[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
RESTORING MULTIPLE USE TO REVITALIZE AMERICA'S
PUBLIC LANDS AND RURAL COMMUNITIES
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, February 11, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-6
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
58-952 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
ROBERT J. WITTMAN, VA, Vice Chairman
JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Member
Robert J. Wittman, VA, Raul M. Grijalva, AZ,
Vice Chairman Ranking Member Emeritus
Tom McClintock, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Joe Neguse, CO
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, Teresa Leger Fernandez,
AS NM
Doug LaMalfa, CA Melanie Stansbury, NM
Daniel Webster, FL Val Hoyle, OR
Russ Fulcher, ID Seth Magaziner, RI
Pete Stauber, MN Jared Golden, ME
Tom Tiffany, WI Dave Min, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO Maxine Dexter, OR
Cliff Bentz, OR Pablo Jose Hernandez, PR
Jen Kiggans, VA Emily Randall, WA
Wesley P. Hunt, TX Yassamin Ansari, AZ
Mike Collins, GA Sarah Elfreth, MD
Harriet M. Hageman, WY Adam Gray, CA
Mark Amodei, NV Luz Rivas, CA
Tim Walberg, MI Nydia Velazquez, NY
Mike Ezell, MS Debbie Dingell, MI
Celest Maloy, Utah Darren Soto, FL
Addison McDowell, NC Julia Brownley, CA
Jeff Crank, CO
Nick Begich, AK
Jeff Hurd, CO
Mike Kennedy, UT
Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
Ana Unruh Cohen, Democratic Staff Director
http://naturalresources.house.gov
Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
William David, Chief Counsel
Ana Unruh Cohen, Democratic Staff Director
http://naturalresources.house.gov
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL LANDS
TOM TIFFANY, WI, Chairman
MIKE KENNEDY, UT, Vice Chair
JOE NEGUSE, CO, Ranking Member
Tom McClintock, CA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
Russ Fulcher, ID Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Pete Stauber, MN Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Cliff Bentz, OR Jared Golden, ME
Wesley P. Hunt, TX Maxine Dexter, OR
Mark Amodei, NV Emily Randall, WA
Celeste Maloy, UT Jared Huffman, CA, ex officio
Mike Kennedy, UT
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio
---------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing Memo..................................................... v
Hearing held on Tuesday, February 11, 2025....................... 1
Statement of Members:
Tiffany, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Wisconsin......................................... 1
Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Clarke, Hon. Eric, County Attorney, Washington County, Utah,
St. George, Utah........................................... 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Canterbury, Tim, President, Public Lands Council, Howard,
Colorado................................................... 14
Prepared statement of.................................... 15
Questions submitted for the record....................... 18
Gibbs, Dan, Executive Director, Colorado Department of
Natural Resources, Denver, Colorado........................ 20
Prepared statement of.................................... 21
Neiman, Jim, President and CEO, Neiman Enterprises, Hulett,
Wyoming.................................................... 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 24
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9999.001
To: House Committee on Natural Resources Republican Members
From: Subcommittee on Federal Lands: Aniela Butler, Brandon Miller,
and Jason Blore ([email protected];
[email protected]; and [email protected];
x6-7736)
Date: February 10, 2025
Subject: Oversight Hearing on ``Restoring Multiple Use to Revitalize
America's Public Lands and Rural Communities''
________________________________________________________________________
_______
The Subcommittee on Federal Lands will hold an oversight hearing on
``Restoring Multiple Use to Revitalize America's Public Lands and Rural
Communities'' on Tuesday, February 11, 2025, 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, February 10,
if their Member intends to participate in the hearing.
I. KEY MESSAGES
The Trump administration has promised a prompt return to
multiple use on our federal lands, which will bring
immediate relief and concrete benefits to struggling
Americans, particularly those in rural, western
communities.
Returning multiple-use principles to federal land
management will help lower housing costs, ease the way for
much-needed development projects, allow for increased
access to public lands, improve forest health, bolster
rural economies, and secure American energy dominance for
years to come.
In contrast, the Biden administration pursued a variety of
heavy-handed, preservationist policies. Besides harming
rural communities, these policies marked an egregious
departure from longstanding and widely accepted multiple
use principles.
Through the vague ``30x30 Initiative,'' the controversial
``Public Lands Rule,'' unpopular national monument
expansions, restrictive resource management plans, and
other ill-advised policies, the Biden administration
revealed the alarming scope and dogmatic application of its
preservationist agenda.
II. WITNESSES
The Honorable Eric Clarke, County Attorney, Washington
County, St. George, Utah
Mr. Jim D. Neiman, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Neiman Enterprises, Hulett, Wyoming
Mr. Tim Canterbury, President, Public Lands Council,
Howard, Colorado
Mr. Dan Gibbs, Executive Director, Colorado Department of
Natural Resources, Denver, Colorado [Minority Witness]
III. BACKGROUND
The Biden Administration's Harmful Disregard of Multiple-Use Principles
The Significance of Multiple Use
The federal government owns approximately 640 million acres of land
in the United States (U.S.), covering about 28 percent of the country's
landmass.1 In America's western states, federal land
ownership approaches 50 percent of the landmass. These lands fall
primarily under the jurisdictions of the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS).2 The BLM's
enabling statute, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
(FLPMA), requires the agency to manage its 244 million acres of land
and more than 700 million acres of subsurface mineral estate in
accordance with multiple use and sustained yield (commonly referred to
as a `multiple use mandate').3 Multiple uses include
livestock grazing, energy and mineral development, timber production,
outdoor recreation, and wildlife habitat protection.4 FLPMA
further defines the term ``sustained yield'' to require ``the
achievement and maintenance in perpetuity'' of multiple
uses.5 Similarly, USFS must guarantee multiple use and
sustained yield on America's national forests.6
For nearly 50 years, the multiple use mandate has guided productive
and responsible administration of America's public lands. The
principle's primacy in law and practice during this lengthy period
indicated broad acknowledgment of a simple truth: multiple use is
essential to the Western way of life. With so much western land under
federal control, thousands of rural economies depend on access to
federal land for energy and mineral development, recreational activity,
livestock grazing, timber production, and other activities supporting
economic livelihoods. In fact, BLM estimated that its lands supported
783,000 jobs in fiscal year (FY) 2021.7
Throughout its term, however, the Biden administration jettisoned
longstanding multiple use principles to implement a radical
environmentalist agenda. Turning a blind eye to the needs of western
and rural America, Biden's federal land managers obsessed over climate
change, environmental justice, clean energy, and resource preservation.
They advanced these goals through policies and programs such as the
``30x30 Initiative,'' the BLM's ``Public Lands Rule,'' national
monument creation and expansion, preservationist resource management
plans (RMPs), the ``Old Growth'' Initiative, and related efforts. These
extreme measures jeopardized the well-being of countless western and
rural communities.8 The purpose of this hearing is to
examine the harmful consequences of the Biden administration's
abandonment of multiple use and demonstrate the numerous benefits that
will result from restoring this time-honored principle to the
management of America's public lands.
The Radical and Ill-Defined ``30x30 Initiative''
The vast scope of the Biden administration's preservationist agenda
was quickly revealed when, on January 27, 2021, President Biden issued
Executive Order (E.O.) 14008, directing the U.S. Department of the
Interior (DOI), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ), and other federal agencies to preserve
at least 30 percent of the country's lands and waters by
2030.9 Observers soon highlighted significant problems with
the E.O., including its extraordinary vagueness and failure to define
basic terms.10 For instance, it was not explained whether
conservation efforts on private and state lands and waters would have
counted toward meeting the 30 percent goal. Similarly, the Biden
administration failed to identify a baseline of current conservation
practices to measure progress toward the 30x30 goal. The federal
government already owned roughly 28 percent of U.S. land when the
Initiative was launched.11 If this amount had been used as a
baseline, the federal estate would have still had to grow by an
additional 41 million acres of land in less than a decade to meet the
30 percent goal. This translates to an area roughly the size of the
State of Washington.12
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
This unscientific and ill-defined goal had so many issues that
the Biden administration even attempted to rebrand the effort as the
``America the Beautiful Initiative,'' an implicit acknowledgment of
30x30's willful detachment from mathematical realities. Further
confusion resulted from the previous administration's announcement of a
``$1 billion'' ``America the Beautiful Challenge'' fund to further the
30x30 Initiative.13 When asked about how the program would
meet its $1 billion funding goal, for example, CEQ representatives
vaguely cited authority under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, even
though that statute contains no mention of either the 30x30 Initiative
or its objective of ``conserving 30 percent of the nation's lands and
waters.''14 At the conclusion of the Biden administration,
despite promises of conservation, 30x30 was only ever cited as a
justification for locking up lands and resources under restrictive,
preservationist designations such as national monuments and mineral
withdrawals.15 Together, these actions demonstrate that the
30x30 Initiative was a deliberately vague policy to which the Biden
administration could point when attempting to justify its increasingly
restrictive land-use policies and further weakening of multiple use.
The Controversial ``Public Lands Rule'' and Natural Asset Companies
On May 9, 2024, the BLM published its final, so-called
``Conservation and Landscape Health'' Rule (commonly referred to as the
``Public Lands Rule'').16 The publication followed more than
a year of controversy, limited opportunities for public input, and
well-founded concerns upending the longstanding multiple use
mandate.17 Under FLPMA, BLM-administered lands are to be
managed in support of multiple uses, which are exclusively defined to
only include livestock grazing, energy and mineral development, timber
production, outdoor recreation, and wildlife habitat
protection.18 The Public Lands Rule, however, allows BLM to
elevate conservation above all other uses, thereby threatening the
traditional uses that many Western communities rely upon for their
livelihoods.19 Specifically, the rule enables BLM to lease
federal parcels under new and vaguely defined ``restoration and
mitigation'' leases and change certain standards governing land-use
decisions.20 Moreover, if BLM determines that uses
previously authorized under FLPMA are incompatible with a restoration
and mitigation lease, new land-health standards, or an Area of Critical
Environmental Concern (ACEC), those uses would no longer be
allowed.21
The Public Lands Rule's new leases are an unaccountable mechanism
through which wealthy individuals and entities could lock up huge areas
of public land for preservationist purposes. These leases are broadly
available to ``entities seeking to restore public lands or mitigate''
negative environmental impacts.22 While the initial lease
term is capped at 10 years, the lease ``can be extended as necessary to
serve the purpose for which [it] was first issued.''23 Also
troubling is the fact that the leases are vulnerable to exploitation by
a new kind of entity, the natural asset company (NAC). A NAC is a
company ``whose primary purpose is to actively manage, maintain,
restore . . . and grow the value of natural assets and their production
of ecosystem services.''24 Developed by the Intrinsic
Exchange Group (IEG), NACs ``hold the rights to the ecological
performance'' of prescribed areas, including public lands, for
``conservation, restoration, or sustainable management.''25
On September 29, 2023, the New York Stock Exchange requested that the
Securities and Exchange Commission allow NACs to be listed on the
exchange.26 Although the proposal was withdrawn after facing
heavy criticism, IEG maintains that it will continue to pursue
``different options'' for introducing NACs into financial
markets.27 Through misguided policies like the Public Lands
Rule, the Biden administration had made it easier for extreme
environmental groups or foreign entities, perhaps under the guise of a
NAC, to hold unaccountable, managerial authority over federal lands.
This was certainly a marked departure from the idea, codified in
statute, that BLM lands are supposed to be owned by the public and
managed to support multiple uses.
Unilateral and Unpopular National Monument Expansions
Under the Antiquities Act of 1906, Congress authorized the
president to designate national monuments on federal lands containing
``historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, or other
objects of historic or scientific interest.''28 This
authority was limited, however; among other restrictions, the law
specified that national monuments ``shall be confined to the smallest
area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to
be protected.''29 Despite the Antiquities Act's intended
narrow focus, presidents of both parties have repeatedly abused the law
throughout its history to lock up millions of acres of land under
onerous restrictions. The 46th president, however, took this brazen
disregard to new heights. In just four years, President Biden created
or expanded 12 national monuments and restored the boundaries of three
others that Presidents Obama and Clinton had created.30 This
included two national monuments that President Biden created in
California during the last two weeks of his presidency: the 624,000-
acre Chuckwalla National Monument and the 224,000-acre Sattitla
Highlands National Monument.31 In total, President Biden
``used the Antiquities Act more than any first-term president since the
Carter administration,'' using his expansive interpretation of the
statute to lock up nearly 5.7 million acres of land.32
Apart from blocking access to natural resources, national monuments
often defy local sentiment and limit economic opportunities for
struggling rural economies.33 Adding insult to injury,
locals often express concern over ``whether there was sufficient
consultation with, and support from, Congress, local and state
governments, residents of the affected areas, and the general public''
before a president creates a given monument.34 Further,
national monuments are increasingly being placed under the jurisdiction
of the BLM and USFS,35 creating tensions with the two
agencies' multiple-use mandates. By unilaterally designating more than
5 million acres as national monuments, President Biden thus expanded
upon a lamentable presidential tradition of flagrantly abusing the
Antiquities Act and ignoring the concerns of local communities and
stakeholders.36
Restrictive RMPs
BLM prepares RMPs to serve as land-use plans for specific units. As
the BLM's ``blueprint'' for ``keeping landscapes healthy and
productive,'' an RMP should offer a balanced management plan that
accounts for multiple uses and the perspectives of interested
stakeholders.37 Under the Biden administration, however,
these plans were routinely transformed into top-down, preservationist
schemes that flew in the face of local interests and concerns. The Rock
Springs RMP, which covers approximately 3.6 million acres in
southwestern Wyoming and was finalized in December 2024, is
representative of this approach.38 When the Draft Rock
Springs RMP was released in August 2023, many locals were dismayed to
see its strict limitations on oil and gas development, grazing, and
recreation.39 The opposition was so strong that Wyoming
Governor Mark Gordon called on the BLM to withdraw the Draft RMP
completely.40 Unfortunately, the finalized RMP ignored most
of these concerns, and BLM Principal Deputy Director Nada Wolff Culver
rejected Governor Gordon's recommendations outright.41 In
response, state and local officials expressed disappointment that
``years of collaborative work'' with the BLM had proved
unavailing.42
Similar dynamics unfolded in Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Utah,
and across the West. The BLM's RMPs for the Colorado River Valley Field
Office (CRVFO) and Grand Junction Field Office (GJFO), finalized on
October 16, 2024, restricted oil and gas leasing on nearly 1.1 million
acres in Colorado despite facing significant opposition in Colorado and
Congress.43 Relatedly, county officials in Utah accused BLM
of failing to adequately coordinate with state and local partners
during the planning of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
(GESNM) RMP.44 According to these officials, the BLM missed
critical deadlines, failed to produce a list of the ``objects'' that
would be protected by the monument's new acreage, and misled the public
about road closures that would occur under the agency's preferred
alternative.45 By cutting off multiple use at the planning
level, the Biden administration furthered a ``death by a thousand
cuts'' approach to rural and western economies that depend on
productive lands for food, fuel, and fiber.
The Misguided ``Old Growth'' Initiative
In April 2022, President Biden issued E.O. 14072, directing USDA
and DOI to define, identify, and inventory ``mature and old growth
forests'' on public lands and develop policies to protect those
forests.46 The interagency mature and old growth initiative
began in July 2022 with a Federal Register Notice and public comment
period, resulting in roughly 4,000 comments and more than 100,000
signatures on various form letters from across the
country.47 In April 2023, USFS published an ``initial
draft'' seeking to define and inventory ``old-growth and mature
forests'' and even convened a ``Definition Development
Team.''48 Yet these efforts failed to create a coherent
definition for ``old-growth'' or ``mature'' forests. This was a
predictable shortcoming, as no standard definition exists for ``old-
growth forests'' and ``mature forests,'' and they are not terms
recognized in the scientific practice of forestry. Despite this lack of
clear definitions, the report identified 91 million acres of ``old-
growth and mature'' forested lands on National Forest System (NFS)
lands, comprising 63 percent of all land managed by USFS.49
The Biden administration ultimately admitted that ``these
`definitions' are considered dynamic, not static, and thus are subject
to refinement as new information is incorporated (working
definitions).''50 Despite lacking a real definition, the
administration released an introductory report in January that
identified wildfire, insects, and diseases as the leading threats to
mature and old-growth forests and even admitted that ``tree cutting''
is a minor threat.51 The report even acknowledges that
active management generally ``improved or maintained'' old growth
stands.52 Continuing this misguided and incomplete effort,
USFS published a Notice of Intent to amend all 128 national forest land
management plans to provide direction on managing, conserving, and
stewarding old-growth forest conditions.53 On June 21, 2024,
USFS released a draft Environmental Impact Statement that included
burdensome regulations that would hinder forest management
efforts.54
There was significant opposition from various stakeholders who
argued that the proposed National Old Growth Amendment was legally
suspect and scientifically flawed. In response, USFS announced they
were withdrawing the proposed amendment on January 7,
2025.55 USFS Chief Randy Moore acknowledged this opposition,
stating there ``was also feedback that there are important place-based
differences that we will need to understand'' in order to properly
steward forest resources on the ground.56 While this was a
welcome decision, the fact remains that this ill-advised effort from
the Biden administration unquestionably diverted time and energy away
from addressing the overwhelming wildfire and forest health crisis that
is the true threat to forest stands of every age class.
