[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                     PROMOTING CONSERVATION WITH A
                      PURPOSE ON AMERICA'S FEDERAL 
                           LANDS AND FORESTS

=======================================================================

                           OVERSIGHT HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                        Wednesday, March 8, 2023

                               __________

                            Serial No. 118-7

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
       
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]      


        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                   or
          Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
          
                              __________

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
51-479 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------               

                     COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                     BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
                    DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
                  RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO		Grace F. Napolitano, CA		
Robert J. Wittman, VA		Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 
Tom McClintock, CA		  CNMI
Paul Gosar, AZ			Jared Huffman, CA
Garret Graves, LA		Ruben Gallego, AZ
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS	Joe Neguse, CO
Doug LaMalfa, CA		Mike Levin, CA
Daniel Webster, FL		Katie Porter, CA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR    Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID		Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Pete Stauber, MN		Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
John R. Curtis, UT		Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Tom Tiffany, WI			Kevin Mullin, CA
Jerry Carl, AL			Val T. Hoyle, OR
Matt Rosendale, MT		Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO		Seth Magaziner, RI
Cliff Bentz, OR			Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jen Kiggans, VA			Ed Case, HI
Jim Moylan, GU			Debbie Dingell, MI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX		Susie Lee, NV
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY                                

                    Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
                      Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
                 Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
                   http://naturalresources.house.gov
                                 ------                                

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS

                       TOM TIFFANY, WI, Chairman
                     JOHN R. CURTIS, UT, Vice Chair
                     JOE NEGUSE, CO, Ranking Member

Doug Lamborn, CO                     Katie Porter, CA
Tom McClintock, CA                   Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Russ Fulcher, ID                     Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, 
Pete Stauber, MN                         CNMI
John R. Curtis, UT                   Mike Levin, CA
Cliff Bentz, OR                      Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Jen Kiggans, VA                      Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
Jim Moylan, GU                       Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio

                              ----------                                
                                
                                CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on Wednesday, March 8, 2023.........................     1

Statement of Members:

    Tiffany, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Wisconsin.........................................     1
        Prepared statement of....................................     3
    Neguse, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Colorado................................................     4

Statement of Witnesses:

    Ferry, Hon. Joel, Executive Director, Utah Department of 
      Natural Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah....................     7
        Prepared statement of....................................     8
    Espy, Hon. John, Commissioner, Board of Carbon County 
      Commissioners, Rawlins, Wyoming............................    12
        Prepared statement of....................................    13
    Leshy, John D., Distinguished Professor Emeritus, University 
      of California Law, San Francisco, California...............    16
        Prepared statement of....................................    17
    Rigdon, Phil, Superintendent, Department of Natural 
      Resources, Yakama Nation; and Vice President, Inter-Tribal 
      Timber Council.............................................    24
        Prepared statement of....................................    26

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

    Submission for the Record by Representative Lamborn

        Deseret News article, Ute Indian Tribe calls Biden's 
          Colorado national monument designation `an unlawful act 
          of genocide', October 13, 2022, by Kyle Dunphey........    31



 
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON PROMOTING CONSERVATION WITH A PURPOSE ON AMERICA'S 
                       FEDERAL LANDS AND FORESTS

                              ----------                              


                        Wednesday, March 8, 2023

                     U.S. House of Representatives

                     Subcommittee on Federal Lands

                     Committee on Natural Resources

                             Washington, DC

                              ----------                              

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in 
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tom Tiffany 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

    Present: Representatives Tiffany, Lamborn, McClintock, 
Fulcher, Stauber, Curtis, Kiggans, Hageman; Neguse, Porter, 
Kamlager-Dove, Sablan, and Hoyle.

    Mr. Tiffany. The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear 
testimony on promoting conservation with a purpose on America's 
Federal lands and forests.
    I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from Wyoming, 
Ms. Hageman, the gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Hoyle, and the 
gentleman from Utah, Mr. Moore, be allowed to participate in 
today's hearing from the dais.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at 
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority 
Member.
    I, therefore, ask unanimous consent that all other Members' 
opening statements be made part of the hearing record if they 
are submitted in accordance with Committee Rule 3(o).
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM TIFFANY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                  FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

    Mr. Tiffany. First of all, it is a great privilege to be 
able to chair the Subcommittee on Federal Lands. I want to 
thank the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Westerman, for having 
the confidence to allow me to do that.
    And I look forward to working with the Ranking Member here, 
Mr. Neguse, to have a vibrant, good debate in what staff is 
telling me is one of the busiest Subcommittees in Natural 
Resources, and I really look forward to that.
    I want to take this opportunity to welcome all of our 
Members returning anew, and I am excited to work with all of 
you this Congress as we address the many pressing issues 
affecting our Federal lands and forests.
    The topic of today's hearing is ``Promoting Conservation 
with a Purpose on America's Federal Lands and Forests.'' This 
is an important subject, and I hope the discussion that ensues 
will help establish some guiding principles of Federal land 
management and conservation for this Subcommittee to follow.
    It could also not be coming at a more critical moment. Our 
Federal land management agencies are facing a suite of 
unprecedented crises: bleak forest health conditions and 
catastrophic megafires, crumbling infrastructure and 
skyrocketing deferred maintenance, environmental degradation at 
our Southern border, disappearing access and recreation 
opportunities, overcrowding, and diminished economic 
opportunities for local communities.
    As a nation, we are blessed with abundant natural resources 
on our Federal lands. There are roughly 640 million acres of 
Federal land across the country, which is 28 percent of the 
entire land base. I might be biased, but my district in 
Northern Wisconsin, which contains a million and a half of 
those acres, are some of the finest Federal lands in the 
country including the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest.
    When done well, Federal lands are carefully managed to 
balance the multiple uses and needs of the American people in a 
way that ensures they will be protected and enjoyed by 
generations to come. This is what we mean when we say 
``conservation with a purpose.''
    Sadly, true conservation of our Federal lands has been 
increasingly hamstrung by a preservationist agenda being pushed 
by extreme environmentalists, including those in the Biden 
administration. Under the guise of protecting the environment, 
these extremists have pushed for locking up vast swaths of land 
under restrictive land designations, shutting down active 
management and responsible resource development through 
burdensome regulations, and when all else fails, filing 
frivolous lawsuits.
    Extreme environmentalists have also hijacked the word 
``conservation'' to promote policies straight out of the 
preservationist playbook. Look no further than the Biden 
administration's own 30 x 30 Initiative, an ill-defined, 
unscientific policy. Under the guise of conservation, 30 x 30 
has supported nothing but preservationist land designations and 
a $1 billion slush fund. Of course, this is hardly a surprise, 
given the fact that the nonpartisan Congressional Research 
Service has calculated 39 percent of lands are already 
considered protected in the United States of America.
    Preservation has failed to yield promised environmental 
protection. Instead, preservation exacerbates the challenges 
facing Federal land managers by hindering their ability to use 
science-based, active management techniques. There is a better 
way to manage our lands. We owe it to the American people to 
support land management practices that lead to more resilient 
communities, better environmental outcomes, and greater access 
and opportunities for the American people.
    That is part of our Commitment to America, which sets forth 
principles to achieve these results by pursuing innovative, 
pro-growth solutions that responsibly expedite regulatory 
processes, reduce frivolous litigation, restore scientifically 
sound management, and remove arbitrary barriers blocking access 
to our Federal lands and forests.
    Achieving these outcomes will require empowering local 
communities and stakeholders to collaborate and coordinate on 
Federal land management efforts. People that live closest to 
these lands are often the best stewards because they understand 
the unique challenges they face and have a vested interest in 
ensuring that they are left in a better condition for future 
generations. That is why today we will hear from state, tribal, 
and local witnesses about the importance of collaboration and 
what true conservation should look like on our Federal lands 
and forests. I look forward to hearing their unique 
perspectives.
    I want to thank all the witnesses for being with us, and I 
look forward to today's discussion.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Tiffany follows:]

 Prepared Statement of the Hon. Tom Tiffany, Chairman, Subcommittee on 
                             Federal Lands

    Good morning. I want to thank you all for being here today as the 
Subcommittee on Federal Lands meets for the first time in the 118th 
Congress. I want to take this opportunity to welcome all of our 
Members, returning and new. I am honored by the opportunity to serve as 
Chairman of this Subcommittee, and I am excited to work with you all 
this Congress as we endeavor to address the many pressing issues 
impacting our Federal lands and forests.
    I'd also like to welcome back our returning Ranking Member, 
Representative Joe Neguse of Colorado. Ranking Member Neguse, I look 
forward to working with you this Congress on our shared legislative and 
oversight priorities.
    The topic of today's hearing is ``Promoting Conservation with a 
Purpose on America's Federal Lands and Forests.'' This is an important 
subject, and I hope the discussion that ensues will help establish some 
guiding principles of Federal land management and conservation for this 
Subcommittee to follow.
    It could also not be coming at a more critical moment. Our Federal 
land management agencies are facing a suite of unprecedented crises: 
bleak forest health conditions and catastrophic megafires, crumbling 
infrastructure and skyrocketing deferred maintenance, environmental 
degradation at our Southern border, disappearing access and recreation 
opportunities, overcrowding, and diminished economic opportunities for 
local communities.
    As a nation we are blessed with abundant natural resources on our 
Federal lands. There are roughly 640 million acres of Federal land 
across the country, which is 28 percent of the entire land base. I 
might be biased, but my district in Northern Wisconsin contains just 
over 1.5 million acres of the finest Federal lands in the country, 
including the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest.
    When done well, Federal lands are carefully managed to balance the 
multiple uses and needs of the American people in a way that ensures 
they will be protected and enjoyed by generations to come. This is what 
we mean when we say conservation with a purpose.
    Sadly, true conservation of our Federal lands has been increasingly 
hamstrung by a preservationist agenda being pushed by extreme 
environmentalists, including those in the Biden administration. Under 
the guise of protecting the environment, these extremists have pushed 
for locking up vast swaths of land under restrictive land designations, 
shutting down active management and responsible resource development 
through burdensome regulations, and when all else fails, filing 
frivolous lawsuits.
    Extreme environmentalists have also hijacked the word 
``conservation,'' to promote policies straight out of the 
preservationist playbook. Look no further than the Biden 
administration's own 30 by 30 Initiative, an ill-defined, unscientific 
policy. Under the guise of ``conservation,'' 30 by 30 has supported 
nothing but preservationist land designations and a $1 billion slush 
fund. Of course, this is hardly a surprise, given the fact that the 
non-partisan Congressional Research Service has calculated 39 percent 
of lands are already considered `protected.'
    Preservation has failed to yield promised environmental protection. 
Instead, preservation exacerbates the challenges facing Federal land 
managers by hindering their ability to use science-based active 
management techniques. There is a better way to manage our lands. We 
owe it to the American people to support land management practices that 
lead to more resilient communities, better environmental outcomes, and 
greater access and opportunities for the American people.
    That's part of our Commitment to America, which set forth 
principles to achieve these results by pursuing innovative pro-growth 
solutions that responsibly expedite regulatory processes, reduce 
frivolous litigation, restore scientifically sound management, and 
remove arbitrary barriers blocking access to our Federal lands and 
forests.
    Achieving these outcomes will require empowering local communities 
and stakeholders to collaborate and coordinate on Federal land 
management efforts. People that live closest to these lands are often 
the best stewards because they understand the unique challenges they 
face and have a vested interest in ensuring they are left in a better 
condition for future generations. That's why today, we will hear from 
State, Tribal and local witnesses about the importance of collaboration 
and what true conservation should look like on our Federal lands and 
forests. I look forward to hearing their unique perspectives.
    I want to thank all the witnesses for being with us and I look 
forward to today's discussion.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. With that, I will now recognize the Ranking 
Member, Mr. Neguse, for his opening statement.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE NEGUSE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 
                   FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

    Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    First and foremost, I want to say congratulations to you on 
your chairmanship and certainly looking forward to working with 
you. I have had the privilege of working with you previously on 
this Subcommittee and in the broader Committee, and I am 
certainly excited about the work ahead.

    I am glad to join you today and our colleagues from both 
sides of the aisle for the inaugural meeting of the Federal 
Lands Subcommittee in the 118th Congress.

    I also want to welcome, in particular, our newer Members. I 
know we have a number of freshman Members of Congress who are 
serving on this Subcommittee both from the Republican side and 
the Democratic side, and we are very, very grateful to have 
them participating.

    I had the privilege, as you all will recall, of serving as 
Chairman of this Subcommittee in the last Congress, and my 
experience taught me during the course of the last 2 years that 
this Subcommittee is really a workhorse.

    And I was very grateful to hear the Chairman talk a bit 
about that, and I think it is kind of helpful to do a bit of 
level-setting as we kick off the year.

    In the 117th Congress, just by way of background, we 
processed and moved more stand-alone pieces of legislation in 
this Subcommittee than any other Natural Resources 
Subcommittee, and we did so in a bipartisan manner.

    The Full Committee, the Natural Resources Committee under 
Chairman Grijalva, marked up 68 bills that were referred to 
this Subcommittee last Congress. Thirty-eight of those bills 
were sponsored by Democrats. Thirty were sponsored by 
Republicans.

    And that was really important to me, as the Subcommittee 
Chair, to ensure that this Subcommittee operated in a 
bipartisan manner, and I believe this is the case--of course, 
we have a bevy of folks that can fact check it--that no other 
Subcommittee in the U.S. Congress in the last Congress 
functioned in that way as this Subcommittee did in terms of the 
volume and the percentages between Republican bills and 
Democratic bills.

    Forty-nine of those bills that I mentioned passed the 
House, and an impressive 74 were enacted into law either as 
stand-alones or as part of a larger package.

    Again, most of that work was done on a very bipartisan 
basis, with one-third of those bills being sponsored by my 
Republican colleagues. It was a priority for our Subcommittee, 
and I think and I certainly hope that the former Ranking 
Member, my friend from Idaho, Mr. Fulcher, would concur with 
that.

    But it was something we took very seriously, and I 
certainly hope, as Chairman, that you will take that same 
approach, and I have no doubt that that will be the case, and I 
appreciate the opportunity to be able to have the spirited and 
robust debate that I know we will have on issues over the 
course of the next 2 years.

    Before I move on to the topic of today's hearing, because 
this is the first hearing of this particular Subcommittee, I 
would be remiss if I did not take a moment to discuss the 
crisis that really is engulfing the West right now, and that is 
the Western drought.

    Whether you are in an Upper Basin state like myself or Mr. 
Curtis, or our new Member from the state of Wyoming, or one of 
the Lower Basin states, it is very clear that we have a crisis 
on our hands.

    The drought conditions along the Colorado River year after 
year are something simply that we can't ignore. I represent a 
district in Northern Colorado that includes the headwaters of 
the Colorado River. So, for us, this is very real, and as we 
talk about conservation, I certainly hope, and understand that 
there is a separate Subcommittee on Water that many of us serve 
on, that nonetheless, we can talk a bit here about our work to 
protect watersheds and water sources.

    And I certainly look forward to doing that work with 
Chairman Tiffany and my colleagues.

    With respect to conservation, I think the record is clear 
that in the last Congress we made significant progress during 
our time in the Majority on that issue. Through President 
Biden's Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act, as 
you all know, we passed historic levels of funding to promote 
resilience, restoration, and conservation across public lands.

    A lot of that work was informed by the hearings that we 
held right here in this Subcommittee with witnesses like 
yourselves, hearings that provided opportunities for Federal 
land management agencies, scientists, local officials, 
community stakeholders, and a wide range of public land users 
to be able to come in and provide us with insight about 
conservation potential of our Federal lands and forests.

    And now, the good news is that the generational investments 
that we enacted last Congress are financing projects literally 
across the Rocky Mountain West that were designed to mitigate 
the worst effects of the climate crisis, keeping communities 
safe, and restoring damaged ecosystems.

    We are talking literally about hundreds of millions of 
dollars in investments to promote resiliency across public 
lands and mitigation. We see these investments having real 
world impacts with respect to wildfire, just by one example, a 
significant concern, of course, to my district and I know to 
many of my colleagues here who represent the West.

    The Biden administration has been utilizing these resources 
to partner with states, with counties. I hope we will hear 
about some of that today, as well as key stakeholders to treat 
millions of acres within our national forests, particularly in 
the most at risk fire sheds.

    That work is crucially important, and again, it is a 
generational investment whose time has certainly come.

    But there is more to be done, and we will certainly be 
introducing legislation in the coming weeks and months with our 
colleagues to address some of those concerns.

    Now, of course, I would be remiss if I did not talk a bit 
about public lands' preservation as we talk about conservation.

    I, of course, have a bill that I am particularly supportive 
of which is the Colorado Outdoor Recreation and Economy Act, 
the CORE Act, community-driven legislation that would protect 
thousands of acres of land in Colorado.

    But there are many other bills of a similar nature that 
have been introduced by colleagues of mine on my side of the 
aisle, and I certainly hope that we will have an opportunity to 
consider some of those bills as well over the coming 2 years.

    So, I will simply close by saying I appreciate the 
opportunity to be able to serve as Ranking Member, to serve 
with you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to the work ahead.

