[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 6441, H.R. 7666, H.R. 8182,
H.R. 8517, H.R. 9062, H.R. 9165,
H.R. 9528, H.R. 10082, AND H.R. 10084
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Tuesday, November 19, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-151
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC(S) 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
57-459 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
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 Memo..................................................... v
Hearing held on Tuesday, November 19, 2024....................... 1
Statement of Members:
Tiffany, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Wisconsin......................................... 2
Westerman, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arkansas, prepared statement for the record....... 86
Panel I:
Bentz, Hon. Cliff, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon............................................ 4
LaMalfa, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 6
Clyburn, Hon. James E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of South Carolina.................................... 7
Scott, Hon. Austin, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Georgia........................................... 8
Bishop, Hon. Sanford D. Jr., a Representative in Congress
from the State of Georgia.................................. 9
Vasquez, Hon. Gabe, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Mexico........................................ 10
Maloy, Hon. Celeste, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah.............................................. 12
Statement of Witnesses:
Panel II:
Lohr, Steven, Director of Natural Resources, National Forest
System, USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC................ 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Questions submitted for the record....................... 16
Panel III:
Glover, Hon. Tracy, President, Utah Sheriffs' Association,
Kanab, Utah................................................ 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 24
Eiguren, Elias, Treasurer, Owyhee Basin Stewardship
Coalition, Jordan Valley................................... 30
Prepared statement of.................................... 32
Brennan, Sherri, Member, Public Lands Council, Sonora,
California................................................. 33
Prepared statement of.................................... 34
Young, Jeff, President, Utah Cattlemen's Association,
Henefer, Utah.............................................. 39
Prepared statement of.................................... 41
Questions submitted for the record....................... 44
Wilson, D.L., Solar Projects Manager, La Paz County, Parker,
Arizona.................................................... 45
Prepared statement of.................................... 47
Houston, Ryan, Executive Director, Oregon Natural Desert
Association, Bend, Oregon.................................. 49
Prepared statement of.................................... 51
Donaldson, Bobby, Executive Director, Center for Civil Rights
History and Research, Columbia, South Carolina............. 53
Prepared statement of.................................... 54
Clark, Seth C., Executive Director, Ocmulgee National Park
and Preserve Initiative, Macon, Georgia.................... 56
Prepared statement of.................................... 58
Supplemental testimony submitted for the record.......... 59
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Bureau of Land Management, Statement for the Record on H.R.
6441, H.R. 8517, H.R. 9062, and H.R. 10082................. 73
National Park Service, Statement for the Record on H.R. 8182,
H.R. 9165, H.R. 9528, and H.R. 10084....................... 80
Department of the Interior, Questions for the Record for Deb
Haaland.................................................... 83
Submissions for the Record by Representative Tiffany
American Farm Bureau Federation, Letter to the Committee. 39
Multiple conservation organizations, Statement for the
Record................................................. 88
Multiple hunting and angler organizations, Letter to the
Committee.............................................. 91
National Parks Conservation Association, Letter to the
Committee.............................................. 93
PLC/NCBA/ASI, Letters to the Committee................... 94
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
To: Subcommittee on Federal Lands Republican Members
From: Subcommittee on Federal Lands; Aniela Butler, Brandon Miller,
Taylor Wiseman, and Colen [email protected],
Brandon.Miller @mail.house.gov, [email protected],
and Colen.Morrow@ mail.house.gov; x6-7736
Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2024
Subject: Legislative Hearing on 9 Grazing and Public Lands Bills
________________________________________________________________________
The Subcommittee on Federal Lands will hold a legislative hearing
on 9 grazing and public lands bills:
H.R. 6441 (Rep. Vasquez), ``Ranching Without Red Tape Act
of 2023'';
H.R. 7666 (Rep. LaMalfa), To require the Secretary of
Agriculture to develop a strategy to increase opportunities
to utilize livestock grazing as a means of wildfire risk
reduction;
H.R. 8182 (Rep. Austin Scott of Georgia), ``Ocmulgee
Mounds National Park and Preserve Establishment Act'';
H.R. 8517 (Rep. Gosar), ``La Paz County Solar Energy and
Job Creation Act'';
H.R. 9062 (Rep. Curtis), ``Operational Flexibility Grazing
Management Program Act'';
H.R. 9165 (Rep. Maloy), ``Public Land Search and Rescue
Act'';
H.R. 9528 (Rep. Pallone), To redesignate certain
facilities at Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park
in honor of Congressman Bill Pascrell, Jr.;
H.R. 10082 (Rep. Bentz), ``Oregon Owyhee Wilderness and
Community Protection Act''; and
H.R. 10084 (Rep. Clyburn), ``Renewing the African American
Civil Rights Network Act''.
The hearing will take place on Tuesday, November 19, 2024, at 2
p.m. in room 1324 Longworth House Office Building.
Member offices are requested to notify Will Rodriguez
(Will.Rodriguez @mail.house.gov) by 4:30 p.m. on Monday, November 18,
if their Member intends to participate in the hearing.
I. KEY MESSAGES
Grazing on public lands provides important conservation,
ecosystemic, and economic benefits to the American people
and federal land management agencies. H.R. 6441 (Rep.
Vasquez), H.R. 7666 (Rep. LaMalfa), H.R. 9062 (Rep,
Curtis), and H.R. 10082 (Rep. Bentz) each offer unique and
innovative reforms to grazing policy to increase
flexibility for Western ranchers and help support rural
economies.
H.R. 8182 (Rep. Austin Scott of GA) would create Georgia's
first national park and elevate a unique area with rich
archeologic, historic, and natural resources to a crown
jewel of the National Park System.
H.R. 8517 (Rep. Gosar) is a win-win solution that would
reduce the federal estate while supporting more domestic
energy production. This legislation helps support an all-
of-the-above energy strategy and rural economies.
H.R. 9165 (Rep. Maloy) would support local law enforcement
efforts by addressing the rising costs of search and rescue
operations on federal lands, ultimately enhancing public
safety.
H.R. 10082 (Rep. Bentz) is a thoughtful solution to
address land management issues in Oregon in a collaborative
approach, avoiding a unilateral national monument
designation.
II. WITNESSES
Panel I (Members of Congress):
To Be Announced
Panel II (Administration Officials):
The Honorable Deb Haaland, Secretary, U.S. Department of
the Interior, Washington, D.C. [Declined to testify]
Mr. Steven Lohr, Director of Natural Resources, National
Forest System, USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C.
Panel III (Outside Experts):
The Honorable Tracy Glover, President, Utah Sheriffs'
Association, Kanab, Utah, [H.R. 9165]
Ms. Sherri Brennan, Member, Public Lands Council, Sonora,
California [H.R. 7666]
Mr. Jeff Young, President, Utah Cattlemen's Association,
Henefer, Utah [H.R. 9062]
Mr. Seth C. Clark, Executive Director, Ocmulgee National
Park & Preserve Initiative, Macon, Georgia [H.R. 8182]
Mr. Elias Eiguren, Treasurer, Owyhee Basin Stewardship
Coalition, Jordan Valley, Oregon [H.R. 10082]
Mr. D.L. Wilson, Solar Projects Manager, La Paz County,
Parker, Arizona [H.R. 8517]
Mr. Ryan Houston, Executive Director, Oregon Natural
Desert Association, Bend, Oregon [H.R. 10082] [Minority
Witness]
Dr. Bobby Donaldson, Executive Director, Center for Civil
Rights History and Research, Columbia, South Carolina [H.R.
10084] [Minority Witness]
III. BACKGROUND
Overview of Federal Grazing Policy
Several of the bills on today's hearing affect ranching and
grazing, including H.R. 6441 (Rep. Vasquez), H.R. 7666 (Rep. LaMalfa),
H.R. 9062 (Rep, Curtis), and H.R. 10082 (Rep. Bentz).
This overview provides general background information on federal
grazing policy, while the subsequent sections provide detailed analysis
on the individual grazing bills under consideration.
Grazing on public lands provides important conservation,
ecosystemic, and economic benefits to the American people and federal
land management agencies, alike. This is especially true in the Western
states, where roughly half the land is federally owned.\1\ The majority
of grazing on federal land occurs on parcels managed by either the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). The
BLM administers roughly 18,000 grazing permits and leases on nearly 155
million acres of public land in almost 22,000 grazing allotments.\2\
Similarly, more than 95 million of the total 193 million acres managed
by USFS are available for grazing, and nearly 6,000 permits for
livestock and horses cover USFS land.\3\ In total, roughly 92 percent
of the available grazing land managed by these agencies is utilized to
graze livestock.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Carol Hardy Vincent, ``Federal Land Ownership: Overview and
Data,'' Congressional Research Service, February 21, 2020, https://
www.crs.gov/Reports/R42346.
\2\ FY 2025 Bureau of Land Management Greenbook, U.S. Department of
the Interior, accessed November 11, 2024, https://www.doi.gov/media/
document/fy-2025-bureau-land-management-greenbook.
\3\ Carol Hardy Vincent, ``Grazing Fees: Overview and Issues,''
Congressional Research Service, March 4, 2019, https://crs.gov/Reports/
RS21232. Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Justification, United States
Department of Agriculture Forest Service, accessed November 12, 2024,
https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/fs-fy25-congressional-
budget-justification.pdf.
\4\ Anna T. Maher et al., ``An economic valuation of federal and
private grazing land ecosystem services supported by beef cattle
ranching in the United States,'' https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txab054.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both agencies operate under multiple-use and sustained-yield
mandates which explicitly acknowledge livestock grazing as an approved
activity.\5\ Because BLM and USFS are multiple-use agencies, lands
available for livestock grazing are also generally available for, and
compatible with, other purposes, like recreation and energy
development. Science continues to demonstrate that grazing is not only
compatible with rangeland management but also is vital to rangeland
health. Earlier this year, for example, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture released a study showing livestock grazing can limit both
wildfire risk and invasive annual grasses.\6\ Livestock grazing can
modify the range to make it more fire resilient and the presence of
livestock on federal land decreases fire probability and severity.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Carol Hardy Vincent, ``Federal Lands and Related Resources:
Overview and Selected Issues for the 118th Congress,'' Congressional
Research Service, February 24, 2023, https://www.crs.gov/Reports/
R43429.
\6\ Kirk W. Davies et al., ``Ecological benefits of strategically
applied livestock grazing in sagebrush communities,'' Ecosphere; May
22, 2024, https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.4859.
\7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public lands grazing delivers considerable cost-savings to federal
land management agencies while adding economic value to rural
economies. In fiscal year (FY) 2022, on USFS land alone, the forage
utilized by the permitted livestock contributed $598,000 to the
nation's gross domestic product and supported approximately 13,700
jobs.\8\ Researchers found the ecological value of cattle grazing on
federal lands is $1,043.35 of ecosystem services per beef cow,
including benefits to wildlife and forage production.\9\ Additionally,
apart from serving as great partners to the federal government,
ranchers who engage in public lands grazing provide significant cost
benefits. These ranchers pay a grazing fee and for land maintenance
costs. They also frequently clear public trails, monitor recreation
trends, observe wildlife movements, and respond first to wildfires and
other natural disasters.\10\ Their activity provides substantial
assistance to agency field staff who are responsible for monitoring
millions of acres of public land.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Justification, United States Department
of Agriculture Forest Service, accessed November 12, 2024, https://
www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/fs-fy25-congressional-budget-
justification.pdf.
\9\ Anna T. Maher et al., ``An economic valuation of federal and
private grazing land ecosystem services supported by beef cattle
ranching in the United States,'' https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txab054.
\10\ Dave Daley, California Cattlemen's Association, Testimony
before the House Natural Resources Committee, August 11, 2023, https://
republicans-naturalresources.house.gov/UploadedFiles/
Testimony_Daley.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the many proven benefits of grazing on public lands, BLM
and USFS are often delayed in approving the permits necessary for
grazing to occur. For example, as of November 2023, BLM had 10,845
unprocessed grazing permits.\11\ BLM also processes permits at a rate
slower than that at which they expire, meaning that BLM will never
clear the backlog without policy changes.\12\ In FY 2025, for instance,
the BLM expects to process only 1,100 grazing permits and leases while
about 1,445 permits are scheduled to expire.\13\ To allow for
continuity in grazing operations, Congress, in 2014, made permanent the
automatic renewal of permits and leases that expire or are transferred
while they are waiting for the evaluation process to be formally
reissued.\14\ The law provided that the issuance of a grazing permit
``may'' be categorically excluded from environmental review under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when certain conditions
apply.\15\ Several of the bills featured in today's hearing provide BLM
and USFS with additional flexibility in administering grazing permits
and leases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ FY 2025 Bureau of Land Management Greenbook, U.S. Department
of the Interior, accessed November 11, 2024, https://www.doi.gov/media/
document/fy-2025-bureau-land-management-greenbook.
\12\ Id.
\13\ Id.
\14\ Public Law 113-291, Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015.
\15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 6441 (Rep. Vasquez), ``Ranching Without Red Tape Act of 2023''
Ever-expanding regulatory requirements have increased the cost and
complexity of ranching on federal lands. For example, if a rancher
wants to make improvements to existing fences and fence lines, wells,
water pipelines, or stock tanks, they will encounter a lengthy approval
process from the authorizing federal agency. Many minor improvements
ranchers want to make would benefit the wellbeing of their livestock
and improve the rangeland, yet they are unable to do so due to
bureaucratic red tape. To address this problem, Representatives Vasquez
(D-NM-02) and Curtis (R-UT-03) introduced H.R. 6441 to minimize the
disruptions of grazing livestock on federal land. H.R. 6441 would
require BLM and USFS to streamline the procedures for authorizing minor
range improvements carried out by grazing permittees. If BLM or USFS do
not respond to a request to undertake minor improvements under a
grazing permit within 30 days, the bill provides the permittee
authority to move forward on those minor improvements. S. 3322,
sponsored by Senator Barrasso (R-WY), is the companion bill in the
Senate.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ S. 3322; https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-
bill/3322.
H.R. 7666 (Rep. LaMalfa), To require the Secretary of Agriculture to
develop a strategy to increase opportunities to utilize
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
livestock grazing as a means of wildfire risk reduction.
Federal agencies must be equipped with all available tools to
reduce wildfire risk, improve forest health, and minimize the
vulnerability of communities in the wildland-urban interface. Targeted
grazing is a proven method of reducing hazardous fuels and decreasing
the speed and severity with which wildfires would otherwise rip through
our forests and put vulnerable communities at risk. USFS consistently
recognizes grazing as an effective tool for wildfire management and has
listed grazing as a key aspect of the agency's Wildfire Crisis
Strategy.\17\ Building on this progress, H.R. 7666 would direct USFS to
expand the use of proactive, targeted grazing in fuels management
programs to lower wildfire risk. Specifically, the bill would direct
USFS to coordinate with grazing permittees to develop wildfire risk-
reduction strategies, including proactive fuels reduction to prevent
wildfire and the use of grazing as a post-fire recovery strategy. An
identical provision was included in the House-passed ``Fix Our Forests
Act.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Justification, United States
Department of Agriculture Forest Service, accessed November 12, 2024,
https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/fs-fy25-congressional-
budget-justification.pdf.
\18\ House Amendment 1205 to H.R. 8790, Representative LaMalfa,
https://www.congress.gov/amendment/118th-congress/house-amendment/1205.
H.R. 8182 (Rep. Austin Scott of Georgia), ``Ocmulgee Mounds National
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Park and Preserve Establishment Act''
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Proposed Ocmulgee Mounds National Park and Preserve map.
Source: NPS, 2024.
Few locations in the country rival the historical depth of the
Ocmulgee River Corridor (Ocmulgee Mounds), located between Macon and
Hawkinsville, Georgia. This area, which contains a mixture of lands
managed by the National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Air Force, and state and private entities, contains
important historical and archeological resources.\19\ According to the
National Park Foundation, the current Ocmulgee Mounds National
Historical Park conserves a ``continuous record of human life'' and
habitation dating back 17,000 years to Ice Age hunters in the
Paleoindian period.\20\ The area is notable for seven earthen mounds
built by hand during the Mississippian Period (A.D. 900-1540).\21\
Early Mississippian people constructed the mounds with the aid of water
from nearby rivers and used the finished structures for a variety of
purposes, including as funeral sites, residences, and official meeting
places.\22\ Later, the area was home to dozens of villages inhabited by
the Muscogee (Creek) Nation until the mid-19th Century, when the Tribe
was forcibly re-located to Oklahoma.\23\ In the 1920s, artifacts and
graves were uncovered in this area, leading to the largest
archaeological dig in American history from 1933 to 1941.\24\ During
this period, archaeologists excavated more than three million items,
such as pottery and tools.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ National Park Service, ``Ocmulgee River Corridor Special
Resource Study,'' 2023, https://parkplanning.nps.gov/
document.cfm?parkID=415&projectID=91276&documentID=132895.
\20\ Id. National Park Foundation, ``Ocmulgee Mounds National
Historical Park,'' https://www.nationalparks.org/explore/parks/
ocmulgee-mounds-national-historical-park.
\21\ Id. National Geographic, ``Could this be Georgia's first
national park?, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/
ocmulgee-native-american-site-georgia-first-national-park.
\22\ Id.
\23\ National Geographic, ``Everything you need to know about
Ocmulgee Mounds National Historic Park'', https://
www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/ocmulgee-mounds-national-
historical-park.
\24\ National Geographic, ``Could this be Georgia's first national
park?, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/ocmulgee-
native-american-site-georgia-first-national-park
\25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following this unprecedented discovery, calls to conserve the site
began to gain momentum, and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt
established the approximately 2,000-acre Ocmulgee Mounds National
Monument on December 23, 1936.\26\ In 2019, the ``John D. Dingell, Jr.
Conservation, Management and Recreation Act'' redesignated the area as
a National Historic Park and authorized NPS to conduct a special
resource study (SRS) determining the suitability and feasibility of
designating the broader Ocmulgee River Corridor as a unit of the
National Park System.\27\ In 2023, NPS concluded in its final SRS that
the area was nationally significant and suitable for inclusion in the
National Park System because it contained cultural and natural
resources not already adequately represented within the System.\28\ Due
to the large number of private parcels in the study area, however, NPS
found that a broader designation would not be feasible and the study
area did ``not meet all of the established criteria for new national
park system units.'' \29\ Subsequently, more than 70 organizations,
including the Muscogee (Creek) Nation and the Georgia Department of
Natural Resources, joined an effort to designate the Ocmulgee River
Corridor as the Ocmulgee Mounds National Park and Preserve. Proponents
argue this designation, which would create Georgia's first national
park, would elevate a popular area that attracts 150,000 visitors
annually while protecting popular recreation activities such as hunting
and fishing.\30\ Proponents also contend that a redesignation ``could
attract up to 1.6 million annual visitors and create upwards of $287
million dollars annually.'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Id. National Geographic, ``Everything you need to know about
Ocmulgee Mounds National Historic Park'', https://
www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/ocmulgee-mounds-national-
historical-park.
\27\ Public Law 116-9.
\28\ National Park Service, ``Ocmulgee River Corridor Special
Resource Study,'' 2023, https://parkplanning.nps.gov/
document.cfm?parkID=415&projectID=91276&documentID=132895.
\29\ Id.
\30\ Id. Georgia Conservancy, ``Ocmulgee National Park & Preserve
Initiative,'' https://www.georgiaconservancy.org/ocmulgee-national-
park.
\31\ Information based on a study conducted by the National Parks
Conservation Association and the James L. Knight Foundation. ``5 Under
40: Seth Clark,'' Macon Magazine, August/September, 2022, https://
maconmagazine.com/5-under-40-seth-clark/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 8182 would re-designate the current 2,000-acre Ocmulgee Mounds
National Historical Park as the Ocmulgee Mounds National Park and
authorize the creation of Ocmulgee Mounds National Preserve on the date
on which the Secretary of the Interior has acquired sufficient land to
constitute a manageable unit. The bill creates a co-management system
between NPS and the Muscogee (Creek) Nation for the National Park and
Preserve, which would be a first-of-its-kind management system for
units of the National Park System. Additionally, the bill sets up a 9-
member advisory council, authorizes 126 acres of land to be held in
trust for the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, establishes a hiring preference
for Muscogee (Creek) Nation members, and contains provisions related to
the continued use of military activities.
H.R. 8517 (Rep. Gosar), ``La Paz County Solar Energy and Job Creation
Act''
Approximately 95 percent of the land in La Paz County, Arizona, is
under federal, state, or Tribal management, with only five percent of
the land available for private ownership.\32\ BLM is the largest single
land manager in this rural county, controlling roughly 58 percent of
the total land mass.\33\ The county's economy is primarily dependent on
tourism and agriculture.\34\ Like many other Western communities with
large federal land footprints, La Paz County faces significant
challenges in meeting the economic needs of its residents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Arizona Commerce Authority, ``County Profile for La Paz
County'', https://www.azcommerce. com/a/profiles/ViewProfile/8/
La+Paz+County/#::text=The%20U.S.%20Bureau%20of%20Land,
owned%20privately%20or%20by%20corporations.
\33\ Id.
\34\ Information provided by the Office of Congressman Gosar and
available on the Committee's website; https://republicans-
naturalresources.house.gov/UploadedFiles/The_La_Paz_County_
Solar_Energy_and_Job_Creation_Act_-_One_Page.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an effort economically diversify and create additional
employment opportunities, the County worked with Representative Gosar
(R-AZ-09) to pursue a legislative conveyance of 5,935 acres of BLM land
for the development of a large-scale solar farm. That legislation, the
``La Paz County Land Conveyance Act,'' was signed into law in 2019 as
part of the ``John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management and
Recreation Act.'' \35\ After the bill's passage, La Paz County executed
development grants with 174 Power Global, a renewable energy company,
and the solar project is currently underway.\36\ The project, one of
the largest in the United States, is expected to produce 1,000
megawatts of solar power, as well as hundreds of megawatts of battery
storage.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Public Law 116-9.
\36\ Id.
\37\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 8517 seeks to build on the success of this project by
conveying an additional 3,400 acres of BLM land adjacent to the initial
project site. This acreage was part of Representative Gosar's initial
legislation but was ultimately removed in the final version of the bill
that became law. While BLM is analyzing most of the proposed acres for
renewable energy development, the County believes this additional land
will provide important economic benefits and much-needed revenues to
support its residents. Senator Sinema (I-AZ) is sponsoring S. 1657,
companion legislation in the Senate.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ S. 1657, 118th Congress, https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-
congress/senate-bill/1657.
H.R. 9062 (Rep. Curtis), ``Operational Flexibility Grazing Management
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Act''
Land conditions can change each year, but a grazing permit may not
be sufficiently flexible to allow livestock grazing at the optimal time
for the land and resources. Although grazing permits and leases are
generally renewable after 10 years, prevailing range conditions may
require certain changes such as adjustments to dates, stocking levels,
or water sources, to be implemented much more frequently.\39\ For
example, the late snowpack and subsequent flooding in Utah in the
spring of 2023 delayed many ranchers from accessing their grazing
allotment at the permit date.\40\ To ensure flexibility in these
instances, Representative Curtis introduced H.R. 9062, the
``Operational Flexibility Grazing Management Program Act.'' H.R. 9062
would provide increased operational flexibility based on emerging
landscape conditions so the permittee can continue to steward the land
in the most responsible manner. Operational flexibility may include
adjusting the season of use, modifying the beginning or ending date of
a permit, or adding additional flexibility of the stocking level or
water placement and transportation. S. 4454, sponsored by Senator
Barrasso (R-WY), is the companion bill in the Senate.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Carol Hardy Vincent, ``Grazing Fees: Overview and Issues,''
Congressional Research Service, March 4, 2019, https://crs.gov/Reports/
RS21232.
\40\ Farmers and Ranchers Throughout Utah Impacted by Flooding and
Consequences of Long Winter, Utah Farm Bureau, May 10, 2023, https://
www.utahfarmbureau.org/Article/Farmers-and-Ranchers-Throughout-Utah-
Impacted-by-Flooding-Consequences-of-Long-Winter.
\41\ S. 4454, 118th Congress, https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-
congress/senate-bill/4454.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 9165 (Rep. Maloy), ``Public Land Search and Rescue Act''
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: Salt Lake County Sherriff's Search and Rescue Team,
2019.
Every year, thousands of visitors to federal lands require search
and rescue (SAR) services.\42\ These services typically require
emergency response personnel to search vast areas of remote land and
extract visitors who have been injured, lost, or killed. Each federal
land management agency has the authority to carry out SAR activities on
their lands. In practice, however, this responsibility frequently falls
on local law enforcement entities. While SAR arrangements typically
vary across agencies and locations, most agencies rely primarily on
local law enforcement authorities to carry out SAR activities pursuant
to a formal agreement.\43\ This is particularly true of BLM and USFS,
which usually take only a ``lead or first responder role in SAR
emergencies if an immediate and quick response will reduce suffering or
save lives, or due to their presence in remote and rural areas.'' \44\
By contrast, NPS largely serves as the primary responder for SAR
activities on lands under its jurisdiction.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Congressional Research Service, ``Search and Rescue (SAR)
Operations on Federal Lands'', Mark K. DeSantis, May 7, 2024, https://
crs.gov/Reports/IF12020?source=search.
\43\ Id.
\44\ Id.
\45\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As visitation to our federal lands soars, SAR activities are
becoming increasingly common and more costly for local governments. For
example, NPS, the only land management agency that tracks SAR costs,
reported spending $21.6 million in SAR expenses between 2019 and
2023.\46\ Local governments shouldering the SAR responsibilities for
USFS and BLM lands expressed concerns with the financial burden of
increased SAR activities. According to Kane County, Utah, Sherriff
Tracy Glover:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Id.
Western sheriffs are being tasked with higher call volumes for
lost or injured visitors. Many of these frantic calls come from
some of the most remote areas of federally managed lands . . .
All too often, the most desirable areas [for] visitation are
located in the most remote and sparsely populated areas leaving
underfunded rural county sheriffs with the burden.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ U.S. Congressman Celeste Maloy, ``Rep. Maloy Introduces
Bipartisan Search and Rescue Bill'', July 26, 2024, https://
maloy.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1243.
This problem is particularly pronounced in Western counties with
large federal footprints since they do not have a traditional tax base
to fund public services like law enforcement and experience high rates
of visitation.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Tupper, Seth, ``Volunteer Firefighters Struggle With Search
And Rescue Costs On Federal Land,'' SDPB, January 30, 2020, https://
www.sdpb.org/politics-public-policy/2020-01-30/volunteer-firefighters-
struggle-with-search-and-rescue-costs-on-federal-land.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 9165 would establish a grant program to assist with the cost
of remote SAR activities on federal land. Entities carrying out SAR
activities could use these grant funds to purchase necessary gear and
equipment; maintain and repair SAR equipment; and reimburse remote SAR
operations conducted on federal lands. Further, the bill specifies that
grant recipients be prioritized in areas with a high ratio of visitors
to residents (i.e. gateway communities). Proponents of the legislation
argue this program will help support local law enforcement entities
with strained budges while improving the overall efficacy of SAR
activities.
H.R. 9528 (Rep. Pallone), To designate certain facilities at Paterson
Great Falls National Historical Park in honor of Congressman
Bill Pascrell, Jr.
Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park (NHP) is a unit of
the National Park System located in Paterson, New Jersey. The site is
recognized for its contribution to American economic independence,
first envisioned by Alexander Hamilton in 1792 when he sought ``to
create the world's first planned city of innovation built around a
hydropower system.'' \49\ H.R. 9528 would re-name two sites in the NHP,
the Great Falls Scenic Overlook Trail Bridge and Overlook Park, after
the late Congressman Bill Pascrell, Jr. Representative Pascrell was
known as a plain-spoken New Jerseyan who served his country in the U.S.
Army as well as in the House of Representatives for nearly three
decades until his death earlier this year.\50\ In 2009, Rep. Pascrell
sponsored the legislation designating Paterson Great Falls as an
NHP.\51\ H.R. 9528 is a straightforward piece of legislation that
honors the legacy of former Congressman Pascrell and his pivotal role
in establishing the NHP. This bipartisan bill is cosponsored by the
entire New Jersey Congressional delegation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Visit New Jersey, ``Paterson Great Falls National Historical
Park'', https://visitnj.org/paterson-great-falls-national-historical-
park.
\50\ Browning-Forshay Funeral Home, ``Official Obituary of William
J. Pascrell, Jr.'', https://www.browningforshay.com/obituaries/William-
J-Pascrell-Jr?obId=32868567.
\51\ Public Law 111-11.
H.R. 10082 (Rep. Bentz), ``Oregon Owyhee Wilderness and Community
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protection Act''
Malheur County, located in southeastern Oregon, encompasses roughly
10,000 square miles and boasts a population of just over 31,000
people.\52\ This single county is larger than nine states, including
Maryland and New Jersey.\53\ The area is a rugged and beautiful region,
sometimes referred to as ``Oregon's Grand Canyon.'' \54\ The county is
over ninety percent rangeland, two-thirds of which is managed by the
BLM.\55\ Ranching and grazing cattle on federal land is extremely
important to the residents of Malheur County, where cattle outnumber
people by more than five to one.\56\ Yet, since 2015, extreme activists
have called for the President to designate 2.5 million acres, or
roughly 40 percent, of Malheur County as a national monument through
the Antiquities Act of 1906.\57\ The pressure to designate this land as
a national monument is only increasing. In August 2024, Democratic
Oregon Governor Tina Kotek sent a letter to President Biden, calling on
him to designate the Owyhee Canyonlands as a national monument.\58\
Although President Biden has already unilaterally designated more than
3.8 million acres as national monuments since taking office, extreme
environmentalists are calling on him to further abuse the Antiquities
Act.\59\ They are calling on the President to further ignore local
communities and stakeholders by designating the Owyhee Canyonlands as a
national monument during his final lame duck months in office,
following the manner of the Obama-Biden administration.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ U.S. Census Bureau, ``Malheur County, Oregon,'' last accessed
November 6, 2024, https://data.census.gov/
profile?q=Malheur%20County,%20Oregon%20Wiyot.
\53\ ``National (U.S.) States: Size in Square Miles,'' State
Symbols USA, last accessed November 6, 2024, https://
statesymbolsusa.org/symbol-official-item/national-us/uncategorized/
states-size.
\54\ Hagemeier, Heidi, ``Wild Beauty in the Owyhee Canyonlands,
Travel Oregon, July 25, 2022, https://traveloregon.com/things-to-do/
destinations/lakes-reservoirs/owyhee-canyonlands/.
\55\ ``Welcome to Malheur County,'' Malheur County Oregon, accessed
November 6, 2024, https://www.malheurco.org/welcome-to-malheur-county/
#more-9.
\56\ ``Census of Agriculture--Oregon,'' United States Department of
Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2022, https://
www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2022/Full_Report/
Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/Oregon/.
\57\ To learn more about the Antiquities Act, see the Federal Lands
Subcommittee Hearing Memo from March 20, 2024: https://
naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hearing_memo_updated_--
_sub_on_fl_leg_hrg_on_6_bills_03.20.24.pdf. How We Got Here, Our Land
Our Voice Our Future, accessed November 6, 2024, https://
ourlandourvoice.com/how-we-got-here.
\58\ Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek throws support behind Owyhee
Canyonlands national monument, Statesman Journal, August 20, 2024,
https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/local/oregon/2024/08/20/
oregon-goveror-tina-kotek-supports-owyhee-canyonlands-national-
monument-push/74872002007/.
\59\ Hardy Vincent, Carol. National Monuments and the Antiquities
Act, Congressional Research Service, May 10, 2024, https://www.crs.gov/
Reports/R41330.
\60\ Environment Oregon Research & Policy Center, ``Swift action
needed to protect the Owyhee Canyonlands,'' November 12, 2024, https://
environmentamerica.org/oregon/center/updates/swift-action-needed-to-
protect-the-owyhee-canyonlands/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local Malheur County residents, including ranchers, hunters, and
recreationalists, strongly oppose a national monument designation for
several reasons. First, a unilateral executive decision from the
President fails to have the same buy-in and flexibility as
Congressional action, which can more thoroughly encompass the
particular needs of a community through legislation. Second,
communities are worried that a unilateral designation would lock up
millions of acres of land, restricting access to critically important
activities like grazing. These concerns are well founded; recently, a
national monument designation in Utah resulted in the closure of all
target shooting ranges, nearly 600,000 acres to off-highway vehicle
(OHV) access, and nearly 175,000 acres for livestock grazing.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Notice of Availability of the Proposed Resource Management
Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement for Bears Ears National
Monument in Utah, Federal Register Vol. 89, No. 193, published October
4, 2024, https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-22760.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the looming threat of a national monument designation, the
residents of Malheur County rallied to develop a comprehensive and
workable solution for the management and use of the public land.
Representative Bentz (R-OR-02) has led initiatives in the House to
prevent the designation of a national monument in Malheur County and
recently introduced H.R. 10082, the ``Oregon Owyhee Wilderness and
Community Protection Act.'' In the Senate, Senator Wyden (D-OR)
introduced complimentary legislation, the ``Malheur Community
Empowerment for the Owyhee Act.'' These dual legislative efforts
demonstrate that there is bipartisan, bicameral interest in developing
a legislative solution supported by all of the residents of Malheur
County that will avoid a unilateral national monument designation,
conserve the area's pristine natural resources, and support rural
economies dependent on activities like grazing.
H.R. 10082 is the culmination of hundreds of hours of negotiation
and collaboration by those who live, work, and recreate in Malheur
County; the Burns Paiute Tribe, and environmental organizations. The
bill provides several protections for ranchers and grazing permittees.
First, the bill ensures continued grazing in any designated wilderness
areas. Second, the legislation creates a voluntary grazing program to
provide increased operational flexibility to grazing permittees and
lessees for the purpose of improving the health of BLM land. Examples
of voluntary, operational flexibility include adjusting beginning or
ending date, pasture rotation dates, or placement of water structures
under a grazing permit or lease. Additionally, the bill establishes the
``Malheur C.E.O. Group'' for the purpose of identifying projects that
would address range management issues, invasive species, conservation
of cultural sites, restoration of water infrastructure, and economic
development opportunities.
This comprehensive and collaborative bill also balances the needs
of multiple stakeholders through various land designations and
releases. The legislation designates 926,588 acres of previously
designated wilderness study areas (WSAs) as wilderness areas. To
balance these designations, more than 1.6 million acres of BLM land
currently under some form of restriction are redesignated and managed
for multiple use. This includes the release of 601,295 acres of WSAs
and 1,065,597 acres of lands with wilderness characteristics.\62\ The
bill also allows for continued motorized access on existing roads for
tribal cultural activities, fire suppression, invasive species control,
private landowners, and livestock grazing in wilderness areas.
Additionally, the bill requires the Department of the Interior (DOI) to
take 2,410 acres of land into trust on behalf of the Burns Paiute Tribe
and establishes a 9,828-acre Castle Rock Co-Stewardship Area to be
managed with the Tribe through a memorandum of understanding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Acreage provided by the Bureau of Land Management on October
8, 2024. Data on file with Committee.
H.R. 10084 (Rep. Clyburn), ``Renewing the African American Civil Rights
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Network Act''
In 2018, President Trump signed the ``African American Civil Rights
Network Act'' into law, recognizing ``the importance of the African
American Civil Rights movement and the sacrifices made by the people
who fought against discrimination.'' \63\ Administered by NPS, this
Network ``is a collection of properties, facilities, and programs that
offer a comprehensive overview of the people, places, and events
associated with the African American civil rights movement.'' \64\
Today, the Network includes more than 80 sites across the country that
tell the story of communities and civic leaders who were integral to
the fight for justice and societal progress from 1939 to 1968.\65\ Like
other NPS-administered networks, the African American Civil Rights
Network helps connect geographically disparate sites to tell a cohesive
national story under one unified program. Pursuant to the original law
establishing the Network, NPS may also produce educational materials
related to the African American civil rights movement and enter into
cooperative agreements with non-federal entities to help enhance
coordination of the Network. Under the original law, the Network is
scheduled to sunset on January 8, 2025. H.R. 10084, the ``Renewing the
African American Civil Rights Network Act,'' reauthorizes the program
for an additional 10 years. Reauthorizing the African American Civil
Rights Network is a critical step to ensure the continuation of this
successful program that honors the sacrifices and struggles of the
African American civil rights movement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Public Law No. 115-104; National Park Service, African
American Civil Rights Network, ``Application and Instructions,''
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/civilrights/application-instructions.htm.
\64\ National Park Service, African American Civil Rights Network,
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/civilrights/african-american-civil-rights-
network.htm.
\65\ National Park Service, Civil Rights, ``Discover the Network'',
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/civilrights/discover-the-network.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. MAJOR PROVISIONS & SECTION-BY-SECTION
H.R. 6441 (Rep. Vasquez), ``Ranching Without Red Tape Act of 2023''
Section 2. Minor Range Improvements Under USFS Grazing Permits.
Requires the Secretary of Agriculture to issue regulations
within one year allowing a permittee to carry out minor
range improvements if the permittee notifies the applicable
USFS district ranger at least 30 days prior to carrying out
improvement. Minor range improvements include improvements
to existing fences and fence lines, wells, water pipelines,
and stock tanks.
Provides for the district ranger to approve the minor
range improvement within 30 days. If the minor improvement
is approved, the Secretary is directed to carry out the
range improvement using any available administrative tools
or authorities, including categorical exclusions.
Section 3. Minor Range Improvements Under BLM Grazing Permits.
Requires the Secretary of the Interior to issue
regulations within one year allowing a permittee to carry
out minor range improvements if the permittee notifies the
applicable district or field manager at least 30 days prior
to carrying out improvement.
Provides for the district or field manager to approve the
minor range improvement within 30 days. If the minor
improvement is approved, the Secretary is directed to carry
out the range improvement using any available
administrative tools or authorities, including categorical
exclusions.
H.R. 7666 (Rep. LaMalfa), To require the Secretary of Agriculture to
develop a strategy to increase opportunities to utilize
livestock grazing as a means of wildfire risk reduction.