The Benefits of Restoring Multiple Use
The American people need relief after suffering four years of
disastrous natural resources policy under President Biden. A simple
return to the letter and spirit of time-tested multiple-use mandates,
as proposed by the Trump administration, will go a long way toward
helping struggling communities surrounded by federal land. Some of the
policy areas with the most urgent need for improvement are described
below.
Right-sizing Federal Land Ownership to End America's Housing Shortage
The harmful consequences of excessive federal land ownership are
not confined to America's rural communities. Federal lands encircle
many of the nation's fastest-growing urban centers, driving up housing
costs and rental prices.57 This problem is especially
pronounced in America's western states, where approximately half of the
land is federally owned.58 Therefore, it is unsurprising
that this region has generally suffered from housing price increases
that have outpaced those experienced in other parts of the
country.59 Additionally, these communities often face
significant delays in approving needed transportation projects, water
resource plans, and other local initiatives simply because they are
surrounded by federal parcels under restrictive land-use
designations.60
Fortunately, workable solutions to America's housing crisis remain
firmly within reach. In a 2022 study, Republicans on the U.S.
Congressional Joint Economic Committee (JEC) found that ``[t]he federal
government can alleviate a large share of the housing shortage in the
West by disposing of a minuscule share of its vast
landholdings.''61 Freeing up only 0.1 percent of the federal
government's landholdings for residential development across the west
could lead to the construction of 2.7 million new homes and empower 4.7
million Americans to finally afford averagely priced homes in their
states.62 In Utah, for example, allowing for more housing to
be built on federal lands could address 35 percent of the current
housing shortage.63 Utah Governor Spencer Cox recently
identified the state's exorbitant housing prices as ``the single
greatest threat'' to achieving future prosperity, which shows the
importance of this issue. Even a small reduction in the federal estate
could bring enormous benefits to American families.
Restoring Multiple-Use to Improve Forest Health and Strengthen Rural
Economies
BLM and USFS are the two primary agencies tasked with forest
management.64 USFS manages roughly 145 million acres of
forests and woodlands across the NFS, while BLM manages 37.6 million
acres of mostly public domain forests.65 Turning these
agencies away from the preservationist approaches they have taken under
the Biden administration and requiring them to fulfill their statutory
multiple-use mandates would benefit both the economy and the
environment by promoting active, responsible stewardship of federal
forestland. Timber harvesting and grazing, for example, are traditional
uses whose increased presence in federally managed forests is essential
to managing the wildfire crisis and supporting rural economies.
Timber harvesting can directly reduce wildfire risk. Vast tracts of
federal forests are overloaded with hazardous accumulations of dry
fuels that have resulted from a combination of fire suppression and a
dangerous lack of thinning, prescribed burns, and mechanical
treatments.66 Yet USFS missed its timber target in FY 2024
by roughly 260 million board feet.67 Doubling down on this
failure, USFS lowered its timber target from 3.4 to 3.2 billion board
for the next two years.68
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Reversing this troubling trajectory for timber targets would
bolster USFS's wildfire risk reduction capabilities and revitalize
threatened sawmill infrastructure. Since 2000, over 1,500 sawmills,
approximately one-third of the total number of sawmills then in
operation, shut down or severely curtailed their business
activities.69 Boosting timber targets would help prevent
future loss of this critically important infrastructure, which could be
leveraged to help ramp up forest management activities and process
hazardous fuels. The viability of this solution has been confirmed in
practice. Following the devastating Caldor Fire in 2021, the Washoe
Tribe of Nevada and California partnered with a private timber company
and USFS to build a sawmill to process the salvage timber left behind
by the wildfire.70 This partnership promised to improve
forest health and provide an important source of revenue and jobs in
that region.71 Moving forward, our land management agencies
must reject the false premise that locking up land is sufficient to
protect our forests. Instead, to restore health and resiliency to our
forests, federal land managers must engage in active forest management,
which includes responsible timber harvesting.
Grazing is another traditional use whose increased application
would significantly reduce wildfire risk and improve landscape health.
Studies have repeatedly demonstrated that grazing is compatible with
rangeland management and even vital to rangeland health. In 2024, for
example, USDA released a study showing livestock grazing can limit both
wildfire risk and invasive annual grasses.72 Responsible
grazing can modify the range to make it more fire resilient, while the
presence of livestock on federal land decreases fire probability and
severity.73 Such benefits are among the reasons why USFS
listed grazing as a key aspect of the agency's Wildfire Crisis
Strategy.74 Grazing on public lands also delivers
considerable cost savings to federal land management agencies while
adding economic value to rural economies. Ranchers grazing livestock on
public lands assist federal agencies by frequently clearing public
trails, monitoring recreation trends, observing wildlife movements, and
responding first to wildfires and other natural disasters.75
As demonstrated through the examples of timber harvesting and
grazing, a severe consequence of federal land managers locking up land
is that states and localities lose out on revenue-generating
activities. Economic research has found that a ``[w]ilderness
designation is significantly associated with lower per capita income,
lower total payroll, and lower total tax receipts in
counties.''76 The study continued by noting that ``[t]he
benefits and costs from [w]ilderness are unevenly distributed between
local and non-local communities, with local communities incurring a
larger burden of the costs.''77 This logic would readily
apply to other restrictive land-use designations that contradict true
multiple-use. Therefore, opening more federal land to traditional uses
could serve as a promising way forward for many of the nation's most
economically disadvantaged rural areas.
Republican Solutions to Restore Local Control and Productive Uses of
Public Lands
House Republicans are determined to use the 119th Congress to
advance commonsense and practicable solutions to increase Americans'
access to their public lands and empower local stakeholders to have a
greater role in land-use decisions. In completing this work,
Republicans will return to many of the legislative solutions that were
already developed in the 118th Congress to advance these policies to
President Trump's desk. A selection of bills planned for consideration
or already considered this Congress in the jurisdiction of the House
Committee on Natural Resources include the following:
H.R. 471 (Rep. Westerman), ``Fix Our Forests Act'':
Comprehensive, bipartisan legislation to restore forest
health, improve resiliency to catastrophic wildfires, and
protect communities by expediting environmental analyses
and deterring frivolous lawsuits.78
H.R. 3397 (Rep. Curtis) (118th), ``Western Economic
Security Today (WEST) Act of 2024'': Withdraws the proposed
Public Lands Rule and prohibits the BLM from finalizing,
implementing, or enforcing any substantially similar
rule.79
H.R. 5499 (Rep. Miller-Meeks) (118th), ``Congressional
Oversight of the Antiquities Act'': Amends the Antiquities
Act by requiring congressional approval for the designation
of national monuments. If Congress does not approve the
designation within six months, the monument cannot be
redesignated by the President for 25 years.80
H.R. 6085 (Rep. Hageman) (118th), To prohibit the
implementation of the Draft Resource Management Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement for the Rock Springs RMP
Revision, Wyoming: Restricts the Secretary of the Interior
from finalizing, implementing, administering, or enforcing
the RMP and Environmental Impact Statement for the Rock
Springs RMP Revision, Wyoming.81
H.R. 6547 (Rep. Boebert) (118th), ``Colorado Energy
Prosperity Act'': Restricts the Secretary of the Interior
from finalizing, implementing, administering, or enforcing
the Draft RMP or Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement for the CRVFO and GJFO RMPs.82
H.R. 7006 (Rep. Curtis) (118th), To prohibit natural asset
companies from entering into any agreement with respect to
land in the State of Utah or natural assets on or in such
land: Restricts a NAC from entering into any agreement
regarding land or natural assets in Utah.83
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8952.019
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON RESTORING MULTIPLE USE TO REVITALIZE AMERICA'S
PUBLIC LANDS AND RURAL COMMUNITIES
----------
Tuesday, February 11, 2025
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Federal Lands
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:07 p.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tom Tiffany
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Tiffany, McClintock, Fulcher,
Stauber, Amodei, Maloy, Kennedy, Westerman; Neguse, Stansbury,
Dexter, Randall, and Huffman.
Also present: Representative Hageman.
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 hear testimony on
restoring multiple use to revitalize America's public lands and
rural communities.
I ask unanimous consent that the following Members be
allowed to participate in today's hearing from the dais: the
gentlelady from Wyoming, Ms. Hageman; and the gentleman from
Colorado, Mr. Crank.
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. I want to welcome everybody to the first
official Subcommittee on Federal Lands hearing of the 119th
Congress.
Last Congress the Subcommittee continued its bipartisan
tradition by sending more than 15 separate pieces of
legislation to the President's desk. In fact, if Federal Lands
were counted as a full Committee, it would have tied for the
fourth most productive Committee in the House last Congress.
This is also based on a conservative estimate, since we are not
counting the numerous other bills signed into law through
comprehensive packages like the EXPLORE Act.
As we begin our important work in this new Congress, this
Subcommittee will work with the Trump administration and the
new Republican Senate majority to restore multiple use to our
public lands, empower local communities, and revitalize rural
economies.
And there is much work to be done. President Biden left
America's public lands and natural resources in a sorry state.
For four long years President Biden and his Federal land
managers abandoned the long-standing and previously
uncontroversial principle of multiple use. Instead they adopted
top-down preservationist schemes designed to placate extreme
environmentalists. Along the way, Biden's officials never
seemed to notice or care that their reckless policies were
inflicting enormous damage on America's rural economy, housing
affordability, energy dominance, and national security.
While virtually no American was spared by President Biden's
irresponsible natural resource policies, the harm was felt most
acutely out West. Growing urban centers like Salt Lake City and
Las Vegas suffer from exorbitant housing and rental prices
largely because they are encircled by Federal land. Rural
communities are facing economic devastation as generations-old
grazing and logging businesses have had to shut down due to
ruinous regulations. And on top of all that, the Democrats'
profligate spending brought us the highest inflation in 40
years, which disproportionately hurt rural residents.
The startling scope and arrogance of these policies were
laid bare by the Biden administration's 30x30 agenda. Under
this initiative Federal land managers sought to lock up at
least 30 percent of the Nation's land and waters by 2030.
Seldom remarked was the fact that the Federal Government
already owns 640 million acres, or roughly 28 percent of the
Nation's land mass, including nearly 50 percent of the land out
West. The 30x30 initiative, then, was simply a misleading
attempt to justify further land grabs. Thirty by thirty was
consistently cited when the Biden administration designated new
national monuments or announced ill-advised mineral
withdrawals.
Under glaring abuses of the Antiquities Act the former
President sealed off nearly six million acres in California,
Nevada, Arizona, Utah, and Colorado. Adding insult to injury,
the Federal land managers who planned and implemented these
national monuments often displayed a sneering disregard for
local opinion. Again and again, local officials and residents
reported that their questions and concerns had been deflected
or ignored.
This was also true of the BLM's Public Lands Rule, which
overturned the long-standing statutory precedent of multiple
use and sustained yield. The rule empowers environmental groups
and foreign entities to purchase so-called conservation leases,
and thereby lock up millions of acres of public lands intended
for multiple use. Despite repeated requests to hold more in-
person listening sessions from s across this dais in Western
States, the Biden administration refused to do so and pushed
this rule forward over the objections of governors, local
officials, ranchers, recreationalists, and countless others.
Similar issues plagued the resource management plans issued
by Biden's bureaucrats in Colorado, Utah, Montana, North
Dakota, and Wyoming. The BLM used resource management plans to
prohibit energy production, limit economic activity, and block
traditional access. And yet again, Federal land managers simply
dismissed local outrage.
These examples lead to an inescapable conclusion: When
bureaucrats in Washington turn their backs on multiple use,
they also turn their backs on the American people. Thankfully,
a unified Republican government means that relief is now at
hand. Instead of ignoring local voices, we are putting Western
communities back in the driver's seat to shape the land and
resource policies that affect their lives.
Further, Committee Republicans will ensure that Federal
land managers understand that, under our watch, coordination
will always require attentive, good faith, and meaningful
engagement with local communities. The days of ignoring and
downplaying stakeholders' concerns are over.
I could go on forever about these issues, but fortunately
we have some high-caliber witnesses in front of us who are
eager to share their expertise. So in closing I would like to
thank all of them for traveling here today. Please know that
your insights are highly valued by each member of this
Subcommittee.
With that I yield and recognize the Ranking Member of the
Full Committee, Mr. Huffman.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Pinch hitting for our
Subcommittee Ranker for now. I appreciate it.
This Subcommittee will host some very important
conversations in the coming months, conversations and debates
over policy that will have profound impacts on the future of
our public lands. And it is clear from the onslaught of attacks
emanating from the White House that the heart and soul of
America's public lands is at stake here.
Between Project 2025 and its extreme targeting of public
lands, and now the aggressive rollout of the Project 2025
agenda through executive orders, a hiring freeze, funding
freeze, there is no question that Federal land management
agencies, along with many other Federal agencies, are under
siege. This reckless and illegal action is delaying the
delivery of critical funds to State, local, and tribal partners
right now. It is paralyzing the implementation of wildfire
mitigation projects, projects that keep communities safe. It is
pausing or outright canceling the hiring process for critical
personnel with vital functions like public safety, resource
protection, and others.
Shockingly, constituents in my district who are hard at
work implementing post-fire disaster recovery and wildfire
mitigation projects have been forced to pause these efforts
without any idea how long this pause will even remain in
effect. They could lose an entire season because of the
administration's actions. There is nothing ``woke'' about
reducing wildfire risk and helping communities rebuild. These
efforts are essential for public safety, regardless of
politics. So this is beyond perplexing.
On top of that, countless Federal employees have no idea if
they still even have a job because these tech bros, along with
Elon Musk, these unelected, unaccountable private-sector
actors, are rifling through all of their computer systems and
private information, in some cases suggesting mass layoffs. And
doing that with non-partisan civil servants is incredibly
shortsighted. This ego-driven vendetta is going to have grave
consequences. And those who support it or those who simply
stand by while it happens will own those consequences.
The tech bros at DOGE have no idea how much Americans love
their public lands. Visitation is skyrocketing, outdoor
recreation is booming. And thanks to the hard work and
dedication of the Biden administration, conservation is on the
rise. Democrats are proud of the progress we achieved in the
last 4 years. But unfortunately, the country is about to
experience a massive sense of whiplash. Newly confirmed
Interior Secretary Burgum has wasted no time in rolling out the
Project 2025 playbook. His secretarial orders set the stage for
rolling back practically every beneficial public lands policy
from the past 4 years, exactly as called for in Project 2025.
Rolling back initiatives like the Public Lands Rule,
stripping protections for places like the Boundary Waters,
peeling back national monuments to hand over our public lands
to polluting billionaire barons is a betrayal of the American
people and the lands we all love. This plan, again, is right
out of Project 2025, and Donald Trump swore up and down that it
was not his plan. Many of you here denied it, as well. But here
we are with an administration that is following it to the
letter.
My Republican colleagues insist that they support policies
that reflect their commitment and the input of rural
communities. Well, let me tell you, there are going to be a lot
of incensed rural stakeholders when the President carries
through with his plans to roll back all of these protections.
We have an obligation and a responsibility to manage our
public lands in a balanced way that keeps future generations in
mind and puts conservation on equal footing with other demands
and uses. To put it in context of this hearing today, balance
is a key component of multiple use.
My district is full of rural communities, and I can assure
you that the local input that Republicans repeatedly cite isn't
just a blanket request for more development and extraction and
pollution. Local input includes requests from Tribes seeking to
protect sacred sites and cultural resources from destruction by
foreign mining conglomerates, or local communities hoping to
preserve the unspoiled landscapes around them. That is why
Democrats work with their communities to develop legislative
solutions for public lands in their districts.
Democrats also represent rural communities surrounded by
public land, just like many of you. All you have to do is to
look at the members of this Subcommittee and the districts they
represent. Unfortunately, our efforts are often blocked in
Congress by our colleagues across the aisle.
But first and foremost, we need to put an end to the
uncertainty and the chaos that is going on right now because of
President Trump's Federal funding freeze. I really hope my
colleagues across the aisle will start engaging on that, paying
attention to the damage that is rolling out to all of our
districts. If we really want to help rural communities, that is
a good place to start.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you for the opening statement, Mr.
Huffman, and we are going to move on to witness testimony here.
Let me remind the witnesses 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 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.
First, I would like to introduce the Honorable Eric Clarke,
the County Attorney of Washington County, Utah.
Mr. Clarke, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ERIC CLARKE, COUNTY ATTORNEY, WASHINGTON
COUNTY, UTAH, ST. GEORGE, UTAH
Mr. Clarke. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member
Neguse, and members of the Subcommittee for giving me the
opportunity to address you today.