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ranking Member 
Neguse.
    We will now move on to our witnesses.
    Let me remind the witnesses that under Committee Rules, 
they must limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but their 
entire statement will appear in the hearing record.
    To begin your testimony, please press the on button on the 
microphone. We use timing lights. When you begin, the light 
will turn green. At the end of 5 minutes, the light will turn 
red and I will ask you to please complete your statement at 
that time if you are continuing.
    I will also allow all witnesses to testify before Member 
questioning.
    First of all, I will introduce Mr. Joel Ferry, the 
Executive Director of the Utah Department of Natural Resources. 
Mr. Ferry is a fifth-generation farmer who operates a ranch, 
farm, feedlot, and hunting properties in Corinne, Utah.
    Corinne?
    Mr. Ferry. Corinne. So close.

    Mr. Tiffany. Prior to his role with the Department of 
Natural Resources, Mr. Ferry served in the Utah House of 
Representatives.
    Mr. Ferry, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOEL FERRY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UTAH 
     DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH

    Mr. Ferry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Committee. It is an 
honor being here with you today.
    This is a subject and a topic that is very near and dear to 
my heart. And I want to talk about Federal interaction with the 
state of Utah on the lands that are in the state of Utah.
    So, Federal landownership is significantly higher in the 
western United States than in other regions, and in Utah, in 
particular, the Federal Government owns over 60 percent of the 
land in our state. Only Nevada has more federally owned land in 
the Lower 48 than Utah does.
    Utah is home to 13 national parks and millions of acres 
managed by Federal agencies including Forest Service, Bureau of 
Land Management, and the Fish and Wildlife Service.
    The health and viability of our forests, our wildlands, and 
our watersheds have a direct impact on downstream natural 
resources like the Great Salt Lake, which is in peril.
    As directed by the FLPMA and the National Forest Management 
Act, smart, collaborative conservation is most effective when 
Federal land use plans are consistent with plans and policies 
of the states and local governments, and this integration is 
critical as state and local plans and policies incorporate 
local scientific data and reflect the needs of the nearby 
communities.
    Utah's natural resources are healthier, more resilient, 
more productive when actively managed across ownership 
boundaries and management, and management like this must occur 
regularly and at a watershed and local community scale, and 
this can only be accomplished by working together.
    In Utah, we have implemented several different programs 
that are collaborative efforts between the Federal Government 
and the state. Those programs include the Watershed Restoration 
Initiative, which has invested over the past 17 years, and we 
have done over 2,500 projects and invested hundreds of millions 
of dollars and enhanced and improved over 2.4 million acres 
within our watershed and our forests.
    Another program that we started 4 years ago is the Shared 
Stewardship Program. This is a collaborative effort between the 
Forest Service and the state of Utah. We have been able to 
invest over $30 million and protected, enhanced, and removed 
old growth and regenerated our forests on over 80,000 acres.
    These have both been very successful programs that I think 
are an example of how Utah is leading the nation in managing 
our Federal lands and coordinating with our Federal Government.
    In addition, recently, in the last few years, we created 
the Office of Outdoor Recreation and Department of Outdoor 
Recreation within our state government that promotes outdoor 
recreation on our Federal lands, and this is a collaborative 
effort between the state and the Federal Government.
    Now, despite these successes, we still face serious 
obstacles, and the most significant obstacle is the National 
Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, and the way it hamstrings the 
effective land management by our Federal partners.
    The Act was well intentioned but has become the hook for 
litigation by those who oppose any type of active management on 
Federal lands and forests.
    NEPA is the kind of tool to prevent grazing, energy 
development, and mining of critical minerals that American 
industries, including the renewable industries, need. And 
perhaps most relevant for our discussion today is NEPA often 
prevents Federal agencies from thinning our forests to prevent 
catastrophic wildfires and by transforming dying forests into 
healthy forests.
    And that was certainly not the intent of the Act, but that 
is what it does.
    We are encouraged by the reforms of the Trump 
administration that they were undertaking, but very 
disappointed by the current Council on Environmental Quality 
and the rolling back of those reforms, endangering our 
conservation efforts and the Administration's own stated goals.
    We would also encourage the Federal Government to 
reconsider the impact of President Biden's 30 x 30 Initiative, 
particularly on states like Utah where the Federal Government 
manages significant acres of public lands. Utah is not 
comfortable with an attempt by the Administration to place even 
more of these lands in Utah under restrictive designations.
    Approximately 61 percent of Utah, 33 million acres of land 
is Federal land protected under different Federal laws, 
regulations like NEPA, and FLPMA.
    So, working together in collaboration with our Federal and 
local partners is always better than working in isolated silos. 
We have proven this in Utah. Our natural resources are more 
resilient, more productive when actively managed across 
ownership boundaries.
    We have healthier watersheds, cleaner water, greater yield 
of water, fire resistant landscapes, healthier wildlife 
populations and more abundant outdoor recreational 
opportunities when we work together.
    As stewards of Utah's natural resources, we need your help 
in removing barriers that hinder our ability to actively manage 
the public lands. We need your continued support and investment 
at the individual watershed level and local level. Ongoing 
partnership and cooperation are necessary as we continue to 
work through these challenges and opportunities.
    Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Ferry follows:]
         Prepared Statement of Executive Director, Joel Ferry,
                  Utah Department of Natural Resources

      Federal landownership is significantly higher in the 
western United States than in other regions. In Utah, the federal 
government owns over 60 percent of the land. Only Nevada has more 
federally owned land.

      Utah is home to 13 national park units and millions of 
acres managed by federal agencies, including the U.S. Forest Service, 
Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      In states like Utah, where the federal government manages 
significant swaths of land, proactive, collaborative and smart 
conservation efforts are critical to maintaining healthy and thriving 
landscapes and watersheds. Success comes through cooperation.

      The health and viability of our forests, wildlands and 
watersheds have a direct impact on downstream natural resources like 
the Great Salt Lake and Utah Lake.

      As directed by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
and the National Forest Management Act, smart collaborative 
conservation is most effective when federal land use plans are 
consistent with the plans and policies of states and local governments. 
This integration is critical as state and local plans and policies 
incorporate local scientific data and reflect the needs of nearby 
communities.

      Natural resources that directly contribute to our quality 
of life don't respect ownership boundaries, like water, air, wildlife 
and even wildfires. This underscores the importance of cooperative 
working relationships.

      Close collaboration is essential as we continually work 
to anticipate challenges and changing conditions, like drought, 
wildfire and demand on outdoor recreation, and tackle them with the 
latest science, tools, innovation and collaboration.

      Utah's natural resources are healthier, more resilient 
and more productive when actively managed across ownership boundaries. 
Management like this must occur regularly and at a watershed and local 
community scale. This can only be accomplished by working together.

      In Utah, through smart and collaborative conservation 
practices, we've maximized investments in ways that increase healthy 
watersheds and benefit local communities directly.

      For example, Utah's Watershed Restoration Initiative 
(WRI) is a partnership-based program that improves high-priority 
watersheds statewide.

        --  In its 17th year, this initiative focuses on three 
        ecosystem values: 1) Watershed health and biological diversity 
        2) Water quality and yield 3) Opportunities for sustainable 
        uses of natural resources.

        --  WRI has completed over 2,500 projects in Utah, improving 
        over 2.4 million acres and nearly 2,300 miles of streams and 
        riparian corridors.

        --  This state-led partnership includes over 700 partners, 
        including federal and state land management agencies, local 
        governments, private landowners, Non profits, environmental 
        organizations and sportsman groups. We have leveraged nearly 
        $350 million for on-the-ground active management projects 
        across ownership boundaries to improve Utah's watersheds.

      For four years, the state of Utah has been working with 
federal partners through our combined Shared Stewardship agreement to 
protect communities and watersheds from the threat of unwanted fire.

        --  The agreement has allowed Utah to work with the U.S. Forest 
        Service, Natural Resource Conservation Service, and dozens of 
        additional local and private partners to implement fuel 
        reduction work from a landscape scale, cross-boundary approach. 
        In all, there are over 150 coordinating partners.

        --  Over $30 million has been invested in active forest 
        management over the last four years, with $5.5 million invested 
        in 2022.

        --  More than 45 jointly identified high-priority watersheds 
        have been improved, and 80,000 acres treated.

        --  Currently, projects that exemplify the success of this 
        program include the Beaver River Watershed Improvement and the 
        Parley's Canyon Watershed Restoration.

        --  The Beaver River project in the Fishlake National Forest 
        exemplifies a large-scale and collaborative project that 
        included federal and state partnerships and local and county 
        involvement. The project included strategic landscape-scale 
        projects on State Institutional Trust Lands and Forest Service 
        land. Fuels removed from the project were sold and processed by 
        members of the private forest products industry to encourage 
        economic growth and wood utilization.

        --  Parley's Canyon, in Summit County, has been the site of two 
        wildfires in the last two years, highlighting the immediate 
        risk to people and homes in the canyon. Mechanical fuels 
        treatments have been conducted along Parley's Creek in the 
        Lambs Canyon area to protect water quality for Salt Lake City 
        and ensure the safety of residential and commercial properties.

        --  Work continues to take place across the state as more areas 
        are identified and funding is available through state and 
        federal appropriations.

      The state, working with county governments and local 
stakeholders, recently completed an aspen regeneration project in 
partnership with the U.S. Forest Service on Fishlake National Forest.

        --  The Monroe Mountain Aspen Regeneration Project included 
        diverse community stakeholders working with the Forest Service 
        on a comprehensive plan to restore declining aspen forests.

        --  Prescribed fire, logging and other tools are being used to 
        restore aspen habitat, benefiting wildlife, livestock and the 
        watershed.

        --  The project succeeded, in part, because the Forest Service 
        supported the grassroots efforts of the community to improve 
        forest health.

      Utah's newly created Division of Outdoor Recreation 
administers the federal government's Land and Water Conservation Fund 
(LWCF), which is designed to implement projects and improve outdoor 
recreation at the local level.

        --  This federal reimbursement grant is for the acquisition and 
        development of outdoor recreation areas and requires a 50 
        percent match from applicants.

        --  Utah has implemented over 500 projects since the inception 
        of LWCF with an investment of over $50 million from the federal 
        government.

      Investment in outdoor recreation goes beyond projects 
funded through the LWCF. Utah has expanded its efforts through the 
Outdoor Recreational Infrastructure Grant Program.

        --  Transient room tax funds are used to build new, and 
        maintain existing outdoor recreational infrastructure. These 
        projects are on local, state and federal lands.

        --  Nearly $35 million in state funding has been invested since 
        2015. Funding has gone toward 399 different projects and 
        created 735 miles of new trails throughout the state, and has 
        resulted in a public/private match of over 7 to 1.

      Significant investment in Utah is also underway through 
the Great American Outdoors Act. The Legacy Restoration Fund of the 
Great American Outdoors Act is investing over $121 million through 16 
different projects in Utah.

        --  One such project is an $11 million rehabilitation project 
        of the South Campground at Zion National Park, which has seen 
        significant increases in visitation in the last several years 
        and is now the third-most visited national park in the United 
        States. Investments like this are critical as Utah public lands 
        become more and more popular for visitors from around the 
        world.

      The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources has worked 
collaboratively with several federal partners, including Fish and 
Wildlife Services, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Central Utah Project 
Completion Act Office, and the Department of the Interior to downlist 
the June sucker from endangered to threatened under the Endangered 
Species Act.

        --  June suckers are a unique fish species only found in Utah 
        Lake and its tributaries. It was downlisted in 2021 largely due 
        to ongoing efforts by various partnering agencies, including 
        state and federal, to help the species recover.

        --  An example of some of these efforts is the Provo River 
        Delta Restoration project, which broke ground in June 2020.

        --  Just last week, the project reached another major 
        milestone--the Provo River was diverted into the channels and 
        ponds constructed over the past three years, connecting the 
        river with a restored delta and with Utah Lake. The restored 
        delta will provide habitat for adult June suckers to spawn and 
        for young June suckers to find safety from predators, which 
        will continue to help this species recover.

      Smart conservation and collaboration can also 
significantly benefit Sage-Grouse in Utah through the Utah Greater 
Sage-Grouse Management Plan.

        --  Utah is home to a unique population of Greater Sage-Grouse 
        that lives in a highly fragmented range. Utah's 2019 Greater 
        Sage Grouse Management Plan utilizes effective tools for the 
        conservation of these unique birds that use scientific data and 
        best management practices uniquely tailored to Utah.

        --  Federal plans for conserving Greater Sage-Grouse habitat 
        will be most effective when they are fully consistent with 
        provisions of Utah's own management plan.

      Despite our successes, we still face serious obstacles. 
Perhaps the most significant is the National Environmental Policy Act, 
and the way it hamstrings effective land management by our federal 
partners. The Act was well intentioned, but it has become the hook for 
litigation by those who oppose any type of active management of federal 
lands and forests.

      NEPA has become a tool to prevent grazing, energy 
development, and the mining of the critical minerals that American 
industries, including the renewable industry, needs. And perhaps most 
relevant for our discussion today, NEPA often prevents federal agencies 
from thinning our forests to prevent catastrophic wildfires by 
transforming dying forests into healthy forests. That was certainly not 
the intent of the Act, but that's what it does.

      We were encouraged by the reforms the Trump 
Administration was undertaking, but we're very disappointed to see the 
current Council on Environmental Quality rolling back those reforms and 
endangering our conservation efforts and the Administration's own 
stated goals.

      We would also encourage the federal government to 
reconsider the impact of President Biden's 30x30 initiative, 
particularly on states like Utah where the federal government manages 
significant acres of public lands. Utah is not comfortable with an 
attempt by the Administration to place even more land in Utah under 
restrictive designations.

      Approximately 61% of Utah (over 33 million acres of 
Utah's land area) is federal land protected under many different 
federal laws and regulations, such as NEPA and FLPMA.

        --  And approximately 23 percent of Utah (over 12.6 million 
        acres) is protected under especially restrictive land 
        designations such as national parks, national monuments, 
        wilderness areas, roadless areas, etc.

      Working together, in collaboration with our federal and 
local partners, is always better than working in isolated silos. We've 
proven this in Utah. Our natural resources are more resilient and more 
productive when actively managed across ownership boundaries. We have 
healthier watersheds, cleaner water and greater yield, fire-resilient 
landscapes, healthier wildlife populations and more abundant outdoor 
recreational opportunities.

      As stewards of Utah's natural resources, we need your 
help removing barriers that hinder our ability to actively manage 
public lands, and we need your continued support and investment at the 
individual watershed and local levels. Ongoing partnership and 
cooperation are necessary as we continue to work through challenges and 
opportunities.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Ferry.
    I now recognize Representative Hageman for 30 seconds to 
introduce our second witness.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    It is my pleasure to introduce the Carbon County 
Commissioner, John Espy, to the Committee today. Commissioner 
John Espy is a fifth-generation rancher from Rawlins, Wyoming. 
He is a member of the Carbon County Board of Commissioners, 
holding this position since 2012 and has served as its vice 
chair and chair.
    He has served on various boards including the Animal Damage 
Management Board, the Wyoming County Commissioner Association 
Public Lands Committee, and the Sage-Grouse Implementation 
Team.
    An experienced conservationist and local government 
official, we are lucky to have Commissioner Espy's testimony 
and knowledge before this Committee today.
    John, it is a pleasure to see you again, and I look forward 
to hearing your testimony.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Tiffany. I now recognize Commissioner Espy for 5 
minutes.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN ESPY, COMMISSIONER, BOARD OF CARBON 
             COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, RAWLINS, WYOMING