Section 1. Utilizing Grazing for Wildfire Risk Reduction.
Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through
the Chief of USFS, to develop a strategy to increase
opportunities to utilize livestock grazing as wildfire risk
reduction strategy.
Components of the strategy must include:
-- Completing environmental reviews to allow permitted
grazing on vacant grazing allotments during instances of
drought, wildfire or other natural disasters that disrupt
grazing on allotments already permitted;
-- Increased use of targeted grazing;
-- Increased use of temporary permits to target fuels
reduction and control of invasive grasses;
-- Supporting grazing as a post-fire recovery strategy; and
-- Utilizing existing statutory authorities.
H.R. 8182 (Rep. Austin Scott of Georgia), ``Ocmulgee Mounds National
Park and Preserve Establishment Act''
Section 3. Redesignation of Ocmulgee Mounds National Park and
Establishment of Ocmulgee Mounds National Preserve.
Redesignates the Ocmulgee Mounds National Historical Park
as the ``Ocmulgee Mounds National Park.''
Allows the Secretary of the Interior to acquire land by
purchase from a willing seller, donation, or exchange, and
prevents the use of eminent domain to acquire land.
Establishes the Ocmulgee Mounds National Preserve as a
unit of the National Park System, effective on the date
when the Secretary determines enough land has been acquired
to constitute a new unit. Clarifies that the land acquired
for inclusion in the Preserve must be made by purchase from
a willing seller, donation, or exchange and prevents the
use of eminent domain.
Requires the Secretary of the Interior to file reports
with the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
and the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Section 4. Administration of Ocmulgee Mounds National Park and
Preserve.
Requires the Secretary of the Interior to enter into a co-
management agreement with the Muscogee (Creek) Nation no
later than one year following the receipt of
recommendations from the Advisory Council.
Clarifies that the Secretary of the Interior shall allow
hunting and fishing within the boundaries of the Ocmulgee
Mounds National Preserve in accordance with applicable
Federal and State laws.
Allows the Secretary to establish zones and periods that
restrict hunting and fishing, after consultation with the
State of Georgia, for reasons of public safety,
administration, fish or wildlife management, or
emergencies.
Clarifies that nothing in the section prohibits hunting,
fishing, or trapping on private land.
Requires the Secretary to establish policies that allow
for hiring preferences of members of the Muscogee (Creek)
Nation.
Allows the Muscogee (Creek) Nation to continue tribal
practices on the Ocmulgee National Park and Preserve.
Allows the U.S. Military to continue to utilize the
Ocmulgee National Park and Preserve for certain military
activities.
Section 5. Advisory Council.
Establishes the Ocmulgee Mounds National Park and Preserve
Advisory Council to advise the Secretary with respect to
the preparation and implementation of a management plan and
requires the Advisory Council to submit a report relating
to the management of the Park and Preserve the role of the
Muscogee (Creek) Nation.
Outlines the requirements and responsibilities for members
appointed the Advisory Council.
Section 6. Land to be Held in Trust.
Requires approximately 126 acres of land in the Ocmulgee
Mounds National Park and Preserve owned in fee by the Tribe
to be taken into trust for the benefit of the Tribe.
H.R. 8517 (Rep. Gosar), ``La Paz County Solar Energy and Job Creation
Act''
Section 3. Conveyance to LaPaz County Arizona
Directs the BLM, after receiving a request from La Paz
County, Arizona, to convey approximately 3,400 acres of
land to the County at fair market value, subject to valid
existing rights and excluding any land with significant
cultural or recreational resources.
Conditions the conveyance on La Paz County, or any
subsequent owner of the conveyed land:
-- making good faith efforts to avoid disturbing Tribal
artifacts;
-- minimizing impacts on Tribal artifacts if they are
disturbed;
-- coordinating with the Colorado River Indian Tribes Tribal
Historic Preservation Office to identify artifacts of cultural
and historic significance; and
-- allowing Tribal representatives to rebury unearthed
artifacts at, or near, where they were discovered.
Withdraws conveyed federal land from the operation of U.S.
mining and mineral leasing laws.
Sets stipulations regarding the availability of the map,
costs associated with the conveyance, and proceeds from the
sale of the land.
H.R. 9062 (Rep. Curtis), ``Operational Flexibility Grazing Management
Program Act''
Section 2. Definitions.
Defines the term ``operational flexibility'' as changes to
grazing management of an allotment or allotment area that
are different from the grazing permit or lease, different
from previous grazing management, or occur due to change
landscape or producer needs.
Section 3. Operational Flexibility Grazing Management Program.
Provides the Secretary of the Interior with the authority
to carry out a voluntary grazing management program to
provide increased flexibility to improve the long-term
ecological health of rangeland.
Requires consultation with authorized grazing permittee or
lessee, federal and state agencies, Tribes, and other
landowners or affected permittees in developing a flexible
grazing use alternative.
Allows flexibility to progress in meeting applicable
Rangeland Health Standards and livestock management
objectives in the land use plan.
Requires annual reports on the effects of flexibility in
grazing permits or leases.
Provides protection for current grazing permits and
privileges. Protects current grazing permits and leases by
ensuring this management program does not affect the
existence, renewal, or termination of a grazing permit or
lease entered into under the program.
H.R. 9165 (Rep. Maloy), ``Public Land Search and Rescue Act''
Section 2. Grant Program for Remote Search and Rescue Activities
Directs the Secretary of the Interior to establish a grant
program to provide resources to States or political
subdivisions of a State authorized to conduct remote SAR
activities on lands managed by the DOI or USFS.
Requires the Secretary prioritize grants in areas with a
high ratio of visitors to residents.
Lists eligible projects for grants including the purchase
of equipment and gear necessary for remote SAR, maintenance
and repair of SAR equipment, and reimbursements to eligible
recipients for SAR activities.
Stipulates that the federal share of assistance under the
program shall be 75 percent of the cost of an eligible
project.
H.R. 9528 (Rep. Pallone), To designate certain facilities at Paterson
Great Falls National Historical Park in honor of Congressman
Bill Pascrell, Jr.
Section 1. Redesignation of Paterson Great Falls NHP Facilities.
Re-designates the Great Falls Scenic Overlook Trail Bridge
at Paterson Great Falls NHP as the ``Congressman Bill
Pascrell, Jr. Scenic Overlook Trail Bridge.''
Re-designates the Overlook Park at Paterson Great Falls
NHP as ``Congressman Bill Pascrell, Jr. Overlook Park.''
H.R. 10082 (Rep. Bentz), ``Oregon Owyhee Wilderness and Community
Protection Act''
Section 3. Malheur County Grazing Management Program.
Provides the Secretary of the Interior with authority to
carry out a voluntary grazing management program to provide
increased flexibility to improve the long-term ecological
health.
Allows flexibility in meeting applicable Rangeland Health
Standards and livestock management objectives in the land
use plan.
Requires the Secretary to adopt a monitoring plan on any
action taken to provide flexibility.
Requires annual reports on the effects of flexibility in
grazing permits or leases.
Provides protection for current grazing permits and
privileges.
Section 4. Malheur C.E.O. Group.
Establishes the Malheur C.E.O. Group (Group) with eight
voting members, to be appointed by the Secretary of the
Interior with representatives of the grazing community,
businesses or conservation organizations, and Tribes.
Appointments are to be made within 180 days of enactment,
and each member will serve for three years.
Specifies the Group will determine the projects to be
carried out on federal and non-federal land within the
county relating to ecological restoration, range
improvements, wildlife management, invasive species
management, restoration of water infrastructure,
conservation, economic development, or research.
Section 5. Wilderness Designations and Other Land Designations and
Related Management to Designations.
Designates approximately 926,588 acres of previously
designated WSA land as wilderness in Malheur County, Oregon
in 16 different areas.
Requires the allowance of grazing livestock in the
wilderness areas if established before the date of
enactment of the bill, including any issued within the last
10 years.
Allows the continuation of motorized used of roads in
wilderness designated areas.
Requires reasonable access to any private lands, state
lands, or Tribal lands within the boundaries of any
wilderness designated.
Allows the use of mechanical equipment, including
chainsaws, backhoe excavators, or tractors, for the purpose
of wildfire suppression, invasive species control, or
activities necessary for management of livestock present on
the land under grazing permits.
Provides authority for Secretary to manage or restore fish
and wildlife populations in designated wilderness areas,
including the use of motorized vehicles and aircraft.
Releases a total of 601,295 acres of WSA land and
1,065,597 acres of lands with wilderness characteristics.
Directs the Secretary of the Interior to update the
resource management plan for this area after three years.
Requires the Secretary of the Interior to publish a map of
existing roads in the proposed wilderness designated areas.
Section 6. Land Conveyances to Burns Paiute Tribe and Castle Rock Co-
Stewardship Area.
Allows Secretary of the Interior to accept approximately
32,371 acres of land conveyed on behalf of the Burns Paiute
Tribe to be held in trust by the United States for the
benefit of the Tribe.
Directs land exchanges with the state to acquire lands
desired for Burns Paiute Tribe.
Directs an additional 2,500 acres of land current in a WSA
to be held in trust for the Burns Paitue Tribe.
Requires BLM to allow grazing on the land held in trust
for the Tribe and sets several stipulations for grazing.
Directs the Secretary of the Interior to enter into a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Burns Paiute
Tribe to develop the Castle Rock Co-Stewardship Area of
approximately 7,000 acres. The MOU will address the
consideration of Tribal interests, protection of cultural
and archaeological resources, natural resources protection,
and interests of grazing permittees.
Allows for land exchanges to acquire private land from
willing sellers in the new co-stewardship area.
Withdraws the co-stewardship area from disposal under
public land laws, mining laws, mineral and geothermal
leasing.
Section 7. Future Protection of Fire Suppression, Invasive Species
Control, and Livestock Production Values on Federal Land in
County.
Finds that protection against wildfire, invasive species,
and livestock production are essential in the management of
federal land.
Provides the Secretary of the Interior the authority to
take any and all actions to control wildfire and invasive
species.
Ensures continuation of livestock grazing on the land
describe in this bill.
H.R. 10084 (Rep. Clyburn), ``Renewing the African American Civil Rights
Network Act''
Section 2. Extension of Authorization.
Amends ``African American Civil Rights Network Act'' to
reauthorize the program for 10 years following the
enactment of the ``Renewing the African American Civil
Rights Network Act.''
V. COST
The Congressional Budget Office estimated the Senate companion for
H.R. 8517 (Rep. Gosar) would increase net direct spending by $2 million
over the 2024-2034 period.'' \66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ Congressional Budget Office, ``S. 1657, La Paz County Solar
Energy and Job Creation Act'', April 5, 2024, https://www.cbo.gov/
system/files/2024-04/s1657.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formal cost estimates for the remaining pieces of legislation are
not available at this time.
VI. ADMINISTRATION POSITION
In testimony before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee, the following administration positions were offered:
BLM testified in support of the intended goals of
companion legislation to H.R. 8517 (Rep. Gosar), but also
expressed their desire to address concerns regarding an
existing utility corridor and ensuring conveyed lands are
used for renewable energy.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Statement of Thomas Heinlein before the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining,
July 12, 2023, https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2023-07/
07.12.23%20SENR%20Hearing%20BLM%20Testimony.pdf.
Regarding companion legislation to H.R. 6441 (Rep.
Vasquez), the administration supported the goal of the bill
but offered to work on amendments addressing unintended
consequences for wildlife.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ Statement of Karen Kelleher before the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining,
June 12, 2024, https://www.doi.gov/ocl/pending-legislation-78.
BLM testified in support of companion legislation to H.R.
9062 (Rep. Curtis) and stated: ``The Department supports
the bill's goal to provide the BLM with flexibility to
restore the ecological health of public lands used for
grazing and welcomes the opportunity to work with the
Sponsor to ensure the use of operational flexibility does
not result in unintended consequences.'' \69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ See BLM testimony before the Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining,
June 12, 2024, https://www.energy.senate.gov/services/files/C9B38B90-
39FE-432A-8EC0-388F07FA1771.
NPS expressed support for the companion to H.R. 8182 (Rep.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Austin Scott of GA) with suggested amendments.
The administration's position on the remaining bills on the agenda
is unknown.
VII. EFFECT ON CURRENT LAW (RAMSEYER)
H.R. 10084
https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/h.r._10084_-
_ramseyer.pdf
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 6441, TO ALLOW HOLDERS OF
CERTAIN GRAZING PERMITS TO MAKE MINOR RANGE IM-
PROVEMENTS AND TO REQUIRE THAT THE SECRETARY OF
AGRICULTURE AND THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR RE-
SPOND TO REQUESTS FOR RANGE IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN
30 DAYS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``RANCHING WITHOUT
RED TAPE ACT OF 2023''; H.R. 7666, TO REQUIRE THE SEC-
RETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO DEVELOP A STRATEGY TO IN-
CREASE OPPORTUNITIES TO UTILIZE LIVESTOCK GRAZING
AS A MEANS OF WILDFIRE RISK REDUCTION; H.R. 8182, TO
ESTABLISH THE OCMULGEE MOUNDS NATIONAL PARK AND
PRESERVE IN THE STATE OF GEORGIA, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES, ``OCMULGEE MOUNDS NATIONAL PARK AND
PRESERVE ESTABLISHMENT ACT''; H.R. 8517, TO DIRECT THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO CONVEY CERTAIN FED-
ERAL LAND IN ARIZONA TO LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``LA PAZ COUNTY SOLAR ENERGY
AND JOB CREATION ACT''; H.R. 9062, TO PROVIDE FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF AN OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY GRAZ-
ING MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ON LAND MANAGED BY THE
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, AND FOR OTHER PUR-
POSES, ``OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY GRAZING MANAGE-
MENT PROGRAM ACT''; H.R. 9165, TO DIRECT THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO ESTABLISH A GRANT
PROGRAM TO ALLOCATE RESOURCES FOR REMOTE SEARCH
AND RESCUE ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED ON FEDERAL LAND
UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE SECRETARY OF THE IN-
TERIOR OR THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES, ``PUBLIC LAND SEARCH AND RESCUE
ACT''; H.R. 9528, TO REDESIGNATE CERTAIN FACILITIES AT
PATERSON GREAT FALLS NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK IN
HONOR OF CONGRESSMAN BILL PASCRELL, JR.; H.R. 10082,
TO PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A GRAZING MAN-
AGEMENT PROGRAM ON FEDERAL LAND IN MALHEUR
COUNTY, OREGON, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``OREGON
OWYHEE WILDERNESS AND COMMUNITY PROTECTION ACT'';
AND H.R. 10084, TO EXTEND THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE
AFRICAN AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS NETWORK, ``RENEWING
THE AFRICAN AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS NETWORK ACT''
----------
Tuesday, November 19, 2024
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:14 p.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tom Tiffany
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Tiffany, Fulcher, Stauber, Curtis,
Bentz, Moylan; and Peltola.
Also present: Representatives Gosar, LaMalfa, Maloy, Scott
of Georgia; Bishop, Clyburn, and Vasquez.
Mr. Tiffany. The Subcommittee on Federal Lands will come to
order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to consider nine bills:
H.R. 6441 by Representative Vasquez; H.R. 7666, Representative
LaMalfa; H.R. 8182, Representative Scott; H.R. 8517,
Representative Gosar; H.R. 9062, Representative Curtis; H.R.
9165, Representative Maloy; H.R. 9528, Representative Pallone;
H.R. 10082, Representative Bentz; and H.R. 10084, you can tell
we have been here a long time, we are getting to five digits,
Representative Clyburn.
I ask unanimous consent that the following Members be
allowed to participate in today's hearing from the dais: the
gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Gosar; the gentleman from
California, Mr. LaMalfa; the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr.
Pallone; the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Clyburn; the
gentlemen from Georgia, Mr. Scott and Mr. Sanford Bishop; the
gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Vasquez; and the gentlelady from
Utah, Ms. Maloy.
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. Over the last 2 years, the Subcommittee on
Federal Lands has taken Congress to the American people. From
my home district in Wisconsin to Arizona and California, the
message from our constituents has been overwhelmingly clear: It
is time for change in how we manage our Federal lands.
At a moment when Americans across the country are concerned
about the affordability of filling up their tanks at the gas
station or putting food on the table for their families, the
Biden-Harris administration has waged a systematic war against
our Federal lands. Take, for example, the Bureau of Land
Management's Public Lands Rule. While this misguided rule
prompted widespread opposition, Western ranchers were
particularly outspoken in explaining how the rule would upend
the agency's multiple use mandate and lock up millions of acres
of public lands from grazing.
Unfortunately, in its haste to finalize this rule, the
Biden-Harris administration ignored repeated requests from
governors and members of this Committee to hold additional
listening sessions. Regrettably, this decision prevented many
of the ranchers who were most likely to suffer under the rule
from even having their voices heard.
Another sad example of the flagrant abuse of public land is
President Biden's continued misuse of the Antiquities Act of
1906 to unilaterally designate national monuments. This opaque
process circumvents the voices of locals and sows discord and
distrust between the Federal Government and states with large
Federal footprints. In fact, one of the bills we will be
considering today from Water, Wildlife and Fisheries
Subcommittee Chair Bentz, is designed to avoid a unilateral
monument designation.
If you need any indication of the stark differences in
transparency afforded by the legislative process versus by
unilateral administrative designations, look no further than to
Secretary Haaland's empty seat at the witness table. Secretary
Haaland's decision not to attend today's hearing may reflect
this Administration's fear of answering questions about its
lame duck national monument designations, or perhaps the
Secretary is too accustomed to working from home like other
Federal employees. Either way, it fits this Administration's
pattern of consistently failing to show up to do their jobs.
Fortunately, change is brewing, and it begins now. Instead
of ignoring local voices, we are ushering in a new era of land
management that gives local communities the most say in
deciding what happens in their backyards. We are starting
today's hearing with several bills that would help support our
nation's ranchers, who have endured 4 years of relentless
attacks from this Administration.
Grazing on public lands is a key sector of many Western
rural economies. Our nation's ranchers do much more than
steward our public lands; they help feed America. At a time
when Biden's inflation is jacking up prices at the grocery
store, livestock grazed on public lands continues to provide
affordable products.
The bills offered by Representatives Bentz, LaMalfa,
Curtis, and Vasquez offer common-sense solutions that will give
ranchers desperately-needed flexibility and cut through
unnecessary bureaucratic red tape. By adopting these policies,
we can encourage more targeted and innovative grazing
techniques, such as using livestock to affordably reduce the
flammable vegetation that can fuel catastrophic wildfires.
We will also consider legislation from Representative Scott
to designate Georgia's first national park, the Ocmulgee Mounds
National Park and Preserve. Earlier this year, I offered
similar legislation to designate the Apostle Islands in my
district as Wisconsin's first national park. While these name
changes may seem small, they offer enormous economic and
tourism-related opportunities to nearby gateway communities.
While I have some concerns with Representative Scott's
legislation as currently drafted, I appreciate Representative
Scott and his staff for already working with the Subcommittee
to address some of those concerns.
Next, we will consider Oversight and Investigations
Subcommittee Chairman Gosar's La Paz County Solar Energy and
Job Creation Act. This legislation is a win-win that will
convey underused Federal land in Arizona, improving management
and creating new jobs in the region. I would like to commend
Representative Gosar for his continued leadership on this
issue.
Finally, we will consider legislation from Representative
Maloy to assist local law enforcement entities with remote
search and rescue operations on Federal lands. When a lost
hiker calls 911, they don't care whether it is a Federal or
local law enforcement coming to their aid. Unfortunately, most
of the time this burden falls on local law enforcement without
any type of reimbursement from the Federal Government.
Representative Maloy's legislation would create a grant
program to help address the increasing costs of search and
rescue activities, while also giving local governments the
ability to upgrade and improve their search and rescue
equipment.
I would like to thank all the witnesses for traveling to be
here today. Your expertise is incredibly appreciated and highly
valued by each member of this Subcommittee.
With that, I yield back and will now recognize our first
panel, which consists of Members who are sponsoring today's
legislation.
I now recognize Representative Bentz for 5 minutes on H.R.
10082.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CLIFF BENTZ, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Chair Tiffany, for hearing this
important bill.
H.R. 10082 is the culmination of 5 years of work, hundreds
of hours of discussion, argument, negotiation, community
meetings, and ultimately collaboration between tribes,
environmental groups, hunters, ranchers, county leaders, and
Congress. This bill directly involves about 3 million of the 4
million acres of Federal land located in my home county,
Malheur County, Oregon.
Malheur County is bordered by Idaho on the east and Nevada
on the south. This is a high desert area. The only substantial
stream in the south part of this county is the Owyhee River,
which enters Oregon from Idaho and continues north across 150
miles of Malheur County. It flows in the bottom of very deep,
rimrock-lined canyons through remote and isolated areas.
[Slide.]
Mr. Bentz. It has been said that the only way a cow can
reach this river is with a parachute. And as you can see from
these pictures, there is a substantial truth to this statement.
Most of the length of that part of the Owyhee River in
Oregon was designated Scenic and Wild in 1984. I share this to
emphasize, contrary to the pearl-clutching testimony we will
hear from a witness today, this area is already protected, over
and over again, by layer upon layer of Federal law, including
the Scenic River Act, the Taylor Grazing Act, the Endangered
Species Act, FLPMA, the Archeological Resources Act, the Clean
Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and NEPA, to mention not all of
them.
But even with these protections, environmental groups and
Portland-based recreational shoe and clothing companies began
to lobby for a monument covering most of the southern third of
the county, even though only a small fraction of this area
contains the river.
[Slide.]
Mr. Bentz. In 2015, the Obama administration seriously
considered establishing a 2.5 million-acre monument, almost
half of Malheur County. This concept was met with almost
unanimous local opposition. Why? Because local people know that
the Boise Valley with 900,000 people is immediately adjacent,
and that such a designation would attract thousands more people
into that fragile environment. Local people know that a
monument would not be as protective of the land as would be a
wilderness designation.
Oregon people know, as they watch restrictive actions being
taken on other monuments, such as Bears Ears and Cascade-
Siskiyou, that the ability of local communities to take care of
the land is dramatically reduced when the driving force is an
executive action, rather than a collaborative, cooperative,
carefully-designed, community-driven effort such as that which
results in this bill.
[Slide.]
Mr. Bentz. Thankfully, the monument designation did not
occur. But in response to this unfortunate possibility,
concerned citizens formed the Owyhee Basin Stewardship Council,
a member of which joins us today, for the purpose of protecting
the Owyhee Canyon area and local communities, and to improve
management of the land. Five years ago this group reached out
to Senator Wyden for help. Since that time, the Senator has
been working closely with the Council, as have I.
[Slide.]
Mr. Bentz. And consistent with shared goals, he introduced
Senate Bill S. 1890, which was heard last December in the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The Senator's
bill converts 1.2 million acres into permanent wilderness,
releases WSA land not included into wilderness, and protects
grazing.
[Slide.]
Mr. Bentz. Complicating matters, however, as these
discussions were ongoing, the BLM issued a new Resource
Management Plan, which is reflected in this exhibit. It was
anticipated by the Senator's negotiating team and the OBSC that
the resource management plan would have to be redone if
agreement was reached regarding creation of wilderness.
The bill we are discussing today incorporates provisions
found in the Wyden bill, and is based upon dozens of
conversations with members of the local group. If passed, my
bill would do the following: designate some 924,000 acres of
already restricted land and withdrawn land as permanent
wilderness. It would designate an additional 41,000 acres and
two special management areas, which would be managed as though
wilderness. It would protect access to allow control of
wildfire, suppression of weeds, and conduct of livestock
operations. It would re-designate 1.3 million acres now
designated in the Range Management Plan as land for other
resources and WSA lands as multiple use lands. It would provide
a means of grazing flexibility to reduce fire hazards. It would
protect future access to and use of the lands for invasive
species eradication, fire suppression, and livestock
production. It would substantially avoid restrictions on those
areas in the county that are known to contain vast amounts of
lithium.
As this exhibit shows, following redesignation and
enactment of this bill and the establishment of wilderness, the
revised land management areas would look like the exhibit on my
left. The bill is the creation of almost a million acres of
permanent wilderness, while returning approximately 1.3 million
acres of BLM lands to multiple use, furthers the BLM's mission,
as defined in FLPMA, to manage public lands for multiple uses
while conserving natural, historical, and cultural resources.
This bill contains a conveyance of some 30,000 acres to the
Burns Paiute Tribe and Trust, a portion of which is known as
Castle Rock, an important cultural geographic feature to the
tribe.
[Slide.]
Mr. Bentz. Adding urgency to this bill is the fact that
over the past year, many of the same groups that have wanted to
impose a monument on this land have been lobbying Senator
Wyden, and I assume the White House, for a presidential
proclamation establishing in Malheur County at least a million-
acre monument, similar to that considered by the Obama
administration. Such an action would fly in the face of years
of effort by the local community, would destroy the land
transfers to the Burns Paiute Tribe, the considerable efforts
of Senator Wyden, and the protections built into this
legislation of land and communities. Such a result would be a
travesty.
I thank you, and I would appreciate your positive
consideration of this bill. Thank you, I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. Yes, thank you, Representative Bentz. And now
I would like to recognize Representative LaMalfa for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUG LaMALFA, A REPRESENTA-
TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. LaMalfa. Chairman Tiffany, thanks so much for the
opportunity in the Committee here today.
I am presenting H.R. 7666, which would direct the Forest
Service to expand the use of proactive, targeted animal grazing
and fuels management programs to reduce wildfire risk. The bill
is essential for especially Western states, where Federal land
management policies have often contributed to issues like
devastating wildfires and mismanaged resources. This will
increase the use of grazing to reduce fine fuels, which make
fires burn hotter, faster, and much more dangerously.
When fuels burn uncontrolled and so quickly from all the
unmanaged fuels and underbrush, it is a big part of the
equation that leads to huge mega-fires that destroy forests,
towns, and people's lives, of which we have suffered with many
in the West, and including a million-acre fire in my own
district a couple of years ago, and in another 600,000-acre
fire this summer in my own district and many other districts
around the West, especially.
Utilizing livestock for fire fuel management is common
sense. Cattle grazing on public lands provides valuable
ecosystem benefits like food and water production, disease
regulation, nutrient cycling, and crop pollination. They have
been found time and again to be helpful in the cycling of the
land, not the harm that is frequently overemphasized or even
made up. It is an important tool that, unfortunately, isn't
being utilized enough.
[Slide.]
Mr. LaMalfa. As those of us here know, the West continues
to face a wildfire and a forest health crisis. In California,
as I mentioned, we have seen firsthand what happens when we
can't use every authority available to prevent wildfires.
Unfortunately, this has been made especially apparent in so
many recent fire seasons in my district, Mr. Thompson's
district, Mr. Huffman's district, and many, many more, such as,
you will recall, the Camp Fire in Paradise, California, where
85 people lost their lives; the 2020 North Complex Fire started
in Butte County, which reached over 600,000 acres; the Dixie
Fires I kind of mentioned; the Park Fire I kind of mentioned;
and now that most recent one, the Park Fire, is now the fifth
largest fire in California's history.
So, nearly 7 million acres have burned across the West just
this year, across many kinds of fire-prone areas.
Currently, agencies are limited in the scope of tools they
can consider. And often the post-fire teams bear the burden of
suggesting creative tools like livestock grazing for fuels
reduction as pilot programs. Folks, these shouldn't be pilot
programs. We know that they work. This isn't news to the West.
It isn't news for the positive effects that grazing has. I
mean, you can just see it in examples there, where a graze
field next to an area that burned, the fire stops, it comes to
a complete stop. So, it shouldn't be seen as a pilot or as a
new idea. It is really something that is, as I mentioned,
common sense.
This bill passes an amendment to the Fix Our Forests Act
earlier this year and is in the forestry title of the
bipartisan Agriculture Committee-passed farm bill. This bill
clearly has broad support, and will help prevent more
catastrophic, preventable wildfires by using every tool we have
at our disposal.
Western states like California, Oregon, and others have
experienced record-breaking wildfires, costing lives, property,
and billions in recovery efforts and fire suppression. This
bill potentially turns what is often an unfortunate,
adversarial relationship between grazing permitters and the
Forest Service into a potential partnership for mutual benefit
and the protection of our Federal forests from the ravages of
wildfire.
By prioritizing forest health and using every tool at our
disposal, H.R. 7666 equips us with more tools and ability to
tackle these issues more effectively, leading to safer, more
resilient, healthier forests, and not nearly as much of the
pollution to our air, to our water, and so much damage and
destruction to our wildlife. And the positive effect of the
economy with cattle grazing, making money off of that instead
of having a net cost.
So, I am pleased to be able to present this, and I hope
that we can get strong bipartisan support and move it along. I
appreciate that and, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back to you.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Representative LaMalfa. I now
recognize Representative Clyburn for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JAMES E. CLYBURN, A REPRESENT-
ATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Mr. Clyburn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thanks
to the members of the Subcommittee. And I must acknowledge, in
view of the type of legislation we are discussing here today,
the Full Committee Chair, Mr. Westerman from Arkansas, and the
Ranking Member because we are here today to ask your
reauthorization of the National Park Service's African American
Civil Rights Network.
``Network'' is the operative word here. The importance of
this legislation, which is scheduled to sunset come January
2025, is embodied in that one word. If I were to mention the
name of Rosa Parks here today, most people would know who that
was. But if I were to mention the name of Sarah Mae Flemming, I
doubt that more than two or three people, if anybody, except
maybe Dr. Donaldson, would recognize that name, though a year-
and-a-half before Rosa Parks sat down on that bus in
Montgomery. A year-and-a-half before, Sarah Mae Flemming, 6
days before her 21st birthday, sat down on a bus in Columbia,
South Carolina, was ejected from the bus, filed a lawsuit, and
the Supreme Court decided that she was entitled to ride in any
seat in that bus.
So, if you were to look at the Rosa Parks case when it was
decided by the Supreme Court, you will find that a footnote in
that case says we do not have to decide that subject, we
decided that in the case of Sarah Mae Flemming v. South
Carolina Electric and Gas. Most people don't know that.
That is the importance of this legislation, because in
South Carolina, when I came here 32 years ago, our No. 1
industries were textiles and tobacco. I need not tell you what
has happened to both of those. Today, our No. 1 industry is
transportation and tourism, and the fastest-growing aspect of
tourism is heritage tourism. So, this legislation is very, very
important to my state because it involves a network of 27 other
states in designating sites for visitation that will grow the
economy most especially in rural communities. And I think that
this legislation is deserving of reauthorization.
So, I introduced on December 1 with 27 other operators, and
I said December of last year, the authorization of this
legislation we hope that you will see your way clear to approve
it.
Now, Dr. Donaldson, a long-time friend and Director of the
University of South Carolina's Civil Rights Center, is here and
will be discussing this legislation a little later. So, as to
give him ample time, I am going to relinquish the rest of my
time so that he can have the time necessary to give you a more
intellectual discussion of this legislation.
Thank you so much, and I will yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Representative Clyburn, and I will
not forget the name of Sarah Mae Flemming, yes.
I now recognize Representative Scott for 5 minutes on H.R.
8182.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. AUSTIN SCOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee. I am here on H.R. 8182, which would redesignate the
Ocmulgee Mounds National Historic Park in Macon, Georgia as the
Ocmulgee Mounds National Park and Preserve, the first national
park in Georgia.
This is a bipartisan initiative that goes all the way back
to 1934. My colleague, Congressman Bishop, and I, along with
then-Senator Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, first authored
the Ocmulgee Mounds National Historic Boundary Revision Act in
2014. It was passed in 2019, enacted into law, and it included
a resource study that was completed in 2023 and changed the
name to the Ocmulgee Mounds National Historic Park.
I want you to know, as an avid sportsman, one of the things
that I first requested was information from the Georgia
Department of Natural Resources and a relationship with them to
make sure that we were protecting and expanding the hunting and
fishing access within the preserve boundaries. The language
prioritizes public hunting and fishing access, while protecting
the state's rights and regulation and private property rights
in Middle Georgia.
As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I also
want you to know that this has the ability to help us with
encroachment issues surrounding Robins Air Force Base in Middle
Georgia.
Now, Georgia is composed of roughly 38 million acres, only
about 5 percent of Georgia, our land, is in the Federal
registry. So, it is a very small expansion of property in the
state of Georgia in a state where we don't have much Federal
land.
This land will also only be acquired through purchases from
willing sellers, donations, or land exchange. No eminent domain
is authorized in this piece of legislation.
This redesignation, a relatively small addition to the
Federal Register, has the potential to have a significant
economic impact for the Middle Georgia region, which Seth Clark
will expand on in his testimony. I understand and acknowledge
the very real challenges in states with high acreage of Federal
land. This is different for those of us in Georgia, Middle
Georgians' concerns lie with the potential commercial
development of a pristine hunting and fishing land, the threat
to national security and regional economic viability associated
with not protecting the encroachment zones of Robins Air Force
Base, and the loss of the irreplaceable Muscogee Creek cultural
resources and sacred sites.
The Ocmulgee Mounds National Park and Preserve
Establishment Act would create a historic opportunity to
protect important natural and cultural resources, protect
hunting and fishing for generations to come, and bring economic
opportunities to Middle Georgia through the creation of
Georgia's first national park.
Mr. Chairman, I would now like to yield the remainder of my
time to my colleague, Congressman Bishop, who has also worked
for many years tirelessly with me on this bipartisan effort.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields to Mr. Bishop.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., A REP-
RESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I thank
members of the Committee for allowing Representative Scott and
me to testify on behalf of our bill, the Ocmulgee Mounds
National Park and Reserve Establishment Act.
Congressman Scott and I have a long history of working
together in a bipartisan fashion to preserve and protect this
special place in Middle Georgia, albeit not quite as long as
Ocmulgee's 17,000-year history. Most recently, we worked
together with then-Senator Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson
to change the name from Ocmulgee National Monument to Ocmulgee
Mounds National Historical Park, to expand the boundaries from
approximately 702 acres to over 2,800 acres, to provide
protection to additional archeological resources, and to
authorize a resources study to explore the possibility of
expanding the park even further to include additional
opportunities for hunting, camping, fishing, and other
recreational activities. That legislation was signed into law
in 2019.
Our bill today builds upon that resources study, which was
released last year. It reflects key input from stakeholders at
the Federal, state, and local levels, including the Muscogee
Creek Nation, whose ancestral sites are located inside the
proposed boundary. In fact, our legislation, which will create
the first national park in the state of Georgia, establishes a
path for a tribal-non-tribal co-management, similar to the co-
management models of other national parks and preserves. If
successful, Ocmulgee will be the first national park co-managed
by one of the five tribes that was forced from their lands in
1836, a tragedy in our history known today as the Trail of
Tears.
In addition to preserving significant historical and
cultural resources, our bill will expand Ocmulgee's footprint
to provide increased opportunities for visitors to enjoy
abundant recreational activities the area has to offer,
including, as I said earlier, hunting, camping, and fishing.
According to an analysis by the National Park Conservation
Association, our legislation could increase visitors to Middle
Georgia by sixfold over the next 15 years. It could bring in
more than $34 million in annual tax revenue to the region, as
well as support over 3,000 jobs through visitor activity and
tourism.
Finally, Representative Scott and I, as well as Georgia's
current two Senators, have worked closely with Robins Air Force
Base and Warner Robins to put land into conservation near the
base along the Ocmulgee floodplain in order to maintain a
buffer to prevent development that would encroach into the
flight pattern areas. By protecting these lands, it will help
Robins Air Force Base to continue to maintain its military
readiness.
Again, I would like to thank the Subcommittee on Federal
Lands for inviting Representative Scott and me to testify this
afternoon, and we believe that our bill would strengthen the
current Ocmulgee Mounds National Historic Park and bolster the
economy and the cultural life of Georgia and beyond.
I urge your support, and I would be happy to answer any
questions that you might have. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I now recognize
Representative Vasquez for 5 minutes on H.R. 6441.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GABE VASQUEZ, A REPRESENTA-
TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Mr. Vasquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
Committee for holding this important hearing to address the
challenges facing cattle growers and other ranchers.
It is a privilege to present to you my bipartisan bill, the
Ranching Without Red Tape Act. This bill would reduce
unnecessary Federal regulatory burdens for public land grazers,
and provide greater flexibility for ranchers who are working to
overcome duplicative bureaucracy that slows down their
operations and ultimately hurts American consumers and rural
economies.
In my district, 9,000 ranchers raised over 1.2 million head
of cattle and contribute over $2 billion to the New Mexico
economy. Those ranchers hold 2,200 grazing allotments across
approximately 13.5 million acres of Federal public lands
throughout the state. Currently, these folks who lease Federal
grazing permits must undertake a complicated renegotiation
process to make even the most minor improvements to their
leased range lands. That includes building a stock tank,
repairing a fence, or making minor road repairs and minor
adjustments in the back country. These necessary changes help
producers adjust to changing climate patterns and to new
technologies, make necessary repairs, and ultimately help
maintain healthy livestock and improve productivity and
ecosystem health.
Unfortunately, the process for making these improvements in
Federal lands is cumbersome and out of date. In my first month
in office, a cattle grower in my district told me about his
struggles with these straightforward improvements. When his
pasture fence deteriorated, as they often do, he was forced to
wait months, almost 9 months, for a response from the BLM for
the approval to repair it. Since then, in my conversations with
cattle growers and food producers throughout my district, I
have heard this consistent message: the current Federal
permitting process for minor range improvements is excessively
burdensome and needs reform.
Growers who simply need to repair a fence or improve their
waters are waiting months, sometimes even years, for new permit
approvals. These delays cost time, money, and contribute to the
rising costs of beef and other meat products in this country.
My bipartisan Ranching Without Red Tape Act, led by Senator
Barrasso in the Senate, would allow ranchers to make these
essential minor improvements without going through a long and
burdensome process.
It is also important to emphasize that this bill is not
about taking shortcuts or sacrificing environmental oversight.