My ancestors settled the area of Bryce Canyon National Park
and the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. I was in
high school in 1996 when the 1.7 million-acre monument was
created and my town became surrounded by public lands that were
no longer managed for multiple use.
Professionally, I have worked in the Washington County
Attorney's Office in southwest Utah for 14 years, and have
served as the elected county attorney since 2020. I regularly
work on public land issues involving federally protected land,
plants, and animals, land exchanges with the BLM, highway and
water development projects, resource and travel management
plans, and visitor crowding in Zion National Park. For better
or worse, I am an expert when it comes to the often
dysfunctional public land bureaucracy.
My family has lived in southern Utah for six generations.
My Grandpa Clarke worked in the Escalante sawmill, which relied
on timber harvested from Forest Service land. He also ran
cattle on BLM-managed lands that are now part of the Grand
Staircase National Monument. His livelihood relied on positive
and functional partnerships with Federal land management
agencies, and he lived a long, happy life. Unfortunately, the
sawmill is now closed because the Forest Service could not
provide consistent timber permits. Running cattle becomes more
and more difficult due to constantly changing Federal land
management and restrictions. I have six siblings, but only one
lives in our home county. There are simply not enough high-
paying jobs to keep people in the area.
I live in nearby Washington County, which, in contrast to
my home county, is thriving economically. Our population center
is 90 miles from Las Vegas on Interstate 15, and we are the
gateway to Zion National Park, which had over 5 million
visitors last year. We have experienced rapid population growth
for decades, growing from 10,000 residents 65 years ago to more
than 200,000 today.
Like other population centers in the Southwest, conserving
water and improving our water infrastructure are of paramount
importance to us. An egregious example of a broken bureaucratic
system is the BLM administrative land exchange process. We must
improve our water reuse capacity, and the first step in our
comprehensive water reuse plan was to complete a non-
controversial land exchange where the county would acquire a
reuse reservoir site and BLM would receive designated critical
habitat that would increase the size of the Red Cliffs National
Conservation Area. The BLM estimated it could complete the
simple exchange in 18 months, but it has been 8 years and the
exchange is still in process. We cannot meet our water needs if
every step in the Federal process takes a decade to complete.
We also have to build new arterial roads to meet our growth
demands. Congress approved a Northern Corridor for our
community in the 2009 Omnibus Public Land Management Act. In
that same bill, and with our county's support, Congress
designated 250,000 acres of wilderness, 110,000 acres of
National Conservation Area lands and 165 miles of Wild and
Scenic River. In 2021 the BLM approved a four-and-a-half-mile
Northern Corridor. Simultaneously, we protected thousands of
acres of Mojave Desert tortoise habitat. But 2 months ago the
BLM revoked that right-of-way, removed the protections on the
habitat, and flaunted the clear direction from Congress to
delineate a buildable road corridor by 2012.
I have worked on this project for 10 years, and it is
beyond frustrating to have our good-faith growth and
conservation efforts disregarded. Communities surrounded by
Federal lands need reliable and responsive Federal partners.
For communities to thrive we need consistent multiple-use
management. Congressional action on permitting reform,
including judicial review, will be helpful.
Maximizing public uses on Federal lands also depends on
congressional oversight of how Federal land management
agencies' handbooks and internal policies are utilized to
thwart or delay multiple uses on those lands. We need
consistency in land management decisions. We need those
decisions to be completed in a timely, cost-effective manner.
And we need the BLM to follow its multiple-use mandate, work
with us to preserve our cherished public lands, encourage
responsible access, and provide for economic growth.
My great-great-great-grandparents helped settle southern
Utah. I hope that my generation is not the last in my family to
have the opportunity to live in our amazing area.
Thank you for holding this important hearing today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Clarke follows:]
Prepared Statement of Eric Clarke, County Attorney
Washington County, Utah
Introduction
Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and members of
the subcommittee for giving me the opportunity to discuss the impacts
of federal land management when the management ignores the desires of
and impacts to communities adjacent to federally managed lands.
My ancestors settled the area near Bryce Canyon National Park and
the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. I was in high school
in 1996 when President Clinton proclaimed that the federally managed
land adjacent to my community was part of the original 1.7-million-acre
Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument designation.
Professionally, I have worked in the Washington County Attorney's
office in southwest Utah for 14 years and have served as the elected
County Attorney since 2020. Our county contains most of Zion National
Park, 15 congressionally designated wilderness areas, and two
congressionally-designated national conservation areas. I regularly
work on public land issues involving (1) the 14 federally protected
plants and animals in our county; (2) land exchanges with the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM); (3) highway and water development projects; (4)
resource and travel management plans; and (5) visitor crowding in Zion
National Park. For better or for worse, I am an expert when it comes to
the often-dysfunctional public land bureaucracy.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 is a
congressional act that mandates BLM to manage public land resources for
a variety of uses including livestock grazing, recreation, timber
harvesting, energy development while balancing the protection of
sensitive lands and species and cultural resources. ``Multiple use'' is
not an esoteric concept. It is an actionable and proven approach to
land management. Multiple use encourages actors to co-exist rather than
exclude one another. The movement away from multiple-use management of
public lands and toward benefiting only one use directly harms local
communities. Figure 1, a map of the state of Utah, shows how few BLM
lands (in yellow) are eligible for multiple use whereas most BLM lands
in Utah are encumbered with special designations.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
I share with this committee direct examples of how multiple use
can advance the needs of all stakeholders. Yet, the way federal
agencies have chosen to implement federal land and environmental
policies enacted by Congress is riddled with red-tape, layers of
review, and processes that have become an impediment that delays and
diminishes the use of federal lands for the public benefit. This is why
facilitating multiple uses also enhances the conservation values
integral to land management.
I. Federal Mismanagement Harmed my Hometown
After World War II, my grandpa married my grandma, and they bought
a small farm in a small community in rural southern Utah where they had
both been raised. They raised their six children in that same small
community. My grandpa worked full time in the timber industry,
sharpening saws in a sawmill in the small town of Escalante. The
sawmill where he worked relied on timber harvested from U.S. Forest
Service (USFS) managed land. He also ran cattle on BLM-managed lands
that are now part of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.
My grandparents' livelihood relied on positive and functional
partnerships with federal land management agencies, and they lived
long, happy lives.
Unfortunately, after my grandpa retired, the sawmill where he'd
spent his career closed. While its owners tried several times to get it
up and running again, each time it failed because of legal challenges
to timber harvesting permits or bureaucratic red tape. A sawmill cannot
operate without a steady supply of timber, and all the timber was in a
federally managed forest where it was tied up by bureaucratic red tape.
Grazing has fared better than logging, but it is still negatively
impacted by federal decisions and management plan updates that place
further restrictions on monument uses. Much, if not most, of the Grand
Staircase-Escalante National Monument was actively grazed at the time
of its creation. While the number of cattle allowed was not immediately
reduced when the National Monument was created, road closures and other
restrictions have made it difficult for owners who rely on historic
federal grazing permits to maintain cattle. On top of this, only a
small portion of land in the area is private property, so any cattle in
the area must graze on federal land. I spoke with a concerned county
commissioner two weeks ago who says that grazing is being choked out of
existence due to federal mismanagement and restrictions.
No one who visits this area will find evidence of destructive
logging or over-grazing. The hard-working people who worked in those
industries saw BLM and USFS employees as their partners, partners whom
they worked alongside to keep the land healthy because healthy lands
were necessary for the local communities' economic survival. The
industries suffered not because the local communities were abusing the
land, but due to broken bureaucratic processes and never-ending legal
challenges from non-governmental entities.
My paternal grandparents had six children, and I am the oldest of
my father's seven children. Yet I have only one sister and no paternal
cousins living in the community where I grew up. The high school in
Escalante is now only a fraction of the size it was at the time of my
graduation in 1999. As the local saying goes--the area's largest export
is its children. While the state of Utah was the fastest growing state
in the nation for the fifteen-year period of 2008-2023, averaging a 21%
growth rate, counties in rural Utah made up of mostly federally managed
land cannot grow. The Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument is in
Garfield and Kane Counties. The population of Garfield County was 5,172
in 2010 and is now 5,314, representing only a 1.6% increase over 10
years. \1\ Kane County has experienced similar trends with an average
growth trend of 1% between 2010-2023. \2\ As demonstrated by my
experience, people move away because it is no longer economically
feasible for them to remain. For most people born in these communities,
the only employment options include working for a governmental agency
or working in the tourism industry (neither option is known to lead to
economic prosperity because the hospitality jobs are often seasonal and
low paying).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Population Data Garfield County: https://www.census.gov/
quickfacts/fact/table/garfield countyutah/PST045224
\2\ Population Data Kane County: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/
fact/table/kanecountyutah/AFN120222
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal lands should be managed in a way that allows the lands and
species to thrive and that promotes long-term economic prosperity for
the people invested in the survival of the lands. Instead, land
management is choking local economies out of existence.
II. Washington County is Vested in Protecting the Local Environment
After finishing law school and a federal judicial clerkship, I
moved to Washington County, Utah. I am currently the elected County
Attorney. Washington County is a public lands county, with the federal
government managing over 75% of the land in our county. Of our 1.5
million acres, the BLM manages 41% of those, the USFS manages 25%, and
the National Parks Service manages 9%. Our county's uniquely beautiful
landscape is a result of the junction of the Colorado Plateau, the
Mojave Desert, and the Great Basin landforms. Our awe-inspiring vistas,
warm climate, and welcoming community make Washington County an ideal
place to live and visit.
Washington County continues to experience rapid population growth.
In 1960, we had a population of 10,000. Today it is over 207,000. \3\
To put that into perspective, our population has at least doubled every
20 years since 1960. With tourism playing such an essential role in our
economy, it is unsurprising that estimates place the number of visitors
our County receives at between eight and ten million annually. Last
year, Zion National Park was the fourth-most-visited national park in
the United States, attracting five million visitors. \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Population Data Washington County, Utah: https://
worldpopulationreview.com/us-counties/utah/washington-county
\4\ Zion National Park Visitation: https://www.nps.gov/zion/learn/
management/park-visitation-statistics.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to being an attractive place for people to live and
visit, our unique landscape is also home to 15 federally protected
plant and animal species. For decades, Washington County has
successfully implemented the Washington County Habitat Conservation
Plan, proving that vibrant communities can participate in successful
conservation efforts resulting in thriving lands and species when
community members have a seat at the table and when they are allowed to
work in partnership with Federal agencies. Our community leaders work
diligently to ensure our population growth and tourism industry, along
with their associated outdoor recreation, occur in ways that preserve
our local environment. Our open space and beautiful views are an
essential part of the Washington County experience, and our community
leaders are invested in preserving them.
III. Broken Bureaucratic Processes are Impeding Our Water
Infrastructure Planning
Washington County exists in an extremely dry desert climate. We
have a single, small drainage basin that provides all the water to our
area. The region relies on water storage from above-average
precipitation years to meet our needs in below-average years. We have
proactively planned and developed water systems and storage throughout
the time our community has existed. However, the burdensome bureaucracy
that has harmed my hometown is also harming my current community. For
example, a very small reservoir currently under construction in
Washington County required 20 years of a costly bureaucratic tug-of-war
to win a permit and begin construction.
An egregious example of a broken bureaucratic system is our county
water district's efforts to navigate the BLM's administrative land
exchange processes. For background, our county developed a
comprehensive water reuse plan that will allow us to meet our
population growth by reusing water--a system that would solve many of
the problems currently faced by many drought-ridden areas in the
Western United States. This water reuse system is a common-sense
solution that nearby desert communities like Las Vegas, Nevada have
used to great effect. Washington County's regional reuse system will
include new treatment facilities, conveyance infrastructure, and water
storage facilities that will optimize reuse water. Most of the system
intersects with federal lands. Due to local leaders' familiarity with
the bureaucratic challenges presented by the federal environmental
review processes, they hoped to speed up the process by using a
comprehensive environmental impact statement (EIS) for the entire reuse
project rather than one project component at a time.
The linchpin of this reuse plan requires the development of a large
reuse storage reservoir. In accordance with our preservation-minded
attitude, we worked to put this site on lands of minimal biological and
historical value. Thus, the Washington County Water Conservancy
District proposed purchasing valuable and tortoise-occupied Mohave
desert tortoise habitat from a private person. Those private lands
reside inside the boundary of the Red Cliffs National Conservation
Area. This purchase would allow those lands to be immediately
incorporated into that NCA when it goes under BLM management. In
exchange, the District worked within the BLM Resource Management Plan
to identify other lands the District could utilize that are less
biologically and economically valuable to enhance water storage
capability. Notably, the privately held tortoise land inside the NCA
had long been flagged as a priority for BLM acquisition and the
reservoir site is listed as a planned reservoir site in the current BLM
resource management plan for the area.
This exchange checks every box. It fits the existing BLM planning
documents, helps the environment in multiple ways, and directly
benefits the local community. When we began working on it, the BLM
estimated that it could be completed in 18 months. But eight years have
now passed, and the exchange is still not complete. The County has not
run into any unforeseen issues like discovery of a new species or a
previously unknown antiquity site. The BLM process is simply broken and
cannot be completed in a timely manner.
The years-long delay has cost our water district millions of
dollars because construction costs have increased dramatically. These
costs necessarily come out of the pockets of our citizens and
taxpayers. If the administrative land exchange had been completed in
two years, the comprehensive environmental impact statement for the
regional reuse project would be finished by now. A significant amount
of our water reuse system would be under construction. Frustratingly,
everything has been delayed because a timely completion of the land
exchange has failed.
IV. 2008 Washington County Growth and Conservation Act
We have worked diligently to preserve open space in our area.
Twenty years ago, Utah's then-Governor Olene Walker encouraged local
leaders to work with Congress, conservation groups, and others to
protect significant swaths of open space in our county while ensuring
those protections would not impede future water development, utility
access, or road construction. Those efforts resulted in the Washington
County Growth and Conservation Act, which was passed as part of the
2009 Omnibus Public Lands Management Act (Public Law 111-11).
On the ``conservation'' side of the Washington County Growth and
Conservation Act, the Act designated 16 wilderness areas, totaling
nearly 250,000 acres. It designated 165 miles of the Virgin River and
its tributaries in our county as a Wild and Scenic River. The Act also
established two national conservation areas protecting, to a lesser
degree than wilderness, an additional 110,000 acres. This NCA acreage
was expected to grow significantly when the BLM fulfilled its
commitment to acquire the lands privately held and the school trust
lands inside the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area (Red Cliffs NCA)
boundary. The Act even designated uses for the funds that would come as
the BLM sold lands that had been listed for disposal year earlier;
these funds were to go toward acquiring the NCA inholdings. Thus, the
``conservation'' side of the Washington County Growth and Conservation
Act was significant.
On the ``growth'' side of the Washington County Growth and
Conservation Act, local and state land-use planners were assured that
the creation of the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area would not
unduly hinder running utilities or accessing water within the NCA as
necessary for future population growth. This assurance was important
because the NCA's southern and eastern boundary was adjacent to
existing or planned developments, and its western boundary abuts the
Shivwits Band of Paiutes Reservation. All parties understood that, to
some degree, the NCA land would always have to be utilized for the
movement of water, utilities, and traffic.
Bringing together both the ``conservation'' and ``growth'' sides of
the Act, the Act also gave the BLM three years to develop a
comprehensive travel management plan that would ensure appropriate
access to all of the BLM-managed land in the county, placing an
emphasis on continuing recreational use of the remaining multiple use
areas. The contents of the final plan for BLM-managed lands was to
include one or more options for the construction of what is known
locally as the ``Northern Corridor.'' As you can see in the map
prepared for this testimony, the Red Cliffs NCA boundary dips south
near the historic downtown of St. George City (See Exhibit A). Traffic
planners have identified the need for a northern bypass road since the
mid-1980s, which is why it was clearly and unequivocally included in
the Act. Forty years later, we are still waiting, and the bypass road
is needed now more than ever.
V. BLM's Failure to Follow the 2009 Omnibus Public Lands Management Act
Inexplicably, the BLM has fully implemented all the conservation
measures of the Act while largely ignoring the growth measures. Here
are a few examples:
A. Utility and Water Access. This House Committee held a
field hearing in St. George City in 2016 to address utility
and water access in the Red Cliffs NCA. The draft Resource
Management Plan (RMP) for the Red Cliffs NCA
inappropriately restricted utility and water access, not
adhering to the agreement reached in the Washington County
Growth and Conservation Act. Pressure from the committee,
combined with excellent work of then-Deputy Washington
County Attorney Celeste Maloy, resulted in most of these
concerns being resolved before the finalization of the RMP.
B. Travel Management. Around 2014, the local BLM field
office began working with Washington County on the
congressionally required travel management plan as passed
in PL 111-11. For six months, County and BLM planners
identified dispersed campsites, overlooks, and other
destinations throughout the county. The draft plan was well
written, and the County was largely supportive of the BLM's
preferred alternative. However, the plan was never released
for public comment, nor was it adopted. It has continued to
gather dust on a shelf in the local BLM office for 10
years.