    Mr. Espy. Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, thank 
you for inviting me to testify today.
    My name is John Espy. I am a fifth-generation rancher and a 
Carbon County, Wyoming Commissioner. I serve as the First-Vice 
President of the National Association of Counties' Western 
Interstate Region, and Chairman of the Wyoming County 
Commissioners Association Agriculture, Water, State and Public 
Lands Committee. Additionally, I serve on State and Local Task 
Force on Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation, and as Carbon County 
Co-Chair of the Wyoming Public Lands Initiative.
    I am here today on behalf of the National Association of 
Counties.
    Counties offer detailed expertise on resource management 
issues that help achieve our mutual goals.
    Our environmental and socioeconomic values must be balanced 
through multiple use management, which is best achieved when 
Federal agencies treat counties as governing partners and co-
regulators by coordinating their resource management plans to 
ensure the consistency of those impacted counties.
    Counties have legal jurisdiction over certain areas and 
must be given the opportunity to participate as cooperating 
agencies from the beginning of the NEPA process to lend their 
expertise to better inform Federal decisions.
    Carbon County has a population of approximately 15,000 and 
is home to part of the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest. 
About 54 percent of Carbon County is federally owned.
    Our economy is directly tied to public lands. Minerals and 
energy production, agriculture, and tourism are our top 
industries.
    Counties work collaboratively with Federal agencies, 
states, tribes, and landowners on a range of natural resource 
issues to support our local economies, our cultural heritage.
    Our Weed and Pest District, funded by county taxes, has 
treated over 50,000 acres of Federal, state, and private lands 
for invasive weeds and grasses.
    Our conservation district worked with Federal agencies to 
remove sediment from the North Platte and Little Snake Rivers.
    To incentivize the Forest Service and BLM to increase their 
use of the Good Neighbor Authority, the State Forestry Division 
spent $400,000 to hire personnel for cooperative forest 
management projects on Federal lands.
    After working at the local grass roots level with public 
land stakeholders, like conservationists, recreational groups, 
extractive industries, and agriculturists, we submitted 
management recommendations on wilderness study areas that were 
addressed by the Wyoming Public Lands Initiative. Under the 
Act, certain WSAs stuck in limbo since 1991 would be designated 
as wilderness, special management areas, or released back into 
multiple use.
    Carbon County's recommendations would designate the 
Encampment River Canyon and Prospect Mountain WSAs as 
wilderness, establish the Black Cat Special Management Area, 
and release the Bennett Mountain WSA to multiple use.
    In addition to petroleum and mineral production, we lead 
the way in renewable energy development with the Chokecherry 
Sierra Madre Wind Project that will be housed on 1,400 acres of 
Federal, state, and private checkerboard land. This would be 
the largest wind farm in the United States, providing enough 
electricity for 1 million homes.
    We have worked with all levels of government and private 
industry to ensure the project meets community needs with 
limited environmental impacts.
    It has generated millions of dollars in tax revenue, 
creates good paying jobs, and helps meet the President's fossil 
fuel reduction goals.
    We also boost Blue Ribbon Fishery on the North Platte 
River, which includes an area known as the Miracle Mile. 
Federal, state, and local partners ensure the North Platte 
remains some of the best trout habitat in the West.
    Every resident and local fisherman in Carbon County 
recognizes how conservation of this river benefits our 
community.
    We continue to update our land use and resource management 
plans to adapt to environmental, economic, and community 
concerns.
    Our latest update identifies sensitive habitats that 
include consultation requirements with the state to mitigate 
migration corridor impacts.
    Counties are heavily engaged in species management, too. We 
work with local, state, and Federal agencies, industry, and 
non-governmental organizations to protect the Greater sage-
grouse. We give particular attention to locally driven 
solutions supported by science that result in sustainable 
outcomes.
    Commissioners also volunteer their time and expertise 
across the state to participate in local working groups with 
Federal land agencies long after the Record of Decision is 
printed.
    Counties remain committed to assisting our Federal partners 
on plan implementation.
    Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, thank you for the 
invitation to testify today, and I look forward to your 
questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Espy follows:]
  Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Espy Commissioner, Carbon 
   County, Wyoming on behalf of the National Association of Counties
    Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member Neguse, thank you for holding 
this hearing on promoting conservation with a purpose on America's 
federal lands and forests.
    My name is John Espy, and I am a fifth-generation rancher and a 
member of the Carbon County, Wyoming Board of County Commissioners. I 
also serve as First-Vice President of the National Association of 
Counties' Western Interstate Region, Chairman of the Wyoming County 
Commissioners Association Agriculture, Water, State and Public Lands 
Committee, county representative to the Wyoming Sage-Grouse 
Implementation Team, rancher representative to the South-Central 
Wyoming Local Sage-Grouse Working Group, and Carbon County Co-Chair for 
the Wyoming Public Lands Initiative. I am here today on behalf of the 
National Association of Counties.
    Gifford Pinchot, the first Chief of the U.S. Forest Service wrote 
in 1909, ``Conservation means the wise use of the earth and its 
resources for the lasting good of men.'' Counties encourage Congress to 
develop policies that reflect this ethic and to pass legislation 
focused on conserving our lands and resources, rather than preserving 
all of them in perpetuity. Purposeful conservation allows for 
sustainable timber harvests for economic benefit and also to improve 
forest health, reduce the threat of wildfire across our National Forest 
System, and to protect our gateway communities.
    Public lands are a defining feature of the United States, 
particularly in the West. Counties serve as conveners and offer local, 
detailed expertise on resource management issues that is beneficial to 
all levels of government and helps to achieve mutual goals. Counties 
believe that environmental and socioeconomic values must be balanced 
through a philosophy of multiple use management that allows diverse 
activities on public lands to support local economies. This is best 
achieved when federal agencies treat counties as governing partners and 
co-regulators by coordinating their resource management plans to ensure 
they are consistent with those of impacted counties. Additionally, 
counties have specific legal jurisdiction and expertise in certain 
areas. We must be given the opportunity to meaningfully participate as 
cooperating agencies from the beginning of the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) process, so that we can lend our experience and 
expertise to better inform federal decisions.
About Carbon County, Wyoming

    Carbon County is in south-central Wyoming, bordering Colorado. 
Carbon County is a rural county with a population of approximately 
15,000. The county covers approximately 7,900 square miles and contains 
a large share of the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest, which is home 
to pristine recreation sites including Sugarloaf Mountain, Medicine Bow 
Peak and Mirror Lake.
    About 54 percent of Carbon County's surface is federally owned, 
which is slightly higher than the state's average of around 47 percent. 
My county's economy is directly tied to public lands, with mineral and 
energy production, agriculture and tourism serving as our top-three 
industries. Consequently, the socioeconomics of my county is 
significantly impacted by how federal lands are managed. Carbon County 
is not alone, every county in Wyoming, and virtually all counties 
throughout the West, must work collaboratively with our federal 
partners to ensure our land and resources are managed properly and 
support our local economies and our cultural heritage.
    We regularly partner with federal agencies, the state government, 
tribes and private landowners on a range of natural resource issues. 
For example, the Carbon County Weed and Pest District, funded by county 
taxes, has treated over 50,000 acres of federal, state and private 
lands to control invasive weeds and grasses that choke off native 
vegetation and elevate wildfire risks. Our conservation district also 
worked closely with federal agencies to remove sediment from the North 
Platte and Little Snake Rivers in recent years. To incentivize the 
United States Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management 
(BLM) to increase their use of Good Neighbor Authority, the State of 
Wyoming appropriated $400,000 to hire positions within the state 
forestry division to conduct cooperative forest management projects on 
federal lands.
    We pride ourselves on providing opportunities for local voices to 
be heard on the federal land management stage. After years of working 
with public land stakeholders, including conservation organizations, 
outdoor recreation groups, extractive industries, agriculturalists, and 
wildlife associations, Wyoming counties submitted management 
recommendations on Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) within their borders, 
that are addressed by the Wyoming Public Lands Initiative Act. Under 
the Act, certain Wyoming WSAs that have been stuck in limbo--waiting 
for Congress to act on the BLM's recommendations from 1991--would be 
designated as wilderness, assigned a special management area, or 
released back to multiple-use management. Carbon County's 
recommendations designated the Encampment River Canyon and Prospect 
Mountain WSAs as wilderness, established the Black Cat Special 
Management Area, and released Bennett Mountain multiple-use management. 
This legislation was developed at the grassroots level with local input 
and serves as a strong example of how true conservation objectives can 
be met through collaboration.
    As energy demands grow and consumer appetites change, my county has 
proactively responded to the nation's energy needs. Carbon County is 
not only a proud petroleum producer, but we are also leading the way on 
renewable energy development with the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Wind 
Energy Project, which is housed on 1,400 acres of federal, state and 
private checkerboard land. The project, once completed, will be the 
largest wind farm in the United States and one of the largest in the 
world providing enough electricity to power one million homes. We 
worked with the BLM, state government, private landowners, and the 
Power Company of Wyoming through each phase of the project to ensure it 
met the needs of our residents with limited impact on the environment. 
The project has generated millions of dollars in tax revenues for all 
levels of government, created good paying local jobs and serves to meet 
the president's goal of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels.
    Beyond land and minerals, we also boast a blue-ribbon fishery--the 
North Platte River--designated by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 
which includes an area known as the Miracle Mile. Visitors from around 
the world come to Carbon County to fly fish and catch our amazing 
trout. We work with federal and state officials to ensure this 
wonderful stretch river remains some of the best trout habitat in the 
West. Every resident and government official in Carbon County 
recognizes how conservation of this vital resource benefits our 
community and everyone who lives downstream.
    Counties are best suited to assist federal land managers navigate 
evolving management challenges. For its part, Carbon County continues 
to update its land use plans and federal natural resource plans and to 
adapt to environmental, economic, and community concerns. For example, 
our latest updates identify sensitive habitats and include consultation 
requirements with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department when siting new 
projects to mitigate impacts to migration corridors for big game 
animals.
    Counties are heavily engaged in species management. As part of the 
Sage-grouse Implementation Team, made up of local, state and federal 
agencies, industry, and non-government organizations, we work to 
protect the Greater Sage-grouse in Wyoming. Far from a one-size fits 
all approach, we give particular attention to locally driven solutions, 
supported by science, that result in sustainable outcomes for Wyoming's 
wildlife, economy, and way of life. While Greater Sage-grouse efforts 
are more visible, commissioners volunteer their time and expertise 
across the state to participate in local working groups and advisory 
councils with federal lands agencies. Long after the Record of 
Decisions are printed, counties remain committed to assisting our 
federal partners on plan implementation to strengthen our mutual goals. 
Public lands are not just squares on a map, they are a source of 
tranquility, the foundation of our cultural identity, and the lifeblood 
of our economies.

Conclusion

    Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member Neguse, thank you for the 
invitation to testify today. I urge Congress to work across the aisle 
and craft viable legislation to empower state, local and tribal 
partners to work with federal agencies to better manage our public 
lands and natural resources. The best resource management decisions are 
made when federal agencies and local government partners look at the 
same piece of ground at the same time and work collaboratively.

    Thank you again for the opportunity to tell you the county story 
and to share some of our ideas for improving the health of our public 
lands and watersheds. I look forward to answering your questions.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. McClintock [presiding]. Thank you, Commissioner Espy.

    I would now like to introduce Mr. John D. Leshy, who is the 
Emeritus Professor at the University of California, College of 
Law in San Francisco.

    Mr. Leshy, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF JOHN D. LESHY, DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR EMERITUS, 
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LAW, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Leshy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members, for 
the opportunity to testify here today.
    I am going to give you a story based on a book I recently 
published which is a political history of how the Federal lands 
came about.
    Slide, please.
    And it tells the story of the political decisions. That is 
the cover of the book.
    Now, the next slide, which is the lands. We have all seen 
these. I am going to talk mostly about the BLM and the Forest 
Service lands.
    I think these public lands are a great American success 
story, a political success story, because the story I tell is 
how starting in the 1890s, the Congress and the executive 
branch have closely collaborated, almost always in a bipartisan 
way, to produce the result you see on that map, the acreage 
that Congress and the President have agreed should be held in 
national ownership and managed primarily for preservation, 
outdoor recreation, science, et cetera.
    Next slide, please.
    The story I tell in the book is really captured in this 
chart. The solid line is the decisions that were made by 
acreage, on the left-hand axis, to hold lands or acquire more 
lands into national ownership.
    The dotted line are decisions made mostly by Congress, 
sometimes by the Executive, to protect mostly or fully protect 
those lands from intensive industrialization.
    A couple of things to particularly note about this chart. 
One is the arc is always upward, more lands, more protection, 
and these are decisions that were made by the political system, 
as I said, in a mostly bipartisan fashion.
    And if you put this against what political party is in 
charge of Congress or the presidency, it makes almost no 
difference in terms of the arc and the trajectory of this 
slide.
    So, not only does the arc move upward not affected by the 
political party considerations. One other thing to note about 
the chart is that there is kind of a fiction here that this is 
mostly driven by executive decisions, and in fact, it is mostly 
been driven by congressional decisions, especially in the last 
60 years or so.
    Congress has really asserted its leadership role in 
deciding how much to protect public lands by zoning or 
determining what uses are permissible in particular areas.
    A turning point in this congressional recapture of 
authority came in the middle 1960s when Congress passed the 
Wilderness Act.
    Next slide please.
    Here is a chart showing the growth in the acreage in the 
wilderness system, which is the most protective system because 
intensive industrial uses are simply not permitted in 
wilderness areas.
    Congress did something very key in the Wilderness Act, 
which is when it said that not 1 acre gets added to the 
wilderness system unless it is done through an Act of Congress.
    In other words, the only way you get land into the system 
is through a Congressional Act.
    Now, a couple of things about this chart. One is there is a 
big upward trajectory. That reflects the immensity of Alaska 
because that all came about in the 1980 Alaska lands bill which 
tripled the size of the wilderness system in one act because 
Alaska is so vast.
    But notice the arc is always upward, and it goes up 
continuously and goes up to this day. I mean Congress adds land 
to the wilderness system practically every Congress. And if you 
look again at who is in charge politically of the White House 
or the Congress when this is done, it makes no difference.
    After the Alaska lands bill, the next sharp upward arc, 
that is the Reagan presidency when the Republicans were in 
charge of the Senate, and so forth.
    This has been a bipartisan enterprise practically from the 
beginning, and that is really important to keep in mind, 
because Congress has vigorously moved, especially in the last 
few decades, to put labels like not only park but national 
conservation area, national recreation area, and other 
restrictive management prescriptions onto how particular acres 
of land are managed. And this has been popular, as I said.
    Next slide. Only two more.
    Congress has greened up the Bureau of Land Management. This 
used to be its logo on the left. Now look at the logo on the 
right, and this sort of captures what has happened through 
congressional decision making in terms of how our land is 
managed.
    OK. I appreciate the opportunity to testify here today. I 
look forward to answering your questions.
    Thank you very much.

                                 *****

The slides provided during Mr. Leshy's testimony are part of 
the hearing record and are being retained in the Committee's 
official files:

The slides are available for viewing at:

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II10/20230308/115449/HHRG-
118-II10-Wstate-LeshyJ-20230308.pdf

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Leshy follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Leshy, Emeritus Professor at the University 
                                   of
      California College of the Law, San Francisco, and Author of
         Our Common Ground, A History of America's Public Lands
                         (Yale U. Press, 2022)
    Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify here today.
    My name is John Leshy. I have devoted most of my professional 
career, stretching over more than a half century as a public servant 
and law professor, to promote sound management of America's public 
lands. My recently published book, Our Common Ground, is the first 
comprehensive political history of these lands in a very long time.
    The US government manages more than 600 million acres of public 
forests, plains, mountains, wetlands, deserts, and shorelines, holds 
them generally open to all, and manages them primarily for 
conservation, recreation, and education.
    My book makes the case that the public lands \1\ are one of 
America's outstanding political success stories. What I mean is that 
the Congress and the executive branch have, since the 1890s, 
collaborated to produce a result that today is widely supported by the 
vast majority of Americans everywhere, regardless of their political 
party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ While the term ``public lands'' is sometimes used to refer only 
to lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), I use it here 
to refer to lands managed by all of the four major agencies; besides 
the BLM, these are the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the National Park 
Service (NPS), and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    My testimony focuses on policy issues involved in the management of 
BLM and USFS lands (244 and 193 million acres, respectively), which 
account for nearly 3/4s of all the public lands.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Most of the remainder are managed by the USFWS and the NPS (89 
and 80 million acres, respectively). https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/
R42346.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    First, I will discuss the terms ``Conservation,'' ``Preservation,'' 
and ``Multiple Use'' that are often used in describing public land 
policy. None has a fixed, well-defined meaning in the public land 
context. Each is sometimes used in ways that impede, rather than 
enlighten, discussions of public land policy.