Ranchers are deeply invested in protecting the lands that they
rely on. Ranchers and environmentalists do not have to be at
odds with each other on this issue. By eliminating unnecessary
red tape, we can help some of the country's hardest-working
producers and their ranch hands improve their operations,
increase production, and strengthen our agricultural economy.
This bipartisan solution is sensible for ranchers, it is good
for public lands and the communities that we represent.
I am also proud to work with Representatives John Curtis of
Utah and John Duarte of California to advance this bill and to
support ranchers.
I look forward to working with this Committee to advance
this legislation, increase production, and lower costs for
consumers, and support ranching communities nationwide. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Representative Vasquez. I now
recognize Representative Maloy for 5 minutes on H.R. 9165.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CELESTE MALOY, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
Ms. Maloy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to slide closer,
I am about to get hypothermia up here too. I don't know who
sets the temperature in here, but I am here to testify about my
search and rescue bill, and I may need to be rescued by the end
of it.
Utah is a beautiful place. Our scenery and our geology
attract millions of visitors a year. I think last year, we had
15 million visitors coming to Utah to recreate on public land
managed by the Federal Government. And sometimes the visitors
who come to our state are not prepared for the high altitude,
for the dry climate, or for our unpredictable weather, and they
get themselves into trouble. And when that happens, we call on
our sheriffs to provide search and rescue.
And in a state where the majority of the land is managed by
the Federal Government, that means our sheriffs are doing
search and rescue operations on millions of acres for which
counties don't get any tax revenue. And I have spent a lot of
time talking to the sheriffs about this, and they are happy to
provide search and rescue services, they don't want to leave
people stranded or let people be hurt, but it gets expensive.
In one of the counties in my district, Washington County,
in the last year they have had 99 search and rescue operations;
74 percent of those were conducted on Federal land. And it cost
them about $160,000 from the sheriff's office budget and about
$140,000 worth of search and rescue volunteer time.
This bill provides for a grant program for sheriff's
offices or states that are providing search and rescue on
public land. It gives an advantage to counties that have a high
percentage of public land and a high number of visitors to
offset the costs that counties are bearing for the Federal
Government by providing this service.
One of the things that happens is a lot of times people who
come to recreate on public land have better equipment than our
volunteers and our sheriffs do. And even if they don't have
better equipment, a lot of times they get themselves into
places that are really difficult to get them out of. So, the
equipment that our volunteers and our sheriffs need to be able
to get to where people are in trouble is outside of their
budget. Because this is a problem caused by Federal land
management, I think the Federal Government needs to step up and
help with this.
So, H.R. 9165 provides a grant program to help offset the
cost of equipment. I know that doesn't solve the whole problem,
but it helps level the playing field a little bit between the
people who do search and rescue and the people who recreate.
And hopefully it tips the scales in favor of saving lives and
rescuing people.
It is also a bipartisan bill, thanks to my colleague, Ed
Case from Hawaii. That is also a tourism state. He understands
what it is like to have a lot of people come recreate. He came
to Utah, listened, saw the problem, and is willing to help us,
and I want to thank him for that while I am doing that.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Representative Maloy. We will now
move on to our second panel.
Let me remind the witness that under Committee Rules, you
must limit your oral statement to 5 minutes, but your 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.
I now want to recognize Mr. Steven Lohr, Director of
Natural Resources for the National Forest System at the U.S.
Forest Service.
Director Lohr, you are recognized for 5 minutes, and
welcome to the Committee.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN LOHR, DIRECTOR OF NATURAL
RESOURCES, NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM, USDA FOREST
SERVICE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Lohr. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member
Neguse, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting
the Forest Service to discuss H.R. 6441, H.R. 7666, and H.R.
9165 concerning grazing on national forests and search and
rescue activities by partners. My name is Steve Lohr, and I am
the new National Director of Natural Resources for the U.S.
Forest Service. I cover the timber, range, and wildlife
programs for the agency.
Much of my 24-year career has been spent on field units,
including 10 years as a district ranger in North Carolina, a
forest supervisor in Alabama, and most recently a deputy
regional forester in Colorado. It is my honor to help the
agency actively manage our national forests for the benefit of
all Americans.
America's forests support local economies through
recreation, tourism, jobs, energy production, forest products,
and livestock grazing.
Let me begin by sharing that livestock grazing is an
important tool for managing our National Forest System lands,
is permitted on over 73 million acres spread across 27 states.
Grazing use on National Forest System lands is administered
through a grazing permit system, and the Forest Service
administers permits for nearly 6,000 permittees annually. In
total, these permits authorize approximately 7 million head
months of grazing by cattle, horses, sheep, and goats. The
Forest Service manages livestock grazing with a $6 million
budget annually for everything beyond direct personnel costs,
and we rely heavily on industry partners to help us deliver the
program.
The Forest Service appreciates the opportunity to discuss
the legislation pending before the Subcommittee.
H.R. 6441, the Ranching Without Red Tape Act, would require
the agency to issue regulations within 1 year that would allow
Forest Service grazing permittees to carry out minor range
improvements with district ranger approval. Or if the district
ranger does not respond within 30 days, the improvements are
considered approved.
This bill would also establish a mechanism for permittees
to submit requests to the Secretary for the Forest Service to
construct new range land improvements. The bill would require
the agency to respond to those requests within 30 days and,
when a request is approved, expedite the completion of the
range land improvement.
The Forest Service acknowledges the need to be nimbler in
responding to rangeland improvement needs, and strongly
supports the intent of H.R. 6441. We would like to work with
the Committee on refining the language to ensure time frames
and expectations are achievable on streamlining our processes,
and taking a nimbler adaptive management approach to expedite
range land improvements.
H.R. 7666 requires the agency to develop a strategy to
increase opportunities to utilize livestock grazing as a means
of wildfire risk reduction. The USDA supports the bill and
recognizes that livestock grazing can be used as a viable
vegetation resource management tool, and we welcome the
opportunity to look for ways to apply it more strategically on
the landscape. The agency has existing flexibilities in law,
regulation, and policy that allow us to authorize targeted
grazing using a variety of instruments. The agency already
employs targeted grazing to reduce fine fuels as part of
hazardous fuels treatments, invasive species as a part of
integrated pest management, and other land management needs.
H.R. 9165, the Public Lands Search and Rescue Act,
establishes a grant program to reimburse up to 75 percent of
applicable costs of conducting remote search and rescue
operations on Department of the Interior and USDA lands. H.R.
9165 defines ``eligible reimbursement activities'' as those
that include purchasing search and rescue equipment and gear,
maintaining and repairing leased or owned equipment, and
conducting remote search and rescue activities themselves.
The USDA recognizes the financial burden imposed upon
states and rural counties in conducting remote search and
rescue on National Forest System lands, and we appreciate our
strong working relationship with states and counties who manage
them. We would like to work with the bill's sponsors and
Committee to clarify USDA's role and responsibilities regarding
remote search and rescue conducted on Federal land.
USDA supports the goals of H.R. 9165 to reduce the
financial burden on rural, state, and counties, but defers to
DOI for their views on the proposed program.
That concludes my testimony. Again, I thank Chairman
Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the Subcommittee
for the opportunity to present USDA's views on this proposed
legislation. I would be happy to answer any questions you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lohr follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steve Lohr, Director of Natural Resources,
National Forest System, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
on H.R. 6441, H.R. 7666, and H.R. 9165
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Forest Service, to discuss H.R. 6441, H.R. 7666, and H.R. 9165.
H.R. 6441, ``Ranching Without Red Tape Act''
Section 2(a) of H.R. 6441 would require the Agency to issue
regulations within 1 year of enactment that would allow Forest Service
grazing permittees to carry out minor improvements after notifying the
Agency. The bill would require the Agency to respond to those
notifications within 30 days and if the Agency does not respond the
permittee may carry out the improvements.
The Agency is concerned with the requirement to issue regulations
within 1 year. There are mandatory processes required for agency
rulemaking, including public review and comment, that would make it
difficult to complete within 1 year.
Section 2(b) of H.R. 6441 would establish a mechanism for
permittees to submit requests to the Secretary for the Forest Service
to construct new rangeland improvements. The bill would require the
Agency to respond to those requests within 30 days and, when a request
is approved, expedite the completion of the rangeland improvement.
The agency's ability to expedite the construction of rangeland
improvements associated with a covered request will depend upon staff
capacity and funding, which may not meet the public's expectations.
This could lead to unnecessarily denying a request as a result of
insufficient time for review.
The Agency also has concerns with the 30-day deadline to approve or
deny the request for constructing new rangeland improvements in Section
2(b). These new rangeland improvements may be subject to National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements, making meeting the 30-day
approval deadline hard to meet, especially in situations which do not
meet the criteria for use of a Categorical Exclusion (CE). Even actions
falling within the scope of a CE may involve extra-ordinary
circumstances, which could make the 30-day deadline hard to meet.
Furthermore, depending on the nature and location of the proposed
rangeland improvement, the Agency may need to comply with other
statutory requirements, including under the Endangered Species Act and
the National Historic Preservation Act, and to consult with affected
Tribal Nations.
Similarly, it is unclear if the ``minor range improvements'' in
section 2(a) could be subject to NEPA requirements, making that 30-day
deadline difficult to meet as well. It could be helpful to narrow the
scope of what would be considered a ``minor range improvement'' so that
we can better understand how it fits into our NEPA framework and to
provide more flexibility for the responsive deadline.
The Forest Service acknowledges the need to be nimbler in
responding to rangeland improvement needs and strongly supports the
intent of H.R. 6441 to help the agency do so. Although we do have
concerns with H.R. 6441, we would like to work with the committee on
refining the language to ensure timeframes and expectations are
achievable and on streamlining our processes and taking a nimbler
adaptive management approach to expedite rangeland improvements.
H.R. 7666, ``To require the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a
strategy to increase opportunities to utilize livestock grazing
as a means of wildfire risk reduction''
H.R. 7666 would require the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a
strategy to increase opportunities to utilize livestock grazing as a
means of wildfire risk reduction. The agency has existing flexibilities
in law, regulation and policy that allow us to authorize targeted
grazing using a variety of instruments (e.g., livestock use permit and
agreements,). The agency already employs targeted grazing to reduce
fine fuels as part of hazardous fuels treatments, invasive species as
part of integrated pest management and other land management needs.
USDA supports the bill and recognizes that livestock grazing can be
used as a viable vegetation and resource management tool, and we
welcome the opportunity to look for ways to apply it more
strategically.
H.R. 9165, ``Public Land Search and Rescue Act''
H.R. 9165 would require the Secretary of the Interior (DOI) to
establish a grant program to fund applicable remote search and rescue
(SAR) activities on DOI and USDA lands within one year after enactment.
The bill would define remote SAR activity as involving the location or
recovery of human remains in remote areas and locating, assisting, and
removing lost, injured, stranded, or entrapped individuals in remote
areas to safety. Under H.R. 9165, eligible recipients who are
authorized by State or Federal law to conduct remote SARs on DOI or
USDA lands could apply for reimbursement of up to 75 percent of the
applicable remote SAR costs from the Federal Government. The bill would
prioritize applications for reimbursement of costs for remote SARs
conducted in areas with a high ratio of visitors to residents. Eligible
reimbursement activities would include purchasing search and rescue
equipment and gear; maintaining and repairing leased or owned
equipment; and conducting remote SAR activities.
USDA recognizes the financial burden imposed on rural States and
counties in conducting remote SARs on National Forest System lands.
USDA renders assistance in cases involving persons lost or injured
while visiting National Forest System lands. USDA may occasionally take
the lead in conducting a remote SAR if an immediate response will
reduce suffering or save lives. Once a State or county assumes
responsibility, USDA serves in a supporting role and assists where
requested.
USDA's primary role in connection with remote SARs conducted on
National Forest System lands is developing and maintaining strong
working relationships with States. States determine which State,
county, or local agency has primary responsibility for conducting
remote SARs on National Forest System lands within their State.
H.R. 9165 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
establish the grant program, including receiving applications for
reimbursement of costs, making determinations about cost share
percentages, determine applicant eligibility, and prioritizing
applications for reimbursement of costs for remote SARs conducted on
both DOI and USDA lands. USDA supports the goal of reducing the
financial burden imposed on rural States and counties in conducting
remote SARs on Federal lands. We defer to DOI for their views on how
H.R. 9165 would affect their programs.
That concludes my testimony. Again, I thank Chairman Tiffany,
Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the Subcommittee for the
opportunity to present USDA's views on this proposed legislation. I
would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Steven Lohr, Director of
Natural Resources, National Forest System, USDA Forest Service,
Washington, DC
Mr. Lohr did not submit responses to the Committee by the appropriate
deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman
Question 1. Regarding the Lake Wedington Recreation Area in the
Ozark-St. Francis National Forest:
1a) Will you provide a status update on when the Lake Wedington
Recreation Area will be open to the public again?
1b) Will the Forest Service be able to phase the opening of areas
as updates are complete?
1c) Can you provide a summary of the funding needed to address the
maintenance issues at the Lake Wedington Recreation Area?
1d) Is the Forest Service actively exploring concession agreements
or historic leases to increase the services provided at the Lake
Wedington Recreation Area?
1e) Will you provide an update on the status of moving forward with
the Request for Expressions of Interest (RFEI) and the proposals
received?
Question 2. Regarding the Blanchard Springs Caverns in the Ozark-
St. Francis National Forest:
2a) Has the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service received a waiver
request to allow seasonal extra help positions (1039 workers) at
Blanchard Springs Caverns in the Ozark-St. Francis National Forest?
2b) How many waiver requests has the Chief of the U.S. Forest
Service received to allow seasonal extra help positions (1039 workers)
since September 17, 2024? Please provide the number of waiver requests
that have been denied and have been granted.
2c) How many seasonal positions (1039 workers) have been offered
each year for the past five fiscal years?
2d) Please provide the total salaries and expenses for the seasonal
positions (1039 workers) at Blanchard Springs Caverns for each of the
past five fiscal years.
2e) Has there ever been a concessioner(s) operate at Blanchard
Springs Caverns?
2f) Has the Forest Service considered concessioners to operate at
Blanchard Springs Caverns? If so, please describe what those
considerations are. If no, please provide the barriers to allowing a
concessioner(s) to operate.
2g) Please list the process and potential timeframe to have a
concessioner operate on the property.
Question 3. Please describe how the U.S. Forest Service currently
works with grazing permittees to utilize targeted grazing to reduce
wildfire risk.
Question 4. Describe how the U.S. Forest Service works with local
law enforcement when notified of a missing person on U.S. Forest
Service land.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you for your testimony, Director Lohr,
and now I hope the witness will take questions from our panel.
First, I would like to recognize the gentleman from Oregon,
Mr. Bentz, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Lohr,
for being here today.
I was raised on a cattle ranch, and we ran cattle on a
Forest Service permit. I recall all too clearly being asked to
take the 4.5-hour ride horseback up to drive cattle out of the
riparian areas along Forest Service streams. And we did so
because the idea was to protect those streams as best we could
from over-grazing, and we got pretty good at it. But it is odd
now, the situation is flipped. What we have is fires burning up
the spaces where we used to run cattle.
I remember going back up to some of those streams where we
would drive cattle out of, and I was astounded to see the
amount of understory that had grown up. A cow couldn't fight
its way down into the stream. And I am not joking. And if they
did, they would never get out. I don't know what the Forest
Service is doing to try to utilize a cow as a management tool,
but it seems to me from your testimony that the Forest Service
recognizes it is an option, it is a possibility.
Can you share with us? Have you seen cows being used in
this fashion? Because I know they can be, I am just curious if
it is actually happening.
Mr. Lohr. Yes. Thank you, Congressman, for the question.
Yes, I mean, the Forest Service recognizes grazing as a key
management tool for the agency. It impacts more acres than any
other management tool we use on National Forest System lands,
and it plays a key role for us in reducing fine fuels.
And to your point, we have had a bigger problem with
riparian areas burning up in recent years, so we completely
recognize it is a tool. We understand that, in conjunction with
other forest management activities like commercial thinning,
that cattle grazing and livestock grazing in general can be a
key component for how we reduce the risk of catastrophic
wildfire.
Mr. Bentz. Of course, since I am here on my own bill, and
it is dealing more with sagebrush steppe as opposed to national
forest, but the issue is the same. And through bureaucratic
mismanagement or whatever you want to call it, we have layer,
after layer, after layer of fine fuels building up over the
years because there is a restriction on how much you can
actually graze off each year. So, instead of trying to reduce
these fine fuels, they actually build up. And then, when the
fire comes along, it burns super hot, encompassing all of the
wrong things.
So, I would just hope that we can build on what this bill
is suggesting, and not only in the forest, but, of course, out
in the sagebrush areas of the Western United States, because it
is absolutely essential we do something. The damage that is
occurring as a result of these wildfires is insane. And we
should start viewing cattle as a useful tool, and not as an
impediment to range protection.
Thank you so much for being here today.
I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields, I now recognize
Representative LaMalfa for 5 minutes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Lohr,
for joining us here.
What do you see as the impediment for the Service to
expediting what Mr. Bentz is talking about, what I am talking
about, what Mr. Vasquez is talking about? What is really the
difficulty on wanting to do something with these tools that are
really effective?
Mr. Lohr. I mean, I don't think there are any impediments,
really. We are expanding the use of targeted grazing for fuels
reduction. In Fiscal Year 2023, we used hazard fuels reduction
money to fund 75,000 acres worth of projects to the tune of
about $600,000 to do work in different parts of the country on
it. And a couple of examples, on the Black Hills we used
virtual fencing technology to maintain firebreaks, which was a
successful effort.
Mr. LaMalfa. Would you describe virtual fencing for us?
Mr. Lohr. Yes, Congressman. Virtual fencing is a way for us
to move cows around the landscape; it is sort of like your
invisible fence for your dog. Essentially, we are able to move
cows around. The cows wear collars, and we can remotely control
where the cows can go using that virtual fence. And it is a
really powerful tool for being able to effectively manage cows
across the landscape.
And to the project in South Dakota, we were able to use
that virtual fence to keep the cows focused on an area to use
for fuels reduction to maintain a fuel break. We have also done
it in Southern California, in chaparral habitat with goats, and
we have a lot more projects in the hopper.
So, to your point, Congresswoman LaMalfa, I think we are
expanding those uses, and this bill is going to help us focus
that. Part of the bill is to develop a strategy around that,
and I think it is overdue for us to have that strategy.
Mr. LaMalfa. Well, under the Forest Service purview, and
now, you said you have 75,000 acres out this year on that?
Mr. Lohr. That was in Fiscal Year 2023. Those are stats
from Fiscal Year 2023, right.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, 2023, right. Is it a higher number in
2024, would you guess?
Mr. Lohr. We are increasing that number, sir.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK. So, you have under your purview about 193
million acres nationally.
Mr. Lohr. Correct.
Mr. LaMalfa. How many acres would you say, just a rough
guess, I am not going to hold you to it, could be grazed if you
did 100 percent of them, do you think? I mean, how many have
that kind of material on them that would be somehow grazeable?
Mr. Lohr. I would have to get back to you with specific
numbers. I can tell you that we have active permits on about 73
million acres, and there are 95 million acres that are
considered range lands on national forest lands which could be
used in some form or fashion for these efforts.
Mr. LaMalfa. When you say 73 million acres of active
permits, are they, in terms of active, because I hear a lot of
frustration out there actually getting the grazing done on the
ground. When you say they are active, are they all being
utilized? Are they in play, or is there some other thing
holding them up from actually getting cattle on these lands?
Mr. Lohr. No, the majority of those 73 million acres that
are available for livestock grazing we do, I mean, there are
exceptions. Like in cases where we have had challenges with
water or with fires, we modify it. But in general, yes, those
permits are active.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK. Because I do hear that leases are being
lost and that fire can affect those leases, and there is
conversation about being able to trade out leased areas that
have been damaged by fire for those that haven't on a quick
basis, instead of a long, long period of permitting and things
like that. So, what would you say about those things?
Mr. Lohr. Yes, many units have reserve allotments that we
are able to move livestock from, if they have been impacted by
fire. Or if we have vacant allotments, we often use those
vacant allotments for emergency situations where the permittees
are unable to have forage due to a fire.
Mr. LaMalfa. And what do you see the trend as far as third
parties like NGOs coming in and buying up grazing allotments
and then not utilizing them, but just idling the land?
Mr. Lohr. Yes, it has happened in a number of occasions. I
don't have the specific data for you. I don't know if it is an
increasing trend or a decreasing trend, but it has happened.
Mr. LaMalfa. Do you see that as something that is helpful
towards the goals of Forest Service or even the cattle
ranchers?
Mr. Lohr. I think it depends on the situation. I mean,
sometimes the allotments are in a situation where maybe there
are a lack of improvements that are available, and the
investment is not worth it to get the permit back up to
standard. In other cases, it might be for a specific species
that they are concerned about.
So, yes, there are a number of reasons for that.
Mr. LaMalfa. Is there a reason that getting the permit back
up to standard is bureaucratic, or is it something else going
on? Why would the rancher not want to get the permit back up to
speed?
Mr. Lohr. It is about economics sometimes, Congressman
LaMalfa.
Mr. LaMalfa. The economics of the cost of getting the
permit----
Mr. Lohr. The cost of getting the improvements, getting
them back up to standards so that we can graze livestock again.
Mr. LaMalfa. All right. We will delve into that later.
Thank you.
Mr. Lohr. Yes, thank you.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields, and I will recognize
Representative Maloy for 5 minutes of questioning.
Ms. Maloy. I don't actually have a question, I just want to
say thank you for recognizing the burden that is placed on the
counties. I was glad to hear you say that. And thank you for
expressing support for the goals of the Public Land Search and
Rescue bill, and I will have my staff follow up with you on
ways we can work together to get some of this done.
Mr. Lohr. Excellent. Thank you, Congresswoman.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentlelady yields.
Mr. Lohr, what is the agency's current backlog of permits
or leases related to grazing that are awaiting approval?
Mr. Lohr. I don't have a good answer for that for you, but
I can get back to you on it.
Mr. Tiffany. Yes. If you would, that would be terrific. And
that is both the backlog on permits, as well as the leases, if
you could do that.
Mr. Lohr. Right.
Mr. Tiffany. What are some of the ways the Forest Service
is working with ranchers across the West to ensure grazing
leases are approved quickly?
Mr. Lohr. I mean, the challenge that we have, Chairman, is
staffing levels. Again, our range program is not funded to the
extent that we would like it to be, and again, we have a finite
number of employees, and a lot of times the grazing programs
might have just one or two employees per district that are
trying to manage these. So, a lot of times it is a personnel
limitation.
I will try to get some specific information for you. But
there are a lot of competing interests on public lands. So, a
lot of times this makes it challenging for us to be expeditious
about how fast we can offer permits.
Mr. Tiffany. Do you view this as a priority?
Mr. Lohr. Absolutely, we view it as a priority. But again,
we have a lot of priorities that we are managing as an agency.
Mr. Tiffany. So, should we be reallocating positions?
Mr. Lohr. I mean, that would be one approach to it, for
sure.
Mr. Tiffany. Can you reallocate positions administratively?
Mr. Lohr. We could make changes to our range workforce
through reallocation, sure.
Mr. Tiffany. So, you could get more manpower to this if you
chose to.
Mr. Lohr. We could. But again, as we make sacrifices in one
arena, we obviously have a void to fill in other areas. So, it
is a matter of collectively we try to balance how we allocate
employees across our needs.
Mr. Tiffany. Is preventing wildfire a priority?
Mr. Lohr. Preventing wildfire is a priority, sir.
Mr. Tiffany. So, if this is one of the more effective ways
of preventing fire, wouldn't that move up the priority list
pretty high?
Mr. Lohr. Yes, sir. I fully agree with you on that, and I
think that we are. To the answers that Congressman LaMalfa had,
we are doing a better job every year. Could we do better?
Absolutely. But I think we are starting to just understand how
beneficial, when we target grazing in an area, it can be. So,
we are working to improve that each year.
Mr. Tiffany. I think you said you did an additional 75,000
acres this year. Is that right?
Mr. Lohr. That was in Fiscal Year 2023 we did 75,000 acres
through targeted grazing. And we did fund it, actually, with
fuels dollars to the tune of $600,000.
Mr. Tiffany. So, I was doing the math on this, and you said
there are 73 million acres under active grazing allotments. Is
that correct?
Mr. Lohr. That is correct.
Mr. Tiffany. And there are 95 million total?
Mr. Lohr. Yes, of range lands, there are 90, 95 million.
Mr. Tiffany. So, that leaves 22 million acres. Are you
going to be able to get to all 22 million acres in the
foreseeable future?
Mr. Lohr. Yes, there are reasons for some of those 22
million acres not having permits. It could be that some of it
is not suited. There are a lot of reasons for the difference
between those numbers.
Mr. Tiffany. Do you guys have data on how many of those 22
million acres would be good range land that would be acceptable
for grazing?
Mr. Lohr. Yes, I can get that information for you, for
sure.
Mr. Tiffany. Yes, if you could, get those numbers.
I heard that NGOs are buying up grazing allotments and then
not using them. Is that correct, are there instances of them
doing that?
Mr. Lohr. There are a few instances, yes.
Mr. Tiffany. Can you rescind those allotments when they
don't use them?
Mr. Lohr. Can we rescind them if an NGO has one?
Mr. Tiffany. Yes.
Mr. Lohr. Yes. Most of the allotments, in my knowledge,
that have been turned over to NGOs have been bighorn sheep
allotments, where we know we have bighorn sheep and we graze
sheep. So, there is a known challenge associated with mingling
them. And those allotments are the ones that, in my knowledge,
have been purchased by NGOs.
And is there a mechanism? Yes, as the allotment expires,
the permit expires, we could renew in a different way.
Mr. Tiffany. The Committee is very concerned by the
prospect that President Biden may further abuse the Antiquities
Act during the lame duck. Is the Forest Service aware of any
potential national monuments the White House plans to designate
between now and the end of the President's term?
Mr. Lohr. I would have to get back to you on that one. That
is outside of my purview.
Mr. Tiffany. You could get back to me in regards to that,
if there are any that are being planned?
Mr. Lohr. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tiffany. Has anybody in the White House or the Council
on Environmental Quality asked the Forest Service to provide
substantive or technical feedback on a potential national
monument designation, including by creating maps for such a
designation?
Mr. Lohr. Yes, again, I will have to get back to you on
that one.
Mr. Tiffany. So, you have had no requests along those
lines?
Mr. Lohr. I personally have not. But again, I cover the
natural resources program, and that is more of a different----
Mr. Tiffany. Have you heard from any of your colleagues?
Have they had that request?
Mr. Lohr. I will have to ask them.
Mr. Tiffany. Well, I appreciate you joining here, Mr. Lohr,
and no further questions. Thank you for joining the Committee
today.
Mr. Lohr. Thank you.
Mr. Tiffany. And we are going to move on to our next panel.
While the Clerk resets our witness table, I will 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.
I would also like to remind our witnesses of the timing
lights, which will turn red at the end of your 5-minute
statement, and to please remember to turn on your microphone.
As with the second panel, I will allow all witnesses to
testify before Member questioning. And we will get those
nameplates up there, and I look forward to our third panel of
witnesses joining us here.
[Pause.]
Mr. Tiffany. I will now recognize Sheriff Tracy Glover,
President of the Utah Sheriffs Association.
Sheriff Glover, welcome, and you have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. TRACY GLOVER, PRESIDENT, UTAH
SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION, KANAB, UTAH
Mr. Glover. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Committee members.
Good afternoon. I appreciate the invitation to testify here
with you today, and I appreciated your opening statement, Mr.
Chairman.
I am the sheriff in Kane County, Utah, which is in southern
Utah. And I am the President of the Utah Sheriffs Association,
and a board member, executive board member, of the Western
State Sheriffs Association. And I will be representing those
sheriffs here today. I appreciate the opportunity to speak in
favor of H.R. 9165, talk a little bit about the challenges of
search and rescue on public lands.
As many of you know, and it has been stated before,
sheriffs hold the responsibility for search and rescue on
public lands, especially across the West. And we appreciate
Congresswoman Maloy, the co-sponsors, and this Committee for
bringing this issue forward.
To be direct, county sheriffs across the country are seeing
increased visitation to public lands in general, and calls for
rescues are increasing, as well. Travelers are constantly fed a
barrage of awesome photographs in their social media feed that
generate destination bucket list items, and they go and often
get lost or injured.
I live in a unique part of the country. My county is 4,300
square miles. And from my county and the surrounding counties,
visitors can access millions of acres of national monuments,
national forests, national parks, national recreation areas,
and open BLM lands. My county has a population of less than
10,000 people, but we host over 5 million visitors each year.
What used to be search and rescue teams that were a few guys
with Jeeps and a thermos full of coffee has now turned into
very technical teams that do mountain rescue with snowmobiles
and snowcats, and technical rope rescue, underwater search and
recovery with underwater robots and sonar units, as well as
dangling from helicopters to hoist people to safety.
In the West, most of the land is owned and managed by the
Federal Government. In my county, for example, that number is
85.5 percent of the land in my county is owned and managed by
the Federal Government. That presents a bit of a challenge, and
our search and rescue calls are a similar percentage. In the
state of Utah we have seen a significant increase in helicopter
rescues, and they are expensive. I provided some statistics in
the packet, but the Utah sheriffs are looking at the
possibility of requesting an additional helicopter in the state
fleet to be able to service the needs for search and rescue in
our state, at a cost of around $10 million.
A couple of quick examples. A friend and colleague of mine
in Hood River County, Oregon, Sheriff Matt English, had a
unique rescue a few years ago where a young man deployed a
firework on a trail in Eagle Creek off the Columbia River
Gorge, and started a big forest fire. And the complication was
that there were many hikers on that trail. And Sheriff English
had to jump into action to deploy the resources to rescue 166
people that were caught on the wrong side of that fire. You can
imagine that was a major undertaking. Hood River County has
only about 24,000 residents, but with Mount Hood and the
Columbia River Gorge, they have also a lot of visitors.
Similarly, in Kane County last year we had a rescue in the
area of the Buckskin Gulch, which is known as the longest slot
canyon in North America, where we had some unusual flooding and
people were stuck in the canyon. We got in there to get them
out, we got about 18 people out, rescued out to safety. But
unfortunately, four people lost their lives in that canyon with
those floods.
Also in the packet that I sent there are some pictures of a
water rescue on Lake Powell, where a young man jumped off a
cliff and didn't resurface, and we had to locate him with
underwater search equipment and divers.
Just a few extreme examples of some of the things we deal
with out there on public lands every day.
We get our funding from a number of sources: county funds,
tourism tax dollars, a little bit of SRS funding or PILT
funding. Like I said, property taxes and state search and
rescue reimbursement funds and fees. This will be a good
opportunity for a partnership with the Federal Government to
try to keep up with the demand and the needs.
America's sheriffs are happy to work with Congress. We are
excited to see this bill move forward, and we are thankful for
that. And I look forward to answering any questions that you
might have for me. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Glover follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sheriff Tracy Glover
on H.R. 9165
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse and members of the
subcommittee. My name is Tracy Glover. I am the sheriff of Kane County
in Southern Utah.
I am the president of the Utah Sheriffs' Association and one of
three sheriffs that serve by appointment to the Utah Search and Rescue
(SAR) Advisory Board. I am an elected member of the executive board for
the Western States Sheriffs' Association where I chair the Public Lands
committee. I am here today with orders to represent the sheriffs within
each of those organizations.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak in favor of H.R. 9165 and to
the unique challenges of Search and Rescue operations on public lands.
Across the west, it is generally the county sheriff that holds primary
responsibility for Search and Rescue. America's western sheriffs
appreciate Congresswoman Maloy and the co-sponsors for recognizing a
growing problem and trying to help us fix it.
To be direct, county sheriffs are seeing significant increases in
visitation to public lands. Calls for rescue are growing and getting
more complex. Domestic and foreign travelers are continually seeing new
photos of spectacular landscapes on social media platforms and adding
them as bucket list destinations. H.R. 9165 will provide a mechanism
for the federal government to provide financial support to county
sheriffs through SAR grants to better serve visitors to our public
lands.
I live in a unique and spectacular part of the country. From the
4,300 square miles in Kane County and the surrounding counties,
visitors can access millions of acres of national parks, national
recreation areas, national forests, wilderness areas and national
monuments. Kane County has a population under 10,000 but is host to
more than 5 million visitors each year.
When I started in law enforcement 28 years ago, Search and Rescue
missions consisted of a jeep posse and a few people on horses riding
out to find an occasional lost hunter. Over time, public lands have
developed, been discovered and are managed for more recreation.
Sheriffs' teams are now spending most of our time with mountain
rescue, technical rope rescue, underwater search and recovery and in
helicopters hoisting people to safety. We have had to split our SAR
teams up into separate disciplines and specialties that require unique
training, equipment and expertise.
In the west, most of the land is owned and managed by the federal
government. In Kane County for example, that federal ownership number
is 85.5%. The statistics of our SAR missions is similar. Over 95% of
our rescues are for visitors from out of our area. Over the past 10
years, our missions have significantly increased in both complexity and
cost. As you can imagine, technical rescue including aviation, mountain
snow rescue, water rescue, and recovery requires specialized equipment,
expertise and significant financial commitment.
In the state of Utah, we have seen a significant increase in
helicopter rescue missions. I have included some statistics for the
record, but in short, the missions have more than doubled over the past
few years. Utah's sheriffs are now petitioning the state legislature to
add a 3rd rescue helicopter to meet SAR demands at a cost close to 10
million dollars.
In business and much of government, logistics and resources are
programmed out based on historic probabilities. In Search and Rescue
planning, we must organize our resources for possibilities rather than
probabilities.
A couple of quick examples:
A few years ago, my colleague Sheriff Matt English from Hood River
County Oregon was faced with a large rescue mission. On a warm summer
day on the Eagle Creek Trail off the Columbia River Gorge, a teenage
boy set off a firework that started a large fire. In what is thought to
be the largest rescue effort in Oregon history, Sheriff English had to
quickly jump into action to gather enough resources to rescue 166
hikers that were trapped by a large and rapidly growing fire and get
them to safety.
This operation required cooperation on a local, state and federal
level at significant cost. Hood River County has only 24,000 residents
but hosts millions of visitors to Mount Hood and the trails surrounding
the Columbia River Gorge.
Last year in Kane County, we had a series of unseasonable flash
floods in a canyon called Buckskin Gulch which is known as the longest
slot canyon in North America. The floods washed several hikers miles
downstream and forced others to high ground. We were fortunate to be
able to pull 18 cold and injured hikers out of the canyon alive but
unfortunately, in two separate incidents, four of the hikers perished.
At a moment's notice, well-trained and physically fit teams of water
rescue volunteers fought thigh deep quicksand with overhead air support
from drones and helicopters to complete a very difficult task.
These are just a couple of extreme examples of how we as sheriffs
must be prepared and ready for the possibility of what might happen on
our public lands.
SAR is currently funded through a network of resources that combine
to provide for the needs of sheriffs' SAR teams. In my county, county
commissioners appropriate tourism tax money, PILT/SRS funds, general
fund/property taxes, state SAR reimbursement funds, as well as
donations to fund our operation.
As public land access, management, and visitation increases and
becomes more complex, we must work together to find innovative ways to
keep up. H.R. 9165 will provide a vehicle to get a more robust
cooperative partnership moving between the federal land management
agencies and qualifying sheriffs that are most heavily impacted by
public lands rescues.
America's Sheriffs are happy to work with Congress and excited to
see this bill move forward and to get a program in place that will
achieve such an important objective. Thank you again for the
opportunity to testify on such an important bill, I look forward to
answering any questions you may have.
Utah DPS Aero Bureau
2020 Helicopter Rescue Statistics
Total Missions: 284
People Found: 149
Hoists: 44
2021 Helicopter Rescue Statistics
Total Missions: 348
People Found: 139
Hoists: 50
BLM Flight Hours 280.3
USFS Flight Hours 280.6
NPS Flight Hours 87.4
2022 Helicopter Rescue Statistics
Total Missions: 538
People Found: 195
Hoists: 120
BLM Flight Hours 285.4
USFS Flight Hours 183.0
NPS Flight Hours 117.1
2023 Helicopter Rescue Statistics
Total Missions: 886
People Found: 293
Hoists: 131
BLM Flight Hours 362.6
USFS Flight Hours 172.9
NPS Flight Hours 120.4
2024 Helicopter Rescue Statistics
Total Missions: 906
People Found: 282
Hoists: 156
BLM Flight Hours 371.1
USFS Flight Hours 189.6
NPS Flight Hours 92.7
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
------
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Sheriff Glover. I will now
recognize Mr. Elias Eiguren, Treasurer of the Owyhee Basin
Stewardship Coalition.
Mr. Eiguren, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ELIAS EIGUREN, TREASURER, OWYHEE BASIN
STEWARDSHIP COALITION, JORDAN VALLEY
Mr. Eiguren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. My
name is Elias Eiguren. I appear here today in support of H.R.
10082, with the understanding that this bill is a work in
progress, subject to further change and negotiation.
I am a fourth-generation cattle rancher from Arock, Oregon,
a small ranching community in southern Malheur County, 150
miles southwest of Boise, Idaho. My great grandfather, Pascual
Eiguren, left the Basque Country in Spain at the age of 12 to
meet his uncle, who was already in the Owyhee region. Like most
of the Basque people who have immigrated to America, my great-
grandfather left to escape poverty and hunger. He purchased the
sheep ranch in 1914, where 110 years later my wife and I ranch
in partnership with my parents, continuing to raise livestock
and our four children, who will hopefully be the next
generation of agriculturalists that will feed our great nation.
Most ranching families in this area have a similar story,
an ancestor fleeing from poverty and deprivation in another
country to find a better life in the high desert of
southeastern Oregon, which has led to a multi-generational
agricultural operation. Achieving a history like this is a
result of hard work and grit, but it also requires long-term
vision. Had our ancestors made poor decisions based on short-
term gain, this unforgiving landscape would have sent us
elsewhere long ago.
Malheur County consists of approximately 6 million acres of
land. Upwards of 4 million acres, so 2 out of 3, are federally
managed. Agriculture is our economic foundation, with crop
production in the north end and cattle production throughout.
