, lamb crops averaged 9 percent higher over an 11-year period that those on ranges subjected to heavy grazing. Moreover, the sheep were healthier and the wool yield better on moderately grazed ranges. Sheep losses on moderately grazed ranges were 2 percent to coyotes and 1.1 percent to unknown causes, for a total of 3.1 percent. On heavily grazed ranges, 8.1 percent of the sheep were lost, about half to malnutrition and half to coyotes and disease. The study also revealed that the sheepgrower's income on moderately grazed ranges was more than twice that from equal numbers of sheep on heavily grazed

range.

A study of calf predation by Adolf Murie revealed that overgrazed cattle ranges had higher predation rates than did moderately grazed ranges.

Numerous other studies corroborate these findings. It may well be that the key to predator control is not to be found so much in new trapping and poisoning techniques but rather in more careful regulation of grazing.

Much of the land administered by BLM is still of great value as far as wildlife and wilderness resources are concerned. A good example is the California Desert, an area of some 25,000 square miles, half of which belongs to the Federal Government and is managed by BLM.

This arid region supports a great diversity of living things: over 80 kinds of mammals; 170 species of birds, and some 50 species of reptiles and amphibians. It is the home of a number of rare and endangered creatures including the desert bighorn sheep, Stephen's

kangaroo rat, the desert tortoise, the tecopa pupfish, and the Owens pupfish. Additionally, there are about 1,000 species of plants, 30 of which are officially classified as rare and endangered.

This once shunned region has become a prime recreation area with a usage of 11 million visitor days a year, the bulk of which involves off-road vehicles (ORV's). The fragile desert environment is beginning to deteriorate at a frightening rate and scientific studies have revealed that several fragile and quite important habitats have been destroyed or seriously damaged. Clearly what is needed is land use planning that would prohibit the use of ORV's on much of the desert.

If the desert and other fragile environments are to remain in a viable state, it is imperative that BLM begin the process of land use planning. Section 103 of H.R. 5441 would require BLM to plan the uses of the public lands and prescribes criteria for the planning. Section 306 which authorizes the agency to acquire private lands or easements will greatly facilitate land use planning by allowing for the consolidating of lands. Section 310 gives BLM the necessary authority to enforce the regulations it promulgates. This last provision is of great importance because BLM cannot manage such a vast domain without police powers.

In our opinion, BLM must be given the mandate, the manpower, and the funds to manage our public lands in an ecologically sound manner. From our point of view, BLM must do the following:

1. Accelerate the process of range analysis as a scientific basis for determining livestock stocking rates on public lands.

2. Prepare environmental impact statements on the effects of livestock grazing on public lands.

3. Reduce or eliminate grazing from those areas that are better suited for the perpetuation of other values such as wildlife, water conservation, and recreation.

4. Develop a wild horse and burro management program that will ensure healthy herds for future generations of Americans and would seek to protect fragile wildlife habitat.

5. Accelerate surveys of endangered animals and plants and take steps to protect their habitat as mandated by the new Endangered Species Act of 1973.

We feel that H.R. 5441 gives BLM the specific powers required to do these and many other important things. We are pleased to see that Section 105 requires BLM to hold public hearings to consider the views of citizens. In our opinion, this is what Government by the people and for the people is all about.

One provision of the bill that we have some reservations about is Section 106 which allows BLM to establish advisory boards representing "a cross-section of groups interested in management: of the public lands. Our experience has been that such boards rarely work in the public interest.

The last sections of the bill I would like to address myself to are Section 3 (e) (9) and Section 109, which together require BLM to identify potential wilderness. Our organization is gratified by the inclusion of these sections in the bill because we believe that wilderness preservation is one of the best ways to save vital wildlife habitat.