                              Conservation

    This was the label often attached to the movement that began to 
flower in the 1890s to hold significant amounts of land in national 
ownership and manage them for broad public purposes. The conservation 
movement led to the creation of the national forest system.
    Because minerals, timber and grasses on national forest lands could 
be, and sometimes were, extracted or exploited, the label 
``conservation'' has sometimes been used to describe a policy that not 
merely allows, but prioritizes, mining, logging and similar intensive 
uses.
    The events described in detail in my book make clear that this is 
not an accurate description. The overriding purpose of the 
``conservation movement'' was not to promote logging and mining. 
Rather, it was to hold onto land the U.S. already owned--and to buy 
even more land--primarily to foster healthy watershed conditions, to 
safeguard water supplies for downstream uses. (That's why most of the 
national forests in the nation are found in the upper reaches of 
watersheds.)
    The national forest system was established by a combination of 
congressional and executive action between 1891 and 1940. The vast 
majority of the lands included within this system were put there 
because people from the areas most affected sought that result.
    My book illustrates this with many examples. Here is one. Congress 
gave the president authority to establish what came to be known as 
forest reserves in 1891. Around this time, a memorial from the Colorado 
State Forestry Association, endorsed by state officials, the chambers 
of commerce of Denver \3\ and Colorado Springs, and 500 leading 
citizens, recommending reserving ``all public lands'' along six miles 
either side of the crests of mountain ranges across the entire state. 
Republican President Benjamin Harrison promptly used the authority 
Congress had given him to establish what is now called the White River 
National Forest on more than a million acres west of Denver. (Today it 
attracts more visitors than any other national forest in the nation.) 
In 1892, Harrison established three other reserves in Colorado, 
including one around Pikes Peak. Following a visit to that reserve the 
following year, Katharine Lee Bates was inspired to write of ``purple 
mountain majesties'' in her stirring composition ``America the 
Beautiful.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Denver's population had grown from 5000 in 1860 to more than 
100,000 in 1890. Even back then, the arid West was the nation's most 
urban region.
    \4\ Our Common Ground, pp. 177-80.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Because most of the land in the western states were then still 
owned by the U.S. government--even though some of it had already been 
logged or mined--the lands put in the national forests were 
``reserved''--that is, put off limits from laws like the Homestead Act, 
the railroad land grant acts, and other laws that aimed to transfer 
ownership out of federal hands.
    In 1897, Congress enacted legislation that established the purposes 
of this young national forest system. It remained the basic governing 
authority for the next 80 years. It provided that national forests were 
established to ``improve and protect'' the forest, secure ``favorable 
conditions of water flows,'' and ``furnish a continuous supply of 
timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States.'' 
The legislation allowed mineral activity on these lands, but only a 
relatively small portion of national forest land has been subject to 
oil and gas development and other mineral activity.\5\ The 1897 
legislation was silent on livestock grazing, even though it was then 
occurring on many of these lands.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Our Common Ground, at 241-42, 446-48, 503-08, 598-99.
    \6\ Id. at 192-99.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1911, with strong bipartisan support, Congress enacted the so-
called Weeks Act. It launched a major program to buy back into national 
ownership, and manage as part of the national forest system, lands 
located mostly in the upper reaches of watersheds in the East, South 
and Midwest. Many of these lands had been severely logged over, 
exacerbating erosion and contributing to damaging floods. Restoring 
such lands to health was a primary purpose of the legislation, making 
it the first major environmental restoration program in the nation's 
history. These lands were acquired from willing-seller private owners, 
with the consent of the pertinent state.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Id. at 306-14; 342-43; 428-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the early decades, the amount of national forest land 
commercially logged remained low. At the beginning of World War II the 
logging rate increased substantially and remained high for a few 
decades. Starting in the 1980s it began to decline back to its pre-WWII 
level, where it has generally remained, as the wood products industry 
looked elsewhere for supplies, the technology of wood use changed 
substantially, and substitutes for wood grew more popular.

                              Multiple Use

    Although national forests (as well as lands now managed by the 
Bureau of Land Management) had long been subject to many different 
uses, including recreation, it was not until the 1930s that the term 
``multiple use'' first began to be used informally in describing 
national forest lands. Congress did not put the idea into law until 
1960, when it enacted the so-called Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act 
(MUSY).\8\ It identified five ``multiple uses''--``outdoor recreation, 
range, timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes.'' (Minerals 
were not identified as one of the uses, but the Congress had previously 
specified that the mining and mineral leasing laws could apply on 
national forest land.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Id. at 346-47; 429-30, 446-49; 16 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 528-531.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the MUSY Act, Congress directed the Forest Service to use the 
``various renewable surface resources of the national forests . . . in 
the combination that will best meet the needs of the American people,'' 
recognizing that ``some land will be used for less than all of the 
resources.'' It also called for the agency to achieve ``harmonious and 
coordinated management of the various resources, each with the other, 
without impairment of the productivity of the land, with consideration 
being given to the relative values of the various resources, and not 
necessarily the combination of uses that will give the greatest dollar 
return or the greatest unit output.''

                              Preservation

    This term is used in public land law primarily in the so-called 
Wilderness Act that Congress enacted in 1964.\9\ It established the 
National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS). Congress had 
deliberated over that legislation for eight years, and had anticipated 
its enactment in 1960 by providing in the MUSY Act that the 
``establishment and maintenance of areas of wilderness are consistent 
with'' the multiple use idea.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1131-1134.
    \10\ Our Common Ground, pp. 461-76; 16 U.S.C. Sec. 529.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Congress also, at the insistence of Cong. Wayne Aspinall (D-CO), 
made itself the gatekeeper of the NWPS. That is, the only way lands can 
be put into the System is through an act of Congress. This enhanced the 
influence of the individual Senators and House members because a 
powerful, long-standing custom in the Congress gives members a power 
approaching a veto over legislation that applies particularly to their 
states or districts. It is, in other words, difficult to put public 
lands into the NWPS without the approval or at least acquiescence of 
the most directly affected members of Congress.
    While the Wilderness Act contemplated that lands put in the system 
would generally remain free from roads, motorized vehicles, and 
extractive activities like logging and mining, the Act did not require 
``preservation'' of wilderness lands in the strict sense of the word. 
Congress allowed mineral leasing and location of mining claims to 
continue in national forest Wilderness areas until 1984. It also 
allowed logging and authorized the president to approve the building of 
water projects in national forest Wilderness areas under certain 
conditions.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1133(d)(1), (3) and (4). Subsection (d)(1), for 
example, allows the Agriculture Secretary to take ``such measures . . . 
as may be necessary in the control of fire, insects, and diseases, 
subject to such conditions as the Secretary deems desirable.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Aspinall was not enthusiastic about limiting intensive industrial 
uses of public lands, and expected that making Congress the gatekeeper 
would sharply limit the size of this new NWPS. He was wrong. He 
seriously underestimated the support that would develop at the 
grassroots for limiting such intensive uses of public lands. In fact, 
since 1964, Congress has enacted many dozens of individual pieces of 
legislation cumulatively putting more than 100 million acres of public 
land in the NWPS.
    The wilderness movement has had strong bipartisan support. For 
example, in the early 1980s, President Ronald Reagan's first Interior 
Secretary, James Watt, proposed to issue oil and gas leases on millions 
of acres of national forest land in the NWPS before the window Congress 
enacted in 1964 closed. A strong bipartisan coalition in the affected 
states and in Congress thwarted him. Reagan, an astute politician, then 
moved swiftly to the middle on public lands issues, working with 
Congress to follow the well-worn path to protect more public lands. In 
1984, with the Senate in Republican control, Reagan signed legislation 
adding more than 8 million acres to the NWPS. It proved to be the 
largest addition in any single year since the Wilderness Act was 
enacted in 1964 (except for the special case of Alaska). Indeed, before 
he left office, Reagan signed legislation putting more acreage in the 
lower 48 states in the NWPS than any president before or since.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Our Common Ground, pp. 470-72; 577-78.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         The Modern Era of Congressional Zoning of Public Lands

    The Wilderness Act ushered in a new era of Congress spelling out in 
particular laws what uses can and cannot take place on particular areas 
of public lands. Since 1964, Congress has enacted many dozens of such 
laws giving areas managed by the Forest Service and the BLM labels like 
national recreation area, conservation area, scenic area, preserve and 
so forth. Each sets out management specifications that make 
conservation and recreation the primary objectives of management. Each 
limits agency discretion by ruling out or strongly discouraging 
roadbuilding, mining, timber harvesting and the like. Each label brings 
more visibility to areas' natural and cultural qualities, attracting 
more recreational uses and stimulating tourism and recreation-based 
economic activity.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Id., pp. 477-83; 509-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Congress established the first national recreation area in 1964. 
There are now more than three dozen across the country. Beginning in 
the 1960s Congress established nearly a dozen national seashores and 
lakeshores. In 1968 Congress enacted the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act, 
which operates much like Wilderness Act in establishing a national 
system of designated rivers. Congress established the first national 
conservation area in 1970; there are now seventeen. Congress 
established the first two national preserves in 1974; there are now 
nearly two dozen. Congress has established national scenic areas and 
sometimes fashioned unique labels.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Id., pp. 353, 393, 434-35, 478-82, 489, 493, 501, 542, 580.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In doing all this, Congress has rarely discriminated among the four 
principal land management agencies. Thus, today, the BLM and the Forest 
Service (as well as the USFWS and the NPS) each looks after millions of 
acres in the NWPS, numerous wild and scenic river segments, national 
recreation areas and other similar areas.
    Congress also asserted its authority in a more generic way, by 
enacting new management charters, or ``organic acts,'' as they are 
known, for all four agencies--BLM and Forest Service in 1976, FWS in 
1997, and NPS in 1998. In each Congress gave clear marching orders to 
pay close attention to science and the environment in all agency 
decisions.

             The Bureau of Land Management ``Organic Act''

    Enacted by Congress in 1976, BLM's managing charter is called the 
Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA, commonly if inelegantly 
pronounced ``flip-ma''). It put into law nearly all of the 
recommendations of the Public Land Law Review Commission--a bipartisan 
body dominated by westerners--that Congress had established several 
years earlier. The congressional conference committee that crafted the 
bill was dominated by western members of the House and the Senate. 
Republican President Gerald Ford signed it into law in October 1976, a 
few weeks before he was defeated by Jimmy Carter.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Our Common Ground, pp. 449, 473-74, 490-98.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FLPMA's broad thrust was a call for greener management of BLM-
managed public lands. Congress declared that the BLM lands should be 
managed for ``multiple use and sustained yield,'' in a manner that 
will, among other things, ``protect the quality of scientific, scenic, 
historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water 
resource, and archeological values; that where appropriate, will 
preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition; 
that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic 
animals; and that will provide for outdoor recreation and human 
occupancy and use.'' \16\ Congress defined ``multiple use'' in FLPMA 
similar to how it did in the 1960 MUSY Act, but even more expansively, 
adding ``natural scenic, scientific and historical values'' to the list 
of uses. 43 USC Sec. 1702(c). ``One of the most important developments 
in public land policy in the last half century,'' as my book puts it, 
is how the BLM, which was long derided as the ``bureau of livestock and 
mining,'' has--with the strong, bipartisan encouragement of the U.S. 
Congress--made conservation, protection of cultural resources and 
recreation a major focus of its management. This had been neatly 
captured in the change in the BLM's logo--from depicting a miner, 
logger, rancher, engineer and surveyor looking out on an industrial 
landscape to a sketch of mountains, meadows, a river and a tree.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ 43 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1701(a)(7) and (8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Congress and the executive took another step in this direction by 
establishing a category of what Congress in 2009 labeled ``National 
Conservation Lands'' when it gave this system a statutory underpinning. 
On these lands, most nonrecreational uses are either excluded or 
sharply limited, and the system includes tens of millions of acres 
across the eleven western states and Alaska.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Our Common Ground, pp. 500-01, 580.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Summing Up Congressional Guidance to the Forest Service and the BLM

    As the BLM metamorphosis illustrates, over recent decades Congress 
has directed it and the Forest Service to emphasize conservation and 
recreation on the public lands they manage. Thus today, both agencies 
(as well as the USFWS and the NPS) look after many millions of acres 
that carry labels that emphasize protection and conservation. All this 
has substantially blurred distinctions among the four agencies. The net 
effect is that, regardless of which agency is in charge, America's 
public lands are generally managed more for open space conservation and 
recreation than anything else.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Id., pp. 585-95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This increased congressional activism in ``zoning'' public land 
areas has also enhanced the durability of these protections, because it 
is almost unheard of for Congress to reverse itself on these matters. 
In short, the arc of public lands management has consistently bent 
toward protecting more and more land.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Id., 509-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ``Withdrawals'' of Public Lands from Mining and Mineral Leasing

    A substantial amount of BLM and national forest public land has 
been formally ``withdrawn,'' that is, put off limits from industrial 
uses, especially mineral development under the Mining Law of 1872 and 
the mineral leasing acts. Withdrawals can be made in three primary 
ways--by Congress by legislation, by the president using the authority 
Congress provided in various laws, primarily the Antiquities Act 
(discussed in the next section), and by the Interior Secretary.
    Although a comprehensive compilation of withdrawals has not, to my 
knowledge, been done for many decades, I believe that Congress itself 
has been responsible for more withdrawn acreage than either the 
president or the Interior Department. Most of these have been done in 
laws that add land to the National Wilderness Preservation System, or 
that give particular areas labels like national recreation areas and 
the others discussed earlier. In almost every case each of these laws 
making withdrawals had support from the congressional delegation of the 
pertinent state. It seems highly unlikely, then, that there would be a 
groundswell of interest in undoing such withdrawals.
    Some have suggested that too many of the public lands have been 
withdrawn from mineral development. Such complaints have had a long 
history. In 1976, Congress addressed the issue in FLPMA.\20\ It 
directed that, before the end of 1991, the Interior Secretary review 
all existing withdrawals on BLM and national forest land in the eleven 
contiguous western states, other than lands in the NWPS or national 
recreation areas where Congress had made the withdrawals. The review 
was to determine whether each withdrawal was ``consistent with the 
statutory objectives'' governing the lands. The Secretary was to make 
recommendations to the president, and the president to the Congress, 
and the relevant congressional committees, as to whether to terminate 
withdrawals. To the best of my knowledge, that review did not result in 
many withdrawals being rescinded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Our Common Ground, pp. 495-97.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Also in FLPMA, Congress regularized the process for the Interior 
Secretary to make new withdrawals of public land from mining and 
mineral leasing laws. It also put a twenty-year time limit on such 
withdrawals, although they can be renewed.\21\ Relatively few 
withdrawals have been made by the Interior Department since FLPMA was 
enacted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1714.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While the president has withdrawn substantial amounts of public 
land using the Antiquities Act (as described in the next section), many 
tens of millions of acres of public land remain open to the mining and 
mineral leasing laws. Currently, oil and gas leases cover more than 26 
million acres of BLM and national forest land, or about 6% of the total 
acres they manage. About half of that leased area is currently 
producing oil and gas. The BLM has issued several thousand (currently 
unused) permits to drill on leases that are not now in production.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ See generally https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/report-
on-the-federal-oil-and-gas-leasing-program-doi-eo-14008.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Presidential Use of the Antiquities Act Has Been an Effective and 
             Popular Tool for Protecting Public Lands \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ This section draws heavily on my guest opinion essay published 
in the March 5, 2023 New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/
05/opinion/national-parks-bears-ears-monuments. html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Congress enacted the Antiquities Act in 1906. It authorizes the 
president to protect ``historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric 
structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest'' on 
the public lands. (The law dubbed these areas national ``monuments'' 
because Congress reserved for itself the right to label a protected 
area of public lands a national ``park.'')
    President Theodore Roosevelt, who signed the Act into law, wasted 
no time in vigorously using the authority. In early 1908, frustrated by 
Congress's failure to protect the Grand Canyon as a national park, 
Roosevelt used the act to protect more than 800,000 acres as the Grand 
Canyon National Monument.
    His example was followed by almost all of his successors, both 
Republican and Democrat. Altogether, presidents have collectively 
established well over 150 national monuments that have safeguarded more 
than 100 million acres of wild and historic places onshore, and many 
more offshore.
    Almost without exception, Congress has endorsed or refused to 
disturb these presidential actions. Eleven years after Roosevelt used 
the Act at Grand Canyon, Congress enlarged that protected area and made 
it a National Park. In fact, nearly half of the 63 national parks 
established by Congress--including such other crown jewels as Arches, 
Bryce, Capitol Reef and Zion in Utah, Acadia in Maine, Olympic in 
Washington, and Death Valley in California--were first protected by 
presidents using the Antiquities Act.
    Only twice in 116 years has Congress limited a president's power 
under the Antiquities Act. The first time was in 1950, when Congress 
added Franklin Roosevelt's Jackson Hole National Monument to the Grand 
Teton National Park it had earlier established, but at the same time 
forbade future use of the act in Wyoming. Congress did something 
similar in 1980. It curbed future presidential use of the Act in Alaska 
at the same time it was safeguarding 104 million acres of public land 
in that state, including 56 million acres in national monuments Jimmy 
Carter had established two years previously.
    Both the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts have 
consistently rejected claims that presidents abused their Antiquities 
Act authority. In 1920, for example, the Supreme Court unanimously 
upheld Roosevelt's Grand Canyon National Monument. Similarly, a federal 
judge in Utah ruled that President Clinton's decision to protect nearly 
two million acres of public land in southern Utah in the Grand 
Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM) was within the ``broad 
grant of discretion'' Congress made in the Antiquities Act, leaving the 
courts ``no authority to determine whether the President abused his 
discretion.'' (The principal plaintiff in that case, an association of 
Utah counties, did not seek review in higher courts.) \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ Cameron v. United States, 252 U.S. 450 (1920); Utah 
Association of Counties v. Bush, 316 F. Supp. 2d 1172 (D. Utah 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The GSENM, along with the nearby Bears Ears National Monument 
(which had been established, after a persuasive campaign by an inter-
Tribal coalition, by President Barack Obama in 2016) protect 
magnificent Utah landscapes stretching across more than three million 
acres of public lands. Now these two have become legal battlegrounds.
    In 2017, President Donald Trump reduced by more than half the size 
of the Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears. Four years later, 
President Biden restored them. Last August, the state of Utah filed a 
lawsuit in Federal District Court in Utah challenging Mr. Biden's 
action. Utah's complaint explicitly seeks to have the federal courts 
all but eviscerate the power Congress gave the president in the 
Antiquities Act.
    There is irony here, because Utah's complaint also explicitly 
acknowledges how successful these two protected areas have been in 
attracting visitors. Utah argues this is a bad thing because visitors 
are damaging the resources and getting lost, taxing local search and 
rescue teams. But rather than working with Congress to provide more 
funds to manage visitors, Utah is asking unelected judges to intervene 
to strip protections from these areas--as if that would make them less 
attractive to visit.
    In fact, Utah, like many western states, has benefited enormously 
from the long history of Congress and the executive branch working 
together to protect public lands. For years, its Office of Tourism has 
touted what it calls the state's ``Mighty Five'' national parks--four 
of which were first protected by presidents using the Antiquities Act.
    Congress has also been responsive to some concerns Utah has raised. 
It has acceded to the state's request to make modest adjustments in the 
boundaries of Grand Staircase-Escalante. It has also enacted three laws 
that gave Utah hundreds of thousands of acres of federal lands with 
mineral and other development potential in exchange for hundreds of 
thousands of state lands scattered inside the Grand Staircase-Escalante 
and other protected areas. (A similar plan is being developed for state 
lands inside the Bears Ears National Monument.) And in 2019, President 
Trump signed into law a bill supported by the Utah congressional 
delegation that added protections to about a million acres of public 
lands not far from these two contested monuments.