The 30,000 souls who live there are considered the poorest by
capita by county in the state.
The Owyhee Basin Stewardship Coalition, the OBSC, was
formed in early 2016 as a grassroots response in the county to
the threat of a national monument designation, championed by
NGOs and an outdoor apparel company, that would consist of 2.5
million acres. The OBSC consists of ranchers, sportsmen,
business, and mining interests who all live, work, and recreate
in Malheur County. I am one of the executive board members for
the OBSC, and also serve as treasurer. Our campaign of ``No
Monument Without a Vote of Congress'' was heard throughout our
state and nation. We believe that a monument designation would
injure our local economy by restricting or eliminating current
agricultural practices on these lands, as well as overwhelm
this landscape with tourists and recreationalists in
detrimental ways.
Thankfully, President Obama left office choosing not to
designate the proposed monument.
The main concerns of our membership are land health and
certainty for our local economy. To this end, we are asking for
protection from a monument designation which would attract
greater attention from the neighboring Treasure Valley, which
has exploded beyond 850,000 people in recent years; increased
flexibility for the BLM in regard to grazing management to
mitigate damage from wildfire and invasive weeds; sufficient
transportation/access; and wilderness study area resolution
with released land returning to multiple use.
The OBSC approached our senior Senator, Ron Wyden, to lead
a collaborative effort to find a legislative solution to
Federal land concerns in our county. Meetings began in spring
of 2019 under the Senator's guidance, and have resulted in
Senate Bill 1890. The OBSC is grateful for the effort and
leadership put forth by Senator Wyden and his staff.
We are also thankful to Congressman Bentz for constructing
the bill before us today based on the OBSC's direction, hours
of negotiations between Senator Wyden's office and Congressman
Bentz's office, and the concerns of members of this Committee.
Movement of this bill will hopefully be the next step in a
grand compromise intended to address the concerns of those who
call the Owyhee region home and those who wish to visit.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Eiguren follows:]
Prepared Statement of Elias Eiguren, Treasurer, Owyhee Basin
Stewardship Coalition
on H.R. 10082
Good afternoon. My name is Elias Eiguren. I appear here today in
support of H.R. 10082, with the understanding that this bill is a work
in progress, subject to further change and negotiation. I am a fourth
generation cattle rancher from Arock, OR, a small ranching community in
southern Malheur County, 150 miles southwest of Boise, ID. My great
grandfather, Pascual Eiguren, left the Basque Country in Spain at the
age of 12 to meet his uncle who was already in the Owyhee region. Like
most of the Basque people who have immigrated to America, my great
grandfather left to escape poverty and hunger. He purchased the ``Sheep
Ranch'' in 1914; where, 110 years later, my wife and I ranch in
partnership with my parents, continuing to raise livestock and our four
children who will hopefully be the next generation of agriculturalists
that will feed our great nation.
Most ranching families in this area have a similar story. An
ancestor fleeing from poverty and deprivation in another country to
find a better life in the high desert of SouthEastern Oregon, which has
led to a multi-generational agricultural operation. Achieving a history
like this is a result of hard work and grit, but also requires a long
term vision. Had our ancestors made poor decisions based on short term
gain, this unforgiving landscape would have sent us elsewhere long ago.
Malheur County consists of approximately six million acres of land.
Upwards of four million acres (two out of three) are federally managed.
Agriculture is our economic foundation, with crop production in the
north end and cattle production throughout. The thirty thousand souls
who live there are considered the poorest per capita by county in the
state.
The Owyhee Basin Stewardship Coalition (OBSC) was formed in early
2016 as a grassroots response in the county to the threat of a national
monument designation championed by eNGO's and an outdoor apparel
company that would consist of 2.5 million acres. The OBSC consists of
ranchers, sportsmen, business and mining interests who all live, work
and recreate in Malheur County. I am one of the executive board members
for the OBSC and also serve as treasurer. Our campaign of ``No
Monument, without a Vote of Congress'' was heard throughout our state
and nation. We believe that a monument designation would injure our
local economy by restricting or eliminating current agricultural
practices on these lands, as well as overwhelm this landscape with
tourists and recreationalists in detrimental ways. Thankfully,
President Obama left office choosing not to designate the proposed
monument.
The main concerns of our membership are land health and certainty
for our local economy. To this end, we are asking for protection from a
monument designation (which would attract greater attention from the
neighboring Treasure Valley which has exploded beyond 850,000 people in
recent years), increased flexibility for the BLM in regard to grazing
management to mitigate damage from wildfire and invasive weeds,
sufficient transportation/access, and Wilderness Study Area resolution
with released land returning to multiple use. The OBSC approached our
senior senator, Ron Wyden, to lead a collaborative effort to find a
legislative solution to federal land concerns in our county. Meetings
began in spring of 2019 under the Senator's guidance, and have resulted
in S.B. 1890. The OBSC is grateful for the effort and leadership put
forth by Senator Wyden and his staff.
We are also thankful to Congressman Bentz for constructing the bill
before us today, based on the OBSC's direction, hours of negotiations
between Senator Wyden's office and Congressman Bentz's office, and the
concerns of members of this committee. Movement of this bill will
hopefully be the next step in a grand compromise, intended to address
the concerns of those who call the Owyhee region home and those who
wish to visit.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Eiguren. Next, I would like to
recognize Ms. Sherri Brennan, a member of the Public Lands
Council.
Ms. Brennan, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF SHERRI BRENNAN, MEMBER, PUBLIC LANDS
COUNCIL, SONORA, CALIFORNIA
Ms. Brennan. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany and members of the
Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide
testimony on Congressman LaMalfa's bill, H.R. 7666. My name is
Sherri Brennan, and I am from Sonora, California. I live and
raise cattle in Tuolumne County, home to the Stanislaus
National Forest, and we have held grazing permits there since
1985. Today, I am testifying on behalf of the Public Lands
Council, the organization that represents the unique interests
of cattle and sheep producers who hold Federal grazing permits.
My testimony in support of H.R. 7666 draws from my experience
as a permittee and from my experience as a County Supervisor
for Tuolumne County District 1.
H.R. 7666 would direct the U.S. Forest Service to develop a
strategy to more fully incorporate grazing as a fire reduction
tool. While the agency can and should already include grazing
as one of their management options, they often do not. The need
is clear. The Forest Service's most recent strategy for
confronting the wildfire crisis didn't mention grazing once,
despite study after study showing that grazing in dangerous
fuel has multiple benefits.
Each year, livestock grazing removes more than 11 billion
pounds of fine fuels in California alone. The livestock are
growing and benefiting from grazing the dried grasses that
would be prime fuel for next year's fire. These grazing
allotments are largely safe from the worst kind of fire
conditions, except for those in dense, tall timber, as is the
case for many Forest Service allotments. There you need to
control fine fuels and the taller, denser shrubs to ensure fire
does not have the opportunity to get into the tree canopy.
I know this from firsthand experience. The 2013 Rim Fire
burned more than 250,000 acres in Tuolumne County. No one in my
area was unaffected. We personally lost livestock, saw intense
damage to our grazing allotments, lost infrastructure, and had
to deal with compromised air and water quality. The Rim Fire
dumped more than 15 million metric tons of carbon into the
atmosphere during the fire. That is the equivalency of 3
million cars. The decay of the downed trees and other materials
not salvaged after the fire have contributed to another 90
million metric tons over the last decade.
At the time, the Rim Fire was the second largest in
California history. But every year, we seem to see larger and
larger fires. The Dixie Complex, which my friend and neighbor,
Dave Daly, discussed with this Committee last year, dwarfed the
Rim Fire, burning more than 930,000 acres. For both the Rim
Fire and the Dixie Complex, as well as fires across the
country, the cause of the escalation from wildfire to
catastrophic wildfire is clear: there is too much fuel on the
landscape. The combination of reduced grazing and timber
harvest and the lack of meaningful fuel breaks has made many
parts of the West one long stretch of high fuel loads. Eight
million acres have burned so far this year. What is worse is
that every year the percentage of total acres that experience
the worst kind of fire, high intensity burns, continues to
grow.
There is a way to fix this. Targeted grazing with the
intention of fuels reduction can remove up to 1,000 pounds of
fine fuels per acre. This means that if the area burns, the
fires are likely to be shorter flames, under 4 feet tall, which
means it is safe for fire responders and those in the area.
Less fuel, cooler flames, and safer firefighters should be
common objectives.
The agency should maintain use of regular permitted
grazing, while being more intentional about using targeted
grazing to create fuel breaks to change fire behavior and
strategically reduce fire risk. Forest Service staff seem to
think of grazing only as a use, a permitted activity, and often
have a hard time realizing that it can be both a use and a
tool. The Forest Service tends to focus on prescribed fire and
herbicides as their primary tools for targeted fuels reduction,
but have pulled back on the use of prescribed fire after the
disaster in New Mexico, and herbicides continue to come under
intense scrutiny.
Grazing is the perfect alternative, and one that must be
utilized on more than a pilot basis. Representative LaMalfa's
bill is the best way to show the Forest Service that they have
everything to gain by putting an effective, easy-to-deploy tool
in their toolbox. Now is the time to get ahead of the impending
disasters of next year's season.
Thank you, Chairman Tiffany. I am happy to answer any
questions the Committee has.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Brennan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sherri Brennan, Member, Public Lands Council
on H.R. 7666
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on
Congressman LaMalfa's bill, H.R. 7666. My name is Sherri Brennan, and I
am from Sonora, California. I live and raise cattle in Tuolumne County,
home to the Stanislaus National Forest and just adjacent to one of the
world's most iconic national parks: Yosemite National Park. I am a
public lands grazing permittee on the Stanislaus and have held a
grazing permit since 1985.
Today, I'm testifying on behalf of the Public Lands Council (PLC),
the organization that focuses solely on representing the cattle and
sheep producers in this country who hold federal grazing permits.
Founded in 1968, PLC sprung from the recognition that federal grazing
permittees face unique and mounting challenges because they not only
factor in the careful management of their private lands, but they are
also engaged in a constant negotiation with the federal government on
how best to graze and manage their public lands grazing allotments.
This balance is one I know well, both as a grazing permittee and
Tuolumne County Supervisor for District One, which is why I am so
pleased to support H.R. 7666, which would require development of a
strategy to expand the use of targeted grazing in wildfire reduction
strategies, resulting in a more fulsome incorporation of grazing in the
agency's planning toolbox.
In California, effective land management is crucial since much of
the forest and grazing land is owned or managed by the federal
government. Sadly, fire is a constant part of our planning. Today, I
will be sharing my experiences from the 2013 Rim Fire, which burned
257,171 acres in Tuolumne County as a prime example for why targeted
grazing is absolutely crucial if we're going to make meaningful strides
in reducing catastrophic wildfire risk. When the Rim Fire started, it
was the largest fire in the Sierra Nevada Range and the 3rd largest
wildland fire in California. Today it ranks 12th in size for California
and is no longer ranked in the top 20 for the most destructive/
costliest fires. The four biggest fires in California history--totaling
more than 2.8 million acres--have all occurred in the last six years.
Before that, the Santiago Canyon Fire in 1889 was the largest fire in
California history that burned 300,000 acres.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Western Fire Chiefs Association, November 17, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We now regularly see fires that exceed 300,000 acres, and sadly
this is not unique to California. This year alone, more than 8 million
acres burned across the country,\2\ with several record--breaking fire
seasons for Western states. This number exceeds the 10-year average for
both the number of fires and the number of acres burned, confirming a
troubling trend in the West's expectations for worsening fire seasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ National Interagency Fire Center, November 17, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This trend has clear roots in the land management decisions with
which this Committee is intimately familiar. Decreasing timber
harvests, reduced hazardous fuels reductions, and similarly harmful
reductions in grazing on federal lands have resulted in millions of
acres across the West being at higher risk from catastrophic wildfire
than necessary. Over the last several decades, the number of livestock
authorized to graze on federal lands has been significantly reduced.
Today approximately 4,000 cow/calf pairs graze on 35 active allotments
on the Stanislaus National Forest down from the peak of 19,500 animals
in the 1950s.
The federal agencies have also significantly reduced the use of
proven techniques for controlling fuels like timber harvests and
salvage sales and have been limited in effective use of methods to
control fine fuels, like prescribed fire and grazing. Some of these
have been limited by dry summers and challenging weather conditions,
but the agencies have been reticent to use tools like targeted grazing
even when conditions are ideal for this kind of non-invasive fuels
reduction.
Properly applied, prescribed grazing for vegetation management
(also referred to as targeted grazing) is a climate-smart solution to
removing flammable vegetation and altering fuel profiles to influence
fire behavior and create defensible space.3,4 It can replace
other more energy--intensive fuels management techniques (like mowing
and herbicide application) and, along with prescribed fire, is the only
fuels management technique that removes fuel from the landscape, and
simply does not rearrange it. At the end of this testimony, I have
provided a map that demonstrates the complicated forest land use
limitations that triggered the Rim Fire. This complex patchwork of land
management designations is applicable on many forests throughout the
West today, as grazing permittees and land managers face increasing
demands to manage multiple use in challenging ecological conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Rouet-Leduc, J., et al. 2021. Effects of large herbivores on
fire regimes and wildfire mitigation. Journal of Applied Ecology. 58:12
(2690-2702).
\4\ Launchbaugh, K. and J. Walker. 2006. Targeted grazing handbook.
University of Idaho. Accessed at https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/rx-
grazing/handbook.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
California's recent experience with catastrophic wildfire
emphasizes the need to use all available tools, including livestock
grazing, to adapt to changing conditions.\5\ The Rim Fire set a new
level of destruction for our community, industry, the environment and
three local ranching families with USFS grazing allotments, within the
Rim Fire perimeter. Aside from the soaring loss of dead cattle and
physical infrastructure, the economic loss from the 3rd and 4th
quarters on the tourism industry exceeded $100 million, schools were
closed for weeks, and 15,000 residents were under evacuation orders.
Wildfire smoke, which contains nitrogen oxides, volatile organic
compounds, and particulate matter, harmful impacts on human health were
detected in two-thirds of the state of California, and a large portion
of Nevada.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Svejcar, T., et al. 2014. Western Land Managers will Need all
Available Tools for Adapting to Climate Change, Including Grazing: A
Critique of Beschta et al. Environmental Management 53 (1035-1038).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fire also threatened the Hetch Hetchy reservoir, the main
source of water for San Francisco. On August 26, the San Francisco
Public Utilities Commission moved water away from Hetch Hetchy into
downstream reservoirs located in San Mateo and Alameda Counties. Within
the Rim Fire perimeter, 45 California Spotted owl nesting sites and 1/5
of the known Great Grey owl nesting sites in the state of California
burned the majority within high severity burn zones.
The Rim Fire emitted an estimated 15 million metric tons of carbon,
equivalent to three million cars and destroyed up to $72 million
dollars' worth of carbon storage on private lands. Roughly 75% of the
private land or 75,000 acres were treated and have a thriving mixed
conifer forest. It's also important to note that the 15 million metric
tons of greenhouse gas that were emitted during the active fire period
represent only 10-15% of the total Greenhouse gas emitted by the Rim
Fire. Local estimates suggest that an additional 90 million metric tons
will be emitted through the ongoing decay process over the next decade.
Grazing--or the lack of grazing--plays a significant role in fire
behavior and what comes next after fire. The Eagle Meadow allotment is
an example of an area that has seen extreme reductions each time the
allotment has changed ownership. The carrying capacity is 150 cow/calk
pairs, but the average forage utilization rarely exceeds 20% with an
allowable use of 40%. With the yearly compounding fuel load as a result
of decreased grazing and timber management, the Donnell Fire in 2018
burned through the Eagle Meadow allotment at an extraordinary and
abnormal rate for fire above 6,500 feet of elevation. Sadly, the
Donnell Fire devastated the community of Dardanelle and destroyed more
than 130 structures.
It's important to distinguish the value of traditional permitted
livestock grazing from targeted grazing specifically for fire
reduction. All grazing removes dangerous fuels from the landscape in a
way that improves the impact of fire on the landscape while focusing on
livestock growth and yield. High intensity grazing for a short time can
reduce up to 42% of fuels on the landscape,\6\ which not only reduces
the intensity of fire but improves post-fire regrowth. Targeted grazing
has similar fuel management benefits, but can be shaped and directed to
make the best use of the grazing activity to remove the most amount of
fuel from the highest risk locations. Targeted grazing is simply the
adjustment of timing, frequency, duration and intensity of livestock
grazing to achieve a specific ecological outcome.\7\ This flexibility
makes it a cost-effective, nimble tool, in contrast with other
mechanical tools that cost double or triple the base cost of targeted
grazing.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Davies, K., et al. 2022. Moderate grazing during the off-season
(fall-winter) reduces exotic annual grasses in sagebrush-bunchgrass
steppe. Rangeland Ecology and Management. 82 (51-57).
\7\ Bailey, D., et. al. 2019. Synthesis paper: Targeted livestock
grazing: Prescription for healthy rangelands. Rangeland Ecology and
Management. 72:6 (865-877).
\8\ Nader, G., et al. 2007. Planned herbivory in the management of
wildfire fuels. Rangelands. 29(5): 18-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 2020 study from the University of California, Davis calculated
that livestock in California removed more than 11 billion pounds of
fine fuels that would have otherwise been dangerous tinder for
wildfires, and targeted grazing could remove up to 1,000 pounds of
fuels per acre which would reduce the flame height and flame speed to
less than 4 feet; \9\ this is important because 4 feet is typically the
threshold where fire becomes too dangerous for firefighters to fight
safely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Ratcliff, F.; Barry, S., et al. (2023). Cattle Grazing
Moderates Greenhouse Gas and Particulate Matter Emissions from
California Grassland Wildfires. Sustainability. 15:18.
The need for immediate use of all available tools is clear.
Representative LaMalfa knows this well, and H.R. 7666 takes immediate
steps to ensure all tools--including grazing--are readily available for
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
agency use. Immediate opportunities include:
1. Maintenance of acres previously treated by mechanical fuel
reduction work. Grazing is an effective tool to maintain
positive ecological conditions, particularly when the goals
are retention of native grasses and prevention of woody
shrub encroachment.
2. Creation of natural fire/fuel breaks. Because of the way
livestock graze, they create a variable pattern of fuel
densities. This change in fuel densities changes fire
behavior, and reduces the risk of fire intensity,
minimizing the percentage of high severity acres burned.
3. Maintenance of areas post-fire to prevent adverse ecological
outcomes from invasive plants and forbs. After the Rim
Fire, USFS excluded grazing from 3/5 of the burned area
(150,000 acres) as a matter of ``policy consistency''. That
exclusion allowed invasive non-native grasses to take hold
and encouraged conifer encroachment in the ``open'',
freshly-burned space. Grazing resumed more than a year
later, but by that time it was too late. Three years after
the fire, the area experienced a complete type conversion.
What had previously been a mixed conifer stand was now
predominantly a brush/oak landscape that decreases forage
on the landscape for livestock and wildlife, increases
water use, and creates dense stands that are more likely to
burn again. Today, less than 20% of the public land has had
any mechanical treatment.
One of the current barriers to use of targeted grazing is due in
large part to USFS attitudes about targeted grazing. A recently
published research brief released by researchers from University of
Idaho \10\ in coordination and cooperation with USFS personnel from
Region 4 and 6 highlights many of the challenges and opportunities
embedded within the culture of the agency with respect to utilizing
targeted grazing on USFS lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Katherine Wollstein, Ph.D., Natural Resources, 2022.
Dissertation title: ``Outcome-Based Management and Federal Rangeland
Administration: Reframing Adaptive Management on a Complex
Institutional Landscape.'' Placement: Extension Assistant Professor at
Oregon State University.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
While USFS may consider targeted grazing, it often simply does
not. Too often, USFS personnel are reluctant to use grazing as a tool
to replace treatments like herbicide application or prescribed fire
unless their range staff counterparts suggest grazing on a ``pilot''
basis. Because targeted grazing is largely treated like a one-off
experiment despite the proven benefits, the need for H.R. 7666 is
clear. Repeatedly in California, comments are submitted to forest plan
revisions, like the California Cattlemen's Association and the
California Cattlemen's Foundation comments submitted April 2024 on the
Draft Environment Impact Statement (EIS) for SERAL 2.0; while there
were significant grazing components included in the draft, the agency
completely omitted grazing provisions in the final EIS. This trend,
unfortunately, continues across the West. If enacted, H.R. 7666 would
direct USFS to capitalize on the mutually inclusive benefits cattle
ranchers do every day when they work to produce food and fiber, they
are enhancing biodiversity and habitat, sequestering carbon, and
protecting the myriad of ecosystem services society benefits from our
public lands when we minimize the risk from catastrophic wildfires.
Expanding the opportunity to apply targeted grazing will strengthen the
protection of communities while expanding economic opportunities
throughout the state.
Thank you, Representative LaMalfa, for listening to the needs of
all of us in California and across the West and thank you to the
Committee for inviting me to testify today.
Appendix A: Stanislaus National Forest Management Complexities
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Of the one million acres included in the Stanisluas National
Forest, many areas have restricted management potential as a result of
layered land management designations: Protected Activity Centers,
Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers, Resource Natural Areas, areas
with Old Growth Emphasis, and more, all of which limit many kinds of
mechanical treatments where targeted grazing can be a beneficial
replacement.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Ms. Brennan.
Before I go to the next witness, I ask unanimous consent
for the following letter from the American Farm Bureau
Federation be added to the record for today's hearing. The
letter supports H.R. 6441, H.R. 7666, and H.R. 9062. In part,
it says, ``Livestock grazing on Federal lands is critical to
ranching operations across the United States, especially in the
West. Ranchers, land users, and surrounding communities have
been devastated by wildfires and depend on a new focus towards
appropriate, proactive forest management, including grazing, to
reduce wildfire risk.''
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
American Farm Bureau Federation
Washington, DC
November 18, 2024
Hon. Tom Tiffany, Chairman
Hon. Joe Neguse, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member Neguse:
As the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Federal Lands
prepares to consider several pieces of legislation, the American Farm
Bureau Federation would like to comment on provisions important to our
farming, ranching and forestry members. The American Farm Bureau
Federation is the nation's largest general farm organization, working
together to build a sustainable future of safe and abundant food,
fiber, timber and renewable fuel for our nation and the world.
As a general matter, we support the multiple-use concept of federal
lands, oppose expansion of designated wilderness areas and the addition
of more rivers and adjoining land to the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers System, and support appropriate forest management and the
reduction in size of currently designated national monuments and
wilderness areas. Legislation that limits land and water use harms
farmers and ranchers who rely on federal lands for economic and
recreational opportunities. Livestock grazing on federal lands is
critical to ranching operations across the United States, especially in
the West. Ranchers, land users and surrounding communities have been
devastated by wildfires and depend on a new focus toward appropriate
and proactive forest management, including grazing, to reduce wildfire
risk.
We appreciate the subcommittee's consideration of several bills to
improve the management of public lands in the West through grazing.
Farm Bureau supports H.R. 6441, the Ranching Without Red Tape Act of
2023, H.R. 7666, a bill to require the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture to
develop a strategy to increase opportunities to utilize livestock
grazing as a means of wildfire risk reduction, and H.R. 9062, the
Operational Flexibility Grazing Management Program Act. These bills
would address the need for more timely approval of minor range
improvements; focus on the use of vacant allotments during disasters in
other areas and increase the use of grazing for wildfire risk
reduction; and provide authority for expanding the existing Bureau of
Land Management operational flexibility pilot program.
Farmers, ranchers and foresters play an integral role in managing
our shared public lands, and we urge the committee to move legislation
that ensures these spaces can be safely used and enjoyed for
generations to come.
Sincerely,
Zippy Duvall,
President
______
Mr. Tiffany. I now recognize Mr. Jeff Young, President of
the Utah Cattlemen's Association.
You have 5 minutes, Mr. Young.
STATEMENT OF JEFF YOUNG, PRESIDENT, UTAH
CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION, HENEFER, UTAH
Mr. Young. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany and members of the
Subcommittee, for the opportunity to provide testimony today on
Congressman Curtis' bill, H.R. 9062, and Congressman Vasquez's
bill, H.R. 6441.
My name is Jeff Young, and I am a rancher from Henefer,
Utah. I serve as President of the Utah Cattlemen's Association,
and I am a member of the Public Lands Council and the National
Cattlemen's Beef Association. My testimony stems from my
experience as General Manager of the Ensign Ranches, where we
graze on public lands in Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming. I have
served in this role for 30 years, working with the BLM and U.S.
Forest Service to manage our grazing lands. This experience is
why I see such a clear need for the Operational Flexibility
Grazing Management Act.
This bill provides much-needed flexibility to ensure land
managers like me can be responsive to what the land needs,
while also maintaining compliance with our grazing permits.
Resource management shouldn't be static; it should be
responsive and collaborative. This bill represents an updated,
modernized way to manage land, understanding that you need
flexibility to make things work from year to year.
Flexibility in grazing permits can be as simple as the
ability to adjust timing, stocking rates, and grazing rotations
based on real-time conditions. Sometimes we may need to put
more cattle in a pasture because we got rain early and the
grass grew faster than normal. Other times we may need to go on
to an allotment later because we have had a bit of drought, but
we still need to graze the allotment at the approved rate to
reduce the risk of next year's fire.
Under the current structure, the terms of the permit and
the details in NEPA prevent the permittee from taking this
action. They have to choose whether to make the best choice for
the land and water resources, or whether to remain in
compliance with their permit and the law. Ensuring compliance
with the law always wins. Allowing more flexibility and turnout
or even placement of water troughs would benefit land health,
native vegetation, and biodiversity, all while maintaining the
ability of ranchers to do business and be in compliant with the
science that supports their grazing management. These
activities would still meet all the requirements of NEPA,
FLPMA, and other laws.
In addition to Congressman Curtis' bill, H.R. 9062, I am
glad to support Congressman Gabe Vasquez's legislation, the
Ranching Without Red Tape Act. This bill is a common-sense
approach to removing barriers to good range management. It
would promote more effective management partnerships between
grazing permittees and their agency partners.
As part of their grazing permits, ranchers are responsible
for the construction and maintenance of range improvements.
Range improvements can be structural or non-structural, and may
have different requirements based on specific grazing permits.
These are things like water troughs that benefit livestock and
wildlife, water pipelines, and even things like seed treatments
and other invasive species controls.
All range improvements are considered and analyzed under
NEPA, but ultimate responsibility for construction and
maintenance of these improvements lies with the permittee. It
is my job to make sure water troughs work, water pipelines
don't leak, and fences are well maintained. If a grazing
permittee does not maintain these improvements to an adequate
standard, they are in jeopardy of receiving a notice of non-
compliance, which threatens their ability to hold their grazing
permit in the future.
This legislation fixes a significant problem ranchers run
into far too often: waiting for the agency to give them the
green light to begin work, even though it is already
provisionally approved as part of their permit. Often the
agency is so backlogged or otherwise slow to respond that
maintenance is delayed for months or years. The result is the
permittee faces the burden of dealing with an unworkable range
improvement or risks legal penalty that threatens their permit,
even if the agency is the reason for the delay.
Chairman Tiffany and other Members, these bills would
restore collaboration and establish an improved environment
where producers and agency partners can come together to
implement strong, adaptive management plans. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today, and I am happy to answer any
questions the Committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeff Young, President, Utah Cattlemen's
Association
on H.R. 9062
Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and Members of
the Subcommittee. On behalf of America's livestock producers and
federal lands grazing permittees, I appreciate the opportunity to
testify today in support of a series of legislative measures that
remove barriers to responsible, proactive resource management by both
requiring and allowing federal agencies to support ranchers' good work.
Currently, I serve as President of the Utah Cattlemen's Association
(UCA) and have long been a member of UCA the National Cattlemen's Beef
Association (NCBA), and the Public Lands Council (PLC). I am the
General Manager of Ensign Ranches whose cattle graze public lands in
Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming. I have worked in this role for nearly thirty
years. I have experience working with public land managers in six BLM
field offices and five USFS district offices. Our cattle spend about 60
percent of the year grazing federal lands. We have worked closely with
land managers to address problems resulting from wildfire, grasshopper
and cricket infestation, drought, severe weather events, and management
of two wild horse herds. We have invested heavily in the ranges on
which we operate, installing and maintaining more than 200 miles of
stock water systems that benefit wildlife, wild horses, as well as our
livestock.
I draw experience from Utah, and from around the country. My active
involvement with NCBA, the American cattle industry's oldest and
largest national trade association, has given me access to the
perspective of cattle producers from more than 44 state cattle
associations with collective memberships numbering about 178,000
producers. Utah is also a leader in the national PLC, which represents
every cattle and sheep producer in the West who holds federal grazing
permits. The perspective I offer comes from detailed discussions of how
the bills discussed today would improve the grazing industry and
ranchers' ability to be more fulsome leaders in public land management.
In Utah, public lands play a significant role in the state's cattle
and sheep industries. The federal government owns or manages
approximately 68 percent of the state's lands--more than 37 million
acres, which is larger than the state of Illinois.\1\ There are some
counties where the federal government, primarily the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), is the primary land holder; some of Utah's counties
are comprised of more than 90 percent federal land. For us, this means
that whether we are raising cattle or sheep, hunting, fishing, or
simply traveling, the federal government has an immediate and visible
impact on our daily lives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://publiclands.utah.gov/plr/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is particularly true for Utah's cattle producers, who raise
more than 800,000 \2\ head on an annual basis and contribute to the
Utah economy. Like our cattle, the vast majority of these livestock
spend a significant portion of their lives grazing on federal lands.
Utah's cattle industry contributes $628 million to the state economy on
an annual basis, but these strict contributions only tell part of the
story. Across the West, federal lands grazing contributes an additional
$3.7 billion in ecosystem services \3\ on an annual basis in services
like wildfire risk reduction, offsetting the need to conduct invasive
annual grass treatments, infrastructure maintenance, protection of
wildlife habitat, prevention of water and air contamination, and more.
\2\ https://www.utahbeef.org/ranchers
\3\ Maher, A., Ashwell, N., Maczko, K., et al. (2021). An economic
valuation of federal and private grazing land ecosystem services
supported by beef cattle ranching in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both the success of livestock operations and the value derived from
these ecosystem services depend on a successful relationship between
ranchers who hold grazing permits and their federal partners. In Utah,
the BLM administers nearly 1,500 federal grazing permits, each of which
authorizes grazing on a 10-year basis based on parameters set after
analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the
Federal Land Management and Policy Act (FLPMA). The performance under
that grazing permit is evaluated on an annual basis. Grazing permittees
and federal agencies conduct annual monitoring of range conditions and
grazing conditions of the grazing permit are far too prescriptive. For
the last several decades, the BLM has often been inclined to be as
specific as possible in NEPA evaluations in order to avoid the risk of
frivolous litigation--so often that many of the older NEPA evaluations
assessed activities with specific dates. For example, a rancher's
``on'' date--the date they turn livestock out onto an allotment--was
identified in the NEPA evaluation as if it were fact. Over a 10-year
period, however, that date (June 15, for example) may need to vary.
In Utah, precipitation is the most common factor in needing to
adjust an ``on'' date or an ``off'' date. Take the Sevier Basin Valley
for example: over the last six years, we have seen high water marks
halved year to year. In 2018, the basin received approximately 17
inches of precipitation, which doubled in 2023.\4\ This variability
affects when grass grows, how quickly it grows, and is a factor in
whether late-season grass growth will contribute to a more aggressive
fire season the next year.
\4\ https://water.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/PrecipitationGraphs/
Sevier-River-Basin.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For ranchers, this requires annual management changes. One year, we
may have an incredibly wet spring and need to turn livestock out early
to make best use of the forage and optimize regrowth. In this scenario
under current permit conditions, we would be unable to turn out early
because the permit and NEPA doesn't allow it. The next year, it may be
a cold, dry spring and we may need to delay turnout a week or 10 days
to ensure the livestock aren't grazing the short grasses too close to
the ground and stunting late spring/summer growth. In this scenario,
current permit conditions would allow us to delay our turnout date, but
we would still be required to adhere to the ``off'' date specified in
the permit--even if we had not used the full forage allocation. While
permittees are intensely focused and invested in landscape health,
ranching is also a business, and many ranchers cannot afford to lose
forage access that is crucial to their livestock's growth. Having
flexibility in these on and off dates on an annual basis would allow
ranchers and their agency partners to make more responsive changes to
landscape needs.
Flexibility in grazing permits and the ability to adjust timing,
stocking rates, and grazing rotations based on real-time conditions
allows ranchers to play an active role in improving the health of the
land, including maintaining native vegetation, promoting biodiversity,
and reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire. A rigid system that
doesn't allow for flexibility undermines the collaborative spirit
necessary to create sustainable, long-term solutions.
For thousands of permittees across the West, these changes are
simply not possible if the agency and the permittee remain in strict
compliance with their permit. Plainly put, sometimes the specificity of
NEPA and the construction of the permit result in the permittee and the
agency choosing whether to make the best choice for the land and water
resources, or whether to remain in compliance with the law. It goes
without saying that ensuring compliance with the law wins every time.
H.R. 9062 provides relief. The bill removes the false choice
between legal compliance and landscape health. It would allow the
agency and permittee to work together to determine the kind of
flexibility in management needed to make best use of the allotment--and
best use of grazing as a land management tool. The bill is modeled on
flexibilities provided in the BLM's Outcome Based Grazing pilot program
authorized in 2018 that has proven its success over the last several
years.
Wyoming rancher and former PLC President Niels Hansen volunteered
his ranch to be an early adopter of the BLM's pilot program because he
saw the opportunity to demonstrate the value of this flexibility, even
if it took a little more work to navigate a new pilot program:
We [the PH Ranch] are the Outcome Based Grazing ranch for
Wyoming, with the flexibility written into our grazing permits
we have been able to adopt to the changing weather patterns and
the market pressures of the recent years.
We operate on approximately two hundred forty thousand
(240,000) acres of mixed and intermingled BLM and private
property. We have been practicing Joint Cooperative Monitoring
on these lands for approximately 30 years during which we
experienced a wide range of weather events ranging from
severely dry summers followed by hard winters. We were able to
take all of that into account during the development of our
Outcome Based Grazing Permit so that we'd be able to adjust our
cow herd and our grazing practices.
One example is that during these dry years we had been steadily
reducing our cow herd and didn't know what was going to come
next. During the summer of 2022 we operated at approximately
thirty percent (30%) of our normal numbers. At this time, we
advised BLM of our plans to liquidate the remainder of the herd
if we didn't see a change in the weather, which means that we
wouldn't meet the legal requirement of minimum numbers to hold
our grazing permit. We also developed a plan to rebuild the
herd over time with the knowledge that we'd get rain eventually
so we'd need a way to mange the forage and resume operations.
We explained that after several bad years we would need to
diversify and over time build a new herd. Through the Outcome
Based Grazing process, we were able to make plans for our cows
and for the land to make sure it wouldn't suffer in the drought
or after.
Use of our high desert land is most often dictated by the
available water. Our operation has areas that lend itself to
Short Duration High Intensity Grazing because it gets more
precipitation, and other areas with limited water that need a
lower number of cattle grazing for longer periods of time. By
writing two grazing plans, one plan with our normal numbers and
slightly expanded on and off dates, and the other with a
drought management plan that allows us to graze using short
duration and high intensity (higher cow or yearling numbers) as
our preferred tool, we're able to meet the needs of both our
cows and the land.
Since completing our Outcome permits, we have been able to
quickly adapt our management to fit our range, weather and
market conditions better which has made our ranch easier to
manage and economically stronger for the future.
Resource management shouldn't be static, it should be responsive.
The best part is that it works. Mr. Hansen's management was recently
recognized by the BLM as their 2024 awardee for the Rangeland
Innovation Award, which recognizes the demonstrated use of beneficial
management practices to restore, protect, or enhance rangeland
resources while working with the BLM and other partners. The PH Ranch
is just one of a number of ranches in the West that enrolled in the
program, and use of these flexibilities should be available to every
permittee.
While H.R. 9062 isn't a direct replica of the BLM's existing
program, it provides the necessary flexibility for permittees and the
agency to do what they need to do on an annual basis. Representative
Curtis' bill allows for changes in on and off dates, changes in water
placement that benefits both livestock and wildlife, and generally
makes everyone more responsive to the needs of the landscape. All of
these activities would still be compliant with NEPA, FLPMA, and all the
other requirements currently in place for these activities.
H.R. 6441, the Ranching Without Red Tape Act
I also would like to thank Representative Vasquez for introducing
the Ranching Without Red Tape Act. His bill occupies the same good-
governance space as Representative Curtis' bill and promotes a more
effective management partnership between grazing permittees and their
agency partners.
As part of their grazing permits, ranchers are responsible for the
construction and maintenance of range improvements. These range
improvements can be structural and non-structural, and may have
different requirements based on the specific grazing permit. All range
improvements are considered and analyzed under NEPA, but ultimate
responsibility for construction and maintenance of improvements lies
with the permittee. Things like fences, water pipelines, wells,
invasive species treatments, and other prescribed activities are
examples of things that may be required of a grazing permittee. If a
grazing permittee does not maintain these improvements to an adequate
standard, they are in jeopardy of the agency finding them in
noncompliance which threatens their ability to hold a grazing permit.
H.R. 6441 fixes a significant problem. Even though a permittee is
required to do construction or maintenance and the NEPA analysis
already permits the work, they still need to obtain specific permission
from the agency to actually begin the work. Often, the agency is so
backlogged, or otherwise delayed, that maintenance is delayed months or
years. The result is the permittee facing threats of noncompliance--
even when the agency is the reason for the delay. Simply put, ranchers
who are trying to be proactive and compliant should not be unfairly
burdened because their agency partners are unable to respond in a
reasonable timeframe. I appreciate Representative Vasquez's leadership
in setting realistic timeframes on when work can begin if an agency
partner fails to authorize the work in a timely manner.