C. Northern Corridor. The BLM's most egregious action has
been its open opposition to the Northern Corridor, a road
project expressly enabled by the Congress in the Washington
County Growth and Management Act (PL 111-11). This open
opposition was demonstrated in the BLM's denial of an
initial application for the roadway--a decision that was
overturned by the Department of Interior Board of Land
Appeals. This open opposition was also demonstrated by the
BLM's refusal to include a transportation corridor that
would meet our area's clear traffic needs in the 2016 Red
Cliffs NCA Resource Management Plan.
VI. Granting a Right-of-Way
Washington County is one of the fastest growing counties in the
state of Utah and it is projected to continue growing, doubling its
population by 2050. \5\ As much as we focus on smart and innovate ways
to provide water, housing, and energy for our residents and our
millions of visitors each year, our community is equally concerned with
transportation and traffic congestion and the consequences to these
issues for our local neighborhoods and our air quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Kim C Gardner Total Population Projections by County: https://
tableau.dashboard.utah.edu/t/Business/views/20220111_Detailed_Proj_Vis/
ProjectionsWorkbook?%3Adisplay_count=n&%3
Aembed=y&%3AisGuestRedirectFromVizportal=y&%3Aorigin=viz_share_link&%3As
howApp Banner=false&%3AshowVizHome=n
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2017, our County gathered numerous federal, state, and local
stakeholders to directly address the Northern Corridor issue, given the
BLM's lack of action on the travel management plan and our need to
address regional transportation issues. Washington County teamed up
with the BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the State of
Utah, Utah's school trust lands administrators (SITLA), local
transportation planners, and cities.
While our position remains that no additional biological mitigation
should be necessary because the roadway was part of the bargain struck
in the 2009 Act, we also acknowledge legitimate concerns about the
road's impacts on the Red Cliff's Desert Reserve. The Reserve is the
key component of the county's habitat conservation plan and its Mojave
desert tortoise incidental take permit. In the process of addressing
the Northern Corridor issue, the County and other stakeholders saw an
opportunity to protect as open space the heavily recreated area shown
as Zone 6 in the attached map--an opportunity that we embraced, further
illustrating local leaders' commitment to preserving the beautiful and
biologically important local environment (See Exhibit A).
From 2017 to 2021, the BLM and the USFWS jointly completed an
environmental impact statement (EIS) that analyzed the following:
(1) an application from Utah for the Northern Corridor
Right-of-Way;
(2) a 25-year renewal of the County's desert tortoise
incidental take permit.
The incidental take permit renewal process included amending
Washington County's Mohave Desert Tortoise Habitat Conservation Plan so
that the plan addressed commitments from the County, the BLM, Utah's
school trust lands administration (SITLA), and other parties impacted
if the Northern Corridor were approved. The most important biological
aspect of those commitments was the County's offer to expand The Red
Cliffs Desert Reserve to include Zone 6 in return for the BLM's grant
of a right-of-way to the state of Utah for the Northern Corridor. In
2020 and 2021, the USFWS approved the amended habitat conservation plan
and renewed the county's incidental take permit. The BLM granted Utah a
right-of-way for the Northern Corridor, which then triggered the part
of the amended plan that established Zone 6.
Zone 6 contained 6,813 acres, half of which was already BLM-managed
land. One-third of Zone 6 was part of the Red Bluff Area of Critical
Environmental Concern, an area already managed for conservation of the
protected dwarf bear-poppy plant but not yet managed for conservation
of the Mojave desert tortoise. Nearly half of Zone 6 is privately owned
by Utah School Trust Lands Administration (formerly SITLA). The
remaining acres were owned by private property owners or local
governments. The area has a large and healthy desert tortoise
population. It is also heavily recreated.
Popular trails include Bearclaw Poppy and Zen, using for mountain
biking and hiking. Rock climbing areas include the Green Valley Gap and
Moe's Valley. To put in perspective how popular the area is, trail
counters show that over 100,000 mountain bike rides occur annually on
the Bearclaw Poppy Trail alone.
To ensure that all impacts to the desert tortoise from the
construction of the Northern Corridor would be fully offset, the County
and its partners proposed the following:
(1) set aside all 6,813 acres in Zone 6 to be managed for
the benefit of the tortoise,
(2) do away with the prior development authorization of
3,341 acres of non-federally managed lands, and
(3) strategically place tortoise culverts under Cottonwood
Road in the portion of the Red Cliffs NCA near the Northern
Corridor.
This would result in the County protecting 12 acres of tortoise
habitat for every one acre of habitat disturbed for road development.
In terms of the tortoise population, eight tortoises would be protected
due to the preservation of lands for every one tortoise disturbed due
to road development (although new information indicates that the ratio
would be closer to 10:1). (See 2020 Amended and Reinstated Washington
County Habitat Conservation Plan Appendix G). \6\ No reasonable
refutation can be made that the proposed benefits to the described
tortoise recovery efforts far outweigh the harms caused by the
construction and ongoing use of the four and half mile-long Northern
Corridor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Appendix G, Determining Fully Offset for the Northern Corridor
of the 2020 Amended and Restated Washington County Habitat Conservation
plan. https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/1502103/200341977/
20029421/250035622/Amended%20Washington%20County %20HCP%20-%20Final.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We were understandably shocked in 2022 when the BLM and non-
governmental organizations agreed in an out-of-court settlement to do
two things: (1) immediately revoke the Biological Opinion from USFWS
supporting the 2020 Northern Corridor Record of Decision and (2)
complete a supplemental environmental impact statement allowing for the
revocation of the right-of-way. The BLM completed that final revocation
in December 2024; the USFWS simultaneously eliminated Zone 6.
These actions made the 3,300 acres of occupied tortoise habitat,
which are still privately-owned as school trust lands, immediately
developable. Before this decision, I would never have imagined the
USFWS would choose to allow for the destruction of high quality and
occupied habitat, an action that will translate into the destruction of
12 acres of habitat for every one acre that gained protection.
Washington County filed a lawsuit last summer challenging the illegal
revocation of the Northern Corridor Biological Opinion. We are
currently working with the State of Utah as we explore our options for
most effectively challenging the revocation of the state's BLM-issued
right-of-way.
VII. Breaching Trust
In addition to the inexplicable path taken by the Biden Department
of Interior, the agency also burned bridges built by decades of the
federal agencies and community partners working together in good faith.
After the Northern Corridor Right-of-Way was issued in January 2021,
our county was obligated to fulfill many commitments triggered by the
road's approval.
We have spent over $6 million! We have closed areas to OHV use by
constructing fencing and signage and by imposing a regular law
enforcement presence. We have already purchased enough acres of land to
offset the loss of tortoise habitat acres from the road at a 3:1 ratio.
We have purchased grazing permits to be retired. We have built a public
outreach center where we educate the public about our area's sensitive
animals and plants daily. We have implemented tortoise-conscious
development restrictions for utilities crossing Zone 6. We have
significantly cleaned up and reduced the amount of trash dumping that
had been occurring in the area for decades. We have fulfilled our part
of the bargain.
Neither the BLM nor the Fish and Wildlife Service ever indicated
that we should hold off on these activities or that our obligations
were being put on hold while they engaged in secret backroom
negotiations with outside groups for years. They held us to our
commitments while possessing a full knowledge that they were going to
renege on theirs.
How can we partner with these agencies now? We spent years working
to find a solution that satisfied every possible requirement of the
Endangered Species Act and the 2009 Omnibus Public Lands Management
Act. The County and the state spent millions of taxpayer dollars on
studies, plans, and an environmental impact statement. We then spent
millions more fulfilling our time-sensitive obligations under the new
agreement. The federal agencies knowingly extorted money from us and
then took away the right-of-way that we had negotiated, and that
Congress had approved in 2009. The Biden Department of the Interior
actions have left us with no viable option for meeting our area's
transportation needs. We hope that, with a change in Administration,
the agencies may renew their commitments to us in a way that will allow
us to keep the full benefit of our work and resources. However, the
broken bureaucratic process has proven nearly impossible to complete
during a single Administration.
Conclusion
For Communities to thrive, we need consistent, multiple use
management. I worry that the negative impact of these federal decisions
will grow with my children as they grow to adulthood. Employment
opportunities in the towns near southern Utah's national monuments are
severely limited. Housing prices will increase dramatically if failure
to build roads and water infrastructure prevents Washington County from
keeping up with housing demand. I had no viable option for staying in
my hometown and so I moved from a town of 500 to a community that has
grown to 200,000. I worry that the dysfunctionality of federal land
management will force not only my children, but children coming of age
across Southern Utah, to move away from the area.
As much as this depends on Congressional action in implementing
changes that will lead to permitting reform, it also depends on
Congressional oversight of how the BLM and other federal agency
handbooks and internal policies are utilized and implemented, as they
are now utilized and implemented to thwart multiple uses of federal
lands. Unfortunately, my personal and professional life have been
significantly and negatively impacted by poor federal land management
policies and implementation of policies that have failed to respond to
the needs of my community.
Communities surrounded by federal lands need responsive federal
partners. We need consistency in land management decisions. We need
those decisions to be completed in a timely, cost-effective manner. And
we need those decisions to seriously consider our local economies and
cultures. My great-great-great grandparents helped settle Southern
Utah. I hope that my generation is not the last in my family to have
the opportunity to live in our amazing area.
Thank you for holding this important hearing today.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__
Mr. Tiffany. Yes, thank you, Mr. Clarke. I will now
recognize Mr. Tim Canterbury, President of the Public Lands
Council.
Mr. Canterbury, you have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF TIM CANTERBURY, PRESIDENT, PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL,
HOWARD, COLORADO
Mr. Canterbury. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member
Neguse, and members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to
provide testimony today. My name is Tim Canterbury, and I serve
as President of the Public Lands Council. Since 1968 PLC has
been the only organization in Washington, D.C. dedicated to
representing the unique perspectives of cattle and sheep
producers who hold the 22,000 Federal grazing permits across
the West. Between the Forest Service and the BLM, approximately
250 million acres have grazing as an authorized use in any
given year.
For five generations, my family has raised cattle in
Colorado. Aside from my private land, I have held BLM and
Forest Service grazing permits since the 1980s, and manage the
lands, waters, wildlife, and multiple uses they sustain. Like
other grazing permittees, I am responsible for maintaining
fences, water troughs, pipelines, culverts, and other
infrastructure on my allotment that benefits my livestock and
other users of these lands.
These other users are plentiful. Colorado is home to some
of the country's most popular hiking and climbing areas. Two of
the most used trails to access these fourteeners run through my
allotments. In the height of summer we have measured more than
1,000 people per day who go through my grazing allotment on
these trails. I have adjusted my grazing rotations and embraced
emerging technologies to reduce the potential for conflict
between recreationalists and my livestock like gates left open,
damage to water tanks, and soil disturbance from heavy foot
traffic. This is all part of normal multiple use management for
ranchers like me.
Western economies depend on successful multiple use, and
grazing is a tool that makes true multiple use possible.
Grazing reduces wildfire risk by more than 40 percent. Without
grazing, hikers, bikers, hunters, and climbers would all lose
out to damage from catastrophic wildfire or other land loss.
Public lands are crucial to the domestic agriculture supply
chain, too. Approximately 63 percent of the Western cattle
herd, and more than 50 percent of the national sheep herd spend
time grazing on public lands. These livestock operations
directly support trucking companies, feed mills, fencing
companies, water management systems, veterinarians, and more.
Loss of these lands would cripple regional and national
livestock production.
Research from the University of Wyoming shows that if
grazing were removed from just 3 States, Idaho, Oregon and
Wyoming, you would see a 60 percent decrease in cattle sales in
those States, and over 40,000 jobs eliminated in a 10-year
period. Apply that formula to all Western States, and the
impact of grazing management is clear the challenges in our
operations are plentiful. Besides economic drivers and an
unpredictable Mother Nature, there are activist groups who work
to exploit rules and lawsuits to eliminate public lands
grazing. We survive because the facts about our good management
and the law are on our side.
But sometimes the law places huge regulatory burdens on me
and my family. We bear the burdens of implementing the ESA,
NEPA, Antiquities Act, and more. The biggest challenge is when
our Federal regulations work against us rather than with us.
Over the last several years we saw an administration that
doubled down on harmful rules, including the BLM Public Lands
Rule. More land designations and a reduced focus on active
management are not the solution.
I offer the following suggestions for Congress to help
ensure decisions are made on the ground, rather than in an
office in Washington.
No. 1, direct agencies to increase the use of targeted
grazing to reduce wildfire risk. We thank Representative
LaMalfa and this Committee for leadership on this issue.
Two, direct specific resources to ensure agencies can do
NEPA and permitting in a timely way. This will decrease the
risk of litigation and improve efficiency.
Three, reform statutes like the ESA and the Antiquities Act
that have repeatedly been abused to the detriment of the
landscape. More land designations are not the solution.
And finally, set expectations that all kinds of energy
development avoid or minimize impacts to livestock grazing.
Everyone should have to play by the same rules so that no one
use is more important than another.
Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the Subcommittee,
I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on the role
grazing plays in making multiple use possible. We are happy to
answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Canterbury follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tim Canterbury, Public Lands Council President
Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on the
importance of multiple use of our nation's public lands. My name is Tim
Canterbury and I serve as President of the Public Lands Council (PLC).
Since 1968, PLC has been the only organization in Washington, D.C.
dedicated solely to representing the unique perspectives of cattle and
sheep producers who hold the 22,000 federal grazing permits.
My family has raised cattle in Howard, Colorado for five
generations. My grandchildren are the seventh generation to live and
work in this way of life. During the course of the year, my cattle
spend time on my private land as well as on federal land grazing
allotments. I have held grazing permits since the 1980s and have
managed them as an integral part of my operation. I manage these lands
and waters, and the wildlife and multiple uses they sustain, as if they
were my own. For me, there is no difference in my level of investment
between the lands I own and the federal lands grazing allotments for
which I hold the permits.
Like me, there are thousands of grazing permittees in the West
whose careful stewardship of these landscapes has protected hundreds of
millions of acres across the 14 western states where grazing happens on
federal lands. Between the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM), approximately 250 million acres \1\ have grazing
as an authorized use in any given year. In addition to the annual
grazing fee I pay the agency, I am responsible for maintenance of
fences, water troughs, pipelines, culverts, and other infrastructure
that benefits not only my livestock, but all other users of those
acres. Because of these additional investments, the cost for me to
graze public lands is the same as the cost for me to graze my own lands
or lease a private pasture. My family and I have also made additional
investments in technology, like virtual fence, to add an extra layer of
management precision on my allotments. When you factor in this
additional outlay, it is actually much more expensive for me to graze
on federal lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ USFS classifies approximately 93 million acres as eligible to
be used for grazing; BLM has the potential to authorize grazing on 155
million acres. This figure represents the total number of acres that
may be grazed in a given year, however the number of acres grazed is
often much lower as a result of allotments that are vacant or closed,
often due to litigation and inadequate resources to complete NEPA
analyses. USFS: https://www.fs.usda.gov/es/speeches/meeting-challenges-
together BLM: https://www.blm.gov/programs/natural-resources/
rangelands-and-grazing/livestock-
grazing#::text=The%20BLM%20manages%20livestock%20grazing,issue%20
to%20public%20land%20ranchers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Value of Grazing
Colorado is home to some of the country's most popular hiking and
climbing areas. Two of the most-used trails to access these
``fourteeners'' run through my allotment. In the height of summer, we
have measured more than 1,000 people per day who go through my grazing
allotment on these trails. I have adjusted my grazing rotations to
reduce the potential for conflict between recreationalists and my
livestock and have made other changes to reduce the impact of gates
left open, damage to my water tanks, and soil disturbance from tires,
tracks, and heavy foot-traffic. When you're a federal lands grazing
permittee, these challenges are a normal part of your daily management.
Despite the inherent complexities, public lands ranchers embrace
multiple use as a core part of their operations. While grazing is
undoubtedly a use of federal lands as an important part of the national
beef, lamb, and wool industries, grazing also provides host of co-
benefits as a land management tool. Grazing protects wildlife habitat,
reduces the risk of catastrophic wildfire, and supports local
economies. Cattle grazing on federal lands provides $8.575 billion \2\
in ecosystem services each year, ranging from wildlife-based
recreation, forage production, and other economic measures of
biodiversity and land use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Maher, Anna T, et al. ``An Economic Valuation of Federal and
Private Grazing Land Ecosystem Services Supported by Beef Cattle
Ranching in the United States.'' Translational Animal Science, U.S.
National Library of Medicine, 4 May 2021, pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
articles/PMC8290490/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The economic benefits of federal lands grazing cannot be
overstated. Approximately 63 percent of the Western cattle herd and
more than 50 percent of the national sheep herd spend some time on
public lands. These livestock operations directly support trucking
companies, feed mills, fencing companies, water management systems,
veterinarians, and other important rural infrastructure. If access to
federal grazing were lost or significantly abridged, the impacts could
be catastrophic. Research from the University of Wyoming \3\ suggests
that if grazing were removed from just three states--Idaho, Oregon, and
Wyoming--the direct and secondary impacts would be catastrophic for the
surrounding areas. For these three states, loss of access to federal
lands grazing would:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ University of Wyoming Extension. ``Economic Impacts of
Removing Federal Grazing Used by Cattle Ranches in a Three-State Area
(Idaho, Oregon, and Wyoming)''. August 2022.