Protecting More of our Public Lands Should Be a Key Element of National 
   Climate Policy and of Meeting the Target--Embraced by Nearly All 
        Nations--of Protecting 30% of the Planet's Land by 2030

    The Nation's public lands offer many opportunities for tackling the 
challenge of limiting carbon emissions. These lands can be managed to 
promote sequestration of carbon and mitigation of greenhouse gas 
emissions, at the same time they help protect biodiversity and serve 
other goals like stimulating the economy.
    The Biden Administration's ``America the Beautiful'' initiative is 
a laudable effort in that direction. Recent congressional initiatives, 
especially the bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation 
Reduction Act, are also promoting powerful steps down that path.

                               Conclusion

    Practically every opinion poll taken for many years in the West, as 
well in the rest of the nation, shows large majorities of Americans 
from both political parties revere and want more and better protected 
public lands.\25\ Because they show the political process working as it 
is supposed to work, where Congress and the executive branch respond to 
and accurately reflect public opinion, today's public lands should be 
celebrated. Bringing more attention to success stories is particularly 
important in our polarized era, where many are skeptical that anything 
good can come out of the Nation's capital. (It is a major reason I 
wrote Our Common Ground.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ See, e.g., the poll results recently released by Colorado 
College's State of the Rockies Project, which has for several years 
surveyed Republicans and Democrats in every state in the intermountain 
West on a range of public land issues. https://www.coloradocollege.edu/
other/stateoftherockies/conservationinthewest/2023.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As President Richard Nixon put it in 1971, the public lands give 
the nation ``breathing space,'' a vast public asset that nurtures 
national pride, physical and mental health, a spirit of community in an 
increasingly diverse nation, and offers countless millions of people 
life-changing encounters with nature, at the same time public-lands-
related tourism has become the economic anchor of many communities.
    That last point deserves emphasis. The story of America's public 
lands is not one of creeping socialism. All who live in areas with 
abundant public lands know that they provide many opportunities for 
private enterprise. The continuing emphasis on protecting public lands 
illustrates how tourism and recreation-dependent businesses have become 
a major economic driver in many smaller communities in the West as well 
as elsewhere, making the economic contributions of traditional 
activities like mining, logging, and livestock grazing pale by 
comparison.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ Our Common Ground, pp. 561-62; 598-601.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Public land policy has also begun, admittedly tardily, to better 
reflect societal diversity and to acknowledge past injustices. Although 
Native Americans, women, and people of color were largely excluded from 
participating in many key decisions of public land policy, that is 
happily no longer the case. Because these lands remain subject to the 
will of the electorate--a group defined more broadly than ever before--
they can help redress past injustices and again demonstrate our ability 
as a people to work together and find common ground.
    In his seminal work The Wealth of Nations, published the same year 
as the Declaration of Independence, the Scottish philosopher Adam 
Smith, the champion of free-market capitalism, made a strong case for 
private ownership of land, but for a single exception. A ``great and 
civilized'' nation, he wrote, ought to own and hold lands ``for the 
purposes of pleasure and magnificence'' for everyone's benefit. All 
Americans should be thankful that our national government, responding 
to public opinion, has heeded Smith's advice.

    Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Leshy.
    Finally, I would like to introduce Mr. Phil Rigdon, the 
Vice President of the Inter-Tribal Timber Council. Mr. Rigdon 
is also the Natural Resource Superintendent for the Yakama 
Nation in Washington State.
    Like our Committee Chairman, Mr. Westerman, Mr. Rigdon 
holds a Master of Forestry from the Yale School of Forestry.
    Until I came to Congress, I did not realize Yale turned out 
so many fine foresters.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Rigdon, you are now recognized for 5 
minutes.

STATEMENT OF PHIL RIGDON, SUPERINTENDENT, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL 
  RESOURCES, YAKAMA NATION, AND VICE PRESIDENT, INTER-TRIBAL 
                         TIMBER COUNCIL

    Mr. Rigdon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 
Subcommittee.
    [Speaking native language.] That is ``good morning'' in 
Ichishkiin.
    I thank you on behalf of the Inter-Tribal and more than 60 
member tribes. I appreciate the opportunity to share some of 
the lessons of forest conservation from a tribal perspective.
    All of America's forests were once managed and shaped and 
were lived upon by our ancestors and the people there. These 
lands were shaped by us and through directly today, 18 million 
acres of that has continued to be managed working with the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs.
    I believe the tribal notion of conservation is different 
from that seen on other lands in Federal ownership. Pursuant to 
both tribal direction and Federal law, tribal forests must be 
managed sustainably.
    Indian tribes work with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and 
others to actively manage our forests and other resources with 
a holistic, integrated approach that strives to simultaneously 
sustain economic, ecological, and cultural values, or the so-
called triple bottom line to us.
    We operate modern, innovative, and comprehensive natural 
resource programs premised on connectiveness among the land, 
resources, and our people.
    For example, when we look at or mention a piece of land, we 
are not just looking at one resource. We are thinking about the 
timber value, the habitat, resources for our deer, elk, impacts 
to water quality, and the impacts to salmon and those things 
that we value.
    In the time not so long ago, this used to be called 
multiple use management and was practiced on Federal lands. 
Unfortunately, we have seen too often Federal land managers 
crippled by single use designations like wilderness area and 
those type of things.
    They virtually eliminate the ability to respond to bugs, 
insect disease, and to look at the values of what those forests 
had previously prepared.
    Very rarely will you find designations like wilderness 
within Indian Country. For example, our forest, we have an area 
called the primitive area, and it is an important part that we 
use for traditional purposes.
    But just like while there is an emphasis to hold it into 
that manner, we function in the purpose. We are willing to go 
and address insect disease, fire outbreaks, and it is through 
our tribal leadership that takes the step.
    No such action or flexibility is possible with some of 
these Federal laws, so I believe the forest tribal approach is 
better balanced. It looks at the need of the land and looking 
at conservation to solve those things.
    We protect our resources, yet we understand that 
utilization is essential to sustain the health of our forests 
and meet the triple bottom line. We rely on our forests to 
provide employment and economic opportunities, to generate 
income needed to care for our land and provide services for our 
communities.
    I have been given the honor and responsibility to manage 
our tribe's natural resources. I am accountable to my 
government as well as to our membership.
    If we harvest too much, I get feedback from members that 
live in our part of the land. If we do not harvest enough, I 
also hear it from the Yakama Forest parks and the community 
members.
    We deal with both feedbacks, and that feedback is personal, 
from the supermarkets to across the dinner table. We get 
feedback right away onto what we are doing, and I think that 
goes into the direct accountability, at least that balance that 
is necessary with competing needs.
    I believe this ultimately leads to better conservation of 
all resources, whether it is wildlife habitat, traditional 
medicines, and foods, or timber itself.
    It is important to recognize that the conservation is to 
prevent the loss of those values that we want to retain on the 
land, and you are seeing those types of events happen across 
the landscape, and it matters.
    And it is the tribes using co-management and stewardship 
opportunities, working with communities and NGOs and taking the 
lead in those statuses to implement projects.
    It is maintaining the forest infrastructure that is 
necessary to do the habitat work that is both for wildland fire 
and reducing those types of risks.
    But it is also restoring salmon. It is restoring 
watersheds. It is making sure that we are doing the balanced 
approach that is necessary for us to be successful and to make 
sure that we leave something behind.
    You are seeing these catastrophic fires throughout the West 
that are destroying hundreds of thousands of acres.
    We believe there is a role that tribes and the communities 
play into making sure that those are protected and managed in 
better ways.
    And with that I thank you for the opportunity to testify.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Rigdon follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Phil Rigdon, Superintendent, Department of
           Natural Resources, Yakama Nation & Vice-President,
                      Inter-Tribal Timber Council
    I am Phil Rigdon, Vice-President of the Intertribal Timber Council 
(ITC) and Natural Resource Superintendent for the Yakama Nation in 
south-central Washington State. On behalf of the ITC and its more than 
60 member Tribes, I appreciate this opportunity to share some of the 
lessons of forest conservation from a tribal perspective.
    All of America's forests were once inhabited, managed and used by 
Indian people. Today, only a small portion of those lands remain under 
direct Indian management. On a total of 334 reservations in 36 states, 
18.6 million acres of forests and woodlands are held in trust by the 
United States and managed for the benefit of Indians.
    I believe that the Indian notion of ``conservation'' is different 
from that seen on other lands in the federal estate. Pursuant to both 
tribal direction and federal law, tribal forests must be sustainably 
managed. Indian tribes work with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and 
others to actively manage our forests and other resources within a 
holistic, integrated approach that strives to simultaneously sustain 
economic, ecological, and cultural values, the so-called ``triple 
bottom line.''
    We operate modern, innovative and comprehensive natural resource 
programs premised on connectedness among the land, resources, and 
people. For example, when we look at managing a piece of land, we're 
not just looking at one resource. We're thinking about the timber 
value, habitat resources for our deer and elk hunters, impacts to water 
quality where salmon live, and so forth.
    In a time not so long ago, this used to be called ``multiple use'' 
management on federal lands! Unfortunately, we see too often federal 
land managers crippled by single-use designations, like wilderness 
areas, that by definition preclude management activities. This 
virtually eliminates the ability to respond to bugs and disease, over-
stocking, climate-driven mortality . . . and of course wildfire.
    Very rarely will you find designations like ``wilderness'' in 
Indian Country. For example, the Yakama Forest is managed under the 
following emphasis categories: primitive, general, recreation, 
traditional use, winter wildlife habitat and riparian areas. While of 
these designations is an emphasis, it is not an exclusive use.
    Our Primitive areas generally function like wilderness areas on 
federal lands. However, in emergency circumstances like bug or disease 
outbreak, Tribal Council may approve management actions to address that 
crisis. No such action or flexibility is possible in federal wilderness 
areas.
    I believe the Indian forest management approach is better balanced. 
It is more focused on conservation of a resource than prohibition of an 
activity. We protect our resources; yet we understand that utilization 
is essential to sustain the health of our forests and meet the ``triple 
bottom line.'' We rely on our forests to provide employment and 
entrepreneurial opportunities and to generate income needed to care for 
the land and provide services for our communities.
    I have been given the honor and responsibility to manage my tribe's 
natural resources. I am accountable to my tribal government as well as 
our membership. If we harvest too much timber, I get feedback from 
tribal members who are responsible for gathering medicines and foods 
from the forest. If we don't harvest enough timber, I get feedback from 
our mill workers at Yakama Forest Products.
    When I say ``feedback''--I don't mean constituent letters like 
Members of Congress get. I mean very personal feedback. We're a small 
community and my friends, neighbors and family members all know how to 
find me--in the aisles of a supermarket or across the dinner table.
    This direct accountability leads to the optimal balance of 
competing needs. I believe this ultimately leads to better conservation 
of all resources, whether it be wildlife habitat, traditional medicines 
and foods, or timber.
    One element of ``conservation'' is to prevent wasteful use of a 
resource. Catastrophic wildfire is perhaps the greatest waste of our 
forest resources. Stand replacement fires, driven by dense forests and 
drier climate, kill millions of wildlife, pollute the air, sterilizes 
the soil and destroy timber resources. In many cases, these large, 
intense fires sacrifice the very values certain ``protected'' areas 
were set aside for.
    Wildfire is challenging some of the old concepts and tools of 
conservation. In Indian Country, we are tackling that head-on. We 
respond quickly to forest health challenges. We fight fires 
aggressively when they threaten resources, but we also use prescribed 
fire aggressively when circumstances allow it. After fires, we prevent 
waste by utilizing dead trees and protecting the remaining resources 
from the risk of re-burn.
    I am encouraged by the growing number of tribally driven forest 
health projects on federal lands. We are using tools like the Tribal 
Forest Protection Act, Good Neighbor Authority and Reserved Treaty 
Rights Lands funding to bring our traditional and modern knowledge to 
make federal lands more resilient to disturbance such as wildfire.
    Many tribes continue to have treaty and other interests in the 
productivity of federal forest lands. My tribe, for example, exercises 
its right to harvest huckleberries, deer and elk on several National 
Forests. It is in our interest to conserve these resources and the 
healthy forests that produce them. In doing so, we are improving the 
forests for all Americans.
    We invite the members of this Committee to visit Indian Country and 
see for yourselves what conservation looks like on our lands.