In Utah, we often joke that if you don't like the weather, wait
five minutes and you'll have something different. We need to be able to
adjust quickly to keep our livestock, our families, and our communities
safe. We need to be strategic in our management plans to make sure the
future is more secure than the past. Both of the bills included in my
testimony are progress in that direction, and I am so pleased to offer
support for them today. I commend Representative Curtis and
Representative Vasquez, and their staff, for the time they have taken
to hear the concerns of ranchers and take steps to address those
issues.
It is no secret that over the course of time, trust between our
nation's ranchers and their federal partners has eroded--often because
the processes that both parties must follow is not designed to be
nimble and responsive has eroded. These bills restore collaboration and
establish an improved environment where producers and agency partners
can come together to implement strong management plans. By fostering
flexibility in grazing management, we can help bolster the resilience
of the landscape, protect our natural resources, and ensure that the
ranching community continues to thrive for generations to come.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and I welcome the
questions of the Committee.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Jeff Young, President, Utah
Cattlemen's Association
Questions Submitted by Representative Vasquez
Question 1. In your experience, what are some types of range
improvements that would trigger a lease renegotiation?
Answer. For the vast majority of federal grazing permittees, range
improvements are built into the agency's expectations for how the
permittee manages and maintains the grazing allotment. These
expectations are built into the ``Terms and Conditions'' (T&Cs)
associated with the permit, and those Terms and Conditions must be met
in order for a permittee to maintain their ``good standing'' status.
The Terms and Conditions agreements are really the documents that guide
how grazing is carried out on allotment--so while it's not the lease
itself, it's the primary governing document.
When a permittee needs to do more extensive work--or install a new
improvement--to improve the management condition of the allotment, it's
often a lengthy negotiation process to change the Terms and Conditions
of the permit. These T&Cs are usually negotiated and approved at the
beginning of a grazing year, so waiting for new T&Cs is already a
lengthy delay. In the event that the agency feels that the range
improvement goes beyond the ability to include in updated T&Cs the
following year, then the permittee may be required to go through
cumbersome, extensive assessment processes and face a decreased
functionality of their grazing allotment.
These can be things like a supplemental water line to bring water
to a new part of the allotment during drought, or a new water tank for
the same reason. It could be temporary fencing or a temporary corral to
address a livestock movement need, or a culvert to address water
runoff. These are things that a permittee needs to maintain on an
allotment to maintain functionality and are required to maintain so
they meet the requirements of their grazing permit.
Question 2. What does it mean for a rancher's bottom line to wait
nine months to repair a fence?
Answer. In ranching, you need to act quickly to ensure your
livestock, the wildlife, and the land and water resources stay safe and
healthy. If I can't repair my fence for nine months, it means I can't
use that pasture for nine months. I have to provide alternative feed
for my cattle, I have to make sure no one else comes through that
fence. It's a safety issue for my livestock and any neighboring
livestock, but it also has a negative impact on my ability to manage
the full acreage under my care in the most efficient way.
It's also worth noting that in a lot of cases, delayed repair of
infrastructure like a fence or a water line makes the repair much more
expensive. Constant upkeep on infrastructure reduces long-term repair
and replacement costs. For things like fences and water infrastructure,
it is especially important to have constant maintenance because without
those things, grazing allotments become unusable for current and future
permittees.
Question 3. Would reducing the wait time when trying to make minor
range improvements benefit ranchers in your community?
Answer. Reduced wait times would not only benefit ranchers in my
home state of Utah, but for ranchers in your district in New Mexico and
across the West. Ranchers should have the ability to meet the Terms and
Conditions (T&Cs) of their grazing permit without overly burdensome
federal requirements--requirements that don't provide any benefit to
the rangeland, our management, or the agency. This bill would make the
entire process more efficient, saving government time and money in
staffing and paperwork, saving ranchers time that could be spent
reinvesting in to the landscape, and making the entire grazing
allotment management system more responsive to on-the-ground needs.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Young. Next, I will recognize
Mr. D.L. Wilson, a Solar Projects Manager for La Paz County in
Arizona.
Mr. Wilson, you have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF D.L. WILSON, SOLAR PROJECTS MANAGER, LA PAZ
COUNTY, PARKER, ARIZONA
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Subcommittee. I am D.L. Wilson, the Solar Projects Manager for
La Paz County, and I am grateful for the opportunity to submit
testimony in strong support of H.R. 8517, the La Paz County
Solar Energy and Job Creation Act, which will allow La Paz
County to purchase 3,400 acres of certain Federal lands to
further its economic development and optimize the generation of
additional renewable solar energy.
I served as the La Paz County Supervisor from 2013 to 2020.
My primary reason for running for office was to find a way to
provide financial stability for the county, to improve services
to county residents and visitors without placing additional
burdens on them. Having been involved in economic development
in La Paz County since 1991, I was well aware of the barriers
to development, including limited private land, lack of
infrastructure, and the sensitivity to water-intensive
development.
For many years prior to my becoming supervisor, renewable
energy development in La Paz County was considered but was not
feasible, as the high voltage transmission systems were fully
committed with no capacity for growth. As the Bureau of Land
Management and the Western Area Power Authority began
discussions regarding the West-Wide Energy Corridors, including
routes crossing La Paz County, and the Ten West Link was
proposed, linking Phoenix to Southern California, it became
feasible to site utility-scale solar projects in La Paz County.
The inherent low water use of photovoltaic and the new
infrastructure addressed two of the three primary barriers to
renewable solar projects.
For the county, the most financially advantageous option
was determined to be to own property for lease to a developer.
In 2016, we identified 8,800 acres of BLM lands considered to
be the least impactful to residents, the environment, and
cultural resources, and being adjacent to the proposed
transmission corridors. Even though the county did not have
site control, an RFP was issued to determine interest in the
proposed site, with the understanding that development was
contingent upon conveyance to the county through the
legislative process, and 174 Power Global was selected as our
partner in 2017. Support was expressed by the Colorado River
Indian Tribes, and work began on the legislative conveyance.
Legislation to convey 5,889 acres to the county at fair market
value was passed in 2019, and conveyance occurred in May 2020.
So, where are we 4\1/2\ years later? As mentioned before,
the key component of this project is the Ten West Link
transmission line and the related Cielo Azul Switchyard to
provide access to markets. The Ten West Link, which crosses the
county property, was placed into operations in June 2024, 5
months ago. The switchyard, located on the county property, is
scheduled to become operational in January 2025.
The plan for development on the county property includes
four battery energy storage projects, four distinct
photovoltaic projects, two substations, and areas reserved to
provide transmission access to the switchyard for the four
other renewable energy projects proposed on state and Federal
lands adjacent to the county properties. Two of the battery
projects are under construction. Two of the photovoltaic
projects are well into the permitting process, as is the first
substation. Agreements are in place with the Colorado River
Indian Tribes to ensure any cultural resources and artifacts
will be preserved according to their traditions during project
development.
La Paz County's vision was to own about 9,000 acres for
solar development. This was considered to provide adequate
revenue to ensure long-term financial stability and improve
services for our residents. While the previous conveyance was
reduced to 6,000 acres, it has always been our plan to pursue
purchase of the additional 3,000 acres. We have proven the
ability to maintain a long-term relationship with our
developer, with the Colorado River Indian Tribes, and the
expertise to manage the process from concept to permitting and
into construction.
Now is the time to enable La Paz County to fully realize
this vision through passage of H.R. 8517. I would like to thank
our Congressional Delegation for their leadership on this
issue, especially Congressman Gosar for introducing H.R. 8517.
Thank you to this Committee for their time today. And we ask
that Congress enact the La Paz Solar Energy and Job Creation
Act as soon as possible. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson follows:]
Prepared Statement of D.L. Wilson, La Paz County, Arizona
Solar Projects Manager
on H.R. 8517
Dear Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, Congressman Gosar,
and Members of the Subcommittee:
As La Paz County, Arizona's Solar Projects Manager and previous
member of the Board of County Supervisors, I am grateful for the
opportunity to submit testimony in strong support of H.R. 8517, the La
Paz County Solar Energy and Job Creation Act. This legislation will
allow La Paz County to purchase 3,400 acres of certain federal lands to
further its economic development and optimize the generation of
additional renewable solar energy.
La Paz County strongly supports the La Paz County Solar Energy and
Job Creation Act (H.R. 8517). We are grateful to Congressman Gosar for
his work and support of this important legislation. This bill builds on
the successful passage of the La Paz County Land Conveyance Act of 2019
(P.L. 116-9), which conveyed land for fair market value to La Paz
County to facilitate economic development. Because of that law, La Paz
County has made remarkable progress in creating a large solar park
adjacent to the Ten West Link transmission project through central
Arizona. H.R. 8517 would allow La Paz County to purchase an additional
3,400 acres of certain federal lands to further optimize the generation
of renewable solar energy adjacent to that park.
We remain grateful to the Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT) for
their support of this legislation, as well. La Paz County has worked
closely with the CRIT to implement the provisions included in P.L. 116-
9 and has executed a robust agreement regarding the protection of
Tribal artifacts that may be discovered during the construction of this
important clean energy project. H.R. 8517 contains the same directive
as in P.L. 116-9, which ensures that as the land is developed, the
Tribe's Historic Preservation Office remains involved throughout the
process. This statement has attached a letter of support from the CRIT
for this legislation in the last Congress.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is analyzing the same acres
proposed in H.R. 8517 for renewable energy development. However, by
conveying the lands to La Paz County for fair market value as directed
in H.R. 8517, La Paz County will be able to obtain the full benefit of
land ownership by being able to shape the creation of a vibrant and
diverse local economy. The U.S. government will also be made whole
through a fair market value transaction. Further, this legislation will
allow the CRIT to be confident the development process and long-term
treatment of cultural resources on the site will be managed in exact
accordance with the Tribe's traditions and the local agreements CRIT
has established with the County.
Importance of Enhancing Economic Development in La Paz County
La Paz County's top priority is to attract and share in the
economic diversification that has occurred elsewhere in Arizona. Our
county is 4,500 square miles of desert, with less than 6% of our land
in private ownership, limiting our ability to attract new development.
Currently, our economy is based primarily on agriculture and tourism,
especially during the winter months when we welcome over one hundred
thousand winter visitors that flock in their RVs and travel trailers to
the banks of the Colorado River and to communities throughout the
County to utilize our desert lands and enjoy our beautiful climate.
La Paz County's efforts to diversify its economy are driven by a
real need to provide new, higher paying jobs for our community.
According to the 2020 Census, the County's permanent resident
population is approximately 16,000, a 19% drop from the 2010 Census.
The unemployment rate is a full percent higher than the statewide
average. Our population is aging, with 38% over the age of 65, a 6%
increase in just six years. Nearly 27% of our residents are Latino,
many of whom work on local farming operations. Our community also
includes members of the Colorado River Indian Tribes, which comprise
18% of our population.
Several years ago, the County pursued a strategic plan and public
process to find a site and a developer whereby it would attract
economic development focusing on solar renewable energy generation. The
concept was like the successful solar development park just outside of
Boulder City, Nevada, in the Eldorado Valley to our north. With the
passage of the La Paz Land Conveyance Act, La Paz County successfully
purchased 5,889 acres of BLM land and moved forward with its long-term
plans for economic development. H.R. 8517 will allow the County to
purchase an additional 3,400 acres adjacent to that area. Ownership of
this land allows the County to control the type of economic development
that happens in our community and build a sustainable tax base that
will enable us to provide services to our most vulnerable populations.
Plans for Solar Energy and Job Creation in La Paz County
To date, La Paz County has executed agreements with 174 Power
Global to develop the nearly 6,000 acres that were purchased because of
P.L. 116-9. Based in the United States, 174 Power Global is a solar/
battery project developer with a highly skilled team of professionals
focused exclusively on solar and storage project development. This
company was selected by La Paz County because it has successfully
developed, built, and operated over 2 GW of solar projects in the
United States and Mexico, including 277 MWh of battery storage
projects.
The plans for the La Paz Atlas Solar Project include a combined
solar photovoltaic plus battery energy storage system project in La Paz
County, which, when complete, would be among the largest projects in
the U.S. The first phases of the project are underway on the 5,889
acres that were conveyed in PL 116-9. It is anticipated this first
phase of the project will build 700 megawatts (MW) of solar generation
and 1,000 megawatt-hours of battery storage on site. It will generate
enough power to supply 105,000 homes and create 900 construction jobs
plus 15 permanent jobs during operations. Commercial operations are
anticipated to commence in the second quarter of 2025.
H.R. 8517 will allow access to additional federal land for the La
Paz Atlas Solar Projects. This project will provide an additional 3,400
acres to develop a planned 500 MW of solar capacity and up to 900 MWH
of battery storage, which is enough to power about 75,000 homes. In
terms of jobs, this project will create 700 construction jobs and 10
permanent positions.
Access and Proximity to Ten West Link Transmission and Other Critical
Infrastructure
The La Paz Atlas Solar Projects are uniquely positioned, given
their proximity to the Ten West Link transmission line. 174 Power
Global submitted the first interconnection request in April 2017 to the
Ten West Link transmission project for a capacity of up to 3,200 MW of
Solar and/or 1,920 MW/ 4-hour duration of battery storage. This means
the project is well-positioned by being in the earliest queue to
connect to and utilize the Ten West Link transmission facilities.
The Ten West Link transmission line (DCR Transmission LLC) is the
500 kV transmission connection between electrical substations in
Tonopah, Arizona, and Blythe, California. The transmission project will
create beneficial new transmission infrastructure that will improve
transmission system efficiency and reliability while facilitating the
development of new renewable energy and energy storage resources in
Arizona and California. This will help both states achieve their
renewable energy standards and carbon reduction goals. Ten West Link
will also bring significant economic reliability and public policy
benefits to the electric power grid serving the Desert Southwest--one
of America's fastest growing regions.
The Final Environmental Impact Statement report was issued by BLM
on September 13, 2019,\1\ and a groundbreaking was held in January
2023.\2\ The BLM Preferred Alternative for the Ten West Link spans 125
miles. The project utilizes the Department of Energy's energy and BLM-
designated utility corridors and avoids the Kofa National Wildlife
Refuge and all major population centers. The Project became operational
in June 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ BLM EIS TEN WEST LINK: https://www.blm.gov/press-release/blm-
releases-final-environmental-impact-statement-proposed-ten-west-link-
transmission
\2\ https://www.parkerpioneer.net/news/article_c938b31e-9b5b-11ed-
ac93-bf859fefb20e.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project milestones are as follows:
AUGUST 4, 2020--DCR Transmission, L.L.C. received the
Right-of-Way for the Ten West Link transmission line
project and the associated facilities over federal land
through a grant from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.
Securing the Right-of-Way, which consists of 81.2 miles
(65% of the Project length), marked a major milestone in
the development phase of Ten West Link.
APRIL 23, 2020--Environmental groups support Ten West
Link. The Natural Resources Defense Council and National
Audubon Society issued an endorsement letter, which has
been attached to this testimony.
MARCH 24, 2020--The Arizona Corporation Commission
unanimously approved the Certificate of Occupancy.
OCTOBER 1, 2021--The California Public Utilities
Commission issued its Notice of Proposed Decision to grant
a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the
Ten West Link and indicated this decision could be approved
as early as November 4, 2021.
JANUARY 19, 2023--Ten West Link Groundbreaking Ceremony
was attended by Vice President Kamala Harris, U.S.
Department of Interior Deb Haaland, U.S. Energy Secretary
Jennifer Granholm, Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs, and
Himanshu Saxena, CEO of Lotus Infrastructure (owners of Ten
West Link).
JUNE 12, 2024--Ten West Link turned over to the California
Independent System Operator (CALISO) for operations.
Another critical infrastructure element is the Cielo Azul
Switchyard, which is located on La Paz County property. This 500kV
facility will provide the interconnection point for multiple solar
projects in the vicinity to connect to the Ten West Link transmission
line. Construction of the Cielo Azul Switchyard began on July 10, 2023,
with an estimated in-service date in January 2025.
If enacted, H.R. 8517 will provide La Paz County with the tools to
accomplish what our region has envisioned for solar development. More
so, the proximity of the La Paz Atlas Solar Projects to the Ten West
Link transmission line and the Cielo Azul Switchyard demonstrates the
capability not only to build, but also to deliver, crucial renewable
energy resources for our fast-growing region.
Solar Development on Adjacent BLM and Arizona State School Trust Lands
Copia Power is developing the Centennial Flats Solar Project
immediately east of the La Paz Atlas Solar Project on approximately
4,785+ acres of State School Trust Land. Construction has begun on this
solar photovoltaic energy production facility and a 250 MW
battery energy storage system. In addition, there are two additional
projects seeking approvals on adjacent BLM and State Trust Lands
totaling more than 10,000 acres for solar generation, battery storage,
and hydrogen production.
In 2020, La Paz County initiated and approved a Major Amendment to
its Comprehensive Plan designating 52 square miles of BLM and State
Trust lands as an ``Employment Zone.''
This designation facilitates the permitting of solar projects,
including the La Paz Atlas Solar Project (including the lands
identified in H.R. 8517), the Centennial Flats Solar Project, and
adjacent public lands suitable for solar development.
Conclusion
La Paz County's future economic health is inextricably linked to
the success of this renewable energy area in the County. H.R. 8517 will
enhance our ability to be a part of a renewable energy economy while
diversifying our local economy and providing sustainable and higher
paying jobs for our community. On behalf of La Paz County, I would like
to thank our Congressional delegation for their strong leadership on
this issue. We remain grateful to Congressman Gosar for introducing
H.R. 8517 and the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Federal Lands
for holding this hearing. We ask that Congress enact the La Paz Solar
Energy and Job Creation Act as soon as possible.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. I will now recognize
Mr. Ryan Houston, Executive Director for the Oregon Natural
Desert Association.
Mr. Houston, you have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF RYAN HOUSTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
OREGON NATURAL DESERT ASSOCIATION, BEND, OREGON
Mr. Houston. Chair Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and
members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to
testify today. My name is Ryan Houston, Executive Director of
the Oregon Natural Desert Association. We are a community-based
group representing more than 25,000 members and supporters who
promote public lands conservation in Oregon's high desert.
For the reasons described in my written testimony, my
organization opposes H.R. 10082. And as you will see in the
record, our opposition is echoed by dozens of organizations
representing millions of members nationwide.
Instead of moving this proposal, we encourage Congress to
advance Senate Bill 1890, the version of the Owyhee Canyon
Lands proposal developed by the local community with Senator
Ron Wyden and co-sponsored by Senator Jeff Merkley. But before
I offer my comments, let me first introduce you to Oregon's
Owyhee Canyonlands.
The Owyhee is nestled in the far southeastern corner of
Oregon, and extends into portions of Idaho and Nevada. The
watershed spans more than 11,000 square miles dominated by
deep, rugged canyons, expansive sagebrush plains, and some of
the most remote wildlands in the Lower 48.
If you imagine for a moment climbing into a kayak high up
in one of the tributary streams, you would be floating in a
stream no wider than half the width of this table. You could
float downstream for 2 weeks, flanked by 1,000-foot cliffs
under the watchful gaze of bighorn and golden eagles, and past
dozens of sacred sites reflecting the long history of the
Northern Paiute, Shoshone, and Bannock peoples who have lived
in this landscape since time immemorial. After 2 weeks of
floating, as you approach the Owyhee Reservoir, you would be
adrift on a river that has now grown to be twice the width of
this room. And throughout this trip you would have pitched your
tent below the blanket of the Milky Way, stretching from
horizon to horizon across the darkest night skies in the
country.
A shared love of this landscape is what brought so many
diverse stakeholders together in 2019, when Senator Wyden first
convened a group of ranchers, tribes, hunters, conservation
groups, and others to develop a proposal for the protection and
management of the Owyhee Canyonlands. I first met one of the
other witnesses today, Mr. Elias Eiguren, at that table in
2019. I admire and respect Elias and other members of the
Owyhee Basin Stewardship Coalition, as we have thoroughly
debated tough issues but also enjoyed each other's company
around the campfire on the banks of the Owyhee River. And I am
proud that we have done this respectfully and with civility.
Through these conversations, there were two key places
where our overlapping interests helped create the foundation
for Senator Wyden's proposal. My organization is seeking
permanent protection of the Owyhee. The ranchers also want to
keep it as it is, provided those protections do not undermine
their livelihood. The ranchers seek more flexibility in grazing
to improve management. My organization also wants to improve
management, provided it doesn't undermine existing law. And
when Senator Wyden merged these elements with the interests of
all the other equally important stakeholders involved, he
arrived at a proposal that lands in the sweet spot where dozens
of shared interests overlap. This is not easy to do, and I
think this achievement is reflected in the fact that this bill
was voted out of Committee in the Senate with bipartisan
support, and it continues to receive broad support from the
many people and organizations who sat at the table for so many
years.
While H.R. 10082 does touch on some of the same topics as
the Senate proposal, it misses that sweet spot in very
significant ways, and consequently undermines the delicate
balance negotiated in S. 1890. I believe this reflects the fact
that H.R. 10082 was developed without the involvement of many
key stakeholders.
When compared to the Senate bill, H.R. 10082 discards the
ecological health framework; reduces science and
accountability; replaces the stakeholder committee with a
smaller, industry-dominated group; overrides a broadly-
supported management plan for the Owyhee; establishes roads and
promotes motor vehicle use in wilderness, resulting in the
designation of something other than actual wilderness; and it
burdens the Burns Paiute Tribe with unfair obligations and
constraints.
I will conclude by again encouraging Congress to focus on
Senate Bill 1890, and by sharing a quote from one of the
ranchers' representatives, Mark Dunn. He was speaking for the
ranchers, but he could have been speaking for many of us when
he said in 2023, ``We are still hopeful that Congress can pass
the compromise that Wyden and Merkley have achieved.''
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today and I,
of course, would be pleased to answer any questions you may
have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Houston follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ryan Houston, Executive Director, Oregon Natural
Desert Association
on H.R. 10082
My name is Ryan Houston, Executive Director of the Oregon Natural
Desert Association (ONDA). We are a community-based organization
representing more than 25,000 members and supporters who promote
conservation of public lands, waters and wildlife on more than 12
million acres of high desert in central and eastern Oregon. We have
been working to protect Oregon's Owyhee Canyonlands for decades and I
appreciate the opportunity to testify today in support of permanently
protecting, enhancing, and improving management in the Owyhee and
surrounding areas.
ONDA opposes H.R. 10082 and instead encourages Congress to advance
S. 1890, the Malheur Community Empowerment for the Owyhee Act,
developed by Senator Ron Wyden and co-sponsored by Senator Jeff
Merkley. To explain why we oppose H.R. 10082 but support S. 1890, the
bill upon which H.R. 10082 is based, I will first describe how
Oregonians have been working together over the past 5 years to develop
a proposal that would improve protection and management of the Owyhee
Canyonlands.
In sharing this story, I will describe the core principles that
guided those conversations and how S. 1890 does--and H.R. 10082 does
not--align with what was supported by the diverse array of stakeholders
who invested thousands of hours over many years to develop S. 1890.
Although discussions about protecting the Owyhee Canyonlands began
decades ago, the proposal encapsulated in S. 1890 began to take shape
in 2019 when Senator Wyden convened a diversity of stakeholders in
Ontario, Oregon, to explore the potential for a community-supported
plan for the long-term protection and management of Oregon's Owyhee
Canyonlands. Senator Wyden convened these stakeholders at the request
of local ranchers who asked him to help bring resolution to the many
years of disagreement and conflict surrounding public land protection
and management.
The stakeholders included an array of ranchers, businesses,
conservation organizations, Tribes, hunters, anglers, academics,
recreational users, and others. In spite of their diverse and sometimes
conflicting views, the group found common ground in a commitment to
sustaining the ``long-term ecological health'' of the 4.5 million acres
of public lands in Malheur County. This commitment became our guiding
principle as we discussed and debated various approaches to protecting,
managing, and sustaining multiple uses in the Owyhee Canyonlands.
Of critical importance, Senator Wyden also established some key
sideboards for these conversations and made several important
commitments of his own, including respecting Tribal rights and
sovereignty, relying on science to govern public land management, and
ensuring that any new legislation would not undermine existing bedrock
laws governing public lands management and conservation, such as the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), the Wilderness Act, Taylor Grazing Act, and others.
Following years of work, including dozens of meetings, hundreds of
edits and thousands of hours of collective effort, S. 1890 achieved a
significant milestone when it was voted out of the Senate Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources with bipartisan support in December 2023.
S. 1890 proposes:
Designation of 1.1 million acres of wilderness in the
Owyhee Canyonlands and surrounding areas, connecting to
adjacent wilderness areas designated in Idaho's Owyhee
Canyonlands in 2009;
Transfer of 30,000 acres of land into trust for the Burns
Paiute Tribe and promotion of Tribal co-stewardship on
adjacent federal lands;
Establishment of a flexible, science-based grazing
management and monitoring program designed to improve the
ecological health of 4.5 million acres of public lands in
Malheur County; and
Creation of a consensus-based, multi-stakeholder
organization--the ``Malheur CEO Group''--to develop,
propose and fund restoration and management projects
throughout the region.
H.R. 10082 includes some of these provisions and ONDA commends
Representative Cliff Bentz for adopting these components. H.R. 10082
would designate more than 926,000 acres of wilderness, promote certain
elements of the adaptive grazing management program, and convey
approximately 30,000 acres of lands into trust for the Burns Paiute
Tribe.
In spite of these similarities between H.R. 10082 and S. 1890,
their specific approaches to public lands conservation, management,
community involvement, Tribal rights, and respect for existing federal
laws could not be more different. The two proposals diverge in very
significant and problematic ways. Notably, H.R. 10082:
Discards long-term ecological health as the core principle
that held stakeholders together and became the driving
principle for managing the Owyhee Canyonlands in the
future.
Eliminates the requirements for data collection,
monitoring and adaptive management for livestock grazing,
undermining the ability of ranchers, the Bureau of Land
Management and the public to assess and manage the impacts,
positive or negative, of adjustments to permitted livestock
use. H.R. 10082 would also remove the requirement for
Secretarial review, evaluation and, if necessary,
adjustment of the grazing management program after 10
years, essentially making the program permanent before
assessing and understanding its real world results.
Modifies the consensus-based community group, morphing it
into a much smaller, exclusive committee weighted in favor
of industry and excluding other key constituencies.
Undermines the recommendations of the Southeast Oregon
Resource Advisory Council, the Bureau of Land Management,
public process and federal law and policy by overriding the
recently-adopted Southeastern Oregon Resource Management
Plan Amendment, eliminating current and future conservation
management on more than 3.5 million acres of public lands
not designated as wilderness. This would include the
release of nearly 375,000 acres of existing Wilderness
Study Areas, a requirement that none of the 1.2 million
acres of existing Lands with Wilderness Characteristics be
managed to protect their wilderness values, and restrict
potential future conservation of nearly 2 million
additional acres of public lands in Malheur County.
Undermines wilderness and the Wilderness Act by promoting
motor vehicle access and roads into designated areas,
resulting in the designation of something other than actual
wilderness.
Burdens the Burns Paiute Tribe with unjust financial
obligations, requiring the Tribe to pay grazing permittees
for adjusting grazing use to conserve sacred lands,
including paying for fencing to protect sacred lands from
livestock. It further requires Tribal management to
``protect the interests of those who hold livestock grazing
permits,'' thus tying the Tribe's hands in how they manage
their sacred lands.
In conclusion, ONDA supports legislation that honors the work of
the local community by improving management and conservation of public
lands, waters and wildlife, promoting stakeholder engagement,
supporting local communities and economies, and elevating Tribal
priorities in Oregon's Owyhee Canyonlands. H.R. 10082 would not
accomplish these goals but, instead undermine decades of federal law
and policy governing public lands management; usurp the authority of
the Bureau of Land Management; reduce the role of science,
accountability and transparency in management; limit public
participation; and burden the Burns Paiute Tribe with unnecessary
constraints and requirements.
I close by again urging Congress to focus on advancing S. 1890, the
Senate version of the Owyhee Canyonlands proposal developed by Senator
Ron Wyden and co-sponsored by Senator Jeff Merkley.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Houston. I now recognize Dr.
Bobby Donaldson, the Executive Director of the Center for Civil
Rights History and Research at the University of South
Carolina.
Dr. Donaldson, you have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF BOBBY DONALDSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
CENTER FOR CIVIL RIGHTS HISTORY AND RESEARCH,
COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA
Dr. Donaldson. Good afternoon. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany
and members of the Subcommittee. I am Dr. Bobby Donaldson,
Professor of History and Executive Director of the Center for
Civil Rights History and Research at the University of South
Carolina, Columbia campus. I am honored to testify today in
support of H.R. 10084, which extends the authorization of the
National Park Service's African American Civil Rights Network
for the next decade.
I want to thank Congressman James Clyburn for his
unwavering commitment to preserving our nation's history and
for his advocacy of the network and of our center, which was
founded in 2015.
Through a series of cooperative agreements with the network
initiated in 2022, the Center for Civil Rights History and
Research at the University of South Carolina has expanded its
capacity to advance scholarly research, preservation projects,
heritage tourism, walking tours, museum exhibits, academic
initiatives, and community programing.
Programing like our ``Where Do We Go From Here'' biennial
conference, done in partnership with the network, enabled us to
connect civil rights veterans with educators, museum leaders,
heritage tourism professionals, preservationists, academic
scholars, and students from around the country.
As part of the center's research and community engagement
efforts, we are particularly proud of our partnership with the
National Park Service and the network and local communities
like Summerton, South Carolina, where we have worked to
document and preserve stories and properties of national
significance.
In September 2022, our center joined Congressman Clyburn
and the National Park Service on the grounds of Scott's Branch
High School in Summerton. This site, now on the National
Register of Historic Places, commemorates the courageous fight
for equal education that led to the Briggs v. Elliott lawsuit,
one of the five cases consolidated into the 1954 Brown v. Board
of Education decision.
This year, during a program marking the 70th anniversary of
the Brown and Briggs ruling, we welcome Ms. Celestine Parson
Lloyd, a Summerton native and a Scott's Branch graduate. As she
remembered her family's sacrifices and the struggles of her
community during and after the legal campaign, Ms. Lloyd called
for a public recognition for the people of Summerton who helped
secure this landmark Supreme Court victory.
As we consider Ms. Lloyd's request, and as we reflect upon
the network's impact, I am reminded of Dr. Martin Luther King
Jr.'s Nobel Peace Prize address delivered 60 years ago. In this
message, Dr. King honored what he called the ground crew of the
Civil Rights movement, individuals like Ms. Lloyd, individuals
like Sarah Mae Flemming, individuals like Sergeant Isaac
Woodard, whose sacrifices moved this country forward but often
went unrecognized. Sixty years ago, Dr. King said this: ``Most
of these people will never make the headlines, and their names
will not appear in Who's Who. Yet, when years have passed and
the blazing truth is focused on this marvelous age in which we
live, men and women will know and children will be taught that
we have a finer land, a better people, a more noble
civilization because these humble children of God were willing
to suffer for righteousness' sake.''
By renewing the African American Civil Rights Network
through H.R. 10084, we all can fulfill Dr. King's vision and
ensure that this marvelous age of the Civil Rights Movement is
fully documented, preserved, and shared now and for generations
to come.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, for
your time today.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Donaldson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Bobby J. Donaldson, Executive Director,
Center for Civil Rights History and Research, University of South
Carolina
on H.R. 10084
Good afternoon, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and
Members of this Subcommittee.
I am Dr. Bobby Donaldson, Professor of History and Founding
Executive Director of the Center for Civil Rights History and Research
at the University of South Carolina, Columbia campus. I also serve as
Principal Historian for Columbia SC 63: Our Story Matters, a heritage
tourism initiative that highlights our city's pivotal role in the Civil
Rights Movement.
It is an honor to testify today in support of H.R. 10084, which
extends the authorization of the National Park Service's African
American Civil Rights Network (known as AACRN) for the next decade.
I want to express my appreciation to Congressman James E. Clyburn
for his unwavering commitment to preserving our nation's history and
for his advocacy of the African American Civil Rights Network.
The Network, established by Congress in 2017, brings together
historic sites, museums, research centers, archival collections, and
professional organizations, providing resources and support to
preserve, document, and share the history of the Civil Rights Movement.
The Center for Civil Rights History and Research at the University
of South Carolina was established in 2015 to investigate and promote
our state's pivotal (and often overlooked) contributions to the
struggle for civil and human rights in our nation.
Our Center and the University of South Carolina joined the Network
in 2022. Through a series of cooperative agreements with the Network,
our Center has expanded its capacity to advance scholarly research,
educational training, preservation projects, and public engagement
through exhibitions, workshops, conferences, lectures, documentary
films, and guided tours.
In addition to partnerships and programs, the cooperative
agreements with the Network facilitate our ability to train a new
generation of public historians who will continue this important work.
We actively support and organize civil rights tours for undergraduate
students, providing immersive, on-site experiences that connect them
directly to the history and legacy of the Civil Rights Movement.
Through these tours, internships, post-doctoral fellowships,
research grants, and collaborative projects with Historically Black
Colleges and Universities, we are equipping students, emerging
scholars, and educators with the tools to preserve, interpret, and
disseminate the Movement's history.
Network-funded programs like our Eyewitnesses to the Movement
series, Women in the Movement initiative, Justice for All exhibit, and
our recent Where Do We Go From Here? conference, enable us to connect
civil rights veterans, such as Minnijean Brown-Trickey of the Little
Rock Nine and Dorris D. Wright of the Greenville Eight, with other
activists, educators, museum leaders, heritage tourism professionals,
preservationists, and historians from across the country, ensuring that
our collective efforts will keep this history alive.
In September 2022, I had the privilege of standing with Congressman
Clyburn, National Park Service Director Charles Sams, and Secretary of
the Interior Deb Haaland on the campus of the Scott's Branch High
School in Summerton, South Carolina. This site, now on the National
Register of Historic Places, commemorates the extraordinary courage of
ordinary citizens--farmers, maids, mechanics, returning World War II
veterans, teachers, and preachers--whose determined fight for equal
education led to the Briggs v. Elliott lawsuit. That case, one of five
consolidated into the Brown v. Board of Education United States Supreme
Court ruling in 1954, helped dismantle legal segregation in America's
public schools. Sites in Summerton are now becoming a part of the
Network and the Brown v. Board of Education National Historical Park.
This year, during the 70th-anniversary commemoration of Brown v.
Board and Briggs v. Elliott in Columbia, the Center and the South
Carolina Civil Rights Museum invited Mrs. Celestine Parson Lloyd, a
student at Scott's Branch High School in the early 1950s. She returned
to South Carolina from her current home in New York City and shared her
family's painful sacrifices and struggles during and after the legal
campaign. Her riveting oral history, now housed in our archives,
underscores the Network's primary mission: identifying, preserving,
amplifying, and connecting largely unknown or overlooked stories and
experiences across our nation.
At a recent program organized by our Center, Dr. Cleveland Sellers,
Jr., a South Carolina native and a member of the SNCC (Student
Nonviolent Coordinating Committee) Legacy Project told an audience,
``Please don't let our stories die with us.'' His statement reminds us
that the youngest members of the Movement are in their twilight years
and underscores the urgent need to preserve this vital history.
As we reflect on the impact of the Network and its enormous
potential in the future, I am reminded of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s
Nobel Peace Prize address, delivered 60 years ago, on December 10,
1964, in Oslo.
Dr. King paid tribute to the ``known pilots'' and the ``unknown
ground crew,'' the individuals whose behind-the-scenes work propelled
the Movement forward. He envisioned a future where their sacrifices
would be properly recognized, documented, and publicized.
Dr. King concluded his remarks by stating:
Most of these people will never make the headlines, and their
names will not appear in Who's Who. Yet when years have rolled
past and when the blazing light of truth is focused on this
marvelous age in which we live, men and women will know and
children will be taught that we have a finer land, a better
people, a more noble civilization because these humble children
of God were willing to suffer for righteousness' sake.
Fortunately, through H.R. 10084 and the renewal of the African
American Civil Rights Network Act, we have an opportunity to make Dr.
King's vision of a fuller and more comprehensive history a reality.
By empowering communities to uncover and share their stories,
safeguarding historic properties, and fostering programmatic
partnerships, the African American Civil Rights Network ensures that
the history of this ``marvelous age'' not only remains accessible but
continues to inform and inspire future generations in the pursuit of
``liberty and justice for all.''
Again, I extend my tremendous gratitude to Congressman Clyburn for
his leadership on this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the
committee for the opportunity to share my thoughts this afternoon.
I welcome any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Dr. Donaldson. And finally, I would
like to recognize Mr. Seth Clark, Executive Director for the
Ocmulgee National Park and Preserve Initiative.
Mr. Clark, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF SETH C. CLARK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
OCMULGEE NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE INITIATIVE,
MACON, GEORGIA
Mr. Clark. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today in
support of H.R. 8182. My name is Seth Clark, and it is the
honor of my life to have been elected mayor pro tempore of
Macon, Georgia, and to serve as the Executive Director of the
Ocmulgee National Park and Preserve Initiative, the non-tribal-
tribal partnership working on conservation-based economic
development in Middle Georgia.
Today's hearing is the culmination of almost a century of
civic efforts to designate the first and only national park and
preserve in Georgia. These efforts began in 1934, when similar
legislation to that which is before you today was proposed.
After a century of successful public and private conservation
and the leveraging of tens of millions of private and
philanthropic dollars, it is our contention that we have met
and exceeded congressional and departmental expectations in
laying a foundation worthy of the designation we have sought
for 90 years.
In short, we have done our part, invested our private
resources, and are prepared to continue to do so. We are ready.
Over the course of the 20th century, Middle Georgians have
argued the unique ecological and cultural assets of the region
are invaluable to our identity, the identity of the state of
Georgia, and that of the United States of America. We have
leveraged these assets as means of responsible economic
development through private and public conservation, resulting
in increased access to and the protection of irreplaceable
cultural assets, pristinely managed hunting and fishing land
and wildlife habitat, and a burgeoning cultural and outdoor
recreation-based economy.
