95TH CONGRESS 2d Session SENATE { REPORT No. 95-789 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT QUADRENNIAL AUTHORIZATION FISCAL YEARS 1979 THROUGH 1982 MAY 9 (legislative day, APRIL 24), 1978.-Ordered to be printed Mr. BUMPERS, from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. 2234] The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was referred the bill, S. 2234, to authorize appropriations for activities and programs carried out by the Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Land Management, having considered the same reports favorably thereon with amendments to the text and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass. The amendments are as follows: 1. On page 1, line 10, strike "$290,000,000" and insert "$292,200,000", and strike "$320,000,000" and insert "$329,300,000." 2. On page 2, line 1, strike "$350,000,000” and insert "$361,300,000". 3. On page 2, line 2, strike "$380,000,000" and insert "$393,300,000". 4. On page 2, line 4, strike "$20,000,000" and insert "$20,900,000”. 5. On page 2, line 18, strike "$45,000,000" and insert "$40,000,000". I. PURPOSE S. 2234 would authorize appropriations for the 4-year period of fiscal years 1979 to 1982 for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), totaling $458,200,000 for fiscal year 1979, and increasing to $604,300,000 for 1982. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (in section 318) established a requirement for quadrennial authorization of funding for BLM operations. Passage of this bill would satisfy that requirement and would provide congressional guidance to the agency for the next 4 years. The requirement for congressional action on this authorization offers the opportunity for the Congress to provide direction to BLM 29-010-78- -1 programs. It represents a prototype of the detailed long-term oversight role that many have advocated for congressional legislative committees in the "sunset" concept. II. SCOPE S. 2234 covers four appropriations accounts which finance most of the operations of BLM. These are: Management of lands and resources; Acquisition, construction, and maintenance; Mineral development impact loans. S. 2234 does not contain authorizations for the Oregon and California grant lands, the range improvement fund, service accounts and permanent appropriations. III. BACKGROUND A. INTEREST IN THE NATIONAL RESOURCE LANDS The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is the largest land management agency with jurisdiction over 60 percent of the federally owned land and 20 percent of the Nation's entire land base. The Bureau manages more than 470 million acres of public lands, 840 million acres of federally owned subsurface rights, and 1,100 million acres of the Outer Continental Shelf. Because of their vast size and their immeasurable benefits, the management and use of the public lands and resources touch the daily life of every American. As a people, we depend upon the public lands as a source of jobs, energy, minerals, food, fiber, and forest products. The protection of soil, water, and air quality on these lands affects areas far larger than the lands themselves. Just as importantly, the public lands represent a valuable resource for less tangible benefits such as recreation and wildlife habitat. Additionally, these lands contain a physical record of much of the Nation's rich historical and cultural background. Given the expectations of a modern and diverse society whose legitimate concerns range from absolute preservation to intensive resource development, the primary task of the BLM is to achieve balanced and effective multiple use management of the public lands. In recent years, there has been a heightened interest in the BLM lands (national resource lands) and their management. Certainly a principal reason for this interest has been the potential contribution of these lands to meet shortages of energy and minerals. Proposals for development of the public lands have aroused concerns of the public and environmental groups that development take place with a minimum of adverse environmental damage or risk. The Congress has responded with a series of actions, including passage of the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 1975 (Public Law 94-377), the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-133), the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-87), and passage in both houses of bills (S. 9 and H.R. 1614) to establish policy for the management of oil and gas development in the Outer Continental Shelf. A less visible, but nonetheless intense interest has also developed in the renewable resources on the national resource lands. Numerous executive branch reports, including the 1973 Report of the President's Advisory Panel on Timber and the Environment, the 1975 BLM Range Condition Report, and the 1976 Forest Service's Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resource Assessment, have disclosed that the productivity of the Nation's forest and range lands is relatively low and the quality of a significant portion of these lands is declining. In short, the statutory goal of "sustained-yield" management has not been fully realized. Judicial attention to renewable resources has also increased. Recent Federal court decisions have called into question certain traditional timber-cutting and range-management techniques and required more thorough multiple-use planning and environmental and social impact analysis as prerequisites to decisions affecting renewable resources on the public lands. Congressional attention to public land renewable resources issues predates the work of the executive and judicial branches. Beginning with the enactment of legislation creating the Public Land Law Review Commission in 1964 and continuing for over a decade thereafter, the Congress undertook, and commissioned, numerous studies. This study phase concluded in the 93d Congress with: (1) the enactment of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act which provides for a continuing program of study and planning of public land renewable resources, and (2) the 1974 request of the Senate Appropriations Committee for, and the 1975 submission of, the BLM Range Condition Report. In 1976 the Congress moved to the authorization stage by enacting or beginning work on several significant public land management measures. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the National Forest Management Act of 1976 were enacted into law and the National Rangelands Policy Act was passed by the Senate. Each of these measures had as one of its principal purposes the mandating of more effective renewable resources planning and management and the authorizing of sufficient funding to achieve that purpose. This Congressional activity appears to be based on two premises: (1) Our public land renewable resources are not being fully utilized, the productivity of such resources is unnecessarily low, and far too high a percentage of our Federal lands devoted to such resources continues to deteriorate; and (2) management and rehabilitation programs for renewable resources yield long-term benefits commensurate with or in excess of their costs. Evidence that these premises are accurate is provided by the numerous executive branch reports previously cited. For example, the 1975 BLM Range Condition Report presents an alarming picture of the condition of the BLM rangelands. According to the report only 2 percent of the BLM rangelands is in excellent condition, another 28 percent is in poor condition; and 5 percent is in bad condition. Furthermore, the report discloses that 16 percent of the range continues to decline. The report outlines a 20year range rehabilitation program which would need an additional average annual appropriation of $45 million. Although this cost is considerable, the report notes that total benefits in increases in forage production for domestic livestock, enhancement of wildlife habitat, protection of watersheds, and reduction of salinity in the Colorado River would total approximately $125 million annually. Timber and range management programs, wildlife habitat enhancement programs, land and water stewardship programs, and programs designed to enhance developed and dispersed recreation on the national resource lands are examples of the critically needed and highly cost-effective resource management opportunities which should be encouraged. B. THE FEDERAL LAND POLICY AND MANAGEMENT ACT AND THE BLM BUDGET FOR 1979 For years, the Bureau of Land Management found its management responsibilities impeded by its dependence on a vast number of outmoded public land laws which were enacted when disposal and largely uncontrolled development of the public domain were the dominant themes. Unlike the Park Service or the Forest Service, the BLM had no "Organic Act" to provide guidance and authority for its actions. With uncertainty as to the continuation of its lands in Federal ownership and the lack of a well-defined mission within its confusing and often contradictory statutory base, the BLM has not been very successful in the completion for scarce Federal land management funds. However, on October 2, 1976, the President signed into law an organic act for the BLM-the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA)—which repealed many of the outmoded public land laws and provided the agency with a coherent mandate and sufficient authority to implement it. Also, in 1976, the Congress passed the Payments-in-Lieu-of-Taxes Act (PILT Act). In response to these acts, in fiscal year 1977 the Interior Department reprogramed $4.1 million to meet the most urgent mandates of the FLPMA and requested a $100 million supplemental for the PILT Act. For fiscal year 1978, Presidents Ford and Carter asked for $104,550,000 in increases to meet the requirements of the Organic Act ($4,550,000) and the PILT Act ($100,000,000). Last year this committee recommended a $42,470,000 increase over the President's fiscal year 1978 request and the appropriation process resulted in a $10,366,000 increase. For fiscal year 1979, the President has asked for an increase ($52,086,000) in the agency's budget over the prior year's appropriation. The magnitude of this increase is actually less than it appears, however, because much of it is accounted for in a change in financing of "Firefighting and Rehabilitation." Starting with fisical year 1979, this item would be financed in the initial appropriation rather than in a supplemental appropriation which has been the normal funding practice in prior years. This financing change amounts to an apparent increase of $25,250,000 that does not provide any real program growth. When this financing change is subtracted, the actual program increase proposed is $26,836,000 over the 1978 appropriation. The Committee is pleased with the increased emphasis being placed on the Bureau's funding needs, but believes that the fiscal year 1979 budget proposal is inadequate. Section 318 of FLPMA required the Secretary of the Interior to submit last year a proposal for a 4-year (fiscal years 1979-82) authorization for most of the Bureau's programs. This proposal was to include funding levels which the Secretary "determines can be efficiently and effectively utilized in the execution of his responsibilities for each such |