    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Rigdon.
    When you refer to across the dinner table, are you saying 
your wife gives you advice now and then?
    Mr. Rigdon. I am not married, for one thing. But my family 
members will talk to me quite a bit about what we are doing. A 
lot of times it is at Safeway where you get caught by your 
auntie.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you very much for your testimony.
    The Chair will now recognize Members for 5 minutes for 
questions.
    First, the gentleman from California, Mr. McClintock.
    Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Ferry, you mentioned the Federal Government owns about 
63 percent of the land area of the entire state of Utah, 80 
percent of Nevada. It owns 47 percent of California, including 
93 percent of Alpine County.
    Now, just for fun, look at the state of the Federal 
Government here in Washington, DC. All of our Federal 
buildings, our memorials, our national parks, all of the 
Federal land in the Federal Capital, how much of that do you 
believe is federally owned?
    Mr. Ferry. I wouldn't have an idea.
    Mr. McClintock. The answer is 25 percent. The Federal 
Government owns just 3 percent of Texas, less than 1 percent of 
the entire state of New York, and yet nearly two-thirds of your 
state, four-fifths of Nevada, nearly half of California.
    What happens when the Federal Government owns so much of 
your local land?
    Is that land on the local tax rolls?
    Mr. Ferry. No, that land is not on the local tax rolls, and 
it has a significant impact on the local economy, on outcomes, 
especially when you have heavy-handed policies like NEPA that 
have been used as a tool to restrict our ability to manage 
those landscapes.
    Decisions are made best when the are made by a local 
community and local involvement. We know what is going on 
within our areas.
    Mr. McClintock. It is just human nature that the most 
jealous guardians of a community are the members of the 
community, not some far off government in Washington.
    Obviously, the federally owned land is highly restricted as 
far as any kind of productive use, correct?
    Mr. Ferry. That is correct.
    Mr. McClintock. So, commerce slows, tax revenues disappear. 
Now, we are told this is to protect the land. How well would 
you say the Federal Government takes care of that land?
    Mr. Ferry. It is essentially an absentee landowner.
    Mr. McClintock. So, basically abandoned.
    Louie Gohmert once compared the Federal Government's land 
policies of recent years to the old town miser whose 
dilapidated and neglected mansion is overgrown with weeds. Its 
paint is flaking as he spends all of his time and money 
scheming up ways of buying his neighbor's property.
    Should the Federal Government not take care of the land it 
already holds before acquiring still more lands?
    Mr. Ferry. I believe so.
    Mr. McClintock. How would you compare the condition of the 
Federal lands in Utah with those of privately held or even 
state-managed forests in your region?
    Mr. Ferry. We actively manage our forests as a state, and 
they are in good--the drought has had a significant impact on 
the state of Utah, but comparatively, our forests are well 
managed, as a state better managed than the Federal.
    Mr. McClintock. And how does that compare to the Federal 
Government lands?
    Mr. Ferry. They are better managed. Certainly, I am a big 
believer in active landscape management.
    Mr. McClintock. In my state, you can actually tell the 
boundary lines between the Federal lands and the private lands 
simply by the condition of the forests on that side of the 
property line.
    To those who say it is climate change, how clever the 
climate change is to know exactly where the boundaries are and 
to decimate the Federal lands.
    Mr. Espy, what are your observations from Wyoming?
    Mr. Espy. Thank you.
    Yes, my observations would be that the land that has been 
managed within our forest system, and I can personally attest 
to that. My family does own 400 acres inside the Medicine Bow-
Routt National Forest in the Sierra Madre Range. In the 1990s, 
we went in and did a select cut within that property.
    When you drive down the highway in the summer, you cannot 
notice that that select cut occurred, but now it stands out 
because that is where the healthy trees are.
    When the beetle infestation came through our forest, it did 
not affect the trees on our private property up there, but it 
affected the trees----
    Mr. McClintock. And there is a reason for that, is there 
not?
    Because you matched the density of the trees with the 
ability of the land to support it. So, those trees are healthy 
and strong, and when a bark beetle digs in, it immediately 
exudes sap, kills the beetle, and that is the end of it.
    The highly stressed, morbidly overgrown Federal lands, all 
because of NEPA restrictions, have decimated those trees. They 
are weak, fighting for their lives, trying to claim the same 
soil as other trees, competing for the same.
    This has been a story over and over again. They are 
stressed. They become diseased. They fall victim to disease, or 
pestilence, or drought, and ultimately catastrophic wildfire.
    Mr. Rigdon, just in a brief moment, how would you compare 
your tribe's management of lands compared to the adjacent 
Federal lands?
    Mr. Rigdon. I think it is very similar, and you can go 
across the country to our reservation in South Central 
Washington and see adjacent lands and how we approach 
management versus adjacent things better.
    There have been tours out in Mescalero and you see the 
national forest right next----
    Mr. McClintock. So, excessive Federal landownership is not 
protecting our forests. It is destroying them.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields.
    I would like to recognize Ms. Kamlager-Dove for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    And thank you to all of the witnesses here today.
    I, too, believe, to Mr. Rigdon's point, in tribal 
definitions of conservation being different from our current 
interpretation, but I think it is mostly because the lands that 
we are talking about it is the result of American colonization 
and a patriarchal view of how Indigenous people should live.
    But I know that this hearing is not about that. Before I 
ask my question, I would also like to just invite all of us 
here to view an exhibition that is called ``A Forest for the 
Trees,'' and it really visually reimagines our relationship to 
nature done through cultural mythology, not knowledge and 
wisdom of tribal lands and those sovereign bodies.
    And it really does talk about fire. It talks about water. 
It talks about land, and it talks about wildlife, but once 
again, I know that this is not the Committee for that.
    But I do want to share because I was thinking about that 
exhibition while I was listening to all of you and how we 
interpret preservation, conservation, multiple use, and 
exchange.
    My question is for Mr. Leshy.
    Today's hearing is focused on conservation of Federal lands 
and forests, and with that in mind, can you elaborate on the 
importance of protecting national forests and safeguarding 
water supplies for downstream users?
    Mr. Leshy. Thank you very much, Ms. Kamlager-Dove, and 
happy to elaborate.
    As you know, in Southern California, California is actually 
kind of a premier example of how the Federal lands have been 
set aside and used to protect watersheds. That was the reason 
why the system was created back mostly in the last decade, the 
19th century and first couple of decades of the 20th century.
    The San Gabriel Mountains, the Sierra Nevada Mountains, 
mostly national forest land because those were the vital water 
supplies for people downstream, and that system came about 
because local people petitioned for it all over the West.
    And in the East, we have a lot of Federal lands. They were 
all acquired from willing sellers into national ownership to 
protect the upper reaches of the watershed, for the same 
reasons.
    So, the story of the national forest, in particular, is the 
story of local people organizing and advocating to protect 
those watersheds which are so vital to their way of life. And 
over the years, it has been a big success story, so we should 
celebrate it.
    I know it is hard to celebrate things coming out of 
Washington as being good these days, but these public lands are 
a real political success story in that sense.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Absolutely, and I think we should 
celebrate that. Lord knows I am looking for things to 
celebrate.
    In your experience, are bedrock environmental protections 
included in laws like NEPA a barrier to achieving the most 
desired outcomes?
    Mr. Leshy. I have dealt with NEPA actually on public lands 
issues for 50 years. I have seen it from all perspectives, 
inside government, outside government. It is not really a 
barrier.
    And none of these other laws are really barriers, and 
studies have shown that over and over actually. That is not to 
say there can't be tweaks that could improve the process, but 
they are a way for ordinary citizens on the ground in these 
local areas to have their voices heard.
    The NEPA process and processes like that, the Federal land 
management planning process, is a way for local people to make 
their voices heard, and I think it has been generally very 
successful. So, it is vital to protect that.
    Again, not to say you can't tweak it and do a little 
improving here and there, but I think doing away with it would 
be a grave mistake.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you.
    I have a criminal justice background. I like to think of it 
as somewhat similar to due process, making sure that folks have 
a say and that there are checks and balances.
    With that, thank you for your answers to my questions.
    And, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentlewoman yields.
    I would like to recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. 
Lamborn, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Professor Leshy, you said something that I really liked. 
You said that a lot of these public lands decisions went 
through Congress and they had bipartisan or at least 
congressional support. The executive branch signed off on it 
and signed it into law.
    By contrast, we have the Antiquities Act, and we have 
Presidential proclamations, executive orders designated what 
started out as antiquities and has morphed into hundreds of 
thousands or millions of acres of designations by the Executive 
without congressional buy-in or signing off.
    And an example of that was in Colorado recently. The Camp 
Hale designated area was done by President Biden about a year 
ago, and it was done without congressional support.
    In fact, the Republicans whose area this encompassed were 
opposed to this. A lot of civic groups and citizens were 
opposed.
    Sure, there were some people in favor of it. No doubt about 
that, and tribes were opposed.
    And here is an example of a tribe. This is the Ute. The Ute 
Indian Tribe said in an article, dated October 13--and I would 
like unanimous consent to enter this into the record.
    Mr. Tiffany. Without objection.

    [The information follows:]

Ute Indian Tribe calls Biden's Colorado national monument designation 
`an unlawful act of genocide'

Deseret News, October 13, 2022 by Kyle Dunphey

The Ute Indian Tribe issued a scathing rebuke of President Joe Biden's 
designation of the Camp Hale-Continental Divide National Monument on 
Wednesday, calling it ``an unlawful act of genocide.''

The tribe issued a statement hours after Biden met with Colorado 
leaders to sign a proclamation creating the 53,000-acre monument, which 
encompasses a military base in the Rocky Mountains where the U.S. 
Army's 10th Mountain Division trained.

In the statement, Ute leaders accuse the administration of not 
consulting or listening to the tribe's concerns prior to Wednesday.

``They moved forward with a monument on our homelands without including 
us. They talk about tribal consultation, but their actions do not match 
their words,'' the Ute Business Committee said. ``We cannot support a 
monument on our homelands that does not include the Tribe.''

The Utes' government headquarters is stationed in Fort Duchesne, Utah. 
Its tribal lands--the second largest reservation in the U.S.--span much 
of the Uintah Basin.

However, the tribe's traditional land includes vast expanses of Utah 
and Colorado, and areas within the new Camp Hale-Continental Divide 
National Monument. In 1880, they were violently displaced from the land 
and forced to resettle on what is now the Uintah and Ouray Reservation 
in northeastern Utah.

``We are shocked that 200 years later, nothing has changed,'' the 
business committee said. ``This unlawful action by the president today 
is a desecration of our ancestors that remain buried on our homelands. 
Many of these Ute ancestors passed on seeking to protect these lands 
from further encroachment and others left us as part of the forced 
death march at the hands of the United States as we were moved out of 
Colorado at gunpoint.''

In the statement, the tribe said it had learned of Biden's plans to 
establish the monument just days earlier. Tribe leaders requested a 
call with the White House, although ``there was little time for the 
Tribe to share its knowledge and history of the area,'' they said.

``Instead of fully engaging the Ute Indian Tribe and its Uncompahgre 
Band in designating the Monument, the White House rushed forward with 
its own priorities,'' the tribe said Wednesday.

``. . . Every day, BLM and the state take more and more of our 
resources. Resources that we reserved to provide for future generations 
of our Tribe. The president must take action to restore and secure our 
Uncompahgre Reservation homelands,'' the statement reads.

Meanwhile, the White House made repeated references to the Ute Tribe on 
Wednesday, including a promise in the proclamation to ``meaningfully 
engage with Tribal Nations with cultural ties to the area, including 
the Ute Tribes, in the development of the management plan and to inform 
subsequent management of the monument.''

The issue at hand for the Ute Tribe is the White House didn't seek 
coordination with the tribe before the proclamation. The tribe says 
it's tried repeatedly to get the Biden administration to adopt a tribal 
consultation standard--the White House has refused, they say.

``Even on our traditional homelands, they refused to work closely with 
us. These new monuments are an abomination and demonstrate manifest 
disregard and disrespect of the Ute Indian Tribe's treaty rights and 
sovereign status as a federally recognized Indian Tribe,'' said Shaun 
Chapoose, chairman of the business committee and a member of the 
Uncompahgre Band. ``If it's a fight they want it's a fight they will 
get.''

The Camp Hale region was previously managed by the Forest Service. A 
coalition of ranchers, conservation and outdoor recreation advocates, 
business owners and descendants of the 10th Mountain Division signed a 
letter written by Colorado Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet asking Biden 
to use the Antiquities Act and designate the national monument.

Colorado Sen. John Hickenlooper, Gov. Jared Polis and Rep. Joe Neguse 
also voiced their support for the monument.