The coalition of advocates who support this legislation is
much broader than the traditional environmental-based groups I
imagine this Committee has become accustomed to hearing. Our
partners include an overwhelmingly bipartisan and bicameral
contingent of legislative authors; the Macon and Georgia
Chambers of Commerce; the sovereign nations that constitute the
Intertribal Council of Removed Southeastern Tribes; the
Muscogee Creek, Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Seminole
Nation of Oklahoma; active and civilian leadership of Robins
Air Force Base; all 20 municipalities that make up the Middle
Georgia Regional Commission; the State Department of Natural
Resources; national and local conservation organizations; and
the Georgia Mining Association.
A recent economic study concluded that congressional re-
designation could eventually result in an additional 1.3
million visitors to Middle Georgia annually. This could result
in roughly $233 million in additional annual private sector
economic activity, spurring roughly $34 million in additional
tax revenue and the creation of as many as 3,100 new private
sector jobs.
And due to the generosity of the John S. and James L.
Knight Foundation, we are currently conducting a regional
strategic plan to ensure the realization of those projections.
We are already seeing the effects of our efforts. Recent
visitation increases have played a vital role in rolling back
property taxes by 50 percent. You see, our tax portfolio is
designed to require a rollback of our residents' property taxes
on pace with increased revenue from visitation. This
congressional redesignation will continue to result in the
ongoing largest property tax cut in Middle Georgia history.
It would also bolster our region's toughest economic engine
in one of our nation's most vital installations in the pursuit
of our national security: Robins Air Force Base. Their recent
sustainability plan, conducted by the Department of Defense,
recommended the passage of this legislation, stating, ``The
creation of a new national park and preserve adjacent to or
near the installation could protect lands neighboring the
installation, prevent encroachment, and preserve installation
operational areas and neighboring land use compatibility.''
Further, in the pursuit of responsible wildlife habitat and
species management, this legislation constitutes one of the
largest expansions of hunting and fishing access in Middle
Georgia in my lifetime, while reasonably and effectively
protecting the private property rights of Middle Georgians.
Lastly, and most importantly, I would like to express my
gratitude to the Muscogee Creek Nation for their partnership in
this effort. Ocmulgee is a mother ground of their ancestral
homelands of which they were forcibly dispossessed. The
Ocmulgee Corridor shows evidence of roughly 17,000 years of
continuous human habitation, some of the longest in the
continental United States of America. This partnership Middle
Georgia enjoys with the Muskogee Creek Nation has given our
region a path towards reconciliation, and the opportunity of
shared stewardship is one fully supported by our community and
deeply important to our region's identity.
As we have for generations, we stand fully prepared to
further marshal private philanthropic resources to support the
National Park Service and the stewardship of what the
Department of the Interior has deemed some of the most
nationally significant land in the United States of America. We
just need your permission to do so, and it is for that we
humbly ask.
Thank you, and I am happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Clark follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mayor Pro Tempore Seth C. Clark, Executive
Director, Ocmulgee National Park and Preserve Initiative
on H.R. 8182
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I'm Seth Clark, and
it is the honor of my life to have been elected Mayor Pro Tempore of
Macon, Georgia and to serve as the Executive Director of the Ocmulgee
National Park and Preserve Initiative, the non-tribal + tribal
partnership working on conservation-based economic development in
middle Georgia.
Today's hearing is the culmination of almost a century of civic
efforts to designate the first and only National Park and Preserve in
Georgia. The efforts began in 1934, when similar legislation that is
before you today was proposed. After a century of successful public and
private conservation and the leveraging of tens of millions of private
and philanthropic dollars, it is our contention that we have met and
exceeded Congressional and Departmental expectations in laying a
foundation worthy of the designation we have sought for 90 years. In
short, we have done our part, invested our private resources and are
prepared to continue to do so. We are ready.
Over the course of the 20th Century Middle Georgians' have argued
the unique ecological and cultural assets of the region are invaluable
to our identity, the identity of our state, and that of the United
States. We've leveraged these assets as means of responsible economic
development through private and public conservation, resulting in
increased access to, and the protection of irreplaceable cultural
assets, pristinely managed hunting and fishing land and wildlife
habitat, and a burgeoning cultural and outdoor-recreation based
economy.
The coalition of advocates who support this legislation is much
broader than the traditional environmental based groups I imagine this
committee has become accustomed to hearing. Our partners include an
overwhelmingly bipartisan and bicameral contingent of legislative
authors, the Macon and Georgia Chambers of Commerce, the sovereign
nations that constitute the InterTribal Council of removed,
southeastern Tribes: the Muscogee (Creek), Cherokee, Choctaw,
Chickasaw, and Seminole Nations of Oklahoma, Active and Civilian
leadership of Robins Air Force Base, all 20 municipalities that make up
the Middle Georgia Regional Commission, the state Department of Natural
Resources, national and local conservation organizations and the
Georgia Mining Association.
A recent economic study concluded that Congressional redesignation
could eventually result in an additional 1.3 million visitors to middle
Georgia annually. This could result in roughly 233 million dollars in
additional annual private sector economic activity, spurring roughly 34
million dollars in additional annual tax revenue, and the creation of
as many as 3,100 new private sector jobs.
And due to the generosity of John S. and James L. Knight
foundation, we are currently conducting a regional strategic plan to
ensure the realization of those projections. We are already seeing
effects from our efforts. Recent visitation increases have played a
vital role in Macon rolling back property taxes by 50%. You see, our
tax portfolio is designed to require a roll back of our residents'
property taxes on pace with increased revenue from visitation. This
congressional re-designation will continue to result in the ongoing
largest property tax cut in middle Georgia history.
It would also bolster our region's toughest economic engine and one
of our country's most vital installations in the pursuit of our
National Security, Robins Air Force Base. Their recent sustainability
plan conducted by the Department of Defense recommended the passage of
this legislation stating, ``the creation of a new national park and
preserve adjacent to or near the Installation could protect lands
neighboring the Installation, prevent encroachment, and preserve
Installation operational areas and neighboring land use
compatibility.''
Further, in the pursuit of responsible wildlife habitat and species
management, this legislation constitutes one of the largest expansions
of hunting and fishing access in middle Georgia in my lifetime, while
reasonably and effectively protecting the private property rights of
middle Georgians.
Lastly, and most importantly, I'd like to express gratitude to the
Muscogee (Creek) Nation for their partnership in this effort. Ocmulgee
is a mother ground of their ancestral homelands, of which they were
forcibly dispossessed. The Ocmulgee corridor shows evidence of roughly
17,000 years of continuous human habitation--some of the longest in the
continental United States. This partnership middle Georgia enjoys with
the Muscogee (Creek) Nation has given our region a path toward
reconciliation. And the opportunity of shared stewardship is one fully
supported by our community and deeply important to our region's
identity.
As we have for generations, we stand fully prepared to further
marshal private philanthropic resources to support the National Park
Service in the stewardship of what the Department of Interior has
deemed some of the most nationally significant land in the United
States. We just need your permission to do so. And it is for that, we
humbly ask.
Thank you. And I'm happy to answer any questions.
*****
Letters of support for H.R. 8182 from the following organizations were
submitted by Mr. Clark for the record.
Georgia Wildlife Federation Georgia Conservancy
Southeast Tourism Society Georgia Mining Association
Muscogee (Creek) Nation Mayor Pro Tem Seth Clark
Grow Twiggs County Inter-Tribal Council of the Five
Civilized Tribes
Visit Macon Greater Macon Chamber of Commerce
21st Century Partnership MBCIA
Altamaha Riverkeeper Middle Georgia Regional
Commission
Georgia Department of
Natural Resources Newtown Macon
Houston County Board of
Directors The Nature Conservancy
Georgia Chamber of Commerce Trust for Public Land
*****
All of the letters are available for viewing at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II10/20241119/117718/HMTG-118-II10-
Wstate-ClarkS-20241119-SD001.pdf
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Clark. I am
now going to recognize Members for up to 5 minutes for their
questioning.
Mr. Fulcher from Idaho, you may start.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership
in having these hearings today. I find them very informative
and helpful. I have a question for Mr. Eiguren.
I have some friends with Basque heritage in the Boise area,
and my guess is that there might be a relationship somewhere,
but that is a conversation for another day.
In Idaho, over 60 percent of our land mass is federally
managed. So, ranching and grazing are not just essential for
our way of life, but it is also critical to our state's
economy, just due to the sheer critical mass. Grazing on
Federal lands is a vital component of Idaho's natural resource
management, helping to support rural economies and reduce
wildfire risks. I am a huge supporter of local stakeholder
input in the management of those resources, and your testimony
struck a couple of chords with me that I would like to explore
a little bit further.
First of all, how does your organization, the Owyhee Basin
Stewardship Coalition, support ranchers and landowners in the
region, particularly regarding local input with land management
decisions?
Mr. Eiguren. We have been the main voice, the grassroots
effort, in attempting to stave off a monument during the Obama
administration. That is where we began. From there, our
interest has been finding final resolution.
So, after those final days of the Obama administration and
our campaign of No Monument Without a Vote of Congress went
away, we had town hall meetings throughout the county asking
our membership and others involved in the conversation,
including the irrigation districts, the farmers who rely on the
Owyhee watershed for their livelihoods, and a multitude of
folks, ``What do you want to see resolved out here?''
WSAs were at the top of the list. Get rid of the monument
is the next one, and try to get some flexibility within the BLM
office to be able to do what we can in order to stave off
wildfire.
Mr. Fulcher. Got it. Thank you for that. And you mentioned
in your testimony, we were referring to H.R. 10082, you
mentioned, I think, as a work in progress, and I appreciate
that. Do you have counsel, or do you have feedback on some
input that could be an addition or an amendment or a change to
it that might have some improvements?
Mr. Eiguren. Not at this time, sir. I am interested to see
where this goes in the direction of the Committee with
Congressman Bentz at the wheel, and see where we go from there.
But thank you.
Mr. Fulcher. OK, thank you. One concern with the land
designations like wilderness areas is their potential impact on
grazing rights and ranching communities. How do you see this
bill and this language in this bill ensuring ranchers and
farmers in the Owyhee region of Oregon, Nevada, and Idaho can
continue their operations without undue restrictions while
still achieving conservation goals?
Mr. Eiguren. That certainly is a consideration. Part of our
thought has been we really don't know, under a national
monument, whether we are going to be able to continue to graze
or not. We know that, under wilderness, grazing is always a
possibility. The question is, what do we have to do in order to
continue to graze in terms of access, permit renewal, these
types of things.
So, in that vein, we have striven to make sure that access
is provided for all of the needs of agriculture on these lands,
and also we have developed a relationship with Mr. Houston and
other organizations like his to back one another up in terms of
the collaborative effort on the Senate bill side. And I would
hope that that would extend through whatever legislative
product comes through this process.
Mr. Fulcher. Great. I would thank you for that. And I will
just close with my own editorial comment.
For those who oppose this, and this effort, and what you
are trying to do, and what I believe this legislation is trying
to do, take some time and get on an airplane and spend a little
bit of time in the open Federal lands in Idaho, Nevada, Oregon,
and get a feeling for what life in, and Utah, thank you, and
Utah, absolutely, and get some understanding, and Arizona. OK,
we are going to go down the list here. Not California, LaMalfa,
I don't want to hear it.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Fulcher. Spend some time in Western Federal lands, and
you will get an appreciation for what the people who live and
work there and attempt to make a living there have to deal with
on a regular basis.
Mr. Chairman, thank you, I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I now recognize the
gentleman from Utah, Mr. Curtis.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will just add my
voice to my colleague from Idaho. I think it is very difficult
to understand what this is like unless you are actually from
one of these states.
I have counties that are upwards of 90 percent, 92 percent
federally owned, and this is a big deal. So, thank you for
making that point, and I share that with you.
Mr. Young, thank you for coming and representing the great
state of Utah. Thank you for the work that you do on behalf of
ranchers and farmers in the state of Utah. Today, you
symbolically represent thousands and thousands of people from
our state who deal with these issues, and I appreciate you
being here. I would like to discuss two bills.
The Ranching Without Red Tape Act is designed to reduce
regulatory burdens on ranchers and farmers by streamlining
Federal management processes, making it easier for them to
lease, graze, and manage on these public lands. I believe, and
I think those who have this in their states would agree with
me, that our ranchers are our best stewards of these lands. You
have lived with these lands for generations. The productivity
of these lands depends on your management, and I know that you
are all highly motivated to take care of these lands and make
sure they are there for generations, and you often know much
better than we do here in Washington how to manage those. And
when you need to make range improvements or repairs and
bureaucracy gets in the way, that is a problem, and that is
what this bill is about.
I want to thank my colleague, Representative Vasquez, for
partnering with me on this important effort. This legislation
will provide ranchers greater predictability and flexibility,
and that is important.
I would also like to discuss the Operational Flexibility
Grazing Management Program Act. It aims to enhance the
efficiency and sustainability of grazing on public lands by
improving the management of grazing permits, ensuring ranchers
have more predictability, that would be nice in your life, I
suspect, and longer-term access to these Federal lands. This
bill streamlines the application and renewal process for
granting permits, reduces administrative delays, and fosters
better communication between ranchers and Federal agencies, all
the while promoting more effective land stewardship.
Mr. Young, in just the couple of minutes that we have left,
I am wondering if you could maybe share with this group some
examples of the delays you have experienced when you are trying
to do range improvements and can't get the permits needed to do
that.
Mr. Young. First of all, I want to say that, for the most
part, our local partners in the agencies, whether they are with
the U.S. Forest Service or the BLM, they are great to work
with. We have very few problems on the ground with those local
folks. But we all understand what the rules are.
And we have a current situation in Box Elder County, Utah.
We have wanted to extend some fences, mostly checkerboard
ground. We have the fences on our private land, and a short
little piece that would just connect it and control the
grazing. We are talking about, we have built maybe 10 miles of
fence and we need another half a mile, and then it would be
connected. Several of these on one allotment, not just one
little quarter mile, but maybe several. And we have paid for
the cultural resources to be done, asked to see what would need
to be done at the BLM, on their side, if there needs to be any
NEPA work done, or an EIS, or anything like that.
And we just got word this week that we are clear to go. But
it has been multiple years. It has not been months, it has been
multiple years. And what we are asking to do is relatively
small. And there is fencing all over the landscape. It is not
like it is a new, new thing we are trying to create. And it
just takes a very long time to do it.
Real quick, another situation. You have a pipeline that has
been in for a long time, needs some work on it. This happened
to be on Forest Service land, and it is a significant project
to go and repair it, and it actually needed to be replaced, and
eventually we got it done. But it shouldn't be as difficult as
it is to fix something that is already there.
Mr. Curtis. Yes.
Mr. Young. And it too is multiple years. It is not a quick
answer.
Mr. Curtis. Yes. Your life is complicated enough, right?
You shouldn't have to deal with that.
And I would also double down on your comments about our
local people with the BLM and these other agencies, and it
points out how important it is for these people to live in the
community because they understand some of the things you have
just described, where somebody 2,000 miles away has a hard time
getting a grasp on that.
Once again, thanks for what you do, and for being here
today.
I yield my time.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. Thank you for your
contributions to the Subcommittee, Mr. Curtis, we greatly
appreciate it. And we know one thing in the U.S. Senate. Their
sock selection is going to get much better.
Mr. Curtis. It is terrible. We are going to work on that.
We are going to stamp out boring socks in the Senate.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Tiffany. I now recognize Mr. Bentz for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Eiguren, I want to thank you for all the work you have
done personally. And then, of course, the members of the
stewardship coalition that formed up after the huge community
scare, if you will, when it appeared that 2.5 million acres of
Malheur County were going to be suddenly designated as a
monument with no concept whatsoever of what that would mean to
the 200 permittees that run cattle out there. You avoided that,
we avoided that. And thank you for the work you have done since
to try to bring everybody together, and thank you for traveling
all the way from Oregon out here this afternoon. We really,
really appreciate it.
You mentioned something about a final resolution. And I
think part of the problem or challenge that we are all facing
in that part of the world is this kind of a designation of the
lands that you are dealing with every day. And this, of course,
is the Record of Decision that was slapped down on top of you
while you were trying to negotiate this arrangement. And that
ROD created another about a million-and-a-half acres of
restrictions on the land in Malheur County, in addition to the
million acres that has been contemplated as perhaps a
wilderness.
So, your idea was let's have certainty so somehow we can
plan ahead for the operations. You have been there for, what,
150 years? And am I correct? Were you struggling to try to
achieve some degree of finality when it comes to what you are
doing on the land and in the space you have grown up?
Mr. Eiguren. Certainly, Congressman, that was our initial
intention. And then, yes, in the midst of our negotiations the
ROD came out. That changed the designation on the landscape,
and that has built further consideration into where we are with
the bill that you have proposed.
Mr. Bentz. Yes, and the Wyden bill did not address the ROD
that came out. Actually, it was after the Wyden bill was voted
on and moved out of the committee last December. The ROD wasn't
final until March of this year. So, in all fairness to Senator
Wyden, who has been working with you diligently, we can't
really expect him to foresee what did happen. But now, in our
bill, we are trying to address this and get to some sense of
finality. I am going to leave it there because I have short
time, and I am going to turn my attention to Mr. Houston.
Mr. Houston, you say in the last part of your testimony, in
conclusion, ONDA supports legislation that honors the work of
local communities, and everybody getting together and singing
Kumbaya, yet you don't support a ban on the monument, do you?
You would not support us, including in our bill, a ban on an
overlay of a monument. Or would you?
Mr. Houston. Thank you, Congressman, I appreciate the
question.
When we sat down at the table, what we were----
Mr. Bentz. I don't have an hour and a half. I have, like, 2
minutes. A yes or a no will do, please.
Mr. Houston. We haven't discussed a monument at the table
as we have sat down together and talked about these issues----
Mr. Bentz. OK, so you don't know. You might support a ban
on a monument.
Mr. Houston. My organization would not support a ban on----
Mr. Bentz. OK, that is what I wanted to hear.
[Slide.]
Mr. Bentz. You also say on Page 3, and it is very irksome,
you say on your fourth bullet point that my bill would
eliminate current and future conservation management on more
than 3.5 million acres of public lands not designated as
wilderness, everything on this map up here that isn't salmon
colored. That is not true, though, is it? That is not true at
all. Why did you say it?
Mr. Houston. Well, Congressman, what I understand is there
are about 4.5 million acres of Federal public land in Malheur
County. Your bill would designate approximately 926,000 acres
of wilderness, and then ensure that the remaining portion of
that, so roughly 3.5 million acres, 3.6 million acres----
Mr. Bentz. Would be released to multiple use. So, you
oppose multiple use, apparently. But releasing it to multiple
use or redesignating it as such, that doesn't do away with all
of those Federal laws I rattled off at the beginning of my
testimony, does it?
Are you saying that somehow my bill wipes them out, does
away with the Endangered Species Act? Is that what you are
saying? Because it doesn't. So, why did you say it in your
testimony?
Mr. Houston. Thank you, Congressman. What I expressed in my
testimony is that by reversing the Resource Management Plan and
overriding the decisions that the BLM made, in part with the
local resource advisory committee, that----
Mr. Bentz. Would it surprise you if I shared with you that
it was the plan of the OBSC to redesignate all the land that
was not wilderness back to multiple use? Because that was the
deal. And I am going to ask Mr. Eiguren that question in about
a second. So, think carefully about your answer. Would it
surprise you?
Mr. Houston. That would not surprise me. We have had those
kinds of conversations. And that is a big part of what has been
so enjoyable about sitting down together and talking about
these issues.
Mr. Bentz. Then why would you object to my bill, which does
exactly that?
Mr. Houston. Pardon me, sir. I didn't hear your question.
Mr. Bentz. Why are you objecting to my bill, which returns
those lands that are not suggested as wilderness to multiple
use?
Mr. Houston. Yes, thank you Congressman. Our objection is
to over-riding FLPMA and over-riding the authorities of the
Bureau of Land Management to make the decisions that they made
through a 20-year planning process, supported by resource----
Mr. Bentz. Even though you agree on where we are going,
which is to get back to multiple use.
I appreciate you being here, by the way.
Mr. Houston. Sure, thank you.
Mr. Bentz. And I appreciate your efforts even though I
don't appreciate your testimony as written.
I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields, and the Subcommittee now
stands in recess, subject to the call of the Chair.
I think we will be back in about an hour. Yes, it will be
about an hour. We will be back and we will have a few more
questions for all of you if you can come back and join us.
Unfortunately, we have to head for the Floor to vote. Thank
you.
[Recess.]
Mr. Tiffany. The Committee will come to order.
I now recognize the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Stauber,
for 5 minutes of questioning. And thank you to our witnesses
for bearing with us while we voted here. We know you made a
long trip here, and we figured what is one more hour, right?
Mr. Stauber.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I want to
begin by thanking my colleague from Utah, Representative Maloy,
for introducing H.R. 9165, the Public Land Search and Rescue
Act.
Just like her home state of Utah, northern Minnesota is
home to vast public lands, including the Superior National
Forest, the Chippewa National Forest, and Voyageurs National
Park. Northern Minnesota is home to vast public lands,
including the forests that I just mentioned. Unfortunately,
several times a year our local law enforcement units have to
respond to search and rescue calls and other medical
emergencies on these Federal lands, and our local residents and
taxpayers cover the enormous cost.
Every year, some of these searches involve the tragic loss
of life, unfortunately. Just this past May, two Minnesotans
tragically lost their lives while canoeing in the Boundary
Waters within the Superior National Forest. The brave men and
women of the St. Louis County Search and Rescue Squad and other
volunteer fire services in the area spent weeks on the search
and recovery for these individuals. Ultimately, the cost of
this search and rescue mission totaled around $150,000.
According to the St. Louis County Rescue Squad, it burned
through a huge chunk of their annual budget, which is only
$450,000 a year. That is $450,000 annually to cover all costs
for all calls throughout the entire county, whether they be on
Federal lands or not. The St. Louis County Rescue Squad
exhausted one-third of their annual budget on one single call,
and it is ultimately St. Louis County taxpayers that had to
cover these costs, and local taxpayers when their volunteer
ambulance service or rescue squad goes out, as well.
Representative Maloy's legislation is an important step in
ensuring communities like St. Louis County, which are
ultimately responsible for search and rescue efforts on our
Federal lands, are properly compensated and are insured that
they will have the funds to continue their normal operations
outside of these missions.
Sheriff Glover, I first want to thank you for your service
and the work you do to keep the people of Kane County safe and
all those who travel to Kane County. I, along with you, have
worn the uniform, one of just a few in Congress.
Of the search and rescue missions your agency takes part in
on Federal lands, what percentage of the incidents involved
Kane County residents and taxpayers?
Mr. Glover. We have done some research on this lately, and
I would say I can estimate it at estimated less than 5 percent.
Mr. Stauber. OK. Do many of these incidents involve Utah
residents, or rather individuals from out of state?
Mr. Glover. Both, and also foreign travelers on a fairly
regular basis.
Mr. Stauber. So, your taxpayers are paying for people
inside and outside the county that need help, including the
foreign visitors that are visiting the national parks. Would
that be correct?
Mr. Glover. That is correct.
Mr. Stauber. While all visitors to our Federal lands should
be able to enjoy our vast public lands safely, and should be
able to access emergency care in the unfortunate case that it
is needed, I have concerns that the residents and taxpayers of
these gateway communities are forced to cover the costs of
these search and rescue missions.
What kind of impact does this have on local communities,
and what kind of impact does it have on funding for other local
essential services?
Mr. Glover. Yes, in a county like mine, where we have a lot
of visitation from tourists, we like to take care of the
tourists. We like for them to come to our area, we like to care
for them while they are there.
Mr. Stauber. Absolutely.
Mr. Glover. But the cost does get to be too much for local
residents. As we tip into property taxes, for example, or sales
tax funds that would normally fund other programs, it gets to
be a burden that we just can't handle.
Mr. Stauber. I think you said it well, you want it safe for
every visitor, regardless, right? But I think what we are
getting at, and Representative Maloy understands it, is we have
to be able to help supplement or offset the cost to the local
residents, because the only thing you can do, or one of the
only things you can do is raise property taxes to cover those
search and rescue missions.
I think it is an obligation under this piece of legislation
that allows some financial assistance to recoup for the time
those rescue squads and volunteer fire services in the remote
areas are out there answering that call for duty and helping
their citizens.
Mr. Chair, I am very happy about this piece of legislation.
And just so you know, I also authored an amendment to the House
Fiscal Year 2025 interior appropriations bill that does
something very, very similar to this, to be able to make sure
that we can get the coverage for those counties and those
taxpayers that are paying for that.
But again, we want it safe for all. And I appreciate your
service. Law enforcement is a noble and honorable profession.
And thank you very much.
And Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I now recognize the
gentleman from Arizona for 5 minutes, Mr. Gosar.
Dr. Gosar. Yes. Mr. Eiguren, I happen to be Basque, too. My
mom's maiden name is Erramouspe, so I find it very interesting.
There is something about the Basque blood, isn't there,
something about that?
On grazing, I have a question for you. Have you ever
thought about how the Taylor Grazing Act would affect grazing
in your area?
Mr. Eiguren. Yes, sir. But could you elaborate on that, I
guess?
Dr. Gosar. Yes, because the Taylor Grazing Act actually
limits the size of monuments because the Taylor Grazing Act
basically says that you must graze, and that grazing must be
improved. You must elaborate on, if you have minerals, you have
to utilize those minerals. If you have energy, you have to
elaborate on those energy aspects. And if the grazing acts are
there, they have to be improved. And then, once again, timber
sales have to be monitored so that you have a constant influx
of dollars.
Now, why I say that is I think Mr. Houston, I think is his
name, he brought up the FLPMA. Now, FLPMA, they took the Taylor
Grazing Act in whole, and put it right inside FLPMA.
I know the agencies really detest this, but Congress really
has the only authority over public lands. Anything over 5,000
acres, anything of duration over 2 years has to come from
Congress. So, I think you are going to see a lot of stuff start
to change a little bit because our area has to be put to work.
These were meant to be done. And for the leasing of grazing,
you had to improve it. And if you ever take the map of the
Taylor Grazing Act applications, there is a lot of red out
there. It is not being used. OK? So, I just want to allude that
to you.
Supervisor Wilson, I have to say thank you very much for
being here, flying all that way over. Can you tell us a little
bit how, this is our second part of our land exchange, right?
How did the first part go?
Mr. Wilson. Mr. Gosar, thank you for that question.
The original conveyance of 5,889 acres occurred in May
2020. We have been working with the developer since then and
prior to that. But the big hold-up has been the Ten West Link
transmission line. There was no point in building photovoltaic
arrays until access to the market was there. The Ten West Link
went operational in June 2024, about 5 months ago. The 500 kV
switchyard is well under construction, anticipated to go into
operation in January.
Right now, we have two battery energy storage projects of
the four that are under construction. Two of the four
photovoltaic distinct projects on the property are well into
permitting, they will be moving into construction just after
the first of the year. A substation to feed into the Cielo Azul
Switchyard is in permitting also, and things are moving pretty
fast.
On all of those projects there are contracts signed with
the off-takers that have deadlines.
Dr. Gosar. There is a new step in Parker, isn't there, in
La Paz County, based upon this? There is a new step that people
are excited about, aren't they?
Mr. Wilson. Yes. There are a number of other solar projects
throughout the county that we feel that the area that we
initiated with the conveyance is probably the most ideal
location, and we are hoping to expand that through the H.R.
8517.
Dr. Gosar. Now, I have other bills and I have a HERD Act. I
have represented La Paz for quite some time. And one of our
ideas has been to convey back to the people land that cannot be
utilized. This is nothing new. Harry Reid did it out of Nevada.
How do you think this would work for smaller acreages, giving
them back the economic power like La Paz got by giving this
acreage back? You had to buy it, but getting it back to you.
Mr. Wilson. I know there are areas in the Town of
Quartzsite, areas in our upriver, north of the town of Parker,
and areas like the Bouse corridor that are marked for
designation. People are reluctant to initiate purchase of those
or lease of those because of the time constraints that it takes
to get that through the process and be able to occupy the
property.
Dr. Gosar. Got you. I just have to cover one thing.
Mr. Young, being with the cattle growers, I am from Wyoming
originally, and now in Arizona. Have you looked at the Taylor
Grazing Act?
Mr. Young. I am a little bit familiar with it. I know that
it is the basis of FLPMA and the way we graze now.
Dr. Gosar. OK, well, that would be my suggestion. Look at
it very carefully.
I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields.
I would encourage you also, besides the Taylor Grazing Act,
I would be sure that you are studying the language in regards
to coordination. Like your elected officials, Sheriff. And I
think some of you were county board members.
But I would really look at the concept of coordination
which is contained in Federal statute, including FLPMA, that
requires the Federal Government to come and treat you as an
equal at the table. It does not give you pre-eminence, but it
requires you to be treated as an equal, and it also requires
the Federal Government and its agencies to be consistent with
your land use plans. If you have a strong land use plan, you
can oftentimes protect yourself.
Now, you may need to put demands on the Federal Government,
because oftentimes the agencies don't want to do that because
it requires real work in order to accomplish it. But it is in
Federal law, and there are very few local municipalities that
understand the power of coordination and how it could be used.
I can tell you my home county, northern Wisconsin, is
invoking that right now as they rewrite their land use plan
after it expired. I think it was a 20-year expiration and
renewal. And they are putting the coordination language in
there, and there are people that are very knowledgeable about
it.
So, besides that, what Representative Gosar is talking
about, those people that created those original documents like
FLPMA, NEPA, and others, they knew that the Federal Government
could be overbearing, and they gave you some ability to be able
to protect yourselves locally, and I would just encourage you
to take a good look at that.
Dr. Gosar. Mr. Chairman, there is also Chevron that has
revolutionized the whole deal of rulemaking. And that is going
to play a part in the future here too, as well. So, thank you.
Mr. Tiffany. Yes, I would encourage you to be aggressive at
the local level in making sure that the Federal agencies are
working with you here as we go forward over the next 4 years.
Dr. Donaldson, the African American Civil Rights Network,
which was established in law in 2017, correct, and we are
looking at renewing it now and extending it, do you believe it
has been successful, that legislation that was passed in, I
believe it was 2017, isn't that correct, Dr. Donaldson?
Dr. Donaldson. It has certainly been successful, from our
perspective. We have been connected with it as a member since
2022.
Mr. Tiffany. And give me the one item that comes to mind,
that you think has been its greatest success.
Dr. Donaldson. I think it is the growing education across
the country. I am a professor of history, a Ph.D. in history,
and it is amazing to me, the daily discoveries that emerge as
we make these connections and collaborations with organizations
and entities across the country, especially in rural areas
where there have been some extraordinary civil rights events
that have happened but never made the headlines. And I think
this network is helping to amplify the work in these local
areas and bringing due attention to those areas, as well.
Mr. Tiffany. Sarah Mae Flemming.
Dr. Donaldson. Most notably, yes.
Mr. Tiffany. Yes, yes, for sure.
Mr. Houston, I think you said you had, what, 25,000 members
in your organization?
Mr. Houston. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tiffany. How many of them live in Malheur County?
Mr. Houston. I don't have that specific statistic. I would
guess probably a couple hundred.
Mr. Tiffany. Yes. So, that is one of the things that those
of us that live in these sparsely populated areas in comparison
to the big cities, we get really concerned. And it goes back to
the coordination thing that we just talked about. We really
want to make sure that those of us that live in these
communities, that we are not being overrun by those that
perceive us as not being good stewards of the land, that there
needs to be more land taken out of productivity, that there is
an ethos of preservation rather than management. That is a
great concern of ours.
And since I made that statement, if you want to share some
comments, you are welcome to.
Mr. Houston. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think what you are speaking to really speaks to the
importance of the local collaboration. And Elias and I spoke
about each other in the testimony today, and I think what it
really comes down to is we sat down to have conversations about
exactly the things you are mentioning. How do we figure out how
to balance conservation, long-term stewardship with the
livelihood of the local ranching community? And how do we
figure out a way to make that work over the long term?
And I think, for me personally, that is really the value of
those local conversations. We come out of those conversations,
we come down, we sit here before the testimony. We talk about
how our daughters like to play piano. It builds human
connection that helps us cross some of those barriers and
ultimately break down some of those conflicts and figure out
how to talk about moving forward together.
So, that is what we have learned, and that is ultimately, I
think, what led to the proposal that Senator Wyden put together
that I talk about hitting the sweet spot, because we did the
work together to figure out exactly how to balance those
things.
Mr. Tiffany. Well, I can tell you that, as the Chairman of
Federal Lands and really having spent so much more time in the
West, coming from northern Wisconsin, and we largely have
private property in our state, but seeing what has happened to
the West, it really is of great concern. When we see the number
of sawmills that have closed across the West, I mean, the
statistics when I was out in Yosemite a year ago, and you hear
about the number of sawmills that have closed, the number of
ranching operations that have closed, and you see what I would
call the devastation that has gone on as a result of this
preservationist mentality and big cities dictating to these
rural communities, it really is of great concern, and we hate
to see that. And we would like to see the expansion of our
rural communities, and that is not what is happening at this
point.
Ms. Brennan, I think you said something in regards to, or
it was in some of our materials here today, that we could
actually be using grazing rather than chemicals to be able to
control the areas that are prone to wildfire.
Ms. Brennan. Absolutely, these animals can consume these
grasses and actually remove the grasses instead of just, in my
view, rearranging them.
And it is important to actually move this stuff off of the
landscape. And it is not just grasses, but they are good with
some of the small woody shrubs, especially post-fire.
Mr. Tiffany. And is chemical treatment common?
Ms. Brennan. It is often litigated. When we see projects,
some of our private forest timber companies are a little bit
more effective at being able to utilize chemical applications.
The agency, unfortunately, has some real challenges. It is
really associated around litigation.
Mr. Tiffany. So, it sounds like there is an organic
alternative. Use cattle.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Brennan. Use cattle, absolutely.
Mr. Tiffany. Yes, yes for sure.
Also in your testimony here you had something in regards to
the Rim Fire took out 45 California spotted owl nesting sites.
Ms. Brennan. Yes.
Mr. Tiffany. A fifth of the known gray owl nesting sites
were burned out. Is that accurate?
Ms. Brennan. Yes, it is. It is very well documented.
Mr. Tiffany. That is incredible, the devastation that it is
doing to wildlife by allowing these massive fires. Is that
accurate?
Ms. Brennan. Yes.
Mr. Tiffany. And it says 90 million metric tons will be
emitted through ongoing decay process. Could you describe that
a little bit more?
I mean, you have the immediate emissions that happen that
are so harmful to air quality, but it continues in the years
that are following?
Ms. Brennan. Yes. It is really from two sources. In the Rim
Fire, roughly 15 percent of the public lands had a treatment,
so some form of harvest of the dead timber. The rest of it has
fallen, and it has jack-strawed, and it is going through a
decaying process. And those elements are being released into
the atmosphere.
Mr. Tiffany. You didn't have this in your testimony, but is
it also accurate that sometimes these fires are so hot that it
sterilizes the soil and it actually doesn't grow back? Is that
accurate?
Ms. Brennan. Yes. You are correct, because I think that is
the biggest problem that we have is the percentage of high
severity burns which are completely altering the landscape. We
are losing mixed conifer forests at a rapid rate, and they are
turning to brush fields.
Mr. Tiffany. Once again, not living in the West, not being
as familiar as you folks that live there, the lack of
management on our Federal lands in the West is an absolute
travesty. I can't believe that this continues, and I can't
believe that an administration would want to make more monument
designations and lock up more lands to not manage it anymore.
It is very clear, what has happened over especially the
last decade, I would say over the last couple decades, is that
this lack of management is harming America in so many different
ways. It is harming endangered species, it is harming the
environment, and it is harming the economy of the Western
United States. It is incredible that we allow this to continue
to happen in this day and age, especially with the technology
that we have to be able to stop fire. And the harm being done
to families is just awful.
The war on rural America is real, and it is awful, and it
is time that it changes.
I yield, and I would like to recognize Mr. Moylan for 5
minutes.
Mr. Moylan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Sheriff Glover, thank you for your testimony there. And in
your testimony, you mentioned something important to me. Your
visitation rates are increasing in Utah. That is wonderful to
hear. And given the popular tourism increase there, it is
financially sustainable for the Federal land counties you
represent to continue providing lifesaving service, search and
rescue services. Or actually, is it financially stable for you
to continue without this measure going forward?
And you came up with a few examples, but I would just like
you to have some opportunity and some time just to explain some
more examples of the impact or the financial burden that you
are seeing without this measure moving forward, please.
Mr. Glover. Yes, thank you for the question, Congressman.
I would say this. Search and rescue missions range from a
single deputy going out to pull someone out of the mud on a
rainy day to complex rescue events that involve very serious
and expensive equipment like helicopters, snowcats, boats,
underwater robots, sonar, those kinds of things. It is the
latter that becomes cost prohibitive to the average sheriff.
And like I said in my testimony, search and rescue used to
be a Jeep posse and a few men on horses that would go out and
find a lost hunter. Now it is a lot different. Now it is people
that find their way into every crack and crevice in the Earth,
and we are having to find experts in the field of rappelling
and canyoneering and high angle rescue to be able to get to
those people and get them out of those difficult situations.
So, the complexity of our calls has just really ballooned
out of control, and the costs have gone with that.
Mr. Moylan. I appreciate it. And the measure you are in
support of would answer that problem for you?
Mr. Glover. Yes, this bill would help the problem. It is
really a combination of efforts, I would say. I mean, we are
not going to get away from states and counties' taxpayer
dollars funding search and rescue, and we shouldn't. It is the
sheriff's responsibility to do that in most counties. But we
need another partner. We need to be able to keep up with the
changes in search and rescue. We need another partner. And on
Federal lands, we would like for the Federal Government to be a
partner, and I think this bill would help with that through
grant funding.
Mr. Moylan. Sheriff, thank you for your great work.
Mr. Clark, in your testimony, you mentioned support from
the Department of Defense for the establishment of a national
preserve that includes land near the adjacent Robins Air Force
Base. How have you collaborated with the Air Force base and
your region, and how specifically would they benefit from this,
please?
Mr. Clark. Thank you for that question, Congressman.
The Robins Air Force Base is one of the largest economic
engines not just in Middle Georgia, but in Georgia. There is no
viability of Middle Georgia's economy without a robust,
mission-ready base in Middle Georgia.
Over the past couple of years, we have advocated for the
coordination between the Department of the Interior and the
Department of Defense on conservation boundaries. The
Department of Defense, they have stated that they have an
interest in the encroachment zone, that they have developed a
REPI boundary around the base. We advocated successfully that
that REPI boundary overlap with the study area of the special
resource study.
We then looked at the special resource study
recommendations, and developed the boundary of this map to
comport. We lowered it in scope almost in half, but
intentionally kept that conservation boundary inside that REPI
boundary so that we could make sure that we were supporting the
conservation of that buffer zone to meet those needs of Robins
Air Force Base.
But that resulted in the Department of Defense's
sustainability plan recommending the creation of this national
park and preserve. But they are one of our strongest partners
in this project.
Mr. Moylan. It is good to hear, I appreciate it.
Thank you, everyone, for your testimony.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I would like to thank
all of you who made the long trek here to Washington, DC. Thank
you so much for taking the time out of your week to be able to
come here and share your testimony. It is appreciated more than
you know. And I want to thank the Members for their questions.
Members of the Subcommittee may have some additional
questions for you, and we will ask that you respond to those in
writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members of the Subcommittee
must submit questions to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5 p.m. on
Friday, November 22, 2024.
The hearing record will be held open for 10 business days
for those responses.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Subcommittee on Federal Lands stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:21 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Statement for the Record
Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Department of the Interior
on H.R. 6441, H.R. 8517, H.R. 9062, and H.R. 10082
Introduction
Thank you for the opportunity to provide a Statement for the Record
on the bills on the hearing agenda related to Bureau of Land Management
(BLM). The BLM manages approximately 245 million surface acres, located
primarily in 12 western states, and approximately 700 million acres of
subsurface mineral estate. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act
(FLPMA) sets forth the BLM's multiple-use mission, directing that
public lands generally be managed for a broad range of uses, such as
renewable and conventional energy development, livestock grazing,
timber production, hunting and fishing, recreation, wilderness, and
conservation--including protecting cultural and historic resources.
FLPMA also requires the BLM to manage public land resources on a
sustained-yield basis for the benefit of current and future
generations.
This multiple-use, sustained yield mission enables the BLM to make
tremendous contributions to economic growth, job creation, and domestic
energy production, while generating revenues for Federal and state
treasuries and local economies and allowing for a thoughtful, science--
based approach to management of our public lands and waters. Lands
managed by the BLM also provide vital habitat for more than 3,000
species of wildlife and support fisheries of exceptional regional and
national value. In addition, as recognized by the Biden-Harris
Administration's America the Beautiful initiative, many uses of our
lands and waters, including working lands, are consistent with the
conservation of the nation's natural resources, contributing to the
long-term health and sustainability of natural systems.
We appreciate the Sponsors' work on the bills under consideration
today. A review of each of the bills follows.
H.R. 6441, Ranching Without Red Tape
H.R. 6441 would require the Department of the Interior (Department)
to streamline the procedures for authorizing minor range improvements
carried out by grazing permittees and the BLM. Minor range improvements
are defined by the bill as improvements to existing fences and fence
lines, wells, water pipelines, and stock tanks.
Under H.R. 6441, the Department (and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture) would be directed to issue regulations that would allow
for minor range improvements on permitted lands if the grazing permit
holder requests the minor range improvements with 30 days prior notice
and either receives agency approval or no response. Additionally, the
bill requires the BLM to respond to requests by permittees for range
improvements to be carried out by the BLM within 30 days. If the BLM
agrees to carry out the requested range improvement, the agency is
directed to provide notification to the state office serving the area
and to expedite carrying out the range improvement using any available
administrative tool, including categorical exclusions.
Analysis
The Department supports the goals of the bill to identify
opportunities for increasing efficiency in public land grazing
administration. We would like to work with the Sponsor and the
Subcommittee to further these shared goals and ensure that any new
regulations define minor range improvements in a manner that avoids
unintended impacts to wildlife or adjacent resources. Structural
improvements can often involve substantial disturbance to soils and
vegetation, and all improvements may not be appropriately considered
``minor.'' For example, improving water pipelines can involve burying
pipe, which can require clearing trees and brush and create obstacles
for wildlife. Accordingly, impacts from proposed range improvements to
soils, vegetation, wildlife, and cultural resources are analyzed in
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other
applicable laws, and can vary widely depending on the project design
and the project location. Lastly, the Department recommends providing
more than 30 days for the BLM to respond to requests for either the
permittee or the BLM to carry out range improvements. Additional time
may be required to conduct reviews and surveys to comply with NEPA and
other applicable laws and allow for the timeframes established for
participation in grazing decision processes currently provided by the
BLM's grazing regulations.
H.R. 8517, La Paz County Solar Energy and Job Creation Act
H.R. 8517 directs the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to
convey approximately 3,400 acres of BLM-managed public lands to La Paz
County, Arizona, as soon as practicable after receiving a request from
the county to convey the land. Under the bill, the conveyance would be
subject to valid existing rights and such terms and conditions as the
Secretary determines to be necessary, and the subsurface would be
withdrawn from mineral entry. Any Federal lands with significant
cultural, environmental, wildlife, or recreational resources would be
excluded from the conveyance. La Paz County would be required to pay
fair market value for the land based on an appraisal conducted using
uniform appraisal standards, as well as all costs related to the
conveyance, including all surveys, appraisals, and other administrative
costs.
H.R. 8517 also specifies that as a condition of conveyance, La Paz
County and any subsequent owner of the conveyed land are required to
make good faith efforts to avoid disturbing Tribal artifacts. If Tribal
artifacts are disturbed, La Paz County would be required to minimize
impacts to the artifacts and allow Tribal representatives to rebury
artifacts at or near where they were discovered. La Paz County is also
required to coordinate with the Colorado River Indian Tribes Tribal
Historic Preservation Office to identify artifacts of cultural and
historic significance. Other than these conditions, the bill does not
impose any further use, development, or disposal restrictions for the
surface acres conveyed to the county.
Recognizing the urgency of the climate crisis, the Biden
Administration has set a goal to achieve a carbon pollution-free power
sector by 2035, and the Energy Act of 2020 has set a goal of permitting
25 gigawatts of renewable energy projects on public lands by 2025. The
BLM is engaging our Tribal partners, industry, stakeholders, and the
states to increase opportunities for renewable energy development on
public lands. The BLM supports the Sponsors' stated goals of promoting
solar energy development but has some concerns with the approach of the
bill as discussed below.
Analysis
La Paz County, located in western Arizona, is home to approximately
17,000 people. The county provides significant recreational
opportunities due to its close proximity to the Colorado River; three
National Wildlife Refuges; and has a number of cultural and historic
sites, including old mines and ghost towns.
The John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation
Act (Public Law 116-9, Dingell Act) included provisions directing the
conveyance to La Paz County of approximately 5,900 acres of BLM-managed
public lands for economic development and renewable energy generation.
The BLM announced the successful conveyance of this land to La Paz
County on May 22, 2020. The approximately 3,400 acres of BLM-managed
public land to be conveyed under H.R. 8517 are adjacent to the lands
conveyed to La Paz County under the Dingell Act.
Currently, the lands proposed for conveyance under H.R. 8517 are
primarily utilized for livestock grazing and include range improvements
to facilitate grazing. The BLM is in the midst of processing a
photovoltaic solar energy application on 3,495 acres within the
proposed area to be conveyed, with a proposed capacity of 600
megawatts. The BLM released a final Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for this project on November 15, 2024, and anticipates issuance
of a final decision in the coming weeks. The lands have not been
identified as potentially suitable for disposal in the Yuma Resource
Management Plan, which the BLM completed in 2010.
The BLM recognizes the importance of efficiently deploying
renewable energy projects on both public and private lands to meet the
urgent demands of the climate crisis while empowering American workers
and businesses to lead a clean energy revolution. We also recognize the
Sponsor's effort in the bill to protect cultural and tribal resources,
and the BLM is aware of public support for using these lands for solar
energy development.
As noted above, the BLM is currently reviewing a solar energy
project within the proposed conveyance area through a process that will
ensure full protection for sensitive resources, including cultural
resources, and gives full consideration to the cumulative impacts of
the multiple solar projects in the area. If this legislation is enacted
and some or all of the lands are conveyed, the BLM will not be able to
approve the pending photovoltaic solar energy application.
Given the BLM's pending review of this project, we question whether
the proposed land conveyance is necessary to advance responsible
renewable energy development while protecting environmental and
cultural resources and the interests of American taxpayers.
Furthermore, as currently written, the bill does not guarantee that
once the lands are conveyed, those lands would be used for renewable
energy development. Should Congress decide to pursue the conveyance,
the BLM would like to work with the Sponsor on modifications that would
solidify the intended use of these lands for renewable energy
development and ensure appropriate environmental reviews.
We appreciate the sponsors' inclusion of the Uniform Appraisal
Standards for Federal Land Acquisition and Uniform Standards of
Professional Appraisal Practice provisions and would welcome the
opportunity to work with the bill Sponsor to ensure the
responsibilities of each party to the conveyance are clear. The BLM
notes that there are several actions that may be required before the
BLM can convey public lands, such as environmental assessments and
cultural, biological, and cadastral surveys. The BLM is also aware of
possible range improvements in the proposed area that may need to be
compensated for, in compliance with grazing laws and regulations, in
addition to the assessment and survey work required for conveyance.
H.R. 9062, Operational Flexibility Grazing Management Program Act
H.R. 9062 aims to provide grazing permittees and leaseholders with
increased operational flexibility based on emerging landscape
conditions as a way to improve the long-term ecological health of
Federal land. The Department supports the bill's goal to provide the
BLM with flexibility to restore the ecological health of public lands
used for grazing and welcomes the opportunity to work with the Sponsor
to ensure the use of operational flexibility does not result in
unintended consequences.
Analysis
H.R. 9062 provides that the Secretary may carry out an Operational
Flexibility Grazing Management Program. Under this program, at the
request of an authorized grazing permittee or lessee when renewing a
grazing permit or lease, the Secretary would be required to ``develop
and authorize at least [one] alternative to provide operational
flexibility'' to permittees and leaseholders to address changing
conditions on the ground. Such alternatives would be developed in
consultation with the authorized grazing permittee or lessee; affected
Federal and state agencies; applicable Indian Tribes; and other
landowners, permittees, or lessees in the affected allotment.
As currently written, the draft appears to require the BLM to not
just consider but select and authorize an alternative that includes
operational flexibility. Such a requirement may prevent the BLM from
selecting the most appropriate management alternative to promote
ecological health. The Department recommends that the bill require the
BLM to develop and analyze at least one alternative that includes
operational flexibility, but not require that the agency necessarily
authorize that alternative. That approach provides the agency with
flexibility to manage public lands to support ecological health.
The bill also directs the Secretary, if requested by the permittee
or lessee, to use new and existing data to provide interim operational
flexibility that may include an allowance to deviate from the 21 terms
and conditions of the existing permit--for up to the remaining term of
the permit--to address significant changes in weather or forage
production or effects due to fire, drought, market conditions, or other
temporary conditions. Management flexibility may include adjusting the
season of use; the beginning or ending date, or both, of the period of
use; the stocking level; water placement and transportation; and other
operational actions. Under the bill, the season of use could be
adjusted by up to 14 days before the beginning date specified in the
permit or up to 14 days after the ending date of the permit, unless an
allotment management plan or its equivalent would allow for an even
greater adjustment.
As currently drafted, implementing interim operational flexibility
outside the terms and conditions of the existing permit, for the
duration of the permit, may not comply with the requirements of other
state or Federal laws, including NEPA, and may cause unintended impacts
to resources. The Department recommends that the bill specify that
these adjustments cannot exceed the active use authorized by the permit
or cause new surface disturbance.
Under the bill, permittees would also be required to provide the
BLM with advance notice of two business days before utilizing the
flexibility. The Department recommends defining the market conditions
and other temporary reasons that would prompt the use of interim
operational flexibility. The Department would also like to work with
the Sponsor to identify a more appropriate period for advanced notice
before exercising flexibility to facilitate implementation.
Additionally, the Secretary would be required to develop
cooperative rangeland monitoring plans, in coordination with grazing
permittees and lessees, that comply with applicable monitoring
requirements under FLPMA, applicable Federal grazing regulations, and
rangeland health objectives to monitor and evaluate outcomes from the
use of operational flexibilities under the program. Eight years after
the date of enactment, the Secretary would be required to conduct a
review of the use of operational flexibilities under the program,
including a review of ecological and other relevant outcomes.
The Department recognizes that providing permittees with
flexibility to adjust their grazing use will provide more timely and
responsive adjustments to changing conditions in order to achieve
identified resource and operational objectives. We recommend that
allowances to depart from permit or lease terms and conditions for
purposes of operational flexibility also include objectives that
identify when adjustments are appropriate and provide for a monitoring
plan that tracks how progress is measured toward achieving those
objectives. Cooperative rangeland monitoring is a key component of
implementing strategically sound grazing flexibility as part of the
BLM's existing outcome based grazing program.
The Department appreciates the bill's inclusion of the requirement
for cooperative rangeland monitoring plans and would like to work with
the Sponsor to develop more stringent monitoring requirements to ensure
that the use of operational flexibilities results in benefits to the
health of public lands and does not result in unintended harm to
wildlife and other resources. The success of the BLM's current outcome
based grazing program is due, in part, to the program's cooperative
monitoring plans, which include monitoring methods and protocols; a
schedule for collecting data; identifying the responsible party for
data collection and storage; an evaluation schedule; and a description
of the anticipated use of the data (e.g., adjusting season-of-use,
assessing habitat, and determining trends). The Department recommends
that the monitoring plans contemplated by this bill also include these
components and provisions for making any adjustments.
Finally, the bill prohibits the Secretary from terminating or
failing to renew an applicable grazing permit or lease for violation if
the use of an operational flexibility under the program violates the
applicable permit or lease. It is unclear whether this prohibition
could create tension with the BLM's obligations to enforce other
applicable environmental protection and cultural resources laws, such
as the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the National Historic Preservation
Act (NHPA), and others. The Department would like to work with the
Sponsor on this provision to ensure that the appropriate use of the
operational flexibility complies with other applicable laws and does
not result in the termination or failure to renew a grazing permit or
lease.
H.R. 10082, Oregon Owyhee Wilderness and Community Protection Act
H.R. 10082 would designate approximately 926,000 acres of
wilderness, modified to allow for certain uses generally prohibited by
the Wilderness Act, while providing for increased grazing flexibility
intended to meet rangeland health standards on public lands in Malheur
County, Oregon. It would also release approximately 600,000 acres of
existing wilderness study areas and direct that any lands in Malheur
County not designated as wilderness no longer be inventoried for
wilderness characteristics under section 201(a) of FLPMA or managed for
``wilderness purposes.'' Further, the bill would transfer nearly 32,000
acres of BLM-managed, State-owned land, and create a Tribal Co-
Stewardship Area overlapping the BLM's existing Castle Rock Wilderness
Study Area, to be released by the bill, including approximately 2,500
acres of land to be held in trust.
Malheur County is located in the southeast corner of Oregon. It is
the second largest county in the State, spanning 9,874 square miles or
6.3 million acres, and has a population of approximately 31,000
according to the United States Census Bureau. For many years, cattle
ranching and agriculture have been the major economic enterprises in
the county. Over 70 percent of the county is in public ownership,
including 4.4 million acres of public lands managed by the BLM.
The BLM is committed to ensuring the long-term sustainability of
healthy and productive lands, consistent with its multiple-use mandate
under FLPMA. We believe partnerships and local public involvement are
vital to managing sustainable, working public lands. This means
respecting the ties that communities have to public lands, allowing
state and local economies to prosper, and welcoming and valuing diverse
views into our planning processes. As part of our commitment to healthy
and productive landscapes, the BLM has recently amended the Resource
Management Plan (RMP) for public lands within southeastern Oregon,
including public lands managed by the BLM in Malheur County covered by
H.R. 10082.
The BLM supports the designation of wilderness to conserve public
lands and waters for future generations and efforts to improve the
ecological health of working lands and to restore Tribal homelands to
Tribal ownership, where appropriate. However, the BLM cannot support
H.R. 10082 as written because it would erode the purpose of the
Wilderness Act to preserve and protect natural ecosystems and provide
opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation; invite
inconsistent management of the National Wilderness Preservation System;
and restrict the BLM's ability to manage public lands under FLPMA.
Analysis
Malheur County Grazing Management Program (Sec. 3)
Section 3 of the bill authorizes the Secretary to carry out the
``Malheur County Grazing Management Program'' to provide grazing
permittees and leaseholders with increased operational flexibility
intended to improve rangeland health. Under the bill, when renewing a
grazing permit or lease under the program, the Secretary would develop
and analyze at least one alternative to provide operational flexibility
to permittees and leaseholders to address changing conditions on the
ground. The proposed operational flexibilities would be developed
pursuant to NEPA.
The Secretary would be required to develop cooperative rangeland
monitoring plans to assess natural resource conditions and evaluate the
impact of permitted livestock use on rangeland health and livestock
management objectives in the applicable land use plan. The BLM
recommends the inclusion of language requiring all monitoring plans to
identify the responsible party for data collection and storage.
Additionally, H.R. 10082 directs the Secretary to enact additional
interim flexibilities, such as allowing a variance to the terms and
conditions of the existing applicable grazing permits, adjusting the
season of use by no more than 14 days, and modifying dates of pasture
rotation by no more than 14 days. These adjustments would not extend
the overall season of use but would allow the days permitted to be
changed based on weather, forage production, or the effects of fire or
drought. The BLM would like to work with the Sponsor on language
providing the BLM with additional advance notice of the use of these
flexibilities and to ensure the use of flexibilities does not exceed
the amount of active use specified in the permit or lease.
Further, the bill allows the permittees to change the placement of
water structures for livestock or wildlife, subject to water rights
laws, but not within 100 yards of any existing roads. The BLM supports
interim flexibilities to adjust season of use and pasture rotation,
noting that the seasons of use will not be extended but altered in
response to changing conditions on the ground. The BLM also welcomes
the opportunity to work with the Sponsor on additional legislative text
to ensure the proposed movement of water structures does not impact
sensitive natural resources and complies with the requirements of other
State and Federal laws, including section 106 of the NHPA, the
Archeological Resources Protection Act, the ESA, and water rights
concerns.
Our nation's rangelands provide and support a variety of goods,
services, and values important to all Americans. In addition to being a
key source of forage for livestock, healthy rangelands conserve soil,
sequester carbon, store, and filter water, serve as a home for an
abundance of wildlife, provide scenic beauty, and are the setting for
many forms of outdoor recreation. We appreciate the Sponsor's effort to
provide the BLM with the grazing flexibility outlined in H.R. 10082 for
grazing to meet rangeland health standards and conserve resource values
in the face of climate change and extreme drought. Further, the BLM
appreciates the opportunity to continue working with the Sponsor to
strengthen Tribal consultation and opportunities for Tribal
participation in land management decisions and ensure the health of the
public lands while still allowing them to be used for grazing,
recreation, and other uses.
Malheur C.E.O. Group (Sec. 4)
Section 4 of H.R. 10082 establishes the Malheur C.E.O. Group that
includes representatives appointed by the Secretary, based on
recommendations from the BLM's Vale District Manager and the County
commissioners, including county grazing permittees and lessees,
businesses, conservation organizations, the Burns Paiute Tribe, and the
Fort McDermott Tribe. Under the bill, the Malheur C.E.O. Group shall
propose eligible projects to be carried out by the Malheur C.E.O. Group
or a third party. Projects carried out on Federal land or using Federal
funds must be approved by the head of the applicable Federal agency
within 14 days. Lastly, the bill directs any Federal agency with
authority and responsibility in the county to provide technical
assistance to the Malheur C.E.O. Group on request of the Malheur C.E.O.
Group.
The BLM notes that timeframes for approval of range improvement
projects under BLM's regulations include time for protests and appeals
that exceed the 14 days currently allotted. The BLM recommends
extending the 14-day timeframe to ensure sufficient time to make a
decision based on applicable law and science.
The BLM also notes that the Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory
Committee (RAC) currently provides advice and recommendations on all
aspects of public land management to the BLM's Burns and Vale District
Offices, including lands in Malheur County. The bill assigns the
Malheur C.E.O. Group a role that is dedicated to developing and funding
restoration and management projects that could complement the efforts
of the Southeast Oregon RAC, and as such, the BLM supports the creation
of the Malheur C.E.O. Group, but welcomes the opportunity to work with
the Sponsor to ensure that the Group's role is consistent with existing
law and complements, rather than duplicates, the roles of other groups
such as the Southeast Oregon RAC.
Wilderness & Land Designations (Sec. 5)
H.R. 10082 establishes more than 926,000 acres of wilderness
(modified to allow for enumerated motorized and mechanical uses) and
releases approximately 601,300 acres of wilderness study areas from
non-impairment management under section 603 of FLPMA. The bill also
directs that any lands not designated as wilderness, including
approximately 1,065,600 acres of lands with wilderness characteristics,
no longer be inventoried for the presence of wilderness characteristics
under section 201(a) of FLPMA or managed to maintain, preserve, or
protect those wilderness characteristics as part of the land use
planning process under section 202 of FLPMA. The BLM recognizes that
the wide-ranging lands of Malheur County encompass scenic canyons,
volcanic rock formations, and rolling hills that serve as habitat for a
diversity of plant and animal life and provide important opportunities
for hiking, camping, horseback riding, and other forms of outdoor
recreation.
As written, H.R. 10082 allows for the continuation of motorized use
on certain routes in designated wilderness areas by the Burns Paiute
Tribe for cultural purposes; the BLM for administrative purposes;
grazing permittees, their agents, and invitees for road maintenance,
weed control, fire suppression, and grazing-related activities; private
landowners and their agents and invitees for access; and lastly County
and State employees to access State land and county roads.
Additionally, the bill allows for the use of mechanical equipment for
wildfire suppression, invasive species control, and activities
necessary for management of livestock.
The BLM notes that the Wilderness Act provides for valid existing
rights in section 4(c), access to state and private inholdings in
section 5(a), equipment use in the control of noxious weeds under
conditions specified in section 4(c), and the use of motor vehicles and
equipment by grazing permittees in section 4(d)(4)(2) and as further
outlined in the Congressional Grazing Guidelines (Appendix A of the
report of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of the House of
Representatives accompanying H.R. 2570 of the 101st Congress, H. Rept.
101-405 dated February 21, 1990). Given these provisions of the
Wilderness Act accommodating access and administration of wilderness,
the allowance of motorized and mechanized tools and transportation set
forth in section 5 of H.R. 10082 is both overly broad and unnecessary.
Further, the BLM has a well-established process to evaluate whether
administrative action may be necessary in wilderness and guidance for
determining the minimum technique, timing, or amount of a prohibited
use necessary to address the wilderness stewardship issue. The bill's
blanket allowance for motorized and mechanized tools and uses in
section 5(b) is inconsistent with the intent of the Wilderness Act, and
the BLM opposes these provisions.
Wilderness is a key component of conservation. The Biden-Harris
Administration recognizes that wilderness is a fundamentally important
part of the American landscape, not only for cultural, economic, and
scientific values, but also for the beauty, majesty, and solitude it
provides. The BLM would support the designation of the proposed
wilderness areas in a manner consistent with the Wilderness Act.
Additionally, the BLM cannot support the bill's direction in
section 5(c) that public lands in Malheur County that are not
designated as wilderness will no longer be inventoried for the presence
of wilderness characteristics or managed for the maintenance,
preservation, or protection of those characteristics as part of the
land use planning process. As noted above, this includes approximately
601,300 acres of existing wilderness study areas that would be released
by the bill as well as approximately 1,065,600 acres of lands with
wilderness characteristics and other public lands. Section 5(c) of H.R.
10082 provides that these lands be managed for principal and major uses
as defined in section 103 of FLPMA and specifies that the lands be
managed for values unrelated to wilderness. Section 201(a) of FLPMA
requires the BLM to maintain an inventory of all public lands and their
resources and other values, which includes wilderness characteristics.
The inventory of all public lands directed under section 201(a) of
FLPMA is a critical underpinning of the land use planning process. It
is the local planning process through which the BLM makes important
decisions on management of these lands, including, among other things,
mineral development, grazing, off-highway vehicle use, hunting, and the
conservation of natural values. The BLM cannot support eliminating
wilderness as a resource from the inventory of public lands that
informs the land use planning process, particularly when over 1.6
million acres at issue are known to possess wilderness character. The
BLM also notes that it is not aware of any precedent for legislation
that directs the agency to avoid inventorying public lands for certain
resources, and the Bureau believes that such direction would contravene
FLPMA's mandate to manage the public lands based on science and
reliable information.
Section 5(d) of H.R. 10082 requires the BLM to initiate a process
to amend the Southeast Oregon RMP and include a Wilderness Plan and a
Travel Management Plan. Further, this section directs the BLM to not
restrict the use of motorized vehicles on certain roads for specific
categories of users. The BLM's Comprehensive Travel and Transportation
Management program aims to provide reasonable and varied transportation
routes for access to the public lands and also provide areas for a wide
variety of both motorized and non-motorized recreational activities. By
improving trail and off highway vehicle management through land use
planning, the BLM minimizes impacts to wildlife habitat; reduces the
introduction and spread of invasive weeds; lessens conflicts among
various motorized and non-motorized recreation users; and prevents
damage to cultural resources resulting from the expansion of roads and
trails on public lands. Legislating specific roads to remain open to
certain uses indefinitely would prevent the BLM from adequately
addressing changing conditions on the ground.
Land Conveyance to the Burns Paiute Tribe (Sec. 6)
Under section 6, approximately 21,000 acres of BLM-managed public
lands, 6,686 acres of certain private land, and 4,137 acres of State
land would be held in trust for the benefit of the Burns Paiute Tribe
to protect and conserve cultural and natural values, and to be part of
the reservation of the Burns Paiute Tribe. Additionally, the bill
creates a Tribal Co-Stewardship Area overlapping the Castle Rock WSA.
The Department recognizes, through Secretarial Order 3403, Joint
Secretarial Order on Fulfilling the Trust Responsibility to Indian
Tribes in the Stewardship of Federal Lands and Waters, which was signed
jointly with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, that it is the policy
of the United States to restore Tribal homelands to Tribal ownership
and to promote Tribal stewardship and Tribal self-government. The
Department supports consolidation of Tribal landholdings within
reservations, including Tribal acquisition of Federal lands and private
inholdings. The BLM has conducted an initial review of existing land
uses on the lands affected by the provision and supports the proposed
conveyance of lands to be held in trust for the Burns Paiute Tribe. The
BLM would like to work with the Subcommittee and bill Sponsor on
technical modifications to the land transfer provisions, and language
addressing grazing, and standard conveyance language.
Conclusion
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide this Statement for
the Record.
______
Statement for the Record
National Park Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
on H.R. 8182, H.R. 9165, H.R. 9528, and H.R. 10084
H.R. 8182, To Establish the Ocmulgee Mounds National Park and Preserve
in the State of Georgia, and for other purposes
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department
of the Interior's views on H.R. 8182, a bill to establish the Ocmulgee
Mounds National Park and Preserve in the State of Georgia, and for
other purposes.
The Department supports the intent of H.R. 8182 to bring additional
recognition, protection, and interpretation to the resources associated
with the Ocmulgee Mounds and the Ocmulgee River Corridor but would like
to work with the sponsor and the Committee on amendments that would
improve the bill's implementation.
H.R. 8182 would redesignate Ocmulgee Mounds National Historical
Park as Ocmulgee Mounds National Park and authorize the establishment
of Ocmulgee Mounds National Preserve, subject to the acquisition of
sufficient land to constitute a manageable park unit. The two
components would collectively be designated as a single NPS unit called
``Ocmulgee Mounds National Park and Preserve.'' Included in the
boundary of the preserve would be the Bond Swamp National Wildlife
Refuge, which would continue to be administered by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS). The bill would direct the Secretary of the
Interior to enter into an agreement with the Muscogee (Creek) Nation to
provide for the co-management of the park and preserve after receiving
recommendations for that purpose from an Advisory Council that would be
authorized to be established by the bill. The bill contains several
other provisions.
The area proposed to be included in Ocmulgee Mounds National Park
and Preserve would encompass traditional homelands of the Muscogee and
other Indigenous peoples, numerous nationally significant archeological
sites, diverse wildlife and vegetation communities, and provide
expansive recreation and visitor opportunities. Ocmulgee Mounds
National Historical Park, situated approximately three miles east of
downtown Macon, Georgia, commemorates over 12,000 years of human
habitation, spanning from the Paleo-Indian era through the Archaic,
Woodland, and Lamar periods, to the historical presence of the Muscogee
Creek people. The park's prominent features include Lamar and
Mississippian period earth mounds, a colonial trading post, and Civil
War earthworks. Bond Swamp National Wildlife Refuge (refuge), located
ten miles southwest of Ocmulgee Mounds National Historical Park,
conserves the ecosystem of the Ocmulgee River floodplain, featuring
mixed hardwood and pine ridges, bottomland hardwood forests, swamp
forests, and oxbow lakes. A large part of the area proposed for
inclusion in the Ocmulgee Mounds National Preserve is currently under
the administrative jurisdiction of the FWS or within the Bond Swamp
National Wildlife Refuge's approved acquisition boundary.
Public Law 116-9, enacted in 2019, redesignated Ocmulgee National
Monument as Ocmulgee Mounds National Historical Park. The designation
of ``national historical park'' fits with the National Park Service's
standard nomenclature for a park that primarily features historic
resources. However, the Department understands the intent to expand the
park's boundaries to conserve the area's diverse natural and cultural
resources and rename the park as Ocmulgee Mounds National Park and
Preserve.
Public Law 116-9 also authorized a special resource study of the
Ocmulgee River corridor, which extends from Macon to Hawkinsville. The
study, which the NPS transmitted to Congress in November 2023, found
that the corridor met the special resource study criteria for national
significance and suitability for inclusion in the National Park System.
The study identified challenges associated with the potential
acquisition of private property in the large area evaluated in the
study, in part due to existing and expanding development, agricultural
and mining activities, and timber harvesting.
The Department supports the intent of H.R. 8182, and we would like
to work with the bill's sponsor and the Committee to ensure that the
lands identified for inclusion in the proposed Ocmulgee Mounds National
Park and Preserve are feasible for Federal acquisition and align with
the distinct laws, regulations, and policies that govern the FWS and
NPS. We also want to ensure that the prohibition on hunting for the
Ocmulgee Mounds National Park section of the new unit is explicitly
codified in the legislation. Finally, we want to ensure that in
addition to the Muskogee (Creek) Nation, all federally recognized
Tribes who have a cultural affiliation with the Ocmulgee Mounds region
have the opportunity to pursue co-management or co-stewardship
agreements with the NPS. We would be pleased to provide amendments for
these purposes.
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, this concludes our
statement.
H.R. 9165, The Public Land Search And Rescue Act
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the Department
of the Interior's views on H.R. 9165, the Public Land Search and Rescue
Act.
The Department supports the goal of alleviating the financial
burden experienced by state and local entities assisting in search and
rescue operations on Federal land. We would like to work with the
sponsor and the subcommittee to explore different ways, outside the
establishment of the new grant program proposed by H.R. 9165, through
which Federal land management agencies could better support our state
and local partners who assist in these operations. The Department
defers to the Department of Agriculture for their views regarding the
effect of H.R. 9165 on the U.S. Forest Service.
H.R. 9165 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish a
grant program to help pay for remote search and rescue operations on
Federal land under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior
and the Secretary of Agriculture. The bill would award grants to state
and local entities as reimbursement for operations they have conducted
on Federal land, and to purchase and maintain equipment used for remote
search and rescue activities. Grants could cover up to 75 percent of
the cost of these activities. Priority in applications for the grants
would be given to state and local entities (or their designees) in
areas that serve a high ratio of visitors to residents.
It is unclear what the source of funding would be for this grant
program or how it would be administered. The Department has three
primary land management bureaus--the National Park Service, the Bureau
of Land Management, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service--with which
it would need to coordinate this program, but the Department would also
need to coordinate with the U.S. Forest Service because the program
would also be responsible for providing grants for activities on lands
under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Agriculture.
The Department's team of dedicated, highly trained search and
rescue personnel provide invaluable assistance to hundreds of visitors
every year, and we are committed to making that process as safe and
effective as possible. We greatly value the help we receive from state
and local governments in serving the public in that capacity. Before
acting on this bill, we would like to explore alternative ways to
address the challenges faced by state and local governments in
providing assistance, without creating a new multi-bureau grant
program.
If the Committee moves forward with this bill, the Department
recommends amending Section 2(a) of the bill to read ``In General.--Not
later than one year after funding has been made available, the
Secretary shall establish a program to provide grants and allocate
resources for remote search and rescue activities conducted on Federal
land under the jurisdiction of the Secretary.'' Currently, the bill
requires establishing the program within one year of enactment. This
proposed amendment would ensure funding would be in place to support
the program. We would also appreciate the opportunity to provide
additional recommended amendments as we further analyze the potential
impacts of the bill.
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, this concludes our
statement.
H.R. 9528, To redesignate certain facilities at Paterson Great Falls
National Historical Park in honor of Congressman Bill Pascrell,
Jr.
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the
Department of the Interior on H.R. 9528, to redesignate certain
facilities at Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park in honor of
Congressman Bill Pascrell, Jr.
H.R. 9528 would redesignate the Great Falls Scenic Overlook Trail
Bridge and Overlook Park at Paterson Great Falls National Historical
Park as the ``Congressman Bill Pascrell, Jr. Scenic Overlook Trail
Bridge'' and ``Congressman Bill Pascrell, Jr. Overlook Park''
respectively.
The Great Falls of the Passaic River, with its natural chasm and
77-foot waterfall, provides an extraordinary scenic and geologic
resource in the midst of an industrialized city and opportunities for
relaxation, contemplation, and inspiration. Paterson Great Falls
National Historical Park and the associated national historic landmark
district provide one of the best opportunities to view a complete
hydropower system from its source above the Great Falls of the Passaic
River to its transformation into power for the mills and the
surrounding community.
Overlook Park is an approximately 2.5-acre natural and cultural
landscape that serves as the primary destination for visitors to park,
offering views of the Great Falls and orientation to the national
historical park. The Scenic Overlook Trail Bridge is one of two year-
round pedestrian footbridges that serve approximately 300,000 visitors
per year and are on the primary walking route from the park visitor
center across the Passaic River to the viewing platform over the Great
Falls at Overlook Park.
Representative Pascrell, a former high school teacher and college
professor and lifelong resident of Paterson, worked tirelessly over
many years to seek formal designation of Paterson Great Falls National
Historical Park to ensure its protection and interpretation for future
generations of Americans. After sponsoring the legislation to establish
the park, which was enacted in 2009, Representative Pascrell continued
to be a champion for the park's successful operation and development.
The NPS generally discourages the naming of park features except
when there is a compelling justification and at least five years have
elapsed since the death of the person. However, we recognize that
Congress may also specifically authorize the placement of such
recognition. In this instance, the Department defers to Congress and
does not object to H.R. 9528.
If the Committee moves forward with this bill, we recommend
amending it to omit the title ``Congressman'' from the proposed name
for the facilities, using only ``Bill Pascrell, Jr.''.
Customarily, park facilities that are named in honor of a person do
not include the person's title. Chairman Tiffany, this concludes our
statement.
H.R. 10084, a Bill to Extend the Authorization of the African American
Civil Rights Network
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the
Department of the Interior on H.R. 10084, a bill to extend the
authorization of the African American Civil Rights Network.
The Department supports H.R. 10084 with an amendment.
H.R. 10084 would amend Section 308404 of title 54, United States
Code, to extend the authorization of African American Civil Rights
Network for an additional 10 years after enactment of this bill. The
authority for this program is currently scheduled to expire on January
8, 2025.
Established by Public Law 115-104 in 2018, the African American
Civil Rights Network (Network) is a collection of properties,
facilities, and programs that offer a comprehensive overview of the
people, places, and events associated with the African American civil
rights movement. The Network provides an opportunity to ensure that the
history of the civil rights movement and the sacrifices made by those
who fought for its cause are remembered, shared, and commemorated.
There are 189 members of the Network in 29 states and the District of
Columbia, as well as nationwide facilities, organizations, and
programs.
Inclusion in the Network is non-competitive and all properties,
facilities, and programs that meet the criteria will be added to the
Network. Properties will only be included with the consent of the
property owner. Members may use the official African American Civil
Rights Network logo and are eligible to receive technical assistance
from the National Park Service (NPS). The NPS may also enter into
cooperative agreements to carry out the program.
The Department recommends amending H.R. 10084 to include a
provision that would expand the eligibility of NPS units and programs
for inclusion in the Network. Currently, the statute specifies
inclusion of NPS units and programs related to the civil rights
movement during the period from 1939 through 1968. The non-NPS entities
eligible for addition to the Network are not limited to this time
period. Removing this time-period requirement would allow current and
future NPS units and programs that have relevance to and interpret
African American civil rights history before 1939 or after 1968 to be
eligible for Network membership. We would be happy to provide
recommended language for this amendment.
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, this concludes our
statement.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to the Honorable Deb Haaland,
Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC
The Honorable Deb Haaland did not submit responses to the Committee by
the appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman
Question 1. Why did the Department not send a witness in person to
testify at this hearing?
Question 2. Does the Department support grazing as a wildfire risk
reduction strategy?
Question 3. Can you please provide information about DOI efforts to
utilize targeted grazing as a part of your efforts to reduce hazardous
fuels?
3a) Please identify states and DOI units where targeted grazing has
been utilized.
Question 4. Please provide an update on the implementation of the
Department's 5-year strategy to address wildfires.
Question 5. Has the BLM been approached with interest in a
restoration or mitigation lease on any BLM land?
Question 6. Has the BLM discussed with any interested party a
restoration or mitigation lease that would encompass current grazing
allotments?
6a) If yes, please provide details about the relationship of
grazing and restoration or mitigation leases.
Question 7. Has the BLM discussed with any interested party a
restoration or mitigation lease that would encompass land with current
solar panels or future plans for a solar panel development?
7a) If yes, please provide details about the relationship of the
current solar projects and restoration or mitigation leases.
Question 8. Will the BLM commit to notifying the Committee of any
restoration or mitigation lease that will be issued at least 24 hours
before it is officially issued and publicly announced, whichever comes
first?
Question 9. How many BLM acres have burned due to wildfire where
there was a current grazing lease for each year for the past 10 years?
Question 10. How many BLM acres have burned due to wildfire where
there was not a current grazing lease for each year for the past 10
years?
10a) How many of these acres were available or suitable for grazing
as indicated in the appropriate Resource Management Plan?
Question 11. What is the BLM's current backlog of permits or leases
related to grazing that are awaiting approval by the agency?
Question 12. How many grazing permits or leases did the BLM approve
or reapprove in fiscal year (FY) 2024?
Question 13. How many grazing permits or leases does the BLM
project it will review and make a decision on in FY 2025?
Question 14. Is the BLM currently facing any litigation on the
issuance of a grazing permit or lease, the approval of a modification
to a permit, or allowance of a minor range improvement (i.e.
improvements to existing fences and fence lines, wells, water
pipelines, and stock tanks)? If so, please provide a list of current
court cases.
Question 15. How many requests did the BLM receive for minor range
improvements, i.e. improvements to existing fences and fence lines,
wells, water pipelines, and stock tanks, each year for the past five
years?
15a) How many were approved within 30 days?
Question 16. Is there a categorical exclusion for minor range
improvements, i.e. improvements to existing fences and fence lines,
wells, water pipelines, and stock tanks? If so, please provide how many
times the categorical exclusion was used in the last five years. If
not, would the BLM support a categorical exclusion for this purpose?
Question 17. As of November 2023, the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) had 10,845 unprocessed grazing permits. Does BLM have specific
plans to reduce this backlog?
17a) If yes, please provide a description of such plans and explain
how they will improve upon existing practices.
17b) If no, please explain why not.
Question 18. In its Statement for the Record, the BLM explained
that it supports H.R. 6441's goal of ``increasing efficiency in public
land grazing administration'' but disagrees with the bill's definition
of ``minor range improvements.''
18a) Does the BLM believe that any subset of ``improvements to
existing fences and fence lines, wells, water pipelines, and stock
tanks'' would qualify as minor? Please explain why or why not.
18b) Approximately what percentage of minor range improvements, as
defined by H.R. 6441, are among those ``structural improvements'' that
``involve substantial disturbance to soils and vegetation''?
18c) Please provide a definition of ``minor range improvements''
that the BLM would view as acceptable and that would still further H.R.
6441's goals (which BLM claims it supports).
Question 19. Why does the BLM believe it will take more than 30
days to respond to a request by an existing grazing permittee or lessee
to conduct improvements to existing fences and fence lines, wells,
water pipelines, or stock tanks?
Question 20. Does the BLM believe that most requests by ranchers to
repair existing fences would ``involve substantial disturbance to soils
and vegetation''? Please explain why or why not.
Question 21. Does the BLM believe that ranchers are generally good
stewards of the public lands out West? Why or why not?
Question 22. Regarding H.R. 9062, BLM has expressed a concern that
increasing ranchers' operational flexibility under their leases could
``result in unintended consequences.'' Yet in supporting the bill, Jeff
Young, President of the Utah Cattlemen's Association, stated that
ranchers often ``have to choose whether to make the best choice for the
land and water resources or whether to remain in compliance with their
permit or law.'' According to Mr. Young, ``ensuring compliance with the
law always wins.'' Does the BLM not acknowledge, then, that its own
grazing policies have the potential to create significant unintended
consequences of their own?
Question 23. A goal of H.R. 9062 is to foster better communication
between ranchers and the BLM. Does the BLM believe that its
communication with ranchers could generally be improved?
23a) If yes, in which ways?
23b) If not, why not?
Question 24. In his testimony in support of H.R. 10082,
Representative Cliff Bentz (R-OR-02) observed that large portions of
the Owyhee River in Oregon are already protected by statutes such as
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the Taylor Grazing Act, the Endangered
Species Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the
Archaeological Resources Protection Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean
Air Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act. Given these
multiple layers of federal protection, does the BLM believe that a
national monument is necessary in the region? Why or why not?
Question 25. According to the Oregon Health Authority, Malheur
County is the poorest county in the state. Local residents often point
to extensive federal land ownership in the county as an impediment to
pursuing economic opportunities. Does the BLM believe that it could be
doing more to further economic development in Malheur County? Please
explain either way.
Question 26. Does the BLM believe that the designated wildernesses
and wilderness study areas in Malheur County could be modified to
improve wildfire prevention activities? Please explain in detail.
Question 27. In the recently revised Malheur County Grazing
Management Program, how did the BLM take into account input from the
agriculture community in Southeastern Oregon?
Question 28. Is the BLM aware of any potential national monuments
the White House plans to designate between now and the end of President
Biden's term?
28a) If yes, on which potential national monuments was the BLM
consulted?
Question 29. Has anybody in the White House or from the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) asked the BLM to provide substantive or
technical feedback on a potential national monument designation,
including by creating maps for such a designation?
29a) If yes, on which potential national monuments was the BLM
consulted?
Question 30. Since January 2021, please provide a list of each
national monument designation and how many acres available for grazing
were either added or reduced in the designation.
Question 31. Since January 2021, please provide a list of each
national monument designation and how many acres available for energy
development were either added or reduced in the designation.
Question 32. Since January 2021, please provide a list of each
national monument designation and how many acres available for
recreational shooting were either added or reduced in the designation.
Question 33. In its Statement for the Record regarding H.R. 8517,
the BLM stated that the agency ``is currently reviewing a solar energy
project within the proposed conveyance area.''
33a) How long has this proposed project been under BLM review?
33b) When does the BLM anticipate making a final decision on this
proposed project?
33c) Does the BLM believe that its review of the project is faster
than La Paz County could have reviewed the same or similar projects?
Question 34. Approximately 95 percent of the land in La Paz County,
Arizona, is under federal, state, or Tribal management, with only five
percent of the land available for private ownership. BLM, alone,
controls roughly 58 percent of the land in the county. Does the BLM
acknowledge that large federal footprints can have adverse effects on
the economic self-sufficiency of rural communities?
Question 35. How many Search and Rescue operations have occurred on
DOI land in the last 5 years?
Question 36. Since 2020, how much has DOI spent on remote Search
and Rescue search operations on Federal Land under its jurisdiction?
36a) Include the amount spent in each of the following Agencies:
National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Reclamation.
36b) Include the amount spent in FY2020 through FY2024.
Question 37. Please list the total number of personnel employed by
the Department of the Interior as of November 23, 2024, that conduct or
assist with search and rescue missions on federal land under the
jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior.
37a) Include the number of personnel in each of the following
agencies: National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Reclamation.
Question 38. What funding sources currently support the
Department's Search and Rescue teams on federal land?
Question 39. How does the Department coordinate with local law
enforcement agency when notified of a missing person on federal land?
Question 40. Does the Department believe that the program created
by Rep. Maloy's bill will help improve public safety?
Question 41. How does the process of joining the African American
Civil Rights Network differ between a site that is a unit or program of
the NPS compared to a site that does not have any affiliation?
Question 42. What is the average length of time it takes an NPS
affiliated site to join the African American Civil Rights Network
compared to a non-NPS affiliated site?
______
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Westerman
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman of the Natural
Resources Committee
Thank you, Chairman Tiffany. I'd like to take a moment to commend
you for your leadership this Congress as the Chairman of this very
important Subcommittee.
It is remarkable to think about all that we have accomplished this
year to improve federal lands management, promote conservation,
increase access, support innovation, and make agencies transparent and
accountable to the American people.
In total, this Subcommittee has had process this Congress on more
than 110 pieces of legislation from Republican and Democrat Members
across the country. The Subcommittee has held more than 30 legislative
and oversight hearings and supported numerous full Committee hearings.
This includes two of the Committee's first ever outdoor field hearings
in the Yosemite Valley and southern Utah.
True to its fashion, this Subcommittee has operated in an
overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion. Today's hearing, like most of the
others held this Congress, feature a ratio of Republican to Democrat
bills that exceeds the standard 3-to-1 ratio.
The Subcommittee has also advanced two overwhelmingly bipartisan
bills that I have had the privilege of championing, the ``Fix Our
Forests Act'' and the ``EXPLORE Act.''
The ``Fix Our Forests Act'' is comprehensive, bipartisan forestry
legislation I led with Congressman Scott Peters to improve the health
of our nation's forests and bolster their resiliency to catastrophic
wildfires, insects, disease, and drought. This bill gives land managers
the tools they need to immediately start work on the ground by
codifying emergency authorities, streamlining environmental reviews,
and ending frivolous litigation.
The ``EXPLORE Act,'' which is led by myself and full Committee
Ranking Member Grijalva, supports the $1.1 trillion outdoor recreation
economy by improving access to our public lands and waters. Supported
by more than 300 organizations, this bill passed the House unanimously
earlier this year.
As we close out the remainder of this Congress, I look forward to
working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in the Senate
to advance these pieces of legislation, along with many others, across
the finish line. I believe we have a real opportunity to deliver
enormous wins for Americans across the country by sending as many of
the bills this Committee has worked on this Congress to the President's
desk.
Moving to the bills on today's agenda, I am encouraged to see
another full slate of legislation being considered by the Subcommittee
on Federal Lands. I appreciate the bill sponsors leading these
thoughtful bills before us today.
The bills before us improve public lands grazing, create economic
opportunities through domestic renewable energy production, support
local search and rescue activities on federal lands, establish the
first National Park in Georgia, honor the Civil Rights Movement, and
protect local residents in Malheur County, Oregon, through a series of
public lands management provisions.
There is perhaps no greater steward of our federal lands than
public lands ranchers. America's ranchers take great pride in
protecting the lands they graze on. The ranching community has
consistently demonstrated an unwavering commitment to leaving the land
in a better condition for future generations. Ranchers are truly the
embodiment of `conservation versus preservation.'
Grazing on public lands is of course extremely important for rural
economies and for providing food for the nation. Grazing is also an
invaluable land management tool that provides immense conservation and
ecosystem benefits.
I am pleased to see four bills before us today that offer
innovative reforms and protections that will improve grazing policies
and provide important flexibility for ranchers and the communities that
rely on them.
I would like to highlight H.R. 7666, which is being led by
Representative LaMalfa. This legislation would direct the Forest
Service to expand the use of proactive, targeted grazing in fuels
management programs to help combat the threat of wildfire.
As we have examined ways to combat our historically severe wildfire
crisis, the importance of using all of the tools available in the
toolbox has continued to be emphasized by the experts and stakeholders
on the frontlines of this fight. Targeted grazing is one of those tools
that has enormous potential to help mitigate catastrophic wildfire
risk.
Through targeted grazing, livestock can eat grasses and shrubs that
would otherwise serve as fuel for wildfire. This can create fuel breaks
that can be strategically placed to help mitigate wildfire risk. I
applaud Congressman LaMalfa's leadership on this effort and was proud
to also support this language as an amendment on the floor to the ``Fix
Our Forests Act.''
Additionally, I want to commend Congressman Clyburn for his
leadership on H.R. 10084, the ``Renewing the African American Civil
Rights Network Act.'' Signed into law in 2018, the African American
Civil Rights Network recognizes the importance of the African American
Civil Rights movement and the sacrifices made by the people who fought
against discrimination. The Network includes more than 80 sites across
the country that tell the story of communities and civic leaders who
were vital in the struggle for justice and equality.
My home state of Arkansas is home to one of those sites. The Little
Rock Central High School was among the first institutions to integrate
following the Brown v. Board of Education ruling from the Supreme
Court, which held that segregation of America's public schools was
unconstitutional. In 1957, the Little Rock Nine bravely stepped into
the battle for civil rights as they became the first African Americans
to desegregate Little Rock Central High school.
I'd also like to recognize Congressman Scott for his leadership on
legislation that would create Georgia's first national park,
Congressman Curtis for his continued support of Utah's ranchers,
Congresswoman Maloy for her legislation supporting local law
enforcement, Chairman Bentz for his leadership on resolving contentious
land designation issues in his home district, and Chairman Gosar for
offering legislation that will create new jobs and economic growth in
Arizona.
I thank the bill sponsors for the bills being considered today. I
also want to thank all the witnesses for being here to provide their
expert testimony on these important topics. I look forward to hearing
from each of you as we examine these proposals here before us.
In closing, the Natural Resources Committee has dedicated
considerable time this Congress looking for ways to improve the
management and stewardship of our federal lands. I'm pleased to report
that we won't be slowing down any time soon and look forward to working
with the Trump administration in the 119th Congress on many of our
nation's most pressing natural resources issues.
______
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Tiffany
Testimony in opposition to
H.R. 10082, the Oregon Owyhee Wilderness and Community Protection Act
Chair Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
On behalf of our millions of members and supporters, we write to
express our strong opposition to H.R. 10082, the Oregon Owyhee
Wilderness and Community Protection Act. We support legislation that
will improve management and conservation of public lands, waters and
wildlife, promote community engagement, support local communities and
economies, and elevate Tribal priorities in Oregon's Owyhee
Canyonlands, but H.R. 10082 would not accomplish these goals. Rather,
H.R. 10082 would undermine decades of federal law and policy governing
public lands management; usurp the authority of the Bureau of Land
Management; reduce the role of science, accountability and transparency
in management; limit public participation in deciding the future of
public lands; and burden the Burns Paiute Tribe's interest in
reconnecting with the Owyhee Canyonlands with unnecessary constraints
and insulting requirements.
To understand the effect of H.R. 10082, it is important to first
consider its genesis in the context of the past five years. H.R. 10082
was developed by Oregon Representative Cliff Bentz as an alternative to
S. 1890, the Malheur Community Empowerment for the Owyhee Act, co-
sponsored by Oregon Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley and introduced
in the Senate in June 2023. Although both H.R. 10082 and S. 1890
address the same landscape, their approach to public lands
conservation, management, community involvement, Tribal rights, and
respect for existing federal laws could not be more different and
diverge in very significant and problematic ways.
S. 1890 began to take shape in 2019 when Senator Wyden convened a
broad diversity of stakeholders in Ontario, Oregon, to explore the
potential for a community-supported proposal for the long-term
protection and management of Oregon's Owyhee Canyonlands. The
stakeholders included a diverse array of ranchers, businesses,
conservation groups, Tribes, hunters, anglers, academics, recreational
interests, and others. Since 2019, the group has evolved to include
additional community stakeholders and has met dozens of times to
discuss, negotiate, develop and refine Senator Wyden's proposal.
In spite of the diverse and sometimes conflicting views, the group
coalesced around a common commitment to protecting and managing the
``long-term ecological health'' of the 4.5 million acres of public
lands in Malheur County. This commitment became a guiding principle for
the group as they considered options to protect, manage, and sustain
multiple uses in the Owyhee Canyonlands, ensuring that each provision
was compatible with restoring and maintaining the long-term ecological
health of the landscape as an outcome that would accrue benefits to all
involved.
Of critical importance, in developing his proposal, Senator Wyden
also established some key sideboards and made several important
commitments of his own, including respecting Tribal rights and
sovereignty, relying on science to govern public land management, and
ensuring that his proposal would not undermine existing bedrock laws on
public lands management and conservation.
Following dozens of meetings, thousands of hours of work and
discussion by stakeholders, allies and partners over many years, S.
1890 was voted out of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources with bipartisan support in December 2023. S. 1890 includes
the key components as agreed upon by community members, ranchers, the
Burns Paiute Tribe and conservation interests:
Designation of 1.1 million acres of wilderness in the
Owyhee Canyonlands and surrounding areas, building upon
520,000 acres of adjacent wilderness designated in Idaho's
Owyhee Canyonlands in 2009;
Transfer of ?30,000 acres of public and tribal land into
federal trust for the Burns Paiute Tribe and promotion of
Tribal co-stewardship on surrounding federal lands;
Establishment of a flexible, science-based grazing
management and monitoring program designed to improve the
ecological health of 4.5 million acres of public lands in
Malheur County; and
Creation and funding of a consensus-based, multi-
stakeholder organization--the ``Malheur CEO Group''--to
develop and fund restoration and management projects
throughout the region.
Although H.R. 10082 is nominally based on S. 1890, H.R. 10082 would
result in significantly different, harmful outcomes and negative
precedents for public lands management. Key examples include:
Section 2 would eliminate the definition of ``long-term
ecological health,'' a core tenet the community supported
to ensure sustainable management of public lands in Malheur
County.
Section 3 would eliminate the requirements for data
collection, monitoring and adaptive management for
livestock grazing, undermining the ability for ranchers,
the Bureau of Land Management and the public to assess and
manage the impacts, positive or negative, of adjustments to
permitted livestock use. H.R. 10082 would also remove the
requirement for Secretarial review, evaluation and, if
necessary, adjustment of the grazing management program
after 10 years, essentially making the program permanent
before having any information about its efficacy.
Section 4 would eliminate the consensus-based community
group in favor of a much smaller committee weighted in
favor of industry while excluding other key constituencies.
Section 5 would undermine the recommendations of the
Southeast Oregon Resource Advisory Committee, public
process and federal law and policy by overriding the
recently-adopted Southeastern Oregon Resource Management
Plan Amendment, eliminating current and future conservation
management on more than 3.5 million acres of public lands
not designated as Wilderness. This would include the
release of nearly 375,000 acres of existing Wilderness
Study Areas and require that none of the 1.2 million acres
of existing Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (LWCs) be
managed to protect their wilderness values.
Undermines wilderness and the Wilderness Act by
establishing unnecessary roads and promoting motor vehicle
access in protected areas, resulting in the designation of
something other than actual wilderness.
Section 6 would burden the Burns Paiute Tribe with
financial obligations, requiring the Tribe to pay ranchers
for adjusting grazing use to conserve their sacred lands,
including paying for fencing to protect sacred sites from
livestock. It further requires Tribal management to
``protect the interests of those who hold livestock grazing
permits,'' thus tying the Tribe's hands in how they manage
their sacred lands.
We strongly oppose H.R. 10082, urge the Committee to vote ``NO'' on
this bill should it move forward, and encourage Congress to focus on
advancing Senator Wyden's thoroughly vetted, community-supported
proposal for protecting the Owyhee Canyonlands that has already
advanced to the Senate floor with bipartisan support.
Sincerely,
American Bird Conservancy Kettle Range Conservation Group
Center for Biological
Diversity Klamath Forest Alliance
Central/Eastern Oregon
Bitterbrush Chapter, Great
Old Broads for Wilderness Love is King
Conservation Lands
Foundation Oregon League of Conservation
Voters
Endangered Species
Coalition Oregon Natural Desert Association
Environment Oregon Project Eleven Hundred
Environmental Protection
Information Center--EPIC Sierra Club
Friends of the Owyhee Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance
Great Old Broads for
Wilderness The Wilderness Society
GreenLatinos Vet Voice Foundation
Intentional Hiking WildEarth Guardians
______
United States House of Representatives
Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
Re: November 19, 2024 Legislative Hearing
Chair Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
Our organizations represent hundreds of thousands of hunters and
anglers nationwide and in Oregon who share in a collective belief that
healthy public lands are essential to sustaining our hunting and
angling traditions. On behalf of these hunters and anglers, we write to
express our opposition to H.R. 10082, the Oregon Owyhee Wilderness and
Community Protection Act.
We believe the Owyhee Canyonlands is a landscape that should be
safeguarded for future generations of American sportsmen and women. The
Owyhee is an integral part of the sagebrush steppe landscape that
supports more than 350 species of fish and wildlife, including
California bighorn sheep, pronghorn, elk, mule deer, sage grouse, brown
trout, and native interior redband trout. Our organizations support the
multiple uses of public land in this region and recognize good
stewardship means sustainable ranching, fish and wildlife habitat
management, public access and meaningful resource conservation.
In 2019, Senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley first introduced the
Malheur Community Empowerment for the Owyhee Act--a bill that would
designate 1.1 million acres of the Owyhee as wilderness, establish a
flexible, science-based grazing and monitoring program, create and fund
a ``Malheur CEO Group'' made up of multiple stakeholders, and transfer
30,000 acres of public and tribal land into federal trust for the Burns
Paiute Tribe. Part of this five-year legislative process included the
founding of a ``legislative table team'' made up of tribes, local
ranchers, environmental organizations, and hook and bullet groups.
These stakeholders, along with Senator Wyden, reached consensus and
then developed a refined version of the Owyhee Act. In June of 2023,
Senator Wyden reintroduced the legislation as Senate Bill 1890.
S. 1890 provides a balanced management approach that protects and
preserves exceptional fish and wildlife habitat as well as the high
quality of life and economic benefits the area provides to local
communities, Tribes, and ranchers. It would also honor the rights of
Tribal Nations, recognize the area's rich fishing and hunting heritage,
and allow multiple-use activities, like livestock grazing, to continue.
While we appreciate that Congressman Bentz is involved in this
endeavor, our organizations are concerned that H.R. 10082 would
compromise key components of S. 1890 that were agreed to by local
community members, hunters and anglers, ranchers, the Burns Paiute
Tribe and conservation groups. H.R. 10082 would undermine the
protection of fish and wildlife habitat and set poor precedents for
management of our public lands. Some examples of this include:
Elimination of the definition of ``long-term ecological
health'', a principle agreed upon by stakeholders to ensure
sustainable and responsible management of federal public
lands in Malheur County. (Section 2)
Removal of the livestock grazing monitoring program that
would allow ranchers, the Bureau of Land Management, and
members of the public to make adaptive management decisions
to livestock grazing in Malheur County. H.R. 10082
ultimately makes the flexible grazing program permanent by
eliminating the requirement for Secretarial review,
evaluation, and possible adjustment of the program after 10
years. (Section 3)
Changes the makeup of the ``Malheur CEO Group'' from broad
representation of community members, businesses, ranchers,
Tribes, environmental groups, and hunters and anglers to a
smaller group weighed in favor of industry. (Section 4)
Overrides the community-driven Southeastern Oregon
Resource Management Plan Amendment adopted in 2024 by
preventing conservation management on over 3.5 million
acres of public lands and eliminating protections on 1.6
million acres of the most ecologically important public
lands. (Section 5)
Undermines the Wilderness Act by promoting the use of
heavy equipment in Wilderness areas. (Section 5)
Unilaterally creates the precedent for permanent release
of wilderness study areas and prevents wilderness review of
all federal lands in Malheur County and requires said lands
to be managed for non-wilderness values. (Section 5)
We thank you for the opportunity to share our concerns about H.R.
10082 and respectfully ask the Committee to vote ``NO'' on this bill
should it advance. We encourage Congress to pass Senator Wyden's
locally driven legislation, S. 1890. As one of the premier destinations
for sportsmen and women in Oregon, the Owyhee Canyonlands demand
permanent protection of our hunting, angling, and outdoor recreation
heritage. We remain committed to working with Congress to ensure that
the Owyhee Canyonlands and the region's fish and wildlife habitat are
protected this year.
Sincerely,
Backcountry Hunters &
Anglers Northwest Sportfishing Industry
Association
National Wildlife
Federation Trout Unlimited
______
NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION
Washington, DC
November 19, 2024
House Natural Resources Committee
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Re: NPCA Position on Legislation before the Committee on Natural
Resources
Dear Representative:
Since 1919, National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) has been
the leading voice of the American people in protecting and enhancing
our National Park System. On behalf of our 1.6 million members and
supporters nationwide, we write to share our thoughts on select
legislation ahead of a hearing in the Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Federal Lands scheduled for November 19, 2024.
H.R. 8182--Ocmulgee Mounds National Park and Preserve Establishment
Act: NPCA conditionally supports this legislation to establish the
Ocmulgee Mounds National Park and Preserve in the State of Georgia.
NPCA strongly believes that the current Ocmulgee Mounds National
Historical Park is worthy of expansion and elevation to National Park
status. However, we would like to work with the bill's sponsors and the
Committee on several specific issues in the legislation as written.
Congressional approval of this designation would allow for co-
management of a National Park System unit by a historically removed
Tribe. At the same time, we acknowledge the lack of inclusion of other
Tribes with a connection to this site. Given the significance of this
proposed management structure, NPCA urges amendment of this bill to
strengthen the Advisory Council (Section 5) by the addition of at least
two members to include: 1) the President of the College of the Muscogee
Nation--to advise on the training and development of tribal members to
fulfill the hiring preference provision of the legislation (Section
4d)--and 2) the Assistant to the Director of the National Park Service,
Native American Affairs Liaison--to incorporate high-level agency
expertise on emerging co-management practices. NPCA would further urge
that one of the Advisory Council seats dedicated to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service should similarly reflect high-level agency expertise
on emerging co-management practices within the National Wildlife Refuge
System.
While the Advisory Council is tasked with producing recommendations
to the Secretary of the Interior on the creation of a co-management
plan, we believe the bill should have a separate provision for the
development of a co--management agreement between applicable tribes and
the Park Service. Further, the bill should ensure opportunities for the
public and interested organizations to comment on a draft management
plan and a co-management agreement before they are finalized.
Additionally, we are concerned about the provision in the bill
requiring the Park Service to implement cultural resource
interpretation at Bond Swamp National Wildlife Refuge as this approach
may not comport with the Park Service's duties and mission. We are also
concerned about the various provisions on military activities including
allowing ``tactical ground parties'' and how this may conflict with
visitor experience in the park unit. Lastly, NPCA recognizes and
supports the desire of Twiggs, Houston, and Bibb Counties to fully
participate in the establishment of the new unit.
Thank you for considering our views.
Sincerely,
Christina Hazard,
Legislative Director
______
Public Lands Council National Cattlemen's Beef Association
American Sheep Industry Association
November 18, 2024
Hon. Tom Tiffany, Chairman
Hon. Joe Neguse, Ranking Member
Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member Neguse:
We write to express our strong support for H.R. 6441, the
``Ranching Without Red Tape Act of 2023'' and urge the Committee's
swift consideration of the bill. Introduced by Representatives Gabe
Vasquez (D-NM) and John Curtis (R-UT), this bill represents a
commonsense improvement to administration of grazing permits that
allows cattle and sheep producers to be responsive to on-the-ground
conditions without unnecessary bureaucratic delays. This bill, together
with its Senate companion (S. 3322) introduced by Senator John Barrasso
(R-WY), is both good governance and responsible land management policy.
The Public Lands Council (PLC) is the national association
dedicated to representing the unique rights and interests of cattle and
sheep producers who hold approximately 22,000 federal grazing permits
on public lands across the West. Together with our state and national
affiliates, including the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA)
and the American Sheep Industry Association (ASI), we engage in a wide
variety of policy discussions that seek to ensure grazing activities
are not only maintained on public lands, but used to support and create
positive land management outcomes. NCBA is the nation's oldest and
largest trade association representing American cattle producers,
representing nearly 150,000 cattle producer-members through both direct
membership and 44 state affiliate associations is dedicated to
supporting the needs and rights of ranchers across the country. ASI
represents more than 100,000 sheep ranchers across the United States
who produce lamb and wool.
Across the country, livestock producers are engaged in careful
stewardship of natural resources, not only because their businesses
depend upon it, but also because today's work is a continuation of a
generations of responsible, proactive conservation. In the West, this
ethos extends to ranchers' management of public grazing lands,
encompassing millions of acres that thrive under the watchful eye of
experienced ranchers.
The current regulatory framework imposes significant requirements
on grazing permittees, and these management requirements are often
hampered by inefficient agency processes. As partners to federal land
management agencies like the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S.
Forest Service (USFS), grazing permittees need to be able to take
immediate action to address challenges as they arise, rather than
waiting for an often lengthy approval process. This is especially true
when it comes to making necessary range improvements. These
improvements, such as fixing fences, maintaining wells, and upgrading
water pipelines, are incorporated as permittees' responsibilities as
part of their grazing permit. All too often, however, approval of that
basic work is delayed by agency process.
H.R. 6441 addresses this issue by allowing permit holders to make
minor range improvements without the need for renegotiation of their
underlying permit, provided they notify the appropriate USFS or BLM
official. If the appropriate official does not respond within 30 days,
the permittee can move forward with the necessary work. Additionally,
the bill requires the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the
Interior to respond to larger improvement requests within a similarly
expedited timeframe, utilizing all available administrative tools to
facilitate the necessary work.
By setting expectations for timely response to permittees, this
bill supports permittees' role as stewards of these Western landscapes
and ensures the agencies don't stand in the way of important range
management. We urge the Committee to move swiftly to consider and pass
H.R. 6441.
Thank you for your attention to this critical matter. We appreciate
your support for America's grazing permittees and their generational
investments in our nation's public lands.
Sincerely,
Public Lands Council National Cattlemen's Beef
Association
American Sheep Industry
Association
______
Public Lands Council National Cattlemen's Beef Association
American Sheep Industry Association
November 18, 2024
Hon. Tom Tiffany, Chairman
Hon. Joe Neguse, Ranking Member
Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member Neguse:
We write to express our full support for Representative LaMalfa's
bill, H.R. 7666, that would emphasize the use of livestock grazing to
reduce the significant risk of catastrophic wildfire. As we reach the
end of another significant fire year, now is the time to provide
meaningful direction to federal agencies to utilize all tools and
partnerships to mitigate the damage that wildfire imposes on the
landscape.
The Public Lands Council (PLC) represents cattle and sheep
producers across the West who hold approximately 22,000 grazing permits
on federal lands. Together with our 14 state affiliates and three
national affiliates, PLC is dedicated to the historically-proven
application of grazing as a land management and wildfire mitigation
tool. The National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) represents
nearly 26,000 direct members and 44 state cattle associations, totaling
about 178,000 collective members across the country. Together, we urge
the Committee's support of the bill and swift action to address the
ever-looming threat of next year's fire season.
Over the last several years, the United States has experienced
several of the most severe wildfire seasons on record. Year after year,
the West sees fires burn hotter, longer, and more intensely as a result
of repeated misuse of available tools and poor prioritization of
strategic assets. While the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) manages most of
the acres most affected by the worst fires, the agency has repeatedly
failed to meaningfully incorporate strategic grazing to improve fuel
breaks, reduce fine fuels at scale, and target some of the most at-risk
ecosystems. Even in USFS's most recent Wildfire Crisis Strategy from
2022, the agency makes no mention of the role grazing can--and should--
play in the larger effort to restore a more reasonable fire matrix on
federal lands.
The 2020 North Complex fire in California devastated more than
300,000 acres and produced more pollutants than all of the vehicles in
California would produce in a full year. In 2021, the Dixie Fire burned
a million acres in California. In 2022, an ill-fated prescribed burn in
New Mexico triggered a nationwide reevaluation on the use of prescribed
fire because more often than not, USFS lands are so densely vegetated
that the risk of using good fire to prevent bad fire is unpredictable,
at best.
In 2023, the country got a bit of a reprieve from fire as a result
of favorable weather conditions, but states across the West fared
poorly in 2024. More than 782,000 acres burned in Wyoming, 1.9 million
acres burned in Oregon, and nearly a million acres burned in
California. To date, more than 8 million acres have burned across the
West and even in early November, more than 480,000 acres are currently
on fire.
This ongoing trend underscores the need to do things differently.
Currently, USFS considers use of grazing as a fuels management tool
only if rangeland and grazing program staff suggest grazing on a pilot
basis. By contrast, the agency regularly considers mowing, prescribed
burns, and other mechanical treatments as ``first line'' tools to
reduce the risk from fuels. This disconnect means the agency is missing
out on the opportunity to remove billions of pounds of fine fuels that
put these landscapes into the high-risk category.
A 2022 study from the University of California-Davis confirmed the
scope of the positive impacts grazing can have: grazing--regardless of
livestock species (cattle, sheep, goats), is an effective tool to
reduce the grasses that dry and become wildlife fuel. Because of the
way livestock graze, they also provide a variable pattern of fuels
densities. This creates a natural fire break that changes fire behavior
and makes fires less intense and the resulting damage less severe.
Cattle grazing has the unique additional advantage of slowing woody
shrub and tree encroachment into grassland ecosystems, which has a host
of benefits not only for mitigating future fire risk posed by dense
shrub stands.
H.R. 7666 also addresses the benefits of applying grazing to the
landscape after fire burns. Generally, USFS and the Bureau of Land
Management are reluctant to resume grazing activities or use grazing as
a management tool after fire, because they take a hands-off approach in
most fire scenarios. All uses are precluded from the burned area with
the goal of allowing the land time to recover, but unfortunately this
approach has contributed to the widespread establishment of invasive
annual grasses and lost opportunity to turn over topsoil and
incorporate important organic matter. The bulk of scientific literature
demonstrates that recovery of burned rangeland is not adversely
affected by grazing. Likewise for grasslands, deferment of grazing for
one or two years was not supported by science, as the grassland
recovery occurred at the same rate through managed grazing and careful
monitoring of timing.
Over the last 50 years, the number of livestock authorized to graze
on federal lands has been significantly diminished, while the size,
intensity, and frequency of fires has continued to increase. Ensuring
that land management agencies and local communities have all available
tools at their disposal--particularly tools that are proven to be
successful--is key if we are ever going to truly stem the tide of fire
devastation.
Just last year, Dr. Dave Daley, a respected leader within the
California Cattlemen's Association, Public Lands Council, and National
Cattlemen's Beef Association, emphasized the critical role of grazing
in bolstering wildfire resilience during his testimony before your
committee. His plea highlights the urgent need for comprehensive land
management approaches, prioritizing post-fire operations, fuel breaks,
and rectifying past mismanagement. As Dr. Daley aptly stated:
``. . . wildfire resilience practices such as livestock grazing
work, and confronted with the very real threat of worsening
wildfire conditions, there ought to be bipartisan consensus
endorsing these effective tools.''
We wholeheartedly support this bill and urge its swift passage.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, and we look forward to
seeing progress on this important issue.
Sincerely,
Public Lands Council National Cattlemen's Beef
Association
American Sheep Industry
Association
______
Public Lands Council National Cattlemen's Beef Association
American Sheep Industry Association
November 18, 2024
Hon. Tom Tiffany, Chairman
Hon. Joe Neguse, Ranking Member
Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Chairman Tiffany and Ranking Member Neguse:
We write to express our full support for Representative Curtis's
bill, the Operational Flexibility Grazing Management Program Act (H.R.
9062). Livestock grazing permittees are the lynchpin of public land
management and play a pivotal role in the stability of rural economies.
Public lands grazing permittees pay careful attention to the ecosystem
health and needs of the resources when they manage their cattle and
sheep, and apply the same attention and care to management of their
public lands grazing allotments. The Public Lands Council (PLC) is the
national association dedicated to representing these permittees,
dedicated to promoting the unique rights and interests of cattle and
sheep producers who hold the approximately 22,000 federal grazing
permits on public lands across the West.
Together with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S.
Forest Service (USFS), cattle and sheep permittees manage more than 200
million acres across the West. Their presence on the landscape and
attentive management has created grazing lands that are resilient to
drought, wildfire, pests, and able to withstand increasing demands from
varied multiple uses. In some cases, however, this attentive management
is inappropriately constrained by a long list of federal requirements
that while originally well-intentioned, have become barriers to good
management practices.
Livestock grazing on federal land is highly regulated under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (FLPMA), Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, and
many other regulations and guidance documents that together form the
litany of regulatory requirements to which livestock producers must
adhere. Permittees' management is evaluated on an annual basis as part
of complying with the terms of their grazing permits and often,
management adjustments are made to ensure that grazing activities
support healthy rangelands and ecological conditions.
Unfortunately, sometimes permittees' ability to make these
adjustments swiftly, or at all, is limited by the permits themselves.
In some cases, permits have been drafted to include overly prescriptive
language about on/off dates to allotments, timing and utilization of
pasture and forage resources, and other details that should be
addressed in the annual use planning discussions that occur between the
permittee and their agency partner. Making adjustments to any of these
factors currently requires incredibly onerous NEPA, changes to grazing
permits that often require lengthy FLPMA processes, and result in
permits that are equally restrictive to a new set of stringent
management requirements.
This bill would provide a facility for permittees and their agency
partners to act much more quickly when the need to make changes
inevitably arises. This bill will allow for permittees to adjust
grazing rotations across pastures that may have received differing
levels of precipitation. Language in this bill would provide for an
extension--or reduction--in the number of days grazed on an allotment
if there was too much or not enough forage. Permittees need the
flexibility to make prompt management decisions to mitigate conflicts
with recreation, fire, drought, and all kinds of factors. H.R. 9062
will provide them that flexibility and enshrines in law the need for
adaptive management to be viewed favorably by the law.
Permittees should be encouraged to be proactive in making
management changes for the benefit of the resource and overall land
management--and supported by their federal agency partners in doing so.
Federal requirements should not be a barrier to making the best of
their management goals. Equally, Federal agencies have been plagued by
regulatory barriers to updating their own regulations to provide this
flexibility, so we thank Congressman John Curtis for introducing this
bill and emphasizing permittees' ability to be leaders in land health.
Permittees are dedicated to the landscapes they manage this bill gives
the agencies the ability to be better partners to ranchers to allow
both parts of the partnership to work toward the same goal: optimized
landscape health and resiliency.
Representative Curtis and other grazing stakeholders see the
incredible opportunity to provide the kind of long-term flexibility and
adaptive management that so often is constrained by unnecessary
bureaucratic process. We thank Representative Curtis for his support
and urge swift passage of H.R. 9062.
Sincerely,
Public Lands Council National Cattlemen's Beef
Association
American Sheep Industry
Association
[all]