Decrease cattle sales by 60 percent (in those three
states).
Eliminate more than 40,000 jobs over a 10-year period.
This increases to 163,507 over a 40-year period.
Cause a 65 percent reduction in ranch labor related to
cattle production.
This work also suggests that while the immediate impact from loss
of grazing would be devastating, the secondary economic impacts to the
surrounding unities would be three times greater by dollar value.
Permittees manage their livestock to find the highest degree of
efficiency for both the productivity of their livestock and the health
of the landscape. Many permittees, like my family, have been managing
these same lands for decades and provide the kind of continuity of
management that protects landscapes from the worst kind of damage. This
committee has seen the horrors wrought on the land and on livestock
from the increase in catastrophic wildfires over the last decade. While
there are many factors that contribute to wildfire risk, grazing is a
proven, effective tool to reduce harm. Grazing reduces the risk of
wildfire ignition between 45 and 50 percent. \4\ When fires do ignite,
grazing is a key tool to reduce fire severity by removing the fine
fuels that make fires hotter, faster, taller, and more dangerous for
firefighters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Starrs, G., Siegel, K., Larson, S., & Butsic, V. (2024).
Quantifying large-scale impacts of cattle grazing on annual burn
probability in Napa and Sonoma Counties, California. Ecology and
Society, 29(3). https://doi.org/10.5751/es15080-290310
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grazing is also key for reducing invasive species; much of the
discussion around fire risk and challenges to western biodiversity have
centered around invasive annual grasses, like cheatgrass.
It is well known that ``even small amounts of cheatgrass in an
ecosystem can increase fire risk''. \5\ For years, critics of federal
lands grazing have inaccurately blamed the spread of cheatgrass on
grazing when in fact, targeted grazing both removes the grass from the
landscape and prevents seeds from spreading. Once the seeds pass
through the cow's digestive tract, the seeds are unable to germinate.
\6\ In short: grazing reduces cheatgrass, and therefore reduces
wildfire risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Bradley, B. A., Curtis, C. A., Fusco, E. J., Abatzoglou, J. T.,
Balch, J. K., Dadashi, S., & Tuanmu, M. (2017b). Cheatgrass (Bromus
tectorum) distribution in the intermountain Western United States and
its relationship to fire frequency, seasonality, and ignitions.
Biological Invasions, 20(6), 1493-1506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-
017-1641-8
\6\ Holton, G., Franco, A.M., Richardson, W., Stringham, T.,
Fonseca, M. (2024). Evaluating the effects of ruminal incubation and
abomasal enzymatic digestion on the germination potential of Bromus
tectorum. Rangelands, 46(4), 132-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.rala.2024.05.001
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Challenges to Multiple Use
Over the last four years, there have been a number of policy
changes that have eroded the careful balance of multiple use
management, and have threatened grazing's place on the landscape. In
the BLM, policy changes like the ill-conceived ``Public Lands rule''
upended the agency's longstanding expectation of balancing multiple
uses in a productive way and put an unfair--and illegal--thumb on the
scale so that some uses would have greater legal and practical priority
than others. As implemented, the rule creates new layers of
bureaucracy, making it harder for ranchers to renew permits, expand,
and maintain economic viability. The rule also places an outsized focus
on the use of restrictive Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
(ACEC) designations that give the BLM the ability to expedite more
restrictive land management, promotes increased conflict on the
landscape, and increases the BLM's difficulty in delivering on the
agency mission. The repercussions of implementing this rule would
adversely impact the national economy.
Other challenges cut across many policy areas; the Biden
Administration's changes to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and approach to land use planning picked winners and losers
among multiple uses. Using the updated NEPA authorities, federal
agencies elevated internal goals, like solar and wind energy, allotting
staff time and funding to projects they deemed ``priority'' while other
uses were deprioritized, delayed, and devalued. Delays ranged from
simple requests, like approval of range improvement construction and
maintenance, to larger projects like timely post--fire remediation
that, when stalled, exacerbate the impact of the fire. Across the
board, implementation of the grazing program suffered as the agency
focused on ``higher priority'' issues.
USFS also faces challenges. Updates to the USFS grazing handbook
and directives have been languishing before agency leadership for
nearly 10 years, and many forests are so severely understaffed that
implementation of the grazing program and range management are far
removed from the district level. This committee needs to look no
further than a comparison of the agency's budget across the programs;
for example, the agency has repeatedly failed to request the full
allotment of Range Betterment Fund dollars that are crucial to
cooperative monitoring and range improvement projects with permittees,
but continues to tell this Committee and stakeholders that they are
unable to carry out programmatic work because they lack funds and
staff.
Over time, land management has become more restrictive, not less.
There are fewer cattle and sheep on the landscape now than 30 years
ago, and millions more acres are in restrictive land designations.
National monument designations, wilderness areas, and ACECs have
restricted grazing in historically managed areas leading to overgrown
vegetation and increased wildfire risk. Federal overreach in land
designations bypasses local stakeholders, ignoring the needs of rural
communities. Each time the pendulum of power shifts in our democracy
our nation's public lands ranchers are left bracing for potential
designations that could hurt their economic viability and render the
land without the proper management necessary.
Generally, regulatory burdens are the cause of the greatest
uncertainty for ranchers. Ranchers must navigate extensive federal
permitting processes to graze on public lands, facing delays and
inconsistencies. Delayed permit renewals and uncertain staffing
allocations discourage investment in land improvements like water
infrastructure and rotational grazing systems, and overlapping
regulations from agencies like the BLM, USFS, and Fish & Wildlife
Service create inefficiencies and added costs.
Opportunities for Congressional Action
Congress has a great deal of opportunity to improve multiple use
management for grazing and all other multiple-use management. While the
list is not exhaustive, I offer the following suggestions for immediate
action:
Direct agencies to increase the use of targeted grazing to
reduce wildfire risk. We appreciate the committee's recent
action on Fix Our Forests Act, and urge widespread
congressional support. This committee must make clear to
USFS and BLM that targeted grazing to reduce fuels must not
occur only within the bounds of grazing allotments; grazing
is already reducing fuels in those allotments. The real
need is outside allotments, where fuels are untreated and
pose a risk to all uses around them.
Direct targeted resources to environmental analysis and
permitting for rangeland monitoring and grazing allotments.
Both USFS and BLM have long lists of outstanding NEPA
analyses that should be updated to facilitate the improved
management. Congress should direct the agencies to stand up
targeted teams to work through these lists expeditiously.
Reform statutes that has repeatedly been abused to the
detriment of the landscape. PLC has a long history of
supporting modernizations of the Endangered Species Act,
Migratory Bird Treaty Act implementation, National
Environmental Policy Act, and the Equal Access to Justice
Act. Congress must provide clear direction to the agencies
about future use to prevent further misuse.
Conform expectations for traditional and alternative
sources to avoid or minimize impacts to livestock grazing.
Livestock producers have become increasingly concerned that
alternative energy sources, like solar, will have
irreversible impacts to livestock grazing since
installations on federal land require conversion of
multiple-use land to a single use. This committee should
establish a clear expectation that any new installation
should avoid existing grazing allotments.
Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the Subcommittee, I
appreciate the opportunity to provide a review of the last several
years and offer suggestions about how to build a stronger future for
our public lands. The long-held multiple-use doctrine ensures that
federal lands remain productive and accessible to all. Ranching
provides ecological and economic benefits that ensure those lands are
not just accessible, but healthy, resilient, and attractive to all
other uses.
My family has managed the lands we utilize since 1879. Our
commitment to these lands is baked into our way of life. The knowledge
that is handed down from generation to generation offers deep
historical and ecological knowledge of the working landscape. Congress
and federal agencies must recognize public lands ranching as an
essential part of the multiple-use framework and ensure these lands are
able to be both important parts of our country's history, and of our
future. Together, I'm hopeful we'll ensure grazing is still an
instrumental part of the west in another 150 years.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Mr. Tim Canterbury, President,
Public Lands Council
Questions Submitted by Representative Westerman
Question 1. During his questioning, Ranking Member Neguse suggested
that you might believe that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
requires additional funding and employees to support adequate grazing
and other traditional uses on our public lands.
1a) Is that, in fact, your position?
1b) Or were you instead suggesting that the BLM's allocation of
existing resources could be improved, as you seemed to clarify when
questioned later by Chairman Tiffany? If so, please elaborate.
Answer. I was not suggesting Congress provide additional funding.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has a broad responsibility to work
with grazing permittees, users from a wide variety of multiple use
groups, and other interests in their mission to manage public lands. In
my experience, I believe that BLM should target existing resources--to
include funding, personnel, partnerships, and other attentions--to the
greatest effect. BLM has the tools they need to undertake environmental
reviews, process grazing permits, and do necessary monitoring
activities, but sometimes these resources are focused in other areas. I
suggest that BLM increase their internal attention to some of these
core function because their attention can be leveraged by grazing
permittees and all of us who are on the land on a daily basis.
Question 2. In response to Chairman Tiffany's question about
whether additional BLM funding was necessary, you stated the following:
``[W]hen I used to walk into the agency office there would be three
people in the office that managed the entirety of the resources and the
lands that are being managed today with three to four hundred people.''
2a) Do you think this increase in administrative headcount is an
effective way to protect multiple uses of BLM lands? Why or why not?
Answer. More people increases the administrative headcount, but not
necessarily their capacity or efficiency. There are key positions in
the BLM that work closest with the permittee to get work done:
rangeland conservationists, local line officers, and state staff are
all integral in the day-to-day communications and approval of key
projects on the ground. I believe the agency should prioritize ensuring
these positions are filled; we need the right people in the right
places, not more people across the board. We have seen what happens
when BLM focuses on having more people across the agency--these
individuals' tasks become duplicative and rather than becoming more
efficient, the agency gets less efficient over time.
2b) Does conservation generally result from BLM administrators or
from the grazing permittees, ranchers, and livestock owners, who work
on, and care for, America's public lands?
Answer. Grazing permittees are the ones doing the conservation work
on the ground, but on federal lands, our work has to be approved and
monitored by the federal agency that issues our permit. We are on the
front line of watching for invasive species, fire risk, which
pedestrian trails are unsafe, where fences are down, and all of the
many considerations that go into successful multiple use. It's a system
that has to work so that grazing permittees can do the important work
on the ground.
Question 3. Would you please distinguish between targeted grazing
as an allotment management practice and targeted grazing for fuels
reduction?
3a) Have federal land managers demonstrated a proper understanding
of how both types of targeted grazing should be applied? Please
explain.
Answer. Over the last several years, public lands grazers have been
frustrated by the relative lack of application of targeted grazing.
Both BLM and the U.S. Forest Service have tried to apply targeted
grazing, but they have historically limited application to areas within
the boundaries of current grazing allotments. When talking about
grazing for wildfire risk reduction, this defeats the purpose: active
grazing allotments already are at a reduced risk for wildfire ignition
and lower severity because of existing grazing, and we need to apply
targeted grazing outside of allotments, in high risk zones, in vacant/
closed allotments, and other areas that need additional fire mitigation
tools.
We are starting to see some application of targeted grazing in
these other areas, but there's a lot of room for improvement. Over the
last several years, we've seen BLM back away from several
authorizations to use targeted grazing to create fuel breaks, so this
is one thing I'd like to see improved.
3b) If not, how might Congress help provide direction to the
agencies?
Answer. Congress should provide clear direction to both agencies
that targeted grazing for wildfire risk reduction should include all
federal land in need of fuels reduction, not just existing grazing
allotments. If the agencies are serious about reducing fine fuels at
scale and at low risk, then targeted grazing should become a visible,
widely used tool. It shouldn't be relegated to a ``pilot program''
status, nor should it be a tool of last resort when all other tools
aren't suitable.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Canterbury. I now recognize Mr.
Dan Gibbs, Executive Director of the Colorado Department of
Natural Resources.
Mr. Gibbs, welcome. You have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAN GIBBS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COLORADO DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES, DENVER, COLORADO
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Chairman
Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and esteemed members of the
Subcommittee. I am really excited to be here today.
As the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of
Natural Resources, I am proud to share the incredible work we
do to meet our mission to develop, preserve, and enhance
Colorado's natural resources. I have led the Colorado DNR since
2019, but my love for natural resources began while living in
Gunnison County, Colorado with the Gunnison River right in my
backyard and public lands right there, as well.
My parents were both public school educators, and their
experience as teachers influenced me to pursue a career in
public service. Over my career I have worked for Congressman
Mark Udall, was a State representative, State senator, and a
county commissioner. I have also fought fires throughout the
West as a certified wildland firefighter. I live in Summit
County, which is a community comprised of over 80 percent
Federal lands.
We cherish our public lands in Colorado. They provide a
vital public good that improves the mental health and physical
well-being of our residents and visitors, while also generating
tremendous economic opportunities. Colorado is an all-above
energy State where we work hard to balance the energy
transition with the need for reliable energy. For instance, we
are the fourth-largest oil and gas-producing State with vast
natural gas reserves, coal, hardrock minerals, geothermal
sources, and seemingly endless sunshine and consistent winds
that assist our efforts to increase renewable energy
generation.
In addition to enabling resource extraction, our public
lands support our growing outdoor recreation economy. We are
privileged to live in a State that contains 22 million acres of
public lands. Colorado's expansive prairies, mountain river
valleys, desert canyons are essential to our lifestyle,
heritage, and identity.
Colorado's outdoor recreation industry contributes $36.5
billion in GDP and represents 12 percent of our State's entire
labor force. To manage this we have developed a robust
partnership between local, State, Federal, and tribal entities
through our Colorado Outdoor Strategy and Regional Partnership
initiatives. Through this proactive approach our dedicated
staff work closely with our Federal partners to responsibly
manage and enhance outdoor recreation.
In Colorado we proudly work hand in hand with our Federal
partners, as evidenced in our successful co-management of the
Arkansas Headwaters Recreation Area since 1989. The BLM and the
U.S. Forest Service own much of the area along 152 miles of the
Arkansas River, and Colorado Parks and Wildlife collects a user
fee to help manage the boat launch, campgrounds, and river
rescue, among other activities. The co-management effort has
been so successful that we are now exploring replicating this
in other areas around the State, in particular the Pikes Peak
region in Colorado Springs.
As a wildland firefighter and resident of a fire-prone
community, I have seen firsthand the risk that megafires pose.
Because wildfires don't know the difference between Federal,
State, and private and tribal lands, we need a management
strategy that reflects an all-hands approach. We are very proud
of our shared stewardship agreement with the U.S. Forest
Service, and we hope to soon finalize a similar agreement with
the BLM. The shared stewardship agreement that was initiated
under the first Trump administration provided the structure to
combine funding towards doing the right work at the right place
and the right scale based on collaborative input.
Colorado and much of the arid West is one lightning strike,
one unattended campfire away from the next devastating
megafire. By prioritizing planning and working together, we can
take advantage of shared Federal/State resources to create the
economies of scale needed to treat the acres to protect lives,
property, and critical infrastructure. Shared stewardship
should not be limited solely based on forest management, but
instead should apply this important tool broadly to
collaboratively manage trails, water, wildlife, and much more.
As a former county commissioner, I know our rural
communities and understand the challenges they face. We must
manage and fund our lands in a way that allows for these
communities to reap the benefits. In Colorado our extensive
network of stakeholder networking collaborative groups works
hard to get projects off the ground. The funding that Colorado
receives from the Federal Government is imperative to
accomplish projects that cover everything from flood mitigation
to dam and mine safety, typically in rural communities. Recent
efforts to freeze Federal funds are creating significant
uncertainty and concern among our constituents, and are already
negatively impacting these types of projects.
Federal funding is the bedrock of these programs. I
encourage you to continue to partner with States. Together we
can leverage our natural resource funding to obtain
extraordinary, efficient, and cost-effective lifesaving
outcomes.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I am happy to answer any
questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gibbs follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dan Gibbs, Director of the Colorado Department of
Natural Resources
Introduction
Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, Ranking Member Neguse, and esteemed
members of the Subcommittee. I'm excited to be here today.
Overview
As the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Natural
Resources, I'm proud to share the incredible work we do to meet our
mission to develop, preserve, and enhance Colorado's natural resources.
I've led Colorado's DNR since 2019, but my love for natural resources
began while living in Gunnison County Colorado with the Gunnison River
and public lands in my backyard. My parents were both public school
educators and their experience as teachers influenced me to pursue a
career in public service. Over my career, I have worked for Congressman
Mark Udall, was a Colorado state representative and senator, and a
county commissioner. I have also fought fires throughout the west as a
certified wildland firefighter. I live in Summit County, which is a
community comprised of over 80% federal lands.
We cherish public lands in Colorado. They provide a vital public
good that improves the mental health and physical well-being of our
residents and visitors while also generating tremendous economic
opportunities. Colorado is an all of the above energy state, and we
work hard to balance the energy transition with the need for reliable
energy. For instance, Colorado is the fourth-largest oil-producing
state; with vast natural gas reserves, coal, hard rock minerals,
geothermal sources, and seemingly limitless sunshine and consistent
winds that assist our efforts to increase renewable energy generation.
Outdoor Recreation Economy
In addition to enabling resource extraction, our public lands
support a growing outdoor recreation economy. We are privileged to live
in a state that contains 22 million acres of public lands. Colorado's
expansive prairies, mountain river valleys, and desert canyons are
central to our lifestyle, heritage, and identity.
Colorado's outdoor recreation industry contributes $36.5 billion in
GDP and represents 12% of the state's entire labor force. To manage
this, we have developed robust partnerships between local, state,
federal, and tribal entities through Colorado's Outdoor Strategy and
the Regional Partnerships Initiative. Through this proactive approach,
Colorado's dedicated staff works closely with federal partners to
responsibly manage and enhance outdoor recreation.
In Colorado, we proudly work hand in hand with our federal
partners, as evidenced by our successful co-management of the Arkansas
Headwaters Recreation Area since 1989. The BLM and US Forest Service
own much of the area along 152 miles of the Arkansas River, and
Colorado Parks and Wildlife collects user fees to help pay for the
management of boat launches, campgrounds, and river rescue. This co-
management effort has been so successful that we are exploring
replicating that model in the Pikes Peak Region in Colorado Springs.
Shared Stewardship
As a wildland firefighter and resident of a fire-prone community, I
have seen first-hand the risk that megafires pose. Because wildfires
don't distinguish between federal, state, private and tribal lands, we
need a management strategy that reflects an all-lands approach.
We are very proud of our Shared Stewardship agreement with the
USFS, and we hope to soon finalize a similar agreement with the BLM.
The Shared Stewardship agreements that were initiated under the first
Trump Administration provide the structure to combine funding toward
doing the right work, in the right place, at the right scale based on
collaborative input to manage our forests.
Colorado and much of the arid west is just one lighting strike or
one unattended campfire away from the next devastating megafire. By
prioritizing, planning, and working together, we can take advantage of
shared federal-state resources to create the economies of scale needed
to treat the right acres to protect lives, property, and critical
infrastructure.
Shared Stewardship should not be limited solely to forest
management. Instead, we should apply this important tool broadly to
collaboratively manage trails, water resources, wildlife, and much
more.
Rural Communities, Public Lands, and the Role of the Federal
Government As a former Summit County Commissioner, I know our rural
communities and understand the challenges they face. We must manage and
fund public lands in a way that allows for these communities to also
reap the benefits. In Colorado, our extensive network of stakeholder
working groups collaborate to get boots on the ground to complete
critical conservation projects in an efficient and cost-effective
manner.
The funding that Colorado receives from the Federal Government is
imperative to accomplish projects that cover everything from flood
mitigation to dam and mine safety typically in rural communities.
Recent efforts to freeze federal funds are creating significant
uncertainty, and concern among our constituents and are already
negatively impacting these types of projects. Federal funding is the
bedrock of these programs, and I encourage you to continue to partner
with states. Together, we can leverage our natural resource funds to
obtain extraordinarily efficient, cost effective, and lifesaving
outcomes.
Conclusion
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak about Colorado's
collaborative approach to managing our natural resources. In the West,
we are truly blessed with a diverse array of natural resources and so
we must be faithful stewards of the land so that all future generations
have the same access and opportunities. The only way we can accomplish
these goals is by working together to find the balance between resource
extraction and conservation.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Gibbs. I now recognize Mr. Jim
Neiman, President and CEO of Neiman Enterprises.
Welcome, Mr. Neiman, and you have 5 minutes for your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF JIM NEIMAN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NEIMAN ENTERPRISES,
HULETT, WYOMING
Mr. Neiman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Congresswoman
Hageman apparently had to leave, but I also want to thank the
rest of the Committee.
My name is Jim Neiman, President of Neiman Enterprises, a
multi-generational sawmill business operating in South Dakota,
Wyoming, Colorado, and Oregon. I appreciate the opportunity and
feel very blessed to be here today to testify.
For 89 years our family business has been built on
perseverance, adaptability, and a deep commitment to forestry
and our communities. My grandfather founded our first mill in
1936 in the Black Hills. Our work is about more than timber. It
is about sustaining forests and communities. A critical
partnership exists between the Forest Service and the forest
products companies: the Forest Service relies on industry to
manage 193 million acres of Federal lands, while we rely on the
agency for a stable supply of raw material. When this
partnership functions well, it creates stability for business
and enables the Forest Service to implement much-needed
treatments on the landscape. However, for this partnership to
succeed, all parties must be fully committed.
In the Black Hills, where my company has deep roots, the
Forest Service has a long history of sustainable timber
management, dating back to the very first Federal timber sale
in 1899. Proper forest management has proven to control insect
infestation, reduce wildfire risk, and ensure a sustainable
supply of timber. However, we are now experiencing a 75 percent
reduction, I repeat, 75 percent reduction, in the timber sale
program in the Black Hills.
This year the Forest Service has proposed a timber sale
program that meets only a fraction of what one of our mills in
Spearfish needs to stay operating, let alone the needs of the
broader forest industry in the area. Unfortunately, we are
seeing a decline in forest management not only in the Black
Hills, but across multiple forests through the Forest Service
regions.
The consequences are real and permanent. In 1921, despite
record-high lumber prices, we were forced to close the mill in
South Dakota due to inadequate Forest Service timber sales.
Today our two remaining sawmills in the Black Hills are running
at 50 percent capacity and incurring tremendous financial
losses, while other companies are being forced to truck
material across three States to fill their needs and fill the
gap.
The need to do more in our forests is not new, and is
supported by both parties. Yet in the last 4 years timber
output has dropped 17 percent nationwide, and multiple sawmills
which have heavily relied on Federal lands have now shut down.
The loss of sawmills means more than economic hardship; it
devastates communities. Two of our four operations, Wyoming and
Oregon, reside in very small communities where our family
business is the economic backbone. Without it, both could
become another ghost town losing its schools, health care, and
local businesses.
Our industry is highly capital intensive. Building a modern
sawmill today costs well over $200 million. No business would
make that kind of an investment to manage Federal lands when
existing mills are struggling to access supplies of raw
materials.
We know what works, but we need to act immediately. Many
Federal legislative policies fail to support the Federal
management levels needed to reduce wildfire and insects risk.
The Forest Service needs clear priorities, and we must fully
utilize the capacity we already have before exploring new
markets or industries. The Organic Act of 1897 established our
national forests with a clear mission: to manage them to ensure
a permanent wood supply and clean water and prevent destruction
of insects and fire. Today we are failing to meet those
objectives. Reduced management is harming forests, watersheds,
wildlife, and communities. These problems are fixable, but we
must act fast to save the forest communities and the industry
that we depend on.
We have a very serious situation here, and I just want to
thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman, and God bless America.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Neiman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jim Neiman, President, Neiman Enterprises
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Jim Neiman, President of Neiman
Enterprises, a multi-generational company operating four sawmills in
South Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado, and Oregon. I appreciate the
opportunity to provide testimony on this important topic. In addition
to my role at Neiman Enterprises, I am also a member of the
Intermountain Forest Association which represents forest products
companies operating in the Rocky Mountain Region of the USFS and a
member of the Federal Forest Resource Coalition, which represents
similar businesses across the country, although I am not representing
either organization today.
For 89 years, our family's sawmill business has been built on
perseverance, adaptability, and a deep-rooted commitment to forestry
and community. My grandfather founded our first mill in 1936 in Upton,
Wyoming, later relocating to Hulett in 1940 after a fire.
In Hulett, a community of about 400 people, if you want to grow
your company--you must figure out how to grow the community with it. We
went from 20+ employees in 1974 to 125 employees in 1995. A shortage of
housing has plagued the community for years. We developed our first
housing subdivision in 1980 with 33 lots and helped fund the Hulett
Community Housing Authority, with units for senior and affordable
housing. We also developed a golf community with an airport to retain
and attract quality employees.
Our commitment extends beyond our family; it's about the
communities where we operate and the forests that sustain them. We
believe that healthy forests create healthy communities, and our work
in sustainable forestry ensures both can thrive for generations to
come.
Across the US, and even more so in the Western states, there is a
tremendous partnership in place to manage federal lands. This
partnership is born out of necessity. The US Forest Service (USFS)
depends on forest products companies as the primary tool for managing
forests on their 193 million acres of land while reducing risk from
wildfires and insect infestations. In turn, forest products companies
rely on the USFS to provide raw material for manufacturing forest
products and supporting community economies.
When this partnership is functioning well, it creates opportunities
for a healthy industry to make investments in our facilities, and
allows the Forest Service to implement treatments on the landscape.
During the first Trump Administration, Secretary of Agriculture Sonny
Perdue visited the Black Hills and saw first-hand how the partnership
between the USFS and forest products companies can win wars against
pine beetle epidemics and save communities from wildfires. And while he
had hoped to use the Black Hills as a model for other parts of the
country, we have seen how important leadership is to sustaining that
type of success.
Importantly, for this partnership to work, all parties must be
making the same commitments to accomplish the necessary treatments on
the land.
On the Black Hills National Forest, where my company originated and
has a tremendous amount at stake, the USFS originally proposed a timber
sale level of 45,000 Cubic Feet (CCF) this fiscal year. They have
recently stated they hope to get closer to 60,000 ccf this year,
including all forest products--biomass such as chipping, firewood,
small diameter post-and-pole material, and sawtimber. Unfortunately,
that increase is not enough to change the end result.
To help understand what the program levels mean for our partnership
in the Black Hills, our family's sawmill located in Spearfish, SD needs
approximately 90,000 ccf from USFS lands on an annual basis to stay
operational--this represents about 75-80 percent of the material needs
at that facility due to the percentage of forested land the federal
government owns in the Black Hills. This is only one of the facilities
in the Black Hills and the combined need is much greater.
In the Black Hills, the industry is heavily integrated with
companies using all types of products from the Black Hills National
Forest. Sawmills use larger trees (9'' in diameter or greater), post-
and-pole operators use smaller material predominantly 6'' to 9'' inch
material, and biomass companies such as wood pellet producers and a
particle board manufacturer have traditionally utilized residues from
other facilities rather than using raw material from the forest.
The current Black Hills Forest Plan allows for 202,000 ccf
allowable sale quantity and the forest products companies that haven't
yet closed aren't asking for the maximum.
We are seeing downturns in forest management on some other national
forests in Region 2, and within other Regions of the USFS, and the
resulting impacts on our industry and communities are permanent.
We are here today, in the first month of a new administration where
forest management should take a front seat. The reality is that forest
management isn't a partisan issue and the opinion that we need to be
doing more in our forests isn't new. However, we have never faced a
more critical fork in the road for our national forests and the
communities that call them home and depend on them for economic
sustainability--the need to greatly increase the scale of timber
harvest and other forest management is unprecedented.
Recent administrations of both parties have acknowledged the
importance of increasing the work we do to manage our national forests.
Under the Obama administration, the USFS developed a strategy
titled: Increasing the Pace of Restoration and Job Creation on Our
National Forests.\1\ That strategy found that between 65-82 million
acres of NFS lands were in need of forest management actions to restore
the forests to more sustainable conditions. Restoration activities
principally involve reducing tree densities and timber outputs during
that administration actually climbed from about 2.5 Billion Board Feet
in 2009 to 2.9 Billion Feet in 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ US Forest Service, Increasing the Pace of Restoration and Job
Creation on Our National Forests: https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/
default/files/legacy_files/media/types/publication/field_pdf/
increasing-pace-restoration-job-creation-2012.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the first Trump Administration, timber outputs increased
from around 2.9 Billion Board Feet to 3.2 Billion Board Feet, largely
through the use of new authorities adopted by Congress since 2004 and
the Trump Administration's ``Shared Stewardship'' approach which worked
to improve cooperation and co-management between the Forest Service and
the States.
Early into the Biden administration, the US Department of
Agriculture reported on the first 90 days of their Climate-Smart
Agriculture and Forestry Strategy.\2\ Within the report, the USDA
concluded that ``Forest Service and other research scientists have
determined the current level of treatment is not enough to keep pace
with the scale and scope of the wildfire problem.'' and that the ``. .
. USDA must increase the scale of its actions by two to four times more
than is currently treated.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ US Department of Agriculture, Climate Smart Agriculture and
Forestry Strategy 90-Day Progress Report: https://www.usda.gov/sites/
default/files/documents/climate-smart-ag-forestry-strategy-90-day-
progress-report.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the historic wildfire seasons of 2020 and 2021, the USFS
responded by developing a strategy to Confront the Wildfire Crisis,\3\
which correctly stated that, ``The risk has reached crisis proportions
in the West, calling for decisive action to protect people and
communities and improve forest health and resilience.'' As a starting
point, the strategy called for implementing forest management actions
on an ADDITIONAL 20 million acres of National Forest System lands by
2030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ US Forest Service, Wildfire Crisis Strategy: https://
www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/Confronting-Wildfire-Crisis.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, despite this commitment to increased timber
management, commercial timber outputs fell during the Biden
Administration by more than 17 percent nationally, leaving many Western
sawmills scrambling to secure adequate raw materials.
As an industry, we appreciated the attention to this issue during
the first Trump administration and the recognition that we already have
the capacity to tremendously improve the health of our National Forests
by working with the existing forest products industry. Moving forward,
promising opportunities exist to work with Congress and this second
Trump administration to develop policy and guidance that finally
addresses the incredible scale and need for increased treatment on our
national forests.
Although the forest management program is currently suffering in
the Black Hills National Forest, it has a more than 125 year history of
timber sales and has, at times, served as a shining example of how to
sustainably manage national forests across the country; beginning with
the first ever timber sale on federal land in 1899. In the Black Hills
National Forest, more than four times as much timber has been removed
as what was present at the time of the first timber sale--and there is
still approximately three times \4\ as much timber standing today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ US Forest Service, Revised Black Hills National Forest Timber
Assessment, p. 38: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/
fseprd1153857.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most recently, timber management on the Black Hills showed that the
war against insect epidemics can actually be won through timber sales
conducted at the landscape scale. Forest Service scientists \5\
researched the effects of commercial harvest operations on mountain
pine beetle mortality and found that treated forest stands only
experienced four percent mortality to insects compared to more than 38
percent loss in untreated stands. They also found that treatments
rapidly reduced mortality from pine beetles and concluded that, ``Stand
density reductions through silviculture across a large geographical
area can abate MPB-caused tree mortality.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Jose F. Negron, Kurt K. Allen, Angie Ambourn, Blaine Cook,
Kenneth Marchand, Large-Scale Thinnings, Ponderosa Pine, and Mountain
Pine Beetle in the Black Hills, USA, Forest Science, Volume 63, Issue
5, October 2017, Pages 529-536, https://doi.org/10.5849/FS-2016-061
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the Black Hills has directly shown how forest management
through timber harvest can safeguard communities and the forest alike
from wildfires. In 2022, the Wabash Springs fire ignited just outside
the city limits of Custer, SD but within exurban community development.
The conditions at the time of ignition were dry with moderate drought,
and winds gusting to 60 mph. A powerline arced and the fire began to
spread quickly. This is a scene we know all too well in the West.
Fortunately, the area where the fire began had been previously treated
with a commercial timber sale to fight mountain pine beetle populations
and had also received additional follow-up work to further reduce the
fire danger. The fire was contained to 110 acres and was extinguished
as quickly as it started. Surveying the area in the months after showed
no trees were lost and no structures were damaged or destroyed.
After the fire, local Forest Service officials said they were able
to suppress the fire and prevent the loss of homes because of the work
done in recent years by both the Forest Service and private landowners
in the area. Noting that no structures or even large trees were burned,
the USFS said ``The fuels treatment and the thinning that's been done
in and around that area for the last 8-10 years certainly made a
difference.'' Custer County Emergency Management Director Steve Esser
echoed that sentiment.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Wabash Springs Fire Threatened Homes: https://
www.custercountychronicle.com/content/wabash-springs-fire-threatened-
homes
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That hasn't been the only local example of similar treatments
saving structures, communities, and certainly the forest from damage.
And it isn't just the Black Hills where the empirical evidence has
shown the difference treatments can make locally and across broader
landscapes.
Although the previous Administration efforts to prioritize older,
less productive forests was flawed in terms of goals and process, it
did illustrate the real risks to our National Forests and efforts to
provide components of older forests on the landscape in the long-term.
Through extensive discussion highlighting the outsized impacts to older
forests from insects and wildfires, the threat assessment \7\ showed
that mature and old growth forests decreased on ``reserved'' lands
(Wilderness Areas, Inventoried Roadless Areas, National Monuments, and
others) but that old growth forests actually increased by nearly 8
percent on non-reserved lands. In other words, where timber harvest is
allowed, old growth forests increased in acreage. Conversely, older
forests decreased on lands set-aside from management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ USDA and DOI, Mature and Old-Growth Forests Analysis of Threats
on Lands Managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/fs_media/fs_document/MOG-
threat-analysis.pdf AND https://evergreenmagazine.com/content/files/
2024/06/MOG-threat-analysis.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be clear, and I can speak for the industry as a whole, we want
to see older forests on the landscape in the long-term but there must
be recognition that forests are not static and is a foolish endeavor to
believe we can preserve disturbance prone forests just as we find them
today, in perpetuity. Age and structure are states of existence, not
places, and what is old today may be young again and vice-versa.
Previous examples in this testimony have shown what has and can
work well. We also know what isn't working for our national forests and
dependent communities.
In the Black Hills, our family was forced to close a sawmill during
record high lumber markets in 2021, because of inadequate USFS timber
sales. Today, our two remaining sawmills are running at 50 percent
capacity and incurring tremendous financial losses in the process.
Those reductions have also negatively impacted the particle board
manufacturer which relies on the residues produced from the sawmills.
They are now trucking wood chips across three states to meet a portion
of their supply and have resorted to chipping operations in the forest
for other portions of their material needs--at a significantly
increased cost compared to sawmill residues.
Again, decreasing USFS outputs have been the primary factor in the
reductions in our industry and the resulting job losses. Our industry
is accustomed to volatility in our end use markets. Companies in the
Black Hills are no exception: we have been in business for decades,
generations in some instances, and have weathered numerous economic and
market downturns--but we must have raw materials in order to continue
our operations. If we have to close up shop, the entire ``value
chain''--loggers, truckers, equipment dealers, and, most vitally, our
skilled workers simply have to move on to find gainful employment and
viable markets. Once lost, it is nearly impossible to rebuild this
value chain.
Nationally, we know that competition among producers is fierce, and
overall the sector doesn't grow much faster than the overall economy.
We know that mills close for a wide variety of reasons, including
competition, distance from good markets, lack of adequate investment,
or mismanagement. We also know that lumber producers who must rely on
Federal timber resources face the additional challenges presented by an
inadequate and unpredictable log supply. These challenges have been
exacerbated by reduced timber outputs over the last four years, leading
to disproportionate closures of sawmills in areas dominated by National
Forests.
While overall timber outputs fell in almost every Forest Service
regions, the impacts have been particularly damaging in those regions
where National Forests make up the majority of the productive
timberland.
In the Northern Region (Montana and North Idaho), timber outputs
fell by 39 percent over the last five years, leading to or contributing
to mill closures in Seeley Lake, MT, St. Regis, MT, and Missoula, MT.
In the Pacific Northwest Region (Oregon and Washington), timber
outputs fluctuated widely, but overall they declined by more than 11
percent. This led to mill closures in Springfield, John Day, Glendale,
Banks, Riddle, Toledo, and Philomath, OR. New leadership in this Region
is showing a promising desire to get national forests and forest
management programs back on track.
In the Rocky Mountain Region, looking beyond the impacts in the
Black Hills, there are multiple facilities running at decreased
production and facing extreme difficulty acquiring logs to keep
operating. In this region, the closures go beyond just sawmills. A
renewable energy, biomass fueled power plant was recently forced to
close when the USFS canceled remaining task orders and did not renew a
long-term stewardship contract that would have kept the facility
running and providing renewable energy to the electrical grid in
Colorado.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Previous 10 years of timber sale accomplishments in the USFS
Rocky Mountain Region
The losses of these facilities do more than make the task of
managing the National Forests more difficult. They tear at the very
fabric of these small communities and eliminate meaningful economic
opportunities, particularly for workers with less than a college
education. Sawmills and other wood using facilities provide family wage
jobs that sustain communities year round, and managed forests provide
healthy and safe areas that sustain active recreation industries as
well. The managed forests on the Black Hills have historically produced
hundreds of millions of board feet of timber, yet our tourist industry
is thriving. We don't need an either/or approach when it comes to
timber vs. recreation.
Speaking bluntly about my own home town, Hulett is a small, close-
knit community of about 400 people. Our family business is the economic
heart of the community. Without it, there is a strong possibility that
Hulett will become the newest ghost town in the West. While ghost towns
are somewhat romantic to visit long after the fact, the process of
becoming a ghost town means the loss of a functioning community with
access to schools, healthcare, and grocers.
These closures and curtailments are happening at the same time we
see millions of national forest acres burning in wildfires or infested
by insects each year. As a product, there are currently needs \8\ to
restore forest cover on 7 million acres of USFS land and more than 12
million acres total of federal lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Reforestation Hub: https://www.reforestationhub.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our industry is highly capital intensive, with a modern, State of
the Art sawmill costing upwards of $200 Million to build from the
ground up. Nobody is coming to make investments in the hundreds of
millions toward the partnership of managing federal lands when the
current forest products infrastructure is struggling to get supplies of
raw materials.
As we discuss forest management today, it is important for the
Committee to keep in mind that 98 million acres of the National
Forests--more than half the total acreage--is in restrictive land use
designations including Wilderness or Roadless areas. By law, no timber
harvest takes place in Wilderness Areas, and there are extremely
limited and rarely used exceptions allowing some hazardous fuels
reduction work in Roadless areas. Management is also restricted in
National Monuments, Wild & Scenic River Corridors, and other areas
identified in forest plans.
We know what works but, frankly, we need to get out of our own way.
Many federal and legislative policies do not provide for the levels of
forest management we need to have the desired effect of substantively
reducing wildfire hazards and insect infestation risks at meaningful
scales. We also need clear direction of what the priorities of the USFS
should be and that we should fully utilize the capacity we already have
in place before getting creative on developing new industries or
markets.
I am reminded of the stated objective within the original Organic
Act of 1897 \9\ which provided for the creation of our national forests
(then known as forest reserves):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Organic Act of 1897: https://www.publiclandsforthepeople.org/
wp-content/uploads/2015/05/ORGANIC-ACT-OF-1897.pdf
Public forest reservations are established to protect and
improve the forests for the purpose of securing a permanent
supply of timber for the people and insuring conditions
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
favorable to continuous water flow; and
The Secretary of the Interior shall make provisions for
the protection against destruction by fire and depredations
upon the public forests and forest reservations which may
have been set aside or which may be hereafter set aside
under said Act
Although some could say times have changed, it is clear the current
reduced level of management on national forests is not having a
beneficial effect of protecting the forests, habitat, watersheds,
communities, or our climate from damages inflicted by wildfires and
insect epidemics.
The problems in our forest are fixable, but we must act urgently to
save the forests, and the companies and communities that depend on
them.
______
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Neiman. Now we will take
members questions.
Members, you will have 5 minutes for your questioning, and
we will start out with the gentleman from California, Mr.
McClintock.
Mr. McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, listening
to the Ranking Member and the Democratic witness talk about the
need for more money, I am struck by the fact that throughout
the 20th century we not only maintained healthy and fire-
resilient forests, we made money doing it. Federal timber
auctions, Federal grazing contracts actually generated an
enormous flow of capital. Twenty-five percent of that funding
went to local governments that were impacted by the Federal
lands to compensate them for land that is off their tax rolls,
and the other 75 percent went into our land management agencies
right back into good land management.
Mr. Neiman, what happened?
Mr. Neiman. I can reflect back into the 1970s and 1980s and
watch what we went through. But when I look at what happened in
the 1990s and the Forest Service cutting the volume
considerably back, we lost a lot of sawmills through that time
period.
Mr. McCormick. Yes, we saw that in the Sierra Nevada. We
saw a 75 percent reduction in timber harvested off the Federal
lands, and we saw a concomitant increase in acreage destroyed
by catastrophic fire in the same period. We saw the number of
sawmills operating in California go from about, I think it was,
180 down to about 30. And we have now entered an era of
catastrophic fire.
Now, there is nothing new in that. Before the 20th century
paleontologists tell us we lost about 4.5 million acres a year
to catastrophic fire in California. But land management brought
that down to about 250,000 acres a year, a fraction of what we
had lost to nature because of good land management. But we
passed laws then that made that management all but impossible,
and we have watched the acreage destroyed by catastrophic fire
return to their pre-modern levels. In 2020 we lost about 4.3, I
think, million acres to catastrophic fire in California.
Now, is that nature or is that policy?
Mr. Neiman. Well, I would refer to policy first, but when
you recognize that most of those forests are growing from one
to two to three to 4 percent a year, and you are compounding
that growth every year for now three decades, you have
increased your inventory of carbon in that forest horrendously
from what it was naturally back 100 years ago. So the policy
has caused a huge problem in building back to where we now have
catastrophic fires due to the fuel load on all those forests.
Mr. McCormick. Mr. Canterbury, we not only auctioned off
excess timber to provide revenues for land management, but we
also did a great deal more ranching. You know, you mentioned
that, sheep and cattle ranching that suppress brush growth. Why
aren't we doing that these days at the same levels that we used
to?
Mr. Canterbury. Thank you, Congressman. And so I think, if
we look back in history, the significant reduction to the AUMs
that is allowed today versus what there was 30, 40, 50 years
ago is very significant. So I would say nothing replaces good
conservation and land management on the ground.
Mr. McCormick. Right.
Mr. Canterbury. It can't be made back here. I am sorry. We
need to be able to dictate our own futures on the ground,
working with our partners every day, whatever agency that may
be.
Mr. McCormick. Yes. One of the other sad things, I toured
the devastation of the Southern California fires a few weeks
ago and just noted that is how nature gardens. She removes
excess growth by disease, pestilence, drought, and ultimately
catastrophic fire.
And I recall the City of Altadena being absolutely
destroyed by the fires. The Trump administration, in its first
term, started the years-long process to get a permit to cut
fire breaks to protect the town of Altadena from the
surrounding national forest. Biden came in, reversed that, and
then declared wilderness protection over those forests that
make land management all but impossible, and the result was
nature returned to do the gardening, and Altadena was destroyed
in the process. It is sad.
Thanks for being here today.
Mr. Neiman. Thank you.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman from California yields, and I
will recognize the gentleman, the Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee, Mr. Neguse, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Neguse. I thank the Chairman, and thank you to each of
our witnesses for being here for traveling to Washington, D.C.
in some cases. We appreciate your testimony.
In particular, I want to thank my good friend and someone
whom I think has been an exceptional public servant in the
State of Colorado for many, many years, and that is
Commissioner, State Representative, State Senator, and now, of
course, Executive Director Gibbs. And I couldn't agree more and
concur with his assessments regarding what needs to be done
with respect to a number of the issues that he described. And
of course, I am biased because he is my constituent back in
Summit County, Colorado. But we are grateful for him being
here.
I want to just follow up. Mr. Canterbury. Canterbury?
Sorry, I hope I pronounced that right.
Mr. Canterbury. Yes, sir.
Mr. Neguse. Yes, sir. OK, great. I want to follow up on one
particular provision of your written testimony. So I believe
this is the second-to-last page. You write, ``As one of,'' it
says, ``While the list is not exhaustive, I offer the following
suggestions for immediate action.'' And one of those
suggestions, you have underlined it, ``direct targeted
resources to environmental analysis and permitting for
rangeland monitoring and grazing allotments.'' What do you mean
by targeted resources?
Mr. Canterbury. So thank you, Ranking Member Neguse. It is
a pleasure to be here today.
So what we are talking about there on those targeted funds,
if you will, we need to very specifically target some funding.
Every agency, as you know, is out of funds. We need some
funding directly for the monitoring protocols that we all live
by so the agencies can get this monitoring done.
Mr. Neguse. That is right. So here is why I ask. No, you
answered the question. Thank you, Mr. Canterbury, because you
have resolved that in my mind. I just wanted to make sure I
understood that. When you said ``targeted resources,'' what you
mean is targeted funding. That is the word you used. I concur
with that assessment.
Were you invited here by the majority or by the minority of
this Committee as a witness today?
Mr. Canterbury. That is a really good question. I am
assuming I was invited by----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Neguse. Why don't I answer that question for you? You
were invited by the majority, and we are delighted to have you.
In particular, as a Coloradan, I am certainly delighted to have
you here.
But the reason why I say this is my colleague from
California, you know, took great umbrage with the idea that the
Democratic witness and Democratic Members of Congress are
demanding more funding. And yet right here, one of your
principal recommendations, and it is a common-sense
recommendation, by the way, is for more funding for the nature
of the work that you have described.
And it is not all that complicated, right? I mean, many of
you have testified about multiple use and, you know, some of my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, you know, agree with
your assessments regarding timber sales or energy leases. Who
manages those? Who would you go about calling if you were going
to try to procure a timber sale? How does that happen, Mr.
Canterbury?
Mr. Canterbury. So Ranking Member, thank you for that
question.
Mr. Neguse. Sure.
Mr. Canterbury. I don't deal in the timber industry, but I
certainly deal in the livestock industry.
Mr. Neguse. Sure.
Mr. Canterbury. And my cows eat the understory----
Mr. Neguse. Yes, sir.
Mr. Canterbury [continuing]. And keep those veggies, those
succulent vegetative plants----
Mr. Neguse. But where would you go about procuring a
grazing lease? Who do you go to?
Mr. Canterbury. So I----
Mr. Neguse. You go to the Federal agencies, right? You go
to the BLM.
Mr. Canterbury. I deal with my local agency, folks.
Mr. Neguse. Correct.
Mr. Canterbury. Yes, sir, I do.
Mr. Neguse. Exactly, right? They are Federal employees.
These are individuals who work for the Federal Government,
particularly the BLM. Right? The same can be said for any
number of the multiple uses that this Committee is apparently
endeavoring to discuss today.
My broader point is that, as we are discussing multiple use
and the benefits of multiple use and the need for the Federal
Government to be more responsive, a mile away President Trump
is endeavoring to gut every Federal agency piece by piece.
Mass rescission offers, buyouts, so-called buyout offers to the
Federal Government, including some of the same BLM employees
that you work with, sir, that every witness here works with,
and it feels a little bit like we are in the Twilight Zone
here. You know, that we are supposed to have a sort of normal
Federal Lands Subcommittee hearing to discuss the propriety or
the benefits of multiple use and ignore the storm that is
developing around us.
I mean, I am sure you all are aware of this. Agencies are
being shut down here in Washington, the CFPB, effectively, just
a few days ago. I don't know if the BLM will be next. I suppose
we are going to find out.
So I would just encourage the Chairman of this
Subcommittee, and I want to give him my sense, we certainly are
not going to treat these hearings as business as usual until
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle step up, tell the
administration to pull back, and we can get back to regular
order, because there is a lot that these witnesses have
proposed that is reasonable and common sense and bipartisan.
But let me assure all of you, none of it, none of it will come
to fruition if the current administration has its way.
And I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I now recognize the
gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Stauber, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you know well, in
northern Minnesota we have the three T's: timber, taconite, and
tourism. I would argue there are few communities across this
great Nation that understand and benefit from the multi-use
mandate more than the communities across northern Minnesota
that I am proud to represent.
My district is home to two working industrial forests,
including the Chippewa National Forest and the Superior
National Forest, where we responsibly harvest timber and mine
the taconite that is used in production of 80-plus percent of
this Nation's domestically-produced steel. And located on the
Superior is the Duluth Complex, which is the largest untapped
copper nickel find in the entire world. But we will only be
able to responsibly mine these minerals needed to power our
21st century economy forward if we uphold and promote the
multiple use mandate on our Federal lands.
Mr. Neiman, thank you for being here today. I want to share
that I know your industry quite well, given the makeup of my
district. It is home to dozens and dozens of timber harvesters,
mills, and other wood product manufacturers. Unfortunately, we
have seen several mills shut down in recent years, leading to
the loss of hundreds of jobs. And in most cases this has been
due to regulatory burdens put in place by the EPA and other
federal regulatory agencies, as well as the Forest Service's
failure to uphold their end of the bargain of the multiple use
mandate and enable us to reach our timber harvesting goals. Can
you talk about the economic impact of mill closures in rural
communities where your companies operate?
Mr. Neiman. I sure could. Thank you very much, and please
say hi to Howard Hedstrom for me.
Mr. Stauber. I know Howard very well.
Mr. Neiman. A great friend.
I am going to talk first. I have lived through six
recessions in my lifetime at my age, going clear back to the to
the 1970s. And our family has been able to weather those storms
and get through them. This is the first recession in the timber
business that we have been in that we have had to deal with no
timber supply and running out of wood. You can figure out how
to get through recessions sometimes and weather storms like we
have in the past, but you can't operate a sawmill without wood.
Along with what you recognized, the high cost of added
costs that has happened in inflation over the last three or 4
years, and all the regulation that comes on with that, that
regulation has cost the government a whole lot more to put up
that wood and made it less valuable to us at the same time,
with the added cost we have to go through.
So I hope that answers your question.
Mr. Stauber. It does. And there was a timber harvester that
was reluctant to even go out and harvest the timber. He
couldn't afford the fuel, wasn't going to make it on just
harvesting the timber.
So Mr. Neiman, one last question. Is it fair to say that if
the Forest Service was doing a better job of meeting its timber
harvesting goals, many of the jobs in the timber harvesting and
forest products industries wouldn't be at risk allowing for the
maximum allowable sale to be harvested?
Mr. Neiman. I don't know of any forest in the country that
is meeting their ASQ.
Mr. Stauber. Right.
Mr. Neiman. I know of none.
Mr. Stauber. That is the point of the question. Thank you.
Thank you.
Mr. Gibbs, is a forest fire subject to a NEPA analysis?
Mr. Gibbs. [No response.]
Mr. Stauber. That is not hard.
Mr. Gibbs. No.
Mr. Stauber. Is a forest fire subject to PM NAAQS
regulations?
Mr. Gibbs. No.
Mr. Stauber. What does a better job of sequestering carbon
from our atmosphere, a manufactured wood product, an insect-
infested tree, or a burnt forest?
Mr. Gibbs. You know, our----
Mr. Stauber. That is not hard, either. It is a manufactured
wood product.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Stauber. Mr. Gibbs, thank you very much.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I now recognize the
Ranking Member, Mr. Huffman, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I always learn
something in these hearings. Mr. Stauber just, you know,
suggested maybe if we require NEPA for forest fires we could
solve this problem. I wish it was that simple.
I also wish it was as simple as my colleague from
California portrayed in his very nostalgic, gauzy view of the
1970s. I wish that all of the problems of rural economies and
fire risk could be solved by just rewinding back to the 1970s
and doing everything the way we used to back then.
But the truth is not everything was perfectly done in the
1970s. In fact, some of the timber harvest that took place in
the 1970s and 1980s was not sustainable. Some of these
clearcuts created long-term damage. I mean, we still have
watersheds that are bombed out, fisheries that are devastated
by erosion and other problems from some clearcutting that just
shouldn't have happened, at least not in the way that it did,
not only driving some species to the brink of extinction but
devastating salmon in the Western United States. And we have
had to spend so much public dollars trying to restore a lot of
the damage that was done then.
And I look around my district and some of the most
unhealthy forests that we have were forests that were clearcut
during that golden age and then replanted with, you know, even-
age plantation forests that are totally unhealthy and very
vulnerable to catastrophic fires. So we shouldn't be too
nostalgic and gauzy about the 1970s. We are all trying to solve
problems here, but I think we have got to do it with clear
eyes.
And so, Director Gibbs, I wanted to ask you just about what
is happening right now with this Federal funding freeze because
in my district I just recently talked to the Humboldt County
Resource Conservation District about how the freeze in Federal
funding and all of this chaos and uncertainty is causing their
entire community wildfire defense program to just be frozen and
suspended. And, of course, they work with other partners, with
Tribes and local governments and private landowners. Often the
Federal funding leverages all of those other resources, it gets
people working together in ways that they wouldn't otherwise
collaborate. And we are now weeks into a freeze. We could be
months in before it is over. We could lose the entire season.
Tell me what is happening in Colorado, and what are your
thoughts about the effects of these actions on the ground?
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. To
say the least, it has created major uncertainty, for the
Colorado Department of Natural Resources. We have more than 350
Federal grants that support approximately $300 million worth of
programs, with a staff capacity of 490 people that are funded
through Federal funding.
We do extensive work at the Department of Natural
Resources. Picture us almost like a miniature Department of the
Interior. We handle land, water, wildlife, minerals, and oil
and gas. And let me just give you a quick snapshot of some of
these potential impacts. And we are really monitoring this
closely, because it is day by day. Initially, when the
executive orders came out I had meetings first thing in the
morning and then later on in the afternoon because there was
such uncertainty for me and my staff to understand what are we
going to be reimbursed for, who is going to be our partner.
Just a couple of days ago, my staff asked us if I should
fund a $4 million critical dam project that our parks and
wildlife team manage. And this is considered a dam where, if
there was a breach, there could be huge consequences for a
local community if not funded, and we decided to fund that
program moving forward without really knowing if we are going
to be reimbursed.
But everything from wildlife operations to outdoor
recreation, aquatic nuisance species as you know, out West that
is a huge challenge. With the Water Conservation Board, we have
a water-ready watersheds program that works with local
communities to do a threat analysis to understand, if there was
a major catastrophic wildfire, what that would mean to the
local community, where those sediment issues would be, where
the community would be most at risk. We also have a floodplain
mapping unit that is funded through the Federal Government.
And then our Energy and Carbon Management Commission, we
have our orphan well program. And then, to this date, within
our Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety, our program
for our abandoned mine program which is funded through IIJA
funds, are frozen right now.
Mr. Huffman. Yes.
Mr. Gibbs. And this is looking at, critically the life and
safety of people in Colorado, where if our team can't get in
there and do remediation work, it could have seismic challenges
for our communities.
And so it has created uncertainty and huge challenges and
confusions, to say the least. But we are monitoring it very
closely.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you very much.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields. I now recognize Mr.
Amodei from the great State of Nevada for 5 minutes.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it.
You know, it is interesting to me to hear questions
regarding public lands, obviously, that is this Subcommittee,
and how things are going, and uncertainty that is caused by
things from members that have left, as a State that the Federal
Government owns between 80 and 85 percent of.
And if you don't think that is impact, and sir, you got my
attention when you said, hey, 80 percent of my county, but I
was busy feeling sorry for you because my colleague to my right
said, ``That guy used to be my boss.'' I am going, geez, I
wonder how he is holding up.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Amodei. But anyhow, nonetheless, I want to just start
with before all this uncertainty of 23 or 24 days ago, and
let's start with you, Mr. Gibbs.
Can you tell me if the Forest Service before 24 days ago
was fully staffed for all their positions in your State? Timber
people, watershed people, archeological people? Were they fully
staffed federally in the State of Colorado?
And when you tell me that, if you know, tell me about BLM.
Were they 100 percent on range cons, 100 percent on realty
executives, 100 percent on all that?
And let me tell you why I am asking you so I am not trying
to trick you. But the reason I am asking you is because if you
want to talk about staffing and resources, it is like even
though there was a lot of money poured into the Department of
the Interior under the last administration, they weren't
filling those jobs. They weren't paying those people a wage
that they could live in your communities. And we will go
through Utah, and if you are answering for Colorado, we will go
through anybody else who wants to talk about it.
But my point here is, when was the last time that resources
were fully funded in terms of personnel to manage those assets
and those programs that you talked about, to your knowledge, in
Colorado?
Mr. Gibbs. Yes, yes. Thank you, Congressman. I don't know
all those answers because, of course, I don't work for the BLM
or U.S. Forest Service.
But I will tell you, Congressman, that we do have a shared
stewardship agreement with U.S. Forest Service. It is very
robust.
Mr. Amodei. Let me stop you there because my time is
limited.
Mr. Gibbs. OK.
Mr. Amodei. So I will take that as an ``I don't know.''
Well, I do, because I do oversight for those agencies. And
if they are fully staffed in your State, then God bless you.
Because you know what? The staffing levels in my State, where
the land management mission is no more important than anywhere
else, they control the whole State, 80-plus percent. And you
know what? They can't get people to apply, even.
And you know what? As a guy who works on the appropriations
side, it is like, please pay your people a living wage so they
can go work in Gunnison, or they can go work in Heber or
wherever, and it is like, yes, we are working on that, we are
working on that.
And I will just say this. And I think I am going to get the
same thing, and so I am not going to press this, but I will
just tell you this. You want to talk about resources for
agencies that manage public resources? It goes back a long way
before 23 days ago, and it is shameful. I have got this saying.
It is like last time we had a resource administration, here is
a bipartisan statement, ladies and gentleman, was probably
Teddy Roosevelt. And you know who knows that more than anybody
else? I would submit Westerners know that. Your Western State,
my Western State struggle to manage vast tracts of Federal
resources. And we can argue about what the right management is,
but how can you sit there and gripe about it when we are not
funding basic resource decisions even some of which I may
disagree with?
So I would just say, it is interesting that we do this in
the context of, if you are really about the resources, you
really ought to give your Federal land managers and those
agencies the ability to engage fully. And you may have an
agreement with them. I mean, my State does, too. But it is
like, when you talk about millions of acres, it is like, eh, we
will do the best we can.
But I will tell you what. It is time to talk about who is
responsible for vast tracts of land in all Western States, and
giving them the tools to do it, whether it is range cons,
forest techs, everything from soup to nuts.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield the
remainder of my time, if I could, to my colleague from Utah.
Ms. Maloy. OK. Well, in the 30 seconds I have, I am just
going to do one thing that I think would be cool, but I don't
want to spend my 5 minutes on it.
Eric, the last time we had a witness here from Utah he had
his dad and his wife with him, and I said, ``Bringing your
family is pretty Utah''. But could we just have your family
stand up for a second?
Because everybody in here is related to Eric Clarke.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Maloy. Come on, hurry. I have only got 13 seconds.
So that might be the most Utah thing I have seen, that you
have that many family members here to watch you testify.
And with that I will yield back the remainder of Mr.
Amodei's time.
Mr. Amodei. Happy to help people from Utah.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman yields, and we will allow no
more outbursts like that from the Chair here in the Committee.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Tiffany. Now we would like to recognize Ms. Dexter from
Oregon.
And by the way, welcome to the Subcommittee.
Ms. Dexter. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and I really
appreciate this opportunity to serve.
I did want to just briefly say that job security being
eroded is probably not helping recruitment as we move forward,
but that is a little bit of a side note.
As a representative for the State of Oregon, where over 50
percent of our land is federally managed, I know firsthand the
beauty, biodiversity, and critical resources the public lands
have to offer. So thank you all for your testimony today and
for coming on behalf of these public lands. They are treasures.
In my own district I have the privilege of representing one
of Oregon's natural treasures and a critical resource, as well,
the Mount Hood National Forest. And the Mount Hood Wilderness
is home to diversity and a vibrant ecosystem, and certainly
provides drinking water to more than one million people in the
Portland area. And it generates millions annually for the local
economy, as well, by facilitating various recreational
activities, which I know are also very popular in Colorado and
Utah.
A recent poll found that 85 percent of voters in the
western U.S. support efforts to protect more of our natural
landscapes. So there is a balance to be struck between
development and conservation, clearly. But what I am hearing
from my Republican colleagues seems to potentially ignore our
community's desire to ensure our children have access to a
clean and livable environment for years to come. And I say that
knowing the concerns that we have for our investments in our
agencies.
So I am going to pivot to tribal co-management now. We have
heard from witnesses today that an important component of
public lands management involves the input of local
communities. And if we want to ensure public lands are managed
for the greater good, we have to acknowledge that the
ecological expertise of local Indigenous communities are a key
component of achieving this goal. So it is for this reason I am
interested in advancing efforts led by my predecessor, Mr.
Blumenauer, to ensure the Warm Springs Tribe in Oregon is made
a true partner in the U.S. Forest Service's efforts to steward
the public lands within and around Mount Hood.
So Mr. Gibbs, you noted in your testimony the importance of
importance of shared stewardship. What are the benefits of
incorporating tribal voices into that stewardship of Federal
lands?
And how might these co-management plans improve our
conservation efforts?
Mr. Gibbs. Well, thank you, Representative, for that
question.
In Colorado we have a very strong working relationship with
our two federally recognized Tribes. They are the Southern Ute
and Ute Mountain Ute. And we do not have currently co-
management agreements, but we do have very strong State-to-
tribal relationships that we can explore, you know, that in the
future.
We are currently working very closely on fire mitigation
work, where we can, you know, partner on reservation land,
exploring, you know, State funding that could be there. Our
team is working monthly to work together to really find a sweet
spot to make sure that their voices are heard. I brought in an
Assistant Director on Tribal Affairs for the Department of
Natural Resources so we can look at all of our eight divisions
and really look for potential partnerships and collaborations
moving forward.
Ms. Dexter. Great, thank you. And it is clear that these
Indigenous communities have cared for these lands for time
immemorial. So we must therefore do better to seek their
partnership, so thank you for your leadership in that regard.
In 2020 the Mount Hood Wilderness was ravaged by two
wildfires, and crews are still working on reopening
recreational areas. Mr. Gibbs, you are certified wildland
firefighter by training. In your experience as a firefighter
and your capacity now as the head of Colorado Natural
Resources, do you think that tribal co-stewardship has helped
in efforts to curb wildfire with the efforts you have made?
Mr. Gibbs. Yes, they have definitely helped, for sure. And
it was a great honor to serve on the National Wildfire
Commission, where we came up with 148 consensus-based
recommendations. So whether you are a Republican or Democrat on
this Committee, I really urge you to take a hard look at those
recommendations. And tribal voices were a strong voice on those
recommendations. So most definitely we look for partnerships.
Ms. Dexter. Very good. So I am going to conclude in my 28
seconds.
It is vital that we work together to promote policies that
strengthen our local economies without sacrificing our
children's ability to grow up and have access to these clean,
livable environments. And I look forward to working with the
majority on these policies, and I believe our tribal
communities will look forward to that, as well. Thank you.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentlelady yields. I now recognize the
gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Fulcher.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
panel for coming and sharing with us today. This is always
educational for us. And forgive some of us who have competing
committees. We bounce in and bounce out, so if I do hit a
repeat, that is why. But thank you again for being here.
And Mr. Chairman, thanks for having this hearing. The
multiple use issue is hugely important. As pointed out, the
Federal Government has got about 640 million acres of land
across the U.S., and about 33 million of those are in my home
State of Idaho. And in Idaho the Bureau of Land Management
manages around 11 million acres for multiple use purposes, and
the Forest Service has about 20.4 million acres, including
significant portions of three national forests.
But here is the rub: the deferred maintenance backlog just
for the U.S. Forest Service, this is across the country, but a
lot of that is in Idaho, is somewhere in the neighborhood of
$8.7 billion, with a B. For Interior, that number is somewhere
around $32 billion. That is the deferred maintenance backlog.
So whether you agree with the Federal management and the
process and all that or not, the bottom line is they are
overwhelmed. There is just simply not the resources to do it.
And the ramifications of the BLM public lands rule in Idaho
have been hugely substantial. Stretches of BLM-managed
rangeland critical for livestock grazing have been heavily
affected, and our ranchers are now required to renew grazing
permits in restricting conditions that places additional
burdens on their operations and threatening the economic
viability of our communities.
Additionally to that, for some time our sawmills have been
facing closures because the project permits have not been
available. The timber is there, we have got more than enough of
that, but we can't get the logging project permits from Federal
land, and it fails to meet our industry needs.
Mr. Neiman, I did catch most of your opening statement, but
you describe some of this, maybe not in the same words, but how
do you think that we best hold our Federal agencies
accountable? From your vantage point, how do we ensure that we
can improve some of those access to some of the resources we
have got?
Mr. Neiman. One of the things I would look really hard at,
and thanks for a very important question, one of the solutions
I would use would be Good Neighbor Authority.
I know in Idaho, because I know a bunch of the industry in
Idaho, in Wyoming, in Colorado that have strong ties to,
through their State agencies, particularly State forests, to
help out. So Good Neighbor can step in and know what is best on
the ground in those States themselves. So I would love to see
in this transition that we are going through right now that
more authority is given to States to step in and treat those
lands, because they know what is best. They are the ones that
have to deal with the fires and the insects.
We are in the middle of a catastrophe right now nationwide
in all the Western States of overstocked lands, of fuel loads
on the forest. And it, almost needs to be acted as an
emergency, and that means we need more timber sales. And we
can't do that without the existing forest products industry. If
they go away, you have fewer tools in the toolbox for the
Forest Service to treat it. So we have got to have new thinking
going on here.
Mr. Fulcher. So to your point, we had about a million acres
go up, just under a million acres of wildfire this last year,
just in Idaho in the last year. So that is to your point.
And I will just also say, because I am going to run out of
time for questions, I will submit those in writing.
But I want to give you a follow-up on the Good Neighbor
Authority. We do use that heavily in Idaho. Last Congress I
launched that again to include counties and Tribes to be
authorized for that, and that got through the House but not the
Senate. So we are going to try that again, and I think we will
get that done. So we are going to get that expanded.
I have got just a little bit left here, so I am going to
jump to Mr. Canterbury.
What steps do you believe that Congress should be taking to
protect grazing rights? What is the best thing we can do for
you?
Mr. Canterbury. Thank you, Congressman and, as stated in my
testimony, I think you all have an obligation for oversight on
our agency folks. Make certain that they are following through
with the guidance that you have given them, and they are not
leaving the reservation and going on their own.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you for that, a point well taken. And I
would add that there are some lawsuit issues we also have to
deal with, but that is for another time and testimony, because
I am out of time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentleman from Idaho yields. I now
recognize the gentlelady from New Mexico, Ms. Stansbury.
Ms. Stansbury. Great, