[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PRESERVING OPPORTUNITIES FOR GRAZING ON FEDERAL LAND
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
THE INTERIOR, ENERGY, AND ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 24, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-93
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://oversight.house.gov
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
31-370 PDF WASHINGTON: 2018
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, Chairman
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland,
Darrell E. Issa, California Ranking Minority Member
Jim Jordan, Ohio Carolyn B. Maloney, New York
Mark Sanford, South Carolina Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Justin Amash, Michigan Columbia
Paul A. Gosar, Arizona Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri
Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Jim Cooper, Tennessee
Thomas Massie, Kentucky Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Mark Meadows, North Carolina Robin L. Kelly, Illinois
Ron DeSantis, Florida Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
Dennis A. Ross, Florida Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
Mark Walker, North Carolina Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Rod Blum, Iowa Jamie Raskin, Maryland
Jody B. Hice, Georgia Jimmy Gomez, Maryland
Steve Russell, Oklahoma Peter Welch, Vermont
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania
Will Hurd, Texas Mark DeSaulnier, California
Gary J. Palmer, Alabama Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands
James Comer, Kentucky John P. Sarbanes, Maryland
Paul Mitchell, Michigan
Greg Gianforte, Montana
Michael Cloud, Texas
Sheria Clarke, Staff Director
William McKenna, General Counsel
Christen Harsha, Counsel
Kiley Bidelman, Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on the Interior, Energy and Environment
Greg Gianforte, Montana, Chairman
Paul A. Gosar, Arizona, Vice Chair Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin
Dennis Ross, Florida Islands, Ranking Minority
Gary J. Palmer, Alabama Member
James Comer, Kentucky Jamie Raskin, Maryland
Michael Cloud, Texas Jimmy Gomez, California
(Vacancy)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 24, 2018.................................... 1
WITNESSES
Mr. John Helle, Owner Partner, Helle Livestock
Oral Statement............................................... 4
Written Statement............................................ 7
Mr. Scott Horngren, Staff Attorney & Adjunct Professor, Western
Resources Legal Center
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 17
Mr. Shannon Wheeler, Chairman, Nez Perce Tribe
Oral Statement............................................... 22
Written Statement............................................ 24
Mr. Dave Eliason, President, Public Lands Council
Oral Statement............................................... 27
Written Statement............................................ 29
APPENDIX
Statement for the Record from the Wild Sheep Foundation,
submitted by Chairman Gianforte................................ 44
PRESERVING OPPORTUNITIES FOR GRAZING ON FEDERAL LAND
----------
Tuesday, July 24, 2018
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on the Interior, Energy, and
Environment,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:43 p.m., in
Room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Greg Gianforte
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Gianforte, Palmer, Comer, and
Plaskett.
Mr. Gianforte. The Subcommittee on the Interior, Energy,
and Environment will come to order. Without objection, the
chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time.
I would like to thank everyone for being here and
especially thank you for your patience in us having to run off
and do some other business. But we are here, and I appreciate
your travels. I will begin with my opening statement.
Good afternoon. This Subcommittee on Interior, Energy, and
Environment is meeting today to examine difficulties ranchers
with Federal grazing permits face, as well as to discuss
recommendations to improve cooperation between permittees and
our Federal land management agencies.
Access to public lands is critical for many people,
including hikers, hunters, and fishermen. Today, though, we're
here to specifically discuss livestock grazing on Federal land.
As the Western Governors' Association says, ranchers are,
quote, ``an important contributor to the customs, cultures, and
rural economies of the West,'' end quote.
The Public Lands Council estimates that grazing on Federal
land contributes at least $1.5 billion to the economy and
supports thousands of jobs. In fiscal year 2017, livestock
producers held almost 18,000 grazing permits on BLM land and
nearly 6,000 active permits on Forest Service land. These
operators rely on access to public lands to produce food, wool,
and even clothing, as my friend John Helle will be able to
discuss later in his testimony. Those are a few of the obvious
benefits of responsible utilization of Federal land.
Both the BLM and Forest Service are charged with managing
Federal land for multiple use and sustained yield. Ranching, a
business that necessitates careful stewardship of natural
resources, complements a number of those uses. Ranchers partner
with the State's wildlife agencies, sportsman's organizations,
and conservation groups to facilitate multiple use. Identifying
opportunities to promote cooperation on Federal land will be an
important part of our discussion today.
To add additional perspective on this issue, without
objection, I will enter a statement from Gray Thornton,
President and CEO of the Wild Sheep Foundation, into the
hearing record.
Mr. Gianforte. I would like to thank Mr. Thornton for being
here today in the audience and the Wild Sheep Foundation for
their contribution to our conversation today.
Unfortunately, one of the greatest challenges to grazing is
special-interest litigation and the abuse of some of our core
Federal environmental protection statutes. While Congress
enacted these laws with good intentions, groups that are
determined to drive ranchers off the Federal land have
transformed them into tools to push certain uses over others.
This is not what Congress intended, and it certainly does not
support the agencies' multiple-use missions.
Seeking workable solutions and finding common ground
becomes that much more difficult when some special interests
fundamentally oppose grazing and routinely turn to litigation
instead of collaboration. Not only does the constant threat of
litigation distract the BLM and Forest Service from their
important missions and drain Federal resources, but it results
in land-management decisions driven by fear and apprehension of
the next wave of lawsuits. This is no way to manage our range
lands.
I know our witnesses today will help further the
conversation about preserving opportunities for grazing while
ensuring adequate protection of our range land and, above all,
true multiple-use management.
Part of the solution is to ensure our Federal grazing
permit programs are fair, provide for meaningful permittee
participation, and minimize uncertainty and delays. Producers
struggle to defend their operations from seemingly endless
attacks by well-funded activist organizations who enjoy
incentives to litigate under current law.
If the BLM and Forest Service continue to operate at the
mercy of special-interest litigation and ranchers continue to
face unnecessary livestock reductions, many ranchers may decide
that they can no longer afford to graze on Federal land and
will be forced to walk away from their business. This would
have devastating consequences for local economies and our
ranching families who hope to pass their way of life on to the
next generation.
The bottom line is that we need range land management that
utilize sound science, provides for flexibility, and
incorporates permittee input. Livestock producers whose
livelihoods depend on understanding the local ecosystem develop
specialized knowledge through years and sometimes decades of
on-the-ground experience, and cutting them out of the land
management process wastes unique expertise and jeopardizes
range land health. BLM and Forest Service policies should
encourage employees to develop productive working relationships
with the producers rather than default to restricting access or
trying to shield themselves from litigation.
Thank you again to our witnesses for joining us today. I
look forward to the hearing and your testimony on such an
important topic.
Mr. Gianforte. I now recognize the ranking member of the
subcommittee, Ms. Plaskett, for her opening statement.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you, all of the witnesses and others who are here, for this
hearing this afternoon.
The Federal Government owns approximately 640 million acres
of land in the United States. Most of that land is located in
the Western States, but not all of it. In my own district, we
have the beautifully preserved Virgin Islands National Park,
which testifies to the important role the Federal Government
can play in managing lands for the enjoyment of all people of
this great country.
Today, we will hear from local ranchers, as well as local
producers, who benefit from permits to graze livestock on
Federal lands. I am aware and sensitive to the generational
land rights of those individuals and the need for the Federal
Government to balance the interests of grazing with the rights
of individuals to be able to go on to lands which they have had
deeded to them for many years. I understand this.
This is something that we are fighting and is a conflict in
the Virgin Islands as well with those individuals who feel that
the Federal lands are coming to encroach and become Big Brother
on the land that they have used for many generations for their
own livelihood. Those viewpoints are important, but there are
also viewpoints that I am glad that this committee is going to
hear from today as well.
We will also hear the viewpoint of the Nez Perce Tribe,
whose members are throughout the Western United States in
central Idaho, parts of Washington, Oregon, and Montana.
Chairman Wheeler, who is here, has stated in his written
testimony that the bighorn sheep are culturally critical to
that Tribe's existence. The Tribe has hunted the bighorn sheep
to craft culturally significant items like bighorn bows and
have used this wild sheep for food and for clothing. They are
so significant to the Tribe that the Tribe's cultural right to
hunt and use the sheep is protected by treaty.
The bighorn sheep and the Nez Perce Tribe's critical
relationship with this important species and is an example of
how Federal Government agencies must balance commercial
interests with cultural and environmental interests and treaty
obligations when they manage Federal lands. This subcommittee
has to balance the needs of many interests and must show the
same concern for cultural and environmental interests and
treaty obligations as we have for the commercial interests.
I hope that our goal with this hearing regarding grazing on
Western lands is the same, to support and advance the
appropriate and sustainable use of Federal lands. I echo the
chairman's sentiment that we must bring good science, good
economics, sensitivity to cultural needs, as well as historic
importance of the lands. As Chairman Wheeler has stated, and I
quote, ``The Nez Perce Tribe considers recovery of the bighorn
sheep population to huntable, healthy, and sustainable levels
within our homeland and throughout their suitable historic
habitat to be a top resource management priority. Our
collective actions have the power to help or hinder this
recovery.''
Indeed, I understand this and share that sentiment for all
of our testifiers today. A focus on commercial interests to the
exclusion of cultural and environmental equities and treaty
obligations and vice versa will hinder the recovery not only of
bighorn sheep but the way of life for those that live in the
West. I urge this subcommittee to consider Chairman Wheeler's
testimony by the ways that the Federal Government can protect
the environment and tribal culture as we examine different
opportunities for grazing on public land.
And I agree that we must collectively and be collaborative
in that effort. While an attorney, I don't prefer litigation
and hope that we can resolve our differences in a way that is
amicable to the interests of all.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gianforte. Okay. And thank you.
I am pleased to introduce our witnesses at this time. Mr.
John Helle, owner/partner of Helle Livestock; Mr. Scott
Horngren, staff attorney and adjunct professor at Western
Resources Legal Center; Chairman Shannon Wheeler, Chairman of
the Nez Perce Tribe; and Mr. Dave Eliason, president of the
Public Lands Council.
Welcome to all of you. I know you traveled to be here, and
we appreciate your testimony, look forward to your testimony
today.
Pursuant to the committee rules, all witnesses will be
sworn in before you testify. If you would, please stand and
raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Gianforte. Let the record reflect that the witnesses
answered in the affirmative. Please, you may now be seated.
In order to allow time for our discussion today, we are
going to ask that you each limit your comments to five minutes.
There is a set of lights and things that will keep you on time
there. As a reminder, that clock will tick down. It turns
yellow when you have 30 seconds left and red when your time is
up, and then we will move to our time of questioning. Also
remember the microphones do not work automatically; you have to
turn them on before you speak.
So with that, we will start with Mr. Helle. You have five
minutes.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF JOHN HELLE
Mr. Helle. Chairman Gianforte, Ranking Member Plaskett, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
visit with you today. I am John Helle, a third-generation sheep
and wool producer from Dillon, Montana. I am here today to
represent the Nation's 88,000 sheep producers and those that
spend some time on Federal grazing lands.
Over the years, we have expanded and diversified our
ranching operation, preserving open space and adding economic
value to our nation. Through the brand Duckworth, we have taken
Helle wool from sheep to shelf all in the United States. We're
proud to be able to convert a renewable resource into food and
fiber while stewarding the land we run on.
Since I was a kid, we've lost over 100,000 sheep in
southwest Montana because of the effects of misguided policy
enforcement. In fact, Dillon was at one point the world's
largest shipping point for wool. Livestock grazing promotes new
growth and enhances habitat for wildlife species like sage
grouse. Our private land serves as the commensurate base for
our Federal grazing permits, thus benefiting the public with a
quasi-conservation easement on that well-stewarded land.
However, family ranching faces a number of challenges that
threaten the future of range land management West-wide. We have
personally witnessed abuse of Federal law as our Forest Service
allotments were targeted for legal action. Preceding the
introduction of bighorn sheep into southwest Montana, our State
wildlife agency and local interest, including us landowners,
came together outlining a workable plan forward. Our ranch,
along with others ----
Mr. Gianforte. Excuse me, Mr. Helle, if you could just
straighten your microphone, we will get a better recording ----
Mr. Helle. Okay.
Mr. Gianforte.--and we can all hear you. Thank you.
Mr. Helle. Sorry. Our ranch, along with others, entered
into an MOU detailing the obligation to preserve domestic
grazing and support wildlife populations. Under State statute,
the Department assured ranchers such as myself that the
introduction of this species into areas where domestic
livestock were present would not result in any harm to our
ranching operation. This promise has proven to be false.
In the end, our reward for working cooperatively with these
agencies to introduce a bighorn sheep herd was three years of
costly litigation. The consequence of losing here could be the
loss of permits we've grazed for generations.
Earlier this month, my attorney had to appear before a
three-judge panel in the Ninth Circuit over an appeal on the
fourth denial from the district court of an injunction on my
grazing permit. This case arose from the same fact pattern
earlier referenced on bighorn sheep habitat under the Forest
Management Plan. Laws like EAJA encourage the propagation of
litigation and excess legal filings. Thankfully, the Ninth
Circuit denied their attempt, but my legal fees continue to
accrue.
Using this flawed logic and claims that only domestic sheep
carry specified--specific pathogens, groups have pushed for
effective separation between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep.
This separation formed the basis for grazing policies like
BLM's 1730 and species viability claims under the National
Forest Management Act. These recommendations were developed
without input from the domestic sheep industry or the U.S.
Department of Agriculture Ag Research Service.
Thanks to USDA research, we now know the pathogen blamed
for these deaths in wildlife is found not only in domestic
sheep but other wildlife species as well and are endemic in
bighorn herds across our State. The presence of these pathogens
is not indicative of overall bighorn herds' health, yet this
continues to be the basis for closing active sheep allotments
across the West and reducing sheep AUMs.
Using these tactics to threat--and threats of litigation
based on flaws Forest Service and BLM policy, artificial
environmental groups offer Federal sheep allotment holders so-
called buy-out agreements and then tout acceptance as a
voluntary action. Citing threats of litigation and loss of
livelihood to compel a sale is not voluntary; it's extortive.
Due to these practices, it is impossible to accurately assess
the number of AUMs our industry has lost.
However, together with our ranching neighbors and
conservation groups, we've formed an alliance to find shared
values and common goals. Stewardship on the ranches in our area
have demonstrated that we hold the key to successfully
achieving the goals of the conservation community by protecting
open space and wildlife corridors. Range science and land
management is not about setting and adhering to strict
standards. These tactics are ineffective unless we start
thinking on a landscape scale.
Unfortunately, land stewardship is not driving management.
Rather, decisions are based on the fear of litigation. Methods
that promote stewardship are the key to preservation of
sustainable Federal lands management, and wildlife management
is a State, not a Federal issue. These decisions must be made
at the local level with input from local stakeholders, and NEPA
must be streamlined to serve its originally intended purpose
without spurring litigation.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Helle follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Gianforte. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Helle.
At this time I would like to recognize Mr. Horngren for
your statement.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT HORNGREN
Mr. Horngren. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member Plaskett and members of the committee. I'm Scott
Horngren, an attorney with the Western Resources Legal Center
that provides real-world experience for students interested in
supporting resources uses such as livestock grazing. We provide
this practical education at Lewis & Clark Law School in Oregon
where I'm an adjunct professor. However, my testimony today
doesn't represent the position of the law school.
I will discuss ways agencies can improve the cooperative
working relationship with grazing permittees by streamlining
the cumbersome agency procedures for renewal of grazing permits
and eliminating the annual vulnerability of the grazing program
to serial litigation.
But first, I'll start with a great example of cooperative
working relationships between grazing permittees and Federal
agencies on the Nation's only sheep experiment station.
Unfortunately, litigation disrupts that cooperative
relationship and halts needed research to improve the health of
sheep, both bighorn and domestic, and the health of range land.
One important experiment station project involves how
different variables affect transmission of pneumonia between
domestic and bighorn sheep. The Western Watersheds Project,
whose goal is to halt all public lands grazing, filed numerous
lawsuits to halt sheep grazing in areas long used for research
since 1924. In the most recent lawsuit, the Forest Service
argued that, based on a prior settlement with Western
Watersheds, grazing could continue and the research should be
completed.
But the court disagreed and enjoined grazing and completion
of the five-year research project, which was in its final year.
The American Sheep Industry's Association moved to intervene,
given the wide application and benefit of the research to sheep
producers. The court deferred ruling on the motion to intervene
until after settlement discussions between Western Watersheds
and the Forest Service.
Last month, the Forest Service settled the case. It agreed
to stop domestic sheep grazing on the allotments until further
analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA,
but it didn't include any commitment or deadline to conduct the
analysis, and it agreed to pay $80,000 in attorney's fees to
the plaintiffs.
So Western Watersheds halted the very research designed to
promote multiple use and inform how range conditions and other
factors can influence disease transmission among the domestic
and bighorn sheep. But there's no commitment by the Forest
Service to complete the NEPA analysis.
Another concern is that the process to renew 10-year
grazing permits for ongoing grazing should be straightforward
and meaningfully and timely involve the permittees like Mr.
Helle. Most grazing allotments have been sustainably grazed by
ranching families for half a century or longer. Congress should
enact legislation that allows the Forest Service and BLM to
renew grazing permits if the range land is in satisfactory
condition using a more timely and less expensive categorical
exclusion under NEPA rather than a lengthy and expensive EIS.
Consultation between agencies about the effect of grazing
on species listed under the Endangered Species Act is also
disrupting grazing and undermines the cooperative relationship
between agencies and permittees. Often, the permittee is only
given a few days before the grazing season begins to review the
draft biological opinion, which has been delayed for half a
year or longer. Agencies should be directed to stop forcing
permittees into the Hobson's choice between whether to delay
turnout to meaningfully review this opinion or instead accept
the opinion's overly restrictive conditions in order to turn
the livestock out for the season. And then after the ESA
consultation is done, the lawsuits come, bringing further
delay.
Finally, once a 10-year permit is renewed, the grazing's
yearly grazing instructions that merely confirm the level of
livestock use for particular pastures based on the annual
variation in the forage and range conditions are also subject
to litigation and should not be. The Ninth Circuit held that
these annual operating instructions or AOIs are the new--are a
new final agency action subject to litigation.
A dissenting judge in that case argued that, quote, ``In
pragmatic terms, if every AOI for every permit in every
allotment every year is open to litigation, it is a little
difficult to see how the grazing program can continue. If the
purpose of the program is to feed animals, they need to eat now
rather than at the end of some lengthy court process.
Environmentalists should not have multiple bites at the
litigation apple. Congress or the agency should clarify that
these final agency actions do not include the annual
instructions in the AOIs.''
Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Horngren follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Gianforte. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Horngren.
At this time I will recognize Chairman Wheeler for your
comments.
STATEMENT OF SHANNON WHEELER
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and subcommittee
members.
[Speaking native language.]
Mr. Wheeler. My name is Shannon Wheeler. I'm with the Nez
Perce Tribe. My people, the Nimiipuu or the Nez Perce, have
lived in what is now central Idaho and parts of Washington,
Oregon, and Montana for thousands of years. Thousands of us
live there today. We continue to exercise our sovereign treaty-
reserved rights to fish, hunt, gather, and pasture our
livestock across our broad aboriginal territory, which today
primarily consists of our Federal public lands. These lands are
critically important to the Nez Perce people as it defines our
culture, traditions of thousands of years and is memorialized
in countless ways, including our treaty of 1855 with the United
States Government, and that's 12 Stat. 957 of the--with the
United States. And the current names of the Nez Perce-
Clearwater and Wallowa-Whitman National Forest are a part of
that to memorialize that.
The manner in which these lands are managed in vital--are
vital to the Nez Perce culture. Public land grazing is a
complex and controversial topic. Our tribal members continue to
exercise their treaty-reserved rights to pasture livestock on
public lands within the Nez Perce homeland, which at one time
was around 17 million acres that was our usual and accustomed
areas, and we ceded over 13 million acres of reservation.
We recognize that livestock grazing, when administered
responsibly, can be an appropriate and sustainable use of
lands, for us, such activity can be an important expression of
our history, our wealth, and our culture.
We also understand that in some areas and in some
circumstances livestock's grazing is not appropriate. We have
witnessed, as many members of the committee have, cases which
livestock grazing has been conducted irresponsibly or in areas
where the presence of livestock compromises other uses. These
areas often provide critical habitat for our treat-reserved
resources. Therefore, rights of the Tribe like the Nez Perce,
livestock grazing, when authorized or conducted
inappropriately, can compromise the exercise of our treaty
rights that are--were reserved for us.
One prime example of this is the Rocky Mountain bighorn
sheep and the conflicts associated with domestic sheep grazing.
As in many areas across the United States, the Nez Perce
homeland once supported vast herds of bighorn sheep throughout
a network of canyonlands and subalpine ridges. These animals
were materially and culturally critical to the Nez Perce, as
was stated before, for bows and for the under armor of the day
was their hide that we used, was flexible and strong and we--
being agile with that in that time--at that time of--that
period.
So to think about that, that resource itself, the animal
itself that cannot speak for itself but--it does speak for
itself but sometimes we don't listen. The animal, when he
starts disappearing and he's not able to tell you what's going
on with him but we recognize that his--the depletion of the
herds are--we're here to speak for that animal today, and
that's why I'm here.
As--and today, these canyonlands and ridges remain in
relatively healthy conditions and suitable for bighorn sheep,
yet bighorn sheep have been greatly depleted across the vast
portions of our homeland. Pneumonia caused by pathogens
introduced by the region by domestic sheep has been identified
by most scientists as the primary factor contributing to the
significant decline and, in many cases, extirpation of numerous
native bighorn sheep populations in the American West.
At the time of European settlement in the West, the bighorn
sheep populations numbered in the tens of thousands. Within our
homeland, these animals now exist in small isolated
populations. Pneumonia continues to be the culprit that
suppresses these remnant populations. Unfortunately, this
situation is common across much of the Western U.S., and
transmissions of the pneumonia-causing pathogens from domestic
to bighorn sheep remains the primary concerns of bighorn sheep
managers. The bottom line is bighorn sheep cannot share the
range with domestic sheep.
The Nez Perce Tribe considers recovery of the bighorn sheep
populations to huntable, healthy, and sustainable levels within
our homeland and throughout their suitable historic habit--
habitat to be a top resource management priority through recent
science-based research.
A tool has been developed known as a risk-of-contact model.
This tool, embraced by the U.S. Forest Service, provides land
managers with a science-based foundation of evaluating grazing
proposals and alternatives. The Nez Perce Tribe recommends that
this committee encourage Federal agencies to continue using the
risk-of-contact model for evaluating domestic sheep grazing
activities within our homeland.
And some of this is all written testimony even though I'm
not able to complete this. I would like to say this last and
least. Proposals to transfer these public lands to State and
private entities threaten access to and exercise of treaty-
reserved rights that are resources on which they depend. The
Nez Perce Tribe has been and remains categorically opposed to
all such proposals. It is my hope that the perspective of the
original inhabitants of these lands and the rights of resources
reserved by the treaty with the United States are appropriately
considered and prioritized. Under article VI, clause 3 of the
Constitution, the supremacy law where treaties are the supreme
law of the land and 12 Stat. 957, the treaty with the Nez Perce
are a piece of that.
So I thank you all for you time.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Wheeler follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Gianforte. Yes, Mr.--Chairman Wheeler, your entire
testimony will be read into the record, so we'll have that up
there ----
Mr. Wheeler. Okay. Okay.
Mr. Gianforte.--so thank you for your comments.
Mr. Eliason?
STATEMENT OF DAVE ELIASON
Mr. Eliason. Thank you, Chairman Gianforte--oh, excuse me.
Chairman Gianforte, thank you, and Ranking Member Plaskett
and members of the subcommittee, thank you. It's a pleasure to
be here.
My name is Dave Eliason. I'm a fourth-generation rancher
from Tremonton, Utah. Currently, I serve as president of the
National Public Lands. My testimony today is on behalf of
22,000 cattle and sheep producers throughout the West who rely
on Federal grazing permits.
Like many Western ranch families, mine goes back
generations on the same land in Box Elder County, Utah. Since
1889, we've stewarded both our private ground and Federal land
mixed in with it as if it were our own. Not only does our
family rely on these--the health of these lands, so does our
entire community. Staying in business for over 130 years has
meant considerable change to our family operation. That means
changing our herd to keep up with the times, acquiring new
forage and water in dry years and--or implementing value-added
programs to market our animals.
Unfortunately, Federal land management policy has often
failed to adapt with us. No matter the issue, whether it's sage
grouse, feral horses, or bighorn sheep, commonsense decisions
are all too often set aside. This is out of the proven fear
that radical environmental groups will sue to stop easy--even
basic conservation practice from moving forward.
My family has been the target of at least two of these
lawsuits. Once filed, the agencies hit the brakes and rush to
appease the litigants. It's a sad, predictable pattern, and I
wish I could say our story was unique, but it's not. It's the
same story everywhere I travel as the president of Public
Lands.
Another favorite weapon of these litigants is the
Endangered Species Act. In fact, of the 145 active petitions
for listing, 46 percent come from three groups: Center for
Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, and WildEarth
Guardians. Ironically, these same groups will likely sue to
impede recovery, leading to the ESA's poor success rate of only
2 percent.
Fortunately, solutions are being discussed as we speak.
Senator Barrasso has introduced legislation based on bipartisan
Western Governors' Association ESA policy resolution. PLC
strongly supports this. With many solutions held hostage in a
legal black hole, wildfire and frequent predictable--this is a
predictable outcome of this pattern. The National Interagency
Fire Centers estimates fuel treatment costs of the agency as at
least $150 an acre. Ranchers perform that service at no cost to
the taxpayers and everybody wins, ranchers, wildlife,
sportsmen, and even the resource. Instead of embracing this
tool, the agencies often reduce AUMs, eliminate grazing, and--
just to appease the litigants.
A prime example of this is the recent Martin fire in Nevada
which consumed nearly a half a million acres. Ninety-nine
percent of that greater sage grouse habitat and 82 percent was
priority habitat. That's the best of the best. Unfortunately,
due to the priority habitat management area designation and
despite clear science that says grazing is compatible and
necessary to conserve sage grouse, the area has not been grazed
for at least two years. The resulting fuel load of over 2 tons
per acre led to the devastating fire that could have easily
been avoided.
Responsible management of those resources, rather than the
fear litigation, should have helped lessen the impact of this
fire and many more like it. Streamlining NEPA and enhancing the
use of category exclusion is essential to fixing this broken
system, so is modernizing the ESA. Enhancing local input and
leveraging boots-on-the-ground knowledge will dramatically
improve outcomes for the species and shift the focus away from
listing back to recovery where it belongs.
No matter the law, we must eliminate unnecessary
opportunities for litigation by giving agency personnel the
tools they need to use common sense and work with the
critical--with our critical--with the critical partners.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, ranchers stand ready to address
the most pressing challenges facing our public lands. From
conservation of the greater sage grouse to preventing and
fighting wildfires, ranchers want to be the partners on the
ground. Further, Federal land managers in the West need
ranchers to manage--help manage property, so why not let us
help you preserving our public lands for generations to come?
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Eliason follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Gianforte. Thank you, sir. And thank you to the panel
for your testimony.
We will now move to our questions, and I will recognize
myself for five minutes to start.
I want to start with this question of compatibility of
grazing and multiple use. Can they coexist? Mr. Helle and Mr.
Eliason, is that correct? We have discussed, you know, BLM and
Forest Service both have as their missions the statement
directive for multiple use and sustained yield. Can you
describe how grazing is conducive to multiple use on Federal
land? And really try and answer the question, can it coexist
with other uses? Mr. Helle first.
Mr. Helle. Thank you, Mr. Gianforte. Multiple use has been
demonstrated on our forest for generations. We've got excellent
hunting opportunities. There's recreation opportunities. And by
working with conservation groups and--like the Montana chapter
of Wild Sheep Foundation, we were able to sit down and work out
ways that now the Gravelly Range has a huntable population of
bighorn sheep and our domestic sheep on there, but it took, you
know, grassroots work at the local level and--to build trust
within these organizations to have that, you know, come
through.
And then when we sign an MOU and that's a contractual
agreement with Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, us, and the Forest
Service, the land management agencies, to have that not adhered
to or that trust not there ----
Mr. Gianforte. So having grazing on Federal land does not
preclude other uses, including wild sheep populations?
Mr. Helle. Correct.
Mr. Gianforte. Okay. Mr. Eliason?
Mr. Eliason. Yes, we're a great believer in multiple use. I
mean, we promote--distribute water. We help maintain the
resources as much as we can. The--it's been proven many times
that sheep, cattle, and wildlife mix and they're a good
combination. The worst thing we want is just to try to manage
things for a single species. The best we can do is multiple use
so the whole country can enjoy these lands.
Mr. Gianforte. Yes. Mr. Helle, just to go back to that
for--I am really curious about how you have resolved potential
conflicts and how have you facilitated these discussions to
achieve what you have done in the Gravellys?
Mr. Helle. Well, we've formed a strategic alliance in the
Ruby Valley to get together interests from conservation groups
like the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Wildlife Conservation
Society, Nature Conservancy, and us landowners and permittee
holders have come together to find where we have shared values.
And we've found that we have very similar goals in the end to
preserve that open space and that--you know, our commensurate-
based property, the land that we use when we're not on the
forest, is actually a huge public benefit that the public is
receiving by having us have Federal grazing leases. So they've
realized that that's the key and that's the network that holds
these open spaces and wildlife corridors and all that we enjoy
about southwest Montana.
I'm speaking more because of--you know, but I'm sure that's
true, you know, across the country. You know, there's 130
million acres of private lands that are tied to Federal grazing
land permit-holders, so in combining that with the 250 million
acres of land that we graze on the Federal leases, that's
400,000 acres of land protected by family ranchers who are very
good stewards of the land.
Mr. Gianforte. So in your experience, various groups,
conservation, ag producers can work together and resolve issues
at a local level?
Mr. Helle. Definitely. We find that we have a lot of shared
values and a lot of similar goals.
Mr. Gianforte. Okay. Mr. Horngren, you discussed in your
testimony some of the ways which Federal grazing programs are
vulnerable to litigation. Does bad-faith special-interest
litigation pose a threat to multiple use?
Mr. Horngren. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman, and as an example,
one of the plaintiffs in the sheep station case, which is
designed to get information on this conflict or perceived
conflict between domestic and bighorn sheep, Western Watersheds
Project over the years has filed 170 lawsuits over ranching and
other multiple-use activities on the Federal lands.
Mr. Gianforte. Okay. Thank you. I am going to recognize the
ranking member for her questions, and we will probably do a
couple of rounds here.
Ms. Plaskett. Okay. Good afternoon. I wanted to ask a
question. In our discussion today, we talked about the
Federal--really central to all of this is the Federal
Government's role in managing Federal lands. Currently, the
Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service play an
important role in overseeing grazing. Mr. Helle and Mr.
Eliason, do you believe that there should be more or less
Federal regulation and oversight of commercial grazing on
Federal lands? Who wants to go first?
Mr. Helle. Thank you, Ms. Plaskett. Federal oversight, you
know, is important as those are public lands, but local input
on local decisions would help manage those lands more
appropriately. We are the experts that live on those lands and
have those grazing permits, and sometimes it seems like they
try and make decisions without our input. But, you know, I
think that, you know, grazing lands are a dynamic system and
they're very localized and they're different for each region,
so offering regulation that is a blanket approach across many
States and many different ecosystems may not be appropriate for
more site-specific decisions that need to be made on the ground
with the experts that the ranching community and the land
managers have.
Ms. Plaskett. Mr. Eliason?
Mr. Eliason. Yes, in a simple word, I don't think we need
any more rules and regulations. But generally speaking, the
ranchers and the Forest Service and BLM get along good.
Sometimes there are conflicts by these litigations, throws kind
of a monkey wrench into things. But it's important that we do
follow the rules and regulations. We're a law-abiding people.
We've been in generations on these ranches. We, too--we
understand that if we take care of the land, the land will take
care of us. We--important rules and regulations are necessary
in our society, but sometimes we can be overregulated.
And I agree with Mr. Helle on the fact that we need local
input. It's hard to manage things, say, in Washington State,
back in Montana or Utah. So local input is very, very important
that I think that people understand the local needs. Thank you.
Ms. Plaskett. Okay. Mr.--Chairman Wheeler, the same
question to you. Do you believe that there should be more or
less Federal regulations and oversight of commercial grazing on
Federal lands?
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you for the question. I definitely
believe that the Federal Government has a trust responsibility
to the treaty of 1855 with the Nez Perce. The question that you
ask for local input, I would know that we are on that
landscape, so our input definitely is valuable to that
decision-making process that ----
Ms. Plaskett. Do you believe that the Tribe should be
involved in any changes to Federal regulations and policy
related to this?
Mr. Wheeler. The--I think the ruling on it would be that
the--was reserved for us and the resources that were on that
landscape is--our biggest concern is that that is our ruling.
Our ruling is already in place and our decision has been made
for us over 140 years ago that these animals, this habitat, the
fish, that was all reserved in the treaty of 1855, and our
people haven't changed that much from that time. And so our
input is that responsibility of the Federal Government to hold
that in trust for us, and I believe that our--I guess that what
you're asking then for this piece would be that our input is
here; it's now, and that's what we're here to do.
Ms. Plaskett. And do you think that the Federal Government
has managed that properly, the interests of the Tribe along
with the interests of other commercial interests which may
appear to be at odds with one another?
Mr. Wheeler. You know, I think that we've had a working
relationship with the Forest Service, the USDA that, you know,
now, they're starting to hear a little more of our concerns of
how grazing is affecting the landscape out there. For example,
if I may give an example, for one of our canvas areas where we
dig roots out there, we don't only graze out there or hunt but
we gather out there. And the livestock is going out into that,
and there's no quarantine time for these animals before they
get out to the range land or out to the Forest Service land
that, you know, maybe at one time they were driven like a
cattle drive, but now they're shipped out there. So wherever
they were grazing, they're still packing those seeds of noxious
weeds out to our--out to these lands where we gather. And I
think that that aspect of it needs to be observed from a tribal
standpoint of how that's reflecting on our resources that are
out there.
Ms. Plaskett. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Gianforte. Okay. So Federal grazing permittees are
required to have an adjoining base property, and many ranchers
operate on a combination of deeded land and then Federal land
that has a grazing allotment on it. The value of the base
property is in part depending on grazing access to the
adjoining Federal land. Therefore, when the Bureau of Land
Management or the Forest Service reduces AUMs on the grazing
allotment, they're also reducing the value of the deeded land.
Mr. Eliason, in your written testimony you describe the
current ranch unit, as you refer to it, with deeded base
property and attached Federal grazing permits. Could you please
elaborate on how the private base property and the Federal
grazing allotments are related and just how the system works?
Mr. Eliason. Sure, I'd be glad to. Generally, most of the
ranchers have base property. Usually, they spend--the animals
will spend their winters on private property, and then in the
summertime they'll go up onto the Federal forest and BLM
grounds, so it's really quite a combination. If you were to
reduce, say, the grazing on the Forest Service, that means that
they can't carry. They have no place to go for those cattle.
Most of these ranchers are appraised by the number of animals
that they can carry year round, so if you cut the one side, you
know, then it reduces the value of the ranch.
And as you know may know very well that ranchers pay a lot
of property tax for the counties, and many rural and--rural
counties, that's the tax base. And a lot of counties like in
Utah, 98 percent of the land is Federal, so they haven't got a
big tax base, so it's very important these AUMs remain viable.
Mr. Gianforte. So when a ranch that may have been on a
deeded property for three or four or six generations, when the
AUMs on the adjoining Federal land are diminished in some way,
it actually reduces the property value of the underlying deeded
land, is that correct?
Mr. Eliason. Absolutely.
Mr. Gianforte. Yes. Just to a follow-on, so just to be
really clear, if the AUMs on the Federal lease are diminished,
have you seen that in practice, and what is the effect on the
underlying deeded ----
Mr. Eliason. Well, generally, the effect is, well, then you
got to use some of your private property to carry it, so you've
got to have a lot less carrying capacity. So your value is
less, your income is less, and sometimes if it cuts too much,
the ranch is no longer viable.
Mr. Gianforte. Okay. Mr. Helle, how long has your family
ranched sheep in the area where you currently do so?
Mr. Helle. My family immigrated from Austria into the--
right after the turn of the century and started into livestock
grazing before there was even a forest.
Mr. Gianforte. The turn of the last century?
Mr. Helle. Yes. And ----
Mr. Gianforte. So ----
Mr. Helle.--you know, over 100 years.
Mr. Gianforte. Okay. And if you were no longer able to
graze your sheep on the Federal land--on the neighboring
Federal allotments, how would that affect the value of your
ranch and your operation?
Mr. Helle. Well, that's an interesting thing because I live
in southwest Montana, and the--you know, the agricultural value
of our operation would be greatly reduced. It would become to
the point where my family could not make a viable living on the
operation with it were it not for our Federal grazing permits.
So that would put an undue, you know, risk of our private lands
becoming necessarily, you know, open to the market for
subdivision or trophy ranches or some of these other things
that are not necessarily conducive to what we value in
southwest Montana as far as protecting that open space and
those wildlife corridors and all that we enjoy about that.
So, you know, I'd like to say that it kind of goes both
directions. The Federal grazing leases, yes, they give us the
agricultural opportunity to make our ranches more valuable and
keep us in agriculture, so that's a public benefit that the
public receives by, you know, almost a semi-conservation
easement of those private lands that are intermingled within
the public lands.
Mr. Gianforte. And as I understand it, because the
regulations require adjacent base property, these grazing
allotments typically transfer with the deed of the home ranch.
Is that ----
Mr. Helle. Yes, correct. You have to--you know, there's
some laws and regulations around the transfer, but you can
either sell the base property or the livestock in certain
instances that are connected to that permit.
Mr. Gianforte. And the--ultimately, the price that someone
might pay for that home place is in part affected by what
grazing allotments are available, and diminishing the AUMs on
the Federal land diminishes the value of the home place.
Mr. Helle. Correct.
Mr. Gianforte. Yes, okay.
Mr. Helle. On an agricultural basis.
Mr. Gianforte. Yes. Thank you very much. And I'll recognize
the ranking member for her questions.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you. Mr. Wheeler, you were talking
about the effect that the comingling has on the bighorn sheep.
Can you give us some more examples of how commercial sheep
grazing on Federal lands have affected the population?
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you for the question. You know, looking
at the sheep themselves or the bighorn sheep, you know, the
outdoor industry, you know, if you talk numbers there, $850-
billion-a-year economic driver, and that supports over 7.5
million jobs in this country, but, you know, the--when they
start--these boundaries start coming into this habitat, this
suitable habitat, that--for the bighorn sheep, and when they
comingle, then the reduction of the herds in, say, the Hells
Canyon area has been reduced and, you know, we have jet boat
excursions. And every one of those--I couldn't say maybe the
majority of those trips that go up the Hells Canyon up the
Snake River all have bighorn sheep on their advertisements. I
don't believe they have domestic sheep, but they do have the
bighorn sheep going up there, and those are being reduced.
And just the importance of the bighorn sheep as far as the
petroglyphs that are thousands and thousands of years old, our
past tribal members have depicted bighorn sheep on there, and,
you know, the book Yellow Wolf: His Own Story, he talks about
the bighorn sheep and being able to hunt those.
And, you know, I just think that, you know, when these
boundaries are set, you know, we're not against grazing, you
know, on Federal lands, but we are against when they're
affecting the habitat of wildlife that is reserved by us and
our resource and ----
Ms. Plaskett. Do you know if there are other indigenous
cultures who are similarly affected as yours, maybe not with
bighorn sheep but with others in Federal grazing or Federal
land areas?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, there's our sister tribes, the Umatilla
Tribe, the Yakama Nation, the Warm Springs Tribe, the Upper
Snake River Tribes. There's the Shoshone-Paiutes, Shoshone-
Bannocks, the CSKT Tribe all within this area are near us that
all have had bighorn sheep populations depleted.
Ms. Plaskett. And do you know of depletion of other things
other than bighorn sheep and--or do you know of or any of you
gentlemen who are testifying know of instances where the
cultural viability and cultural issues such as--or livelihood
of tribes have been successfully worked out with commercial
grazing or with other domestic grazing activity?
Mr. Wheeler. I can say to one of those is the bison that
are--have that issue. The moose in our area now have declined.
You know, there's probably numerous reasons, but for the--
specifically to the bighorn sheep is the domestic sheep and the
pneumonia and the pathogens that are carried by them when they
intermingle. So the boundaries, I believe, are the important
issue with being able to come to a--some type of agreement to--
you know, like I had mentioned, we're not against grazing but
we are against that affecting the suitable habitat of the
bighorn sheep.
Ms. Plaskett. So your concern is with the increasing
grazing area or grazing that goes outside of the treaty
agreement?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes.
Ms. Plaskett. And could you explain to the subcommittee how
treaty rights could be affected by increasing grazing in
Federal lands?
Mr. Wheeler. Yes, thank you for the question again. So if
you look back at the reserve rights of a treaty, with us is 12
Stat. 957, and in that treaty what the United States there was
rights reserved to hunt, to fish, to gather in all usual and
accustomed areas. And that was part of our sustenance that we
could gather our foods, and we could also--it was also tied to
our sacred economic security that we had as far as the value of
what this resource meant to us as far as trade, trade to other
tribes and trade throughout the region. A lot of the different
materials that were traded were secured in that treaty as well,
so then the treaty, which is--which was in 1855 then was
ratified in 1858 or 1859, and then the U.S. Constitution, which
is article VI, clause 3, which is the--I mentioned the
supremacy law that treaties are the supreme law of the land
that--those rights were reserved in that, and if those
depletion of those herds and those depletion of those resources
are affected, then our treaty is affected by the depletion of
those resources.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Gianforte. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Helle, your operation
has been involved in a number of lawsuits. Do you feel that the
fear of future litigation is something that hangs over you and
other ranchers in your area?
Mr. Helle. Well, definitely. I worry that other people
might be, you know, looking at the sheep industry as--and we
need people to come into the sheep industry, but the risk of
these lawsuits hanging over our industry is definitely changing
people's perspective on the ability to increase and expand our
industry. The lamb industry in America, we import over half of
what the domestic consumption is. Wool is critical for our
military, and we import a lot of wool, too. And we're seeing,
you know, really good prices for wool right now. The lamb
market is good, so the opportunities in the sheep industry are
great from an economic perspective.
But from, you know, the litigation side of things and, you
know, a lot of the Western domestic sheep production has--you
know, has been dependent on some public lands grazing, so we're
putting at risk a--you know, an infrastructure and everything
else that would hold that industry together to, you know, draw
that in. So ----
Mr. Gianforte. So ----
Mr. Helle.--I mean, economically, it looks good, but
litigation-wise, that ----
Mr. Gianforte. So not knowing when the litigation is coming
or from which direction really adds uncertainty to your ability
to plan your business?
Mr. Helle. Definitely.
Mr. Gianforte. Yes.
Mr. Helle. You know, I think that our Federal agencies--
land management agencies make a lot of decisions based on the
fear of a litigant coming in ----
Mr. Gianforte. Okay.
Mr. Helle.--rather than on sound management.
Mr. Gianforte. Mr. Eliason, have you heard from other
ranchers around the country who are concerned about their
allotments or permits facing litigation?
Mr. Eliason. Oh, sure. And I've experienced it, too. And a
lot of times these radical environment groups that file these
lawsuits really intimidate the local forest and BLM because it
brings on so much more work and fear there. In 1982 we had a
big fire in our--one of our allotments. They would come in and
reseeded it, and so it carried a lot more. So the BLM gave us
what they call temporary non-renewables. They wouldn't give us
anything permanent, but they gave us--but we had fire on these
every year. So for 25 years we went on being able to use these
temporary non-renewables.
Western Watershed Project, one of these radical
environmentalist groups, sent a letter to the BLM saying that
it was going to sue the BLM if they continued to let us run on
this temporary non-renewables. We immediately got a cancelation
of our temporary non-renewables. We had to stop it right then.
We eventually went to court and we was able to get those back,
but that's a lot of time. A lot of times the BLM and Service
will do things so they don't upset the cart.
Mr. Gianforte. So you had a longer-term grazing allotment
agreement, and it went to this temporary ----
Mr. Eliason. Non-renewable.
Mr. Gianforte.--non-renewable ----
Mr. Eliason. Yes.
Mr. Gianforte.--which basically means it's ----
Mr. Eliason. You had to renew them every year.
Mr. Gianforte. It seems like it's a hand-to-mouth
experience ----
Mr. Eliason. Yes.
Mr. Gianforte.--where you have very little certainty about
the future.
Mr. Eliason. Exactly.
Mr. Gianforte. And it makes it hard to--being a business
guy, it makes it hard to plan, doesn't it?
Mr. Eliason. Exactly.
Mr. Gianforte. Yes. Mr. Horngren, you proposed legislation
clarifying that, quote, ``annual operating instructions,'' end
quote, should not be considered final agency actions. Under the
current system that allows legal challenges to annual operating
instructions, is there potential for agencies to have to
litigate similar issues repeatedly?
Mr. Horngren. Yes, there is, Mr. Chairman. And that
litigation can occur on the same forest or spread out among
forests throughout the West. For example, right now, the
Western Resources Legal Center is helping defend, as
codefendants, lawsuits against the Forest Service on the
Fremont-Winema Forest in Oregon. We had two of those lawsuits,
which recently were completed in the last year on the
Stanislaus National Forest in California and on BLM lands in
Arizona. Some of those same issues are brought up again and
again.
Mr. Gianforte. And how would the changes you propose
regarding annual operating instructions benefit both permittees
and Federal agencies?
Mr. Horngren. It would make the Federal agency job a lot
easier and less expensive, and it's not trying to do an end run
around litigation or shut anybody off from litigation. It's
just acknowledging that the big decisions are made in the
permit for the 10-year period. You get your shot there. Often,
you can win; maybe you lose. But once that opportunity is done,
implementation of that decision on a year-to-year basis
shouldn't continually be subject to litigation.
Mr. Gianforte. So that would allow all participants to have
their voice?
Mr. Horngren. Yes.
Mr. Gianforte. It gets sorted out in a collaborative way
but then gives the ranchers certainty for 10 years before the
individual decisions can be challenged?
Mr. Horngren. That's right.
Mr. Gianforte. Okay. Thank you. One last question if I
could, Mr. Horngren. Do you believe that the current grazing
permit administration process grants ranchers adequate level of
certainty for their operation and allows long-term planning?
Mr. Horngren. No. It's difficult, particularly with the
Endangered Species Act and the way that's set up now about the
consultation that I mentioned. And the permit process is very
uncertain because you don't know what another agency, Fish and
Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service, is going
to shove down the throat of the Forest Service or BLM in the
name of protecting the fish and wildlife.
Mr. Gianforte. Okay. Thank you.
Does the ranking member have additional questions?
Ms. Plaskett. No.
Mr. Gianforte. Okay. I would like to touch on a couple--
I'll recognize myself for one more round of questions, and then
we'll wrap up our discussion today.
A report by the Congressional Research Service based on
data from the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service
states that in the fiscal year 2016 out of the 12 million
animal unit months that could have been authorized for use on
BLM land, only about 8,700,000 were actually used. In the same
year on Forest Service land, only 6,800,000 head months were
used out of 8,200,000 that were available that could have been
authorized. Mr. Eliason, do you believe accounts for the nonuse
of millions of animal unit months--what do you believe accounts
for these nonuse of the animal unit months?
Mr. Eliason. Well, there are several reasons. There are a
lot of--especially certain areas, there's a lot of what we call
vacant allotments, and sometimes they want to transfer them to
sheep from cattle, to sheep to cattle, or vice versa or they
want to make some changes. Right now, the real problem is
getting the NEPA done on those in order to get the--these
allotment back into use. Sometimes, some of these allotments,
you know, this is a hard record--the country--that you don't
want to. But generally, what's been really causing a problem
lately is being able to get the NEPA done on it. These vacant
allotments, one of the big challenges is that's on the bottom
list they're getting the NEPA. And as we know, there's a huge
backlog getting NEPA done. And so with the vacant allotments,
they're probably not going to get done. I know a lot of those
allotments are just waiting for the NEPA to get done so they
can get them back into use.
Mr. Gianforte. So streamlining the NEPA process ----
Mr. Eliason. That's right.
Mr. Gianforte.--would be a benefit? Okay. Could you explain
the concept of voluntary nonuse for those who may not be
familiar with the term?
Mr. Eliason. Yeah, voluntary nonuse is just--you know,
whether it's--you know, maybe it's a really dry year or, you
know, financially hard times come up on it, and so sometimes
you have to take temporary non-renewables.
Mr. Gianforte. But that's to be ----
Mr. Eliason. Or not--but ----
Mr. Gianforte. To be a good steward of the land?
Mr. Eliason. Yes. You know, a lot of times it's for the
benefit of the ground, and so we don't graze it. And at other
times, you know, like I say, sometimes it's financial reasons.
Usually, on the Forest Service they allow you three years. BLM
sometimes you can go on for a long time. But generally
speaking, a lot of times it's--they're not being used because
of the health of the resource.
Mr. Gianforte. Yes. Mr. Helle, are you aware of any
ranchers who have had animal unit months reduced or been
threatened with a reduction or have you experienced it
yourself?
Mr. Helle. Thank you, Mr. Gianforte, for that question
because recently, a--an episode occurred up in our Upper Ruby
where there was some maintenance done on a project that
required some road building in that. So it was--it happened
that the--it was in a roadless area, and when that--Forest
found about it, the ranger--I guess it was authorized by the
recreation person and maybe the range conservationist, but when
the forest ranger got word from a bystander or somebody that
saw it, then things were just--kind of fell out of place at
that point. And then I think they threatened to, you know, not
let the cattle go into that, and if they would go into that
area, that they would threaten them with a reduction in their
AUMs when all that was thought to have been prearranged and
worked out.
And it was just a lack of communication I think that had
that, but that's what happens when you don't involve the
permittees and when you're making decisions and stuff. So it
was unfortunate ----
Mr. Gianforte. Okay.
Mr. Helle.--that they were threatened with reductions.
Mr. Gianforte. For Mr. Helle and Mr. Eliason, have you ever
seen situations where voluntary nonuse has not been voluntary?
Mr. Eliason. Yes, a good example of that is the national
monuments. When these places are made into national monuments,
the rules and regulations become so severe and so hard that
it's just not worth it. So a lot of times, that's--that caused
the vacant allotment. But a lot of times it's because of the
welfare of the range.
Mr. Gianforte. Okay. Mr. Helle?
Mr. Helle. It's hard to say because I've seen a lot of
sheep ranchers just go out of business, so I don't know what
the underlying things were or if there was some offer or
something. But I know in Beaverhead County there was, you know,
lots of sheep run on forest land, and there's very few of them
now.
Mr. Gianforte. Okay. Well, I want to thank the witnesses
for your testimony today. The hearing record will remain open
for two weeks for any member to submit a written opening
statement or questions for the record.
If there's no further business, without objection, the
subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:49 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]