                                 ______
                                 

    Mr. Lamborn. And they are quoted as saying, ``They moved 
forward at the monument on our homelands without including us. 
They talk about tribal consultation, but their actions do not 
match their word,'' The Ute Business Committee said.
    ``We cannot support a monument on our homelands that does 
not include the tribe.''
    They also said, ``This unlawful action by the President 
today is a desecration of our ancestors that remain buried on 
our homelands. Many of these Ute ancestors passed on seeking to 
protect these lands from further encroachment, and others left 
us as part of the forced Death March at the hands of the United 
States as we were moved out of Colorado at gunpoint.''
    In a statement the tribe said it had learned of Biden's 
plans to establish the monument just days earlier. Tribal 
leaders requested a call with the White House, although there 
was, ``little time for the tribe to share its knowledge and 
history of the area,'' they said.
    And in contrast the White House, I think, was not telling 
the truth when they said, ``They made repeated references to 
the Ute Tribe on Wednesday, including a promise in the 
proclamation'' to quote, ``meaningfully engage with tribal 
nations with cultural ties to the area, including the Ute 
Tribes, in the development of the management plan and to inform 
subsequent management of the monument.''
    So, what I see is an abuse of the process when the 
executive branch will go in and not work with Congress. They 
will take areas that Congress would not have passed on its own 
and designate to become a national monument, not a National 
Park Service national monument, which is a different category, 
but an executive branch created national monument under the 
Antiquities Act.
    And I think that that is an abuse. Doing this for hundreds 
or millions of acres at a time I think is wrong, and not 
consulting with Congress or all of the people who are affected 
in the local decision making that should have been included. I 
think that that is an abuse.
    What do you say to that, Professor Leshy?
    Mr. Leshy. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn.
    With all respect, I have a very different perspective. On 
Camp Hale, I think it had substantial support among the 
Congressional Delegation in Colorado and among the tribes.
    Mr. Lamborn. Not here, and it was my district.
    Mr. Leshy. I think the Antiquities Act story is not one of 
executives seizing power, and it did not morph into something. 
The Antiquities Act passed in 1906. In 1908, Theodore Roosevelt 
set aside 800,000 acres under the Antiquities Act in the Grand 
Canyon.
    He did that unilaterally, but 11 years later, Congress made 
it a national park. The year after that, the Supreme Court, in 
reviewing the lawfulness of what Roosevelt did, unanimously 
said it was lawful.
    That set the pattern. What has happened since is, yes, the 
executives have used that power, but in almost every case 
Congress has ratified it, supported it, maybe tweaked the 
boundaries by legislation.
    Mr. Lamborn. Well, thank you. Let me interrupt for just a 
second.
    The gentleman from Utah, what about the situation in Utah 
with the Bears Ears area?
    Mr. Ferry. Thank you, Congressman.
    Yes, that certainly is a different situation than Utah and 
one that we are grappling with. It has a significant impact and 
one that was addressed by the Trump administration and reversed 
by the current administration that has decimated portions of 
our state. It just has, and it is a real problem.
    There was not broad congressional support. We did not have 
these types of actions. It is a recurring problem.
    Mr. Lamborn. Well, thank you both for your comments.
    And I would just say we should have a process that has more 
consensus and buy-in from everyone affected.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields.
    I would like to recognize the Ranking Member for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Neguse. I thank the Chairman.
    I was not planning on addressing this, but just at the top 
here I have nothing but great respect for my distinguished 
colleague from Colorado. I presume he misspoke with respect to 
Camp Hale and that perhaps he was referring to Browns Canyon in 
his district.
    So, just to be clear, Camp Hale, so that we are all 
familiar with this, is in my district. I represent Eagle 
County. I represent Camp Hale.
    Camp Hale was designated a national historic site by 
President Biden last year. The project had the support, the 
designation had the support of me, as both the Representative 
for that district, and as Chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Public Lands; the support of both of our United States 
Senators; the support of our governor; the support of veterans 
both within Colorado and across the country who recognized the 
need to honor our nation's veterans, World War II heroes who 
trained in my district at Camp Hale before they defeated the 
Nazis in the Italian Alps. It was supported by the Ute and Ute 
Mountain Ute.
    I understand there are criticisms from some about the 
designation, recognizing that, but I just want to make sure 
factually with respect to Camp Hale, and as you can probably 
sense some level of defensiveness on my part because I am very 
proud of that designation. I am proud of the steps that we took 
to honor our nation's veterans and veterans in my community.
    Mr. Lamborn. Would the gentleman yield for 1 second?
    Mr. Neguse. Sure.
    Mr. Lamborn. You are right. I was confusing Hale and Browns 
Canyon. However, Hale used to be in my district, so I apologize 
for that overlap.
    Mr. Neguse. No problem.
    Mr. Lamborn. And I agree with many of the things you have 
just said. It is just that this whole process I think needs to 
be reformed.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Neguse. I thank the gentleman.
    A couple of questions for Mr. Ferry and Commissioner Espy.
    First, I just want to talk a little bit about the 
Wilderness Act because I want to make sure that we are all 
operating under the same set of facts.
    Executive Director Ferry, welcome to the Committee. I 
previously served in a similar capacity as the executive 
director of a different cabinet agency under then Governor 
Hickenlooper. So, deep appreciation for the job that you have 
under Governor Cox in Utah.
    I guess I wonder. I presume you support the Wilderness Act. 
I understand you have some concerns about NEPA, which we can 
talk about, but more broadly Wilderness Act is not something 
that the Department opposes under Governor Cox.
    Mr. Ferry. Yes, that is correct.
    Mr. Neguse. And that makes sense, right? Because Republican 
Presidents and Democratic Presidents have signed into law a 
wide variety of wilderness designations since the enactment of 
the Wilderness Act over 60 years ago.
    President Reagan famously had enacted bills or signed bills 
into law that designated over 8 million acres within the West 
as wilderness.
    I am curious if you know, Director Ferry, or if you could 
tell us how many acres of wilderness have been designated and 
signed into law in your state by President Biden.
    Mr. Ferry. Under the current Administration, I know they 
were working through a couple of designations now. I am not 
sure of the exact acreage, but----
    Mr. Neguse. I can tell you. I can tell you the answer is 
zero. There are none in Utah.
    Commissioner Espy, I presume you know as well, or you can 
answer this question. How many acres of wilderness have been 
designated in the state of Wyoming under President Biden in 
terms of being signed into law?
    Mr. Espy. None.
    Mr. Neguse. None.
    Mr. Espy. There is a bill in the previous Congress.
    Mr. Neguse. I understand there are bills pending, but 
President Biden has been in office for over 2\1/2\ years now. 
None in Wyoming, none in Utah.
    I also am sure you are familiar, Director Ferry, with this. 
How many acres of wilderness were designated under President 
Trump in your state?
    Mr. Ferry. We did pass a Wilderness Act impacting Utah. 
That was a collaborative effort between the local that had 
broad support.
    Mr. Neguse. And let me say I was not in Congress back then, 
but I marveled from afar. I was supportive of it because it was 
led by my good friend from Utah, my colleague, Mr. Curtis, and 
I thought, ``Boy, if I get elected to Congress, I would love to 
be able to do something similar,'' the Emery County Public Land 
Act, right, which protected 660,000 acres in Utah, 660,000 
acres, also 217,000 acres in San Rafael, which I am sure you 
are aware of, land that was pulled back in terms of withdrawing 
from mineral and mineral leasing, which I am sure Mr. Curtis 
can talk a bit more about, but you are familiar with that, Mr. 
Ferry?
    Mr. Ferry. Yes.
    Mr. Neguse. So, my broader point is, again, these are 
actions I support. I support the protection of public lands and 
conserving public lands, and I just hope that my colleagues 
will strike this balance as we are talking about this because 
there is a lot of talk about the Biden administration and 30 x 
30 Initiative, so on and so forth.
    And as I hear from the witnesses gathered today from states 
that are neighbors to my state, I don't hear much in terms of 
juxtaposed against what has happened in the past in the Trump 
administration, the kind of hyperbole that I have heard from my 
colleagues about public lands being taken off the table for any 
kind of use, and so on and so forth.
    It is not matching up with the realities that I see on the 
ground, and I see my time has expired. I had some questions 
about shared stewardship, but I will save that for the future.
    I thank the witnesses for being here.
    Mr. Tiffany. I take it the gentleman yields.
    Mr. Neguse. The gentleman yields.
    Mr. Tiffany. OK. Thank you very much.
    Next, I would like to recognize the gentleman from the 
aforementioned state of Utah, Mr. Curtis.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and my colleague, Mr. 
Neguse.
    We do have so much to share in our districts that are 
similar, and I thank you for bringing up the Emery County 
public lands bill. I actually made a big note as you were 
speaking about that.
    And I think something very, very unique about that bill is 
it was supported by the County Commissioners. It was supported 
by the Governor. It was supported by myself, the full 
Delegation from Utah, and we found agreement on over a million 
acres of public land, on how that should be used, for 
recreation, for extraction, for preservation.
    And we did it by consensus, and we did it by working with 
the local people and with their support. And in contrast, I 
think too many of our discussions here are this top-down 
Washington approach of mandating what will be done in somebody 
else's district.
    There is a bill that gets introduced every Congress with 
dozens of Members from your party legislating public lands in 
my district that would overturn the Emery County public lands 
bill.
    You can imagine how that makes my constituents feel, who 
worked so hard to find consensus on this, and one of the 
reasons they did it is they wanted to avoid the ambiguity 
moving forward that somebody would come into their town and 
legislate.
    Mr. Ferry, how many Utahans have you ever come across that 
felt like it was a good idea to destroy the land and leave it 
worse than they found it?
    Mr. Ferry. None.
    Mr. Curtis. None. I can't find a Utahan that thinks it is a 
good idea to destroy our land and not leave it better.
    Yet, too often from Washington, DC, by people who have 
never been there, we tell them how this land should be managed.
    Now, if you will indulge me for just a minute. I took a few 
tweets off the Internet from my colleagues across the aisle 
about DC and the recent bill dealing with the U.S. Congress 
messing in their ability to legislate crime.
    ``This isn't it. DC has a right to govern itself like any 
state or municipality.''
    Next one. ``Supporting Home Rule by definition means 
allowing DC Government to make its own decisions.''
    Next one. ``No one but the DC Government should be in 
charge of local policy decisions.''
    If that is true, where we constitutionally have a 
responsibility to legislate in DC, where we live here in the 
community, where we understand the nuances of crime, how is 
that not true thousands of miles away where we have never been 
there, many of us, and we are making decisions and legislating 
to them?
    And I would just appeal to this group to understand this 
philosophy that those on the ground understand best and care 
the very most about preserving and protecting this land.
    In my district, I have a unique characteristic. You have a 
little bit of it. I have a lot of it. About 80 percent of my 
district has 90 percent of its land public land.
    Now think about that. If you are a local government and you 
are trying to raise property taxes to pay for schools, for 
roads, for police, and for fire, and 10 percent of your 
property produces property tax and you have colleagues here in 
Washington, DC, telling you they don't think you should be able 
to make any money on public lands or that you should have no 
ability to influence those decisions, you can see why we have 
conflict on these issues.
    So, thank you for indulging me. I'll get off my soapbox.
    Mr. Ferry, let me get to a little bit more specific and 
let's talk about permitting reform. Somehow in the state of 
Utah, we are permitting much quicker than they are here in 
Washington, DC, when we involve the Federal Government, and yet 
nobody is complaining about violations of the environment and 
things like that.
    Can you share some insight why Utah is so much better at 
this?
    Mr. Ferry. Well, as a state, we have that ability to plan 
and prepare and to make decisions that can be impactful 
immediately.
    When we look at the risk that exists to do something as 
simple as, say, a controlled burn to mitigate old growth 
forests and to try to regenerate that forest, it takes 5 years. 
We don't know what the weather is going to be like in 5 years. 
We know we can do it now.
    And without that immediate ability to respond to current 
conditions, it is really hard to manage these landscapes.
    Mr. Curtis. I am going to interrupt you because I have 23 
seconds left.
    And Congressman Neguse and I co-chair the Wildfire Caucus, 
and I appreciate his leadership on that.
    Can you give us in just a tiny, tiny nutshell what we are 
doing that is successful in Utah?
    Mr. Ferry. So, the Shared Stewardship Program, fantastic 
program, partnership between the state and the Federal 
Government.
    We are also managing WRIS specifically, private landscape, 
watershed management that we are doing that is really, really 
impactful. These are fantastic programs.
    Mr. Curtis. Thank you to you and to all of our witnesses.
    Mr. Chair, I am out of time, unfortunately. I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields.
    Next, I would like to recognize the gentlewoman from--are 
you from Oregon?
    Ms. Hoyle. Yes, sir, I am.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yes. Well, it is great to have you on this 
Subcommittee, and welcome, and you have 5 minutes.
    Ms. Hoyle. Thank you.
    I am not actually on the Subcommittee, but I am coming here 
because this is really important to me.
    Mr. Tiffany. Terrific.
    Ms. Hoyle. But I would like to yield my time to Ranking 
Member Neguse.
    And thank you.
    Mr. Neguse. A couple of things I would say.
    First, welcome to the Commissioner of Labor, for those of 
you who are not familiar with Ms. Hoyle, who was elected to 
Congress to replace the infamous and distinguished Chairman of 
the Transportation Committee, Mr. DeFazio, whom many of you 
worked with.
    She is a former statewide Labor Commissioner and I know is 
going to serve well in the U.S. Congress and bring her wealth 
of experience in her particular district to public lands and 
forest and watershed protection to this esteemed body.
    Just quickly, and then perhaps maybe I will yield a moment 
to Ms. Kamlager, we have a little time to talk about shared 
stewardship, and this builds off of a point that Mr. Curtis 
raised.
    I know he has stepped out of the room, but he and I have 
very similar districts. My district is roughly 60 percent 
public land. Many of you are probably familiar with Rocky 
Mountain National Park, White River National Forest, Arapaho 
Roosevelt National Forest, some of the most iconic places in 
the country, all of which I have the honor of representing.
    So, I understand well the challenges and the obstacles that 
Mr. Curtis mentioned, and I am grateful for our partnership on 
some of these issues around wildfire mitigation.
    And to that end, what I would like to talk about, and, Mr. 
Ferry, I am hoping you might be able to expound on this in 
greater detail, is wildfire management, mitigation, and 
resiliency.
    I was a bit struck, I must say, by your response to Mr. 
McClintock's question in which you identified the Federal 
Government. I think the word you used, and I will give you a 
chance to clarify this if you would like, was ``absentee 
landlord'' with respect to the Federal lands that are in your 
district or, excuse me, your state.
    And I guess I am happy to give you an opportunity to 
expound upon that if you would like or perhaps clarify that 
remark because as I look at the body of work that is being done 
under Governor Cox in partnership with the Federal Government, 
in partnership with the Forest Service Chief, implementing the 
infrastructure law, I know just 2 months ago the Forest Service 
announced a series of landscapes that will receive treatments.
    Two of them are in Utah, the Pine Valley Landscape, 43,000 
acres over the next 7 years. The Uinta National Forest, 105,000 
acres. I saw from some of your own written testimony hundreds 
of millions of dollars that are being deployed, Federal dollars 
in partnership with the state in Utah to get a handle on the 
mitigation that needs to be done in our forests.
    And I think that is really important work, and it is 
consistent with the shared stewardship model that the Utah 
Department of Natural Resources advertises on its own Website.
    So, I was very struck when you said ``absentee landlord.'' 
Maybe that has been your experience in the past, but my sense 
is the last couple of years we are seeing generational 
investments in terms of addressing some of the needs in the 
national forests that are in my district and it sounds like in 
Utah as well.
    But happy to give you a chance to respond.
    Mr. Ferry. No, thank you, and I appreciate that opportunity 
to clarify.
    So, specifically referring to some of the designations on 
national monuments as well as wilderness areas where we can't 
go in and do some of these treatments that are necessary. On 
the national forest side, we have a fantastic forestry program 
and a partnership with the Federal Government, with USDA.
    And that shared stewardship is part of that partnership 
where we are able to go in and work together. And that shared 
stewardship clears some of the boundaries out of the way, 
specifically when we talk about some of the permitting and some 
of the other things. It helps streamline that process.
    And that is part of this collaborative effort, I think, 
that we need as we look across the aisle, as we look across 
agencies from states to Federal, and local agencies as well, to 
really incorporate and come up with positive outcomes that we 
really need.
    The risk is so great. We look at the catastrophic wildfires 
throughout the West. Utah is no different. I mean, the WUI, the 
Wildland Urban Interface, it is so dramatic and we see people 
moving into these areas. The catastrophic risk is just through 
the roof.
    We have a great partnership, and thank you for letting me 
clarify that.
    Mr. Neguse. And that is very helpful, and that is exactly 
what I wanted. I just want to make sure we are giving the Biden 
administration credit where it is due. I mean, it is working in 
Utah. It is working in Colorado.
    The shared stewardship model with the Forest Service 
implementing the laws that we passed last year, the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law, it is working, and we just have to do more 
of it over the course of the next several years.
    I have 10 seconds that I could yield to my colleague from 
the great state of California if she has a word.
    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. No. I just wanted to add how heartened I 
was to hear some of my colleagues' statements around building 
more consensus and having more buy-in from everyone and making 
sure that people on the ground who understand best what is 
needed are involved.
    I think we should be thinking about that as we are hoping 
to stall any kind of wildfire sale on NEPA and its guardrails.
    Mr. Neguse. I yield.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields.
    I would like to recognize the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. 
Stauber.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Neguse, congratulations as the Ranker. I really 
appreciate your comments.
    I know you are busy, but before you leave, I want to thank 
you for co-sponsoring the Lake Winnie land exchange. It made 
all of the sense in the world, and I appreciate your 
leadership.
    Mr. Neguse. Thank you.
    Mr. Stauber. Mr. Tiffany, congratulations on your 
chairmanship. Northwest Wisconsin and Northern Minnesota, our 
communities touch each other, our districts touch each other, 
and we have a huge Federal land footprint.
    And we struggle with wildfires, lack of access, and general 
management issues just like western states do as well, and I 
think for the first time that I can tell, there have never been 
two Midwesterners cheering energy and mineral resources and the 
Federal lands. So, I am really excited for your leadership.
    Commissioner Espy, thank you for joining us today. In my 
previous role, I served as a county commissioner in St. Louis 
County, Minnesota, where we also have a significant amount of 
Federal land.
    Your testimony discussed the benefit of Wyoming investing 
in the Good Neighbor Authority for wildfire management along 
with other examples of agreements between Federal agencies and 
states, tribes, and private landowners.
    What are the benefits to counties of these sorts of 
agreements?
    And what else can we do in Congress to let you better 
manage your lands in your county?
    Mr. Espy. On the Good Neighbor Authority, one of the 
biggest advantages to the county is the jobs that kept our mill 
running while we were waiting for the NEPA to be done on some 
of the forest ground to help provide those timber products back 
into our mill, and with that Good Neighbor Authority where we 
could pull private, state, and Federal lands all into a large 
enough sale that it was worth the time for the mill to come in 
and actually go and do that.
    Mr. Stauber. You just mentioned the NEPA process on Federal 
lands. How long is the process? What is going on?
    Mr. Espy. It depends. And simple liaise can be done very 
quickly normally within the deal. When we get into the EISes, 
and I am going to use Chokecherry Sierra Madre Wind Project, 
that was supposed to be fast-tracked through the process, and 
it is over 10 years in the NEPA process.
    Cumbersome, and like for the timber sales and some of this 
are forest rangers aren't there long enough to complete the 
NEPA process. So, when the line officers and those that weren't 
there when we started the project, they don't know what 
precipitated all this, so a lot gets lost.
    Mr. Stauber. I don't mean to cut you off here, but my time 
is limited.
    However, we are going to have a markup on permitting reform 
this Thursday, and that is exactly what we are going to 
discuss, the length of time.
    One mine in Northern Minnesota is on its 20th year of 
permitting in the biggest copper-nickel find in the world, 
called the Duluth Complex.
    Mr. Ferry, thank you for mentioning 30 x 30 in your 
testimony. We recently had a 225,000-acre mineral withdrawal 
that includes a ban on taconite, copper, nickel, cobalt, and 
more other essentials in the Superior National Forest, which is 
a working national forest in my district.
    The Administration press release proudly included the 
withdrawal as part of the 30 x 30 goal. So, in effect, the 
Administration was spiking the football and taking lands 
offline and into more restrictive management.
    I would like to give you the opportunity as a land manager 
yourself to discuss how further restriction of lands in the 
form of national monuments, mineral withdrawals, or anything 
else that is actually detrimental to the lands and our local 
communities.
    Mr. Espy. Thank you, Congressman.
    Ultimately, the ability to develop these lands that have 
precious minerals, other resources, is critical. We are not 
talking about developing everything everywhere, but there has 
to be a smart way of going about utilizing the natural 
resources that exist here in our country.
    And clarification within the 30 x 30, in setting some 
parameters so that we have an understanding because these take 
significant investments. It is no different than investing in a 
new mill or something else. There is a payback that has to 
occur, and without that security on the backend, the investment 
does not get made.
    Mr. Stauber. You have to develop a certainty of the 
permitting process. That is a big part of it, too, as well.
    I see my time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields.
    I would like to recognize the gentlewoman from California, 
Ms. Porter, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Porter. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Utah is home to exceptional national parks and wilderness 
and protected public lands. One of my best family memories was 
our recent trip to Dixie National Forest and to Zion National 
Park, and it is very clear having not been back in a couple 
decades and making a new trip how much those areas have 
supported the state's incredible outdoor recreation economy.
    And the beauty and the benefit of having those protected 
public lands is not lost on the people who live there and are 
seeing those economic benefits.
    Mr. Ferry, I studied your testimony, and you really 
hammered home the importance of collaborating with the Federal 
Government to promote conservation. On page 1, you state that 
when, ``the Federal Government manages significant swaths of 
land, proactive collaborative and smart conservation efforts 
are critical to maintaining healthy and thriving landscapes and 
watersheds.''
    And you indicate the success of these collaborations again 
on pages 2 and 3 of your testimony.
    The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines ``conservation.'' It 
says, ``conservation--a careful preservation and protection of 
something, especially planned management of a natural resource 
to prevent exploitation, destruction, or neglect.''
    What do you think of that definition? Does that do a good 
job of defining ``conservation''?
    Mr. Ferry. Sounds like a straight out of the book 
definition.
    Ms. Porter. It is straight out of the book.
    Republicans on this Committee define conservation 
differently. They say conservation is, ``a purpose that ensures 
our public lands provide secure domestic sources of energy, 
food, fiber, minerals, jobs, and recreation under appropriate 
conservation standards.''
    Do you think that definition of ``conservation'' aligns 
with what the dictionary tells us?
    Mr. Ferry. I think that they are different.
    Ms. Porter. They are different.
    So, given that, I am curious how securing domestic sources 
of energy and minerals, which is the Republican Committee 
definition of ``conservation,'' how that fits with 
``maintaining healthy and thriving landscapes and watersheds,'' 
that dictionary definition.
    How do you reconcile those things?
    Mr. Ferry. Well, I think ultimately, we have to look at 
that landscape scale and say in an appropriate manner can we 
extract minerals. Can we do proper grazing techniques? Can we 
manage those landscapes in a way that still protects those 
conservation values?
    And I think that that can be accomplished because what we 
are talking about, in the state of Utah, we are talking about 
33 million acres are owned by the Federal Government, and to 
think that none of those acres are available for any sort of 
production, I think would be--it is not proper.
    Ms. Porter. So, you see an ability to, at the same time 
that one is drilling, be conserving?
    Mr. Ferry. On areas, on landscapes, yes.
    Ms. Porter. OK. You said in your testimony that you were, 
``encouraged by reforms made in the Trump administration to 
weaken NEPA.''
    Mr. Ferry, did you know that according to a recent poll 
from Colorado College, 64 percent of Utahans prefer that 
leaders place more emphasis on protecting water, air, wildlife, 
and recreation opportunities over maximizing the amount of land 
for drilling and mining?
    Seventy-five percent support a national goal of conserving 
30 percent of America's lands and waters, and 78 percent 
support the creation of new national parks.
    Are you familiar with those statistics?
    Mr. Ferry. Yes, they sound accurate.
    Ms. Porter. They sound right to you.
    Mr. Ferry. Yes.
    Ms. Porter. So, those numbers which are the majority of 
people supporting more of a dictionary definition of 
conservation, which is parkland, recreation, over-drilling and 
mining, conserving in the Webster dictionary sense of it; those 
numbers probably have something to do with the 80,000 jobs 
created from tourism to Utah's national parks and the $7 
billion in annual direct visitor spending.
    I am curious, Mr. Ferry. If Congress does what you are 
asking us to do in your testimony, which is to weaken NEPA and 
other Federal laws that protect and conserve, the dictionary 
``conserve,'' Federal lands, what will happen to the 80,000 
jobs that were created by outdoor recreational tourism?
    How is Utah going to make up the $7 billion in annual 
direct visitor spending?
    Mr. Ferry. So, I think ultimately what we are asking for is 
clarity within NEPA, not to weaken it, but to clarify it so 
that we have certainty, so that those jobs will exist.
    Ms. Porter. Does shortening the time for review clarify or 
weaken?
    Mr. Ferry. I think that that clarifies it. I think that it 
provides certainty to all citizens that rely on these----
    Ms. Porter. Are you finished? I just want to let you 
finish.
    Mr. Ferry. Well, time is up.
    Ms. Porter. I yield back.
    Mr. Ferry. I can elaborate, but----
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentlewoman yields.
    Now I would like to recognize the gentlewoman from Wyoming, 
Ms. Hageman.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you very much, Chairman Tiffany, for 
welcoming me to your Subcommittee for this hearing and for 
including Wyoming in this important discussion.
    Commission Espy, thank you again for your testimony here 
and helping elevate the needs of Wyoming to the Federal level.
    One issue I have realized as I have been here in DC is that 
few in DC actually truly understand the scope of the Federal 
estate in the West and what the implication of that burden is.
    Behind me I have a map that just shows Carbon County, your 
county, Mr. Espy, and it shows the various landownerships, the 
brown being BLM, green being Forest Service, the interspersed 
white is private. You have local government, Department of 
Energy, et cetera, et cetera.
    Commissioner, you touched very briefly in your testimony, 
but can you please repeat how much of your county is controlled 
by the Federal Government?
    Mr. Espy. Forty-three percent, I think, is Federal 
Government.
    Ms. Hageman. Forty-eight percent of the surface estate in 
Wyoming is owned by the Federal Government, and 65 percent of 
our mineral estate is owned by the Federal Government.
    And you can see in this checkerboard pattern, how 
complicated it can be when you come from a state or a county 
where you have this variability of ownership, where you go from 
Federal to private, to Federal to private, to Federal to 
private, and the challenges that it can provide.
    Could you please describe some of those challenges when you 
have to deal with this kind of a checkerboard pattern within 
your county?
    Mr. Espy. Even if an action is occurring on private land, 
and even if those are fee minerals underneath that private 
land, if the access to that private land does cross Federal 
land, then that tips NEPA.
    Even to just drive across the public land, then the whole 
NEPA can come into and even to the point of on my private land, 
the whole Antiquities Act and where you go through, and it 
brings in tribal consultation on private lands.
    It opens a whole door up, even though that is fee, surface 
fee minerals, but because you have to cross Federal land, that 
does open up the whole door onto the private property.
    Ms. Hageman. And it might just be a road that you have to 
use across Federal lands.
    It has been interesting to me listening to the discussion 
today about the various programs that have been put in place to 
allegedly streamline and make it so that there can be these 
collaborative projects and these efforts to try to address some 
of the interface between the state, and the private lands, and 
the Federal lands.
    But there are 192 million acres in our National Forest 
Service, and a portion of those are wilderness, and in 2001, 
under President Clinton, one of the very last things that 
happened in his administration was the adoption of the Roadless 
Rule.
    And the Roadless Rule was a designation that denied access, 
management, and use to 58.5 million acres of National Forest 
Service lands in primarily the western United States.
    So, really what it was was wilderness by fiat, by executive 
fiat. It was not done through Congress. Congress didn't 
designate the roadless areas. It was done by President Clinton 
without the kind of oversight that you would typically see in a 
NEPA analysis.
    In fact, the Notice of Intent was issued in October 2019, 
and the final rule and Record of Decision was issued in January 
2021. In other words, they did not follow NEPA.
    They did violate the Wilderness Act because, as you have 
indicated, it is only through Congress that we can designate 
wilderness, but the reality is that these 58.5 million acres of 
roadless acres are, in fact, managed as wilderness, meaning 
they aren't part of any of these programs.
    So, what have we seen over the last 20 years? Catastrophic 
forest fires, the incredible outbreak of the pine beetle 
throughout the interior West.
    In fact, we know from the Forest Service's own documents 
that in 1997, there was a blowdown in Northern Colorado in the 
Routt National Forest that knocked down 13,000 acres of trees 
in one night. Because it was a wilderness area and a roadless 
area, they never were able to go in and treat that area.
    Guess what that is. That is ground zero for the pine beetle 
outbreak.
    So, we can talk about these various programs that might 
allow for treating in particular limited areas, but the reality 
is that it is the mismanagement of the National Forest Service 
lands in the western United States that has been absolutely 
destructive not only to our Federal lands, but to our private 
lands, and our state lands as well.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentlelady yields.
    Now I would like to recognize the gentlewoman from 
Virginia.
    Mrs. Kiggans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you, witnesses, for being here today.
    I represent Virginia's 2nd Congressional District in the 
Hampton Roads area. Most federally owned land may be out West, 
but Virginia is well known for its 2 million acres of beautiful 
national parks and wildlife management areas.
    Roughly 10 percent of our state is considered Federal land, 
most of which is managed by the Forest Service. One-third of 
our nation's forests are located in the southeastern United 
States. Some are federally managed, but many are privately 
owned.
    In my district, local private companies are making use of 
harvested wood products from working forests to produce 
sustainable alternatives to fossil fuels. These forests 
contribute greatly to removing carbon from the environment, and 
for every ton of wood products harvested, almost double that is 
grown in the same period.
    That means our carbon sequestration ability is growing year 
over year, all thanks to sound forest management and biomass 
production.
    While working forests in the southeast United States are 
largely privately owned, Federal lands across the country have 
similar potential to be productive and working forests, 
removing carbon from the atmosphere and producing sustainable 
and renewable energy in the form of biochar wood pellets.
    To the panel, what progress, if any, are we seeing in 
federally owned forests being used for these purposes?
    And can public-private partnerships be used to further 
enhance the productivity of Federal forests?
    Mr. Espy. Actually in Carbon County, we have what is called 
the Lava Project on the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest. 
There is a pellet mill in Jackson County, Colorado that has 
been able to make use of the timber that can't be used for saw 
logs, that can't go into the stud mill in Saratoga. So, the by-
product of the stud mill in Saratoga has been pellets.
    Mr. Rigdon. Thank you.
    I think it is important to recognize that across the 
country, tribes are out doing the work, our places in these 
communities, and we are actually on our own lands harvesting 
and doing things, but we are reaching out to the Tribal Force 
Protection Act and looking at shared stewardship in manners 
that are consistent with the goals of sound stewardship, 
retaining and making sure that the forest is able to be 
productive in the manner that you are talking about, but also 
having the infrastructure necessary to be able to do those 
things with milling and other energy opportunities that I think 
are necessary.
    So, if it is in the Northwest with the Yakama, Carville, 
Warm Springs, to the Southwest with the Apache Mescalero and 
those tribes to the Midwest, with many of the tribes throughout 
there. We are out there actively working with Federal agencies 
and working to make sure the shared stewardship is a part of 
our place and that the tribes play a role into the history of 
what we believe is the important legacy that we leave.
    Mr. Leshy. A couple of different points. One is on the 
collaborative working on the forest. I can tell you from 
personal knowledge that in Arizona, it is the largest Ponderosa 
pine forest in the country. Most of it is national forest land.
    There has been an effort ongoing for years that has really 
taken off in the last couple of years to do forest-wide 
treatments, helped a lot by money from Congress, so that this 
project that has been talked about for 15 years, it is widely 
collaborative, local governments, timber industry, 
environmental groups. They are all behind this. It is called 
the Forthright, and well worth watching because it is kind of 
on the leading edge of what is happening around the country.
    The other point is unconnected but I wanted to mention, 
which is paying more attention to tribal traditional knowledge 
in the management of forests. It is something that has really 
taken off in the last few years around the Federal system in 
particular.
    Using fire as a management tool, in particular, is 
something that Indigenous people did for a long time, and 
Federal land managers and state land managers are kind of 
waking up to that fact.
    In one of the chapters toward the end of my book, I talk a 
lot about the emergence in the modern era of tribal, Native 
Nation influence over how our Federal lands are managed, and 
the traditional knowledge is one aspect of that.
    That really is gaining momentum, and it is really a pretty 
powerful, and progressive, important force. So, I just wanted 
to make that point.
    Mrs. Kiggans. Thank you.
    I yield back the rest of my time.
    Mr. Tiffany. OK. The gentlelady yields from Virginia. Thank 
you very much.
    Now I am going to yield myself 5 minutes of time here, and 
I will start with Mr. Rigdon.
    In your testimony, you stated that catastrophic wildfire is 
perhaps the greatest waste of forest resources. You can see 
this chart behind me here. As we have seen this decrease in 
harvest on our national forests since the 1980s, and then you 
see the spike lines where we see these catastrophic wildfires 
that are out there.
    Mr. Rigdon, if the Federal Government started harvesting 
timber like your tribe, how do you think the chart behind me 
would change in terms of acres lost annually to catastrophic 
wildfires?
    Mr. Rigdon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I think we would still have fires, but I think the 
catastrophic fires would be minimized, and fires actually could 
be used as a tool with respect to the land.
    But because they are overstocked so much right now, because 
of insect disease, and because of those forest health issues, 
you are seeing the type of fires that become these megafires 
that are destroying everything and losing the values of 
protecting water, protecting the resources that we all want 
protected.
    So, I could see that number coming down, but actually I 
think we need more prescribed burn or using fire in a better 
manner.
    Mr. Tiffany. But it will take some management to make that 
happen, right? To reduce this threat of these mega wildfires.
    Mr. Rigdon. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Tiffany. How many mills have been lost in the West here 
since this started in the late 1980s to now?
    Mr. Rigdon. On our reservation in the Yakama, we used to 
have about 300 mills locally that would go into the Northwest. 
Now, our mill is the only one in our area that is left with 
respect to that.
    You are watching the interior West lose the ability and the 
infrastructure necessary to be able to do this type of forest 
health and this active management approach.
    Mr. Tiffany. Is that something we should really be 
concerned about, is losing those privately owned mills that 
used to consume that timber that is now being burned?
    Mr. Rigdon. I think it goes both to the milling 
infrastructure, but also you look at there were some studies 
done with respect to the age of the log truck drivers, and they 
are in their 60s, and as you start doing that, the ability for 
someone, a young person, to go get a log truck and start an 
enterprise, that is a challenge that we are going to face.
    The next generation of public people working in the 
infrastructure necessary to do that, we are seeing that on the 
reservation. We are seeing that throughout the West.
    Mr. Tiffany. You mentioned something, Mr. Rigdon, in regard 
to you have a designation known as ``primitive,'' which I took 
as to be somewhat similar to the wilderness designation at the 
Federal level. Is that right?
    Mr. Rigdon. Yes.
    Mr. Tiffany. But in wilderness, there is basically nothing 
happens there under the Federal designation. Do you do some 
management on your primitive lands?
    Mr. Rigdon. In our primitive, we have an opportunity to 
deal with things. We do try to stay out of there, and we do 
value the values that it has with respect to doing that, but we 
will respond to insect disease and mainly fire to protect the 
spread of gas or fire by wind.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, if there was the potential for 
catastrophic wildfire, let's say there was a severe disease 
outbreak, something like that. Ms. Hageman mentioned 13,000 
acres going down. You would go in and deal with that. Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Rigdon. That is correct.
    And I also want to make sure the Committee understands. Our 
land is held in trust by the Federal Government. So, we follow 
all NEPA within the reservation and we follow all other Federal 
laws that meet those objectives.
    So, people need to understand that. Our land is considered 
Federal and is in an ownership on behalf of our community, so 
we do follow those.
    Mr. Tiffany. Would you have any objections to the Good 
Neighbor Authority being expanded in the upcoming farm bill?
    Mr. Rigdon. No. I think it is an important tool for the 
ability for the state, tribes, and for the communities to work 
at doing the necessary work out there to reduce the risk that 
you see with fire and the buildup of accumulated fields.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you.
    Mr. Espy, you mentioned--I don't have a question here--but 
we had this discussion just now in regard to tourism versus 
industry, and that is how it is always portrayed, as tourism 
versus industry. You can have one or you can have the other.
    Let me tell you. I sit here as an owner of a business known 
as Wilderness Cruises that my wife and I owned for 20 years, 
and I can tell you when we saw a downturn in the economy, we 
saw a downturn in our business, which was a tourism-oriented 
business.
    They are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they require each 
other. It is so important that we have a growing economy, 
including growing industry and a robust industry, in order for 
the tourism recreational businesses to be able to survive. It 
is a very important part of that.
    And the other thing is that we saw the slide earlier in 
testimony about the amount of land continuing to go up, 
Republican and Democrat Presidents, and I have no reason to 
doubt that that chart is inaccurate.
    But I would give you an analogy to another thing that is 
going up like this here in Washington, DC, and it is called the 
debt, where it is approaching $32 trillion. So, why would we 
continue on this merry course of continuing to put more land 
into the Federal Treasury?
    Just like the debt, maybe we need to rethink how much more 
land that we are going to purchase here in Washington, DC, 
especially when it is not being managed properly.
    That concludes my questioning.
    I would like to recognize the gentleman from Idaho for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And to our panelists, thank you for your testimony and your 
willingness to be here today.
    And please understand that some of us who bounce in and out 
are not being rude. There is this thing called dueling 
Committees sometimes, but I have been privy to your written 
testimony on the front end of it.
    A question for Mr. Rigdon.
    Mr. Rigdon, I, too, am very interested in the Good Neighbor 
Authority and for some period of time attempting to expand that 
to tribes, to counties, and the participation there.
    But you have a unique perspective on that with your 
background, and I heard just the exchange here with the 
Chairman on this topic, but I would like to hear your thoughts 
a little bit further.
    If that is expanded, the Good Neighbor Authority, if that 
is expanded to where tribes have the access to that tool, to 
what extent do you think that would be embraced?
    I know probably some would embrace it, some would not. But 
I would like to get your thoughts into the why and the 
wherefores there.
    Mr. Rigdon. Thank you.
    I want to make sure tribes are currently, Yakama Nation is 
currently doing a Tribal Force Protection Act 638 contract that 
was passed in the 2018 farm bill, and the thing is we have 
spent our effort working with the Good Neighbor Authority.
    We signed on with Washington State DNR, so we are actively 
out there. And do know that----
    Mr. Fulcher. But this would include a fiscal participation, 
which does not exist today.
    Mr. Rigdon. And that is the part, is we are using the tools 
that we currently have. I think it would be really important 
for tribes to be included in that language, and also the 
ability, going into a stewardship contract within there, to be 
able to retain the receipts so that we could put the resources 
locally back into there, and that is an important part of what 
we are----
    Mr. Fulcher. So, you think generally it would be embraced?
    Mr. Rigdon. Embraced.
    Mr. Fulcher. All right. Thank you for that.
    Shifting gears a little bit, Mr. Ferry, I haven't had a 
chance to interact with you yet, but I did read your testimony, 
and NEPA, not surprisingly, comes up.
    I am in your neighboring state, so we share a lot of common 
characteristics, I think, and I agree with what my 
understanding is of your position on the need for reform there.
    This dates back to 1970-something, and here we are in 2023 
with a whole different landscape and some need for reform.
    But I would like to get your perspective. There is the do 
nothing route on reforming NEPA, and we get that a lot from 
some of our opposition here. What happens if we do nothing on 
NEPA?
    Mr. Ferry. I think we see a continued pattern. I think that 
is a great example, that chart there. We see a continued 
pattern of increased catastrophic wildfires. We see a continued 
pattern of not being able to manage in an appropriate way these 
landscapes, these Federal landscapes.
    We see continued increased expenses and costs, and really 
what we are looking for is that reform to help us manage in an 
appropriate way these large Federal holdings and the 
interaction that exists, because they do have an interaction. I 
mean, the chart that was demonstrated earlier. You have this 
checkerboard pattern of Federal to private lands. It has an 
impact across the board. It has an impact on private lands as 
well.
    So, it is critical that we at least address these concerns 
and make it so that we have more surety and consistency in our 
process to be able to manage these landscapes.
    Mr. Fulcher. We have just a little over a minute left. I 
would like to pulse you on one other thing related. Litigation, 
when you do get a project that is approved and you move forward 
with it, how much of a problem do you have with litigation?
    Mr. Ferry. It is a huge problem. That is what the 
uncertainty is. That consistent or constant litigation that 
occurs that draws these projects out and makes them way more 
expensive than they need to be, it basically hamstrings us in 
being able to manage these lands.
    Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Ferry.
    Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a closing comment here 
with my last few seconds.
    The Full Committee Chair, Chair Westerman, has had for some 
period of time that resilient forest legislation that he has on 
the table, and one of the provisions in that and one of the 
reasons I am a co-sponsor for that is a trial run at using 
arbitration as opposed to litigation in those cases, which I 
believe you would potentially agree that might be a very 
positive change.
    So, we are certainly going to support that.
    Mr. Ferry and Mr. Rigdon and the rest of the panelists, 
thank you again for your time.
    I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields.
    Thank you for your questions.
    I would like to thank all of the witnesses for your 
testimony. It is greatly appreciated that you would take the 
time to come here to Washington, DC, and join us from the far 
western reaches of our country.
    And I want to thank the Members for their questions.
    Members of the Subcommittee may have some additional 
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to 
those in writing if anyone provides those to you.
    Under Committee Rule 3, members of the Subcommittee must 
submit questions to the Committee Clerk by 5 p.m., on Monday, 
March 13, 2023. The hearing record will be held open for 10 
business days for these responses.
    If there is no further business, without objection, the 
Subcommittee stands adjourned.

    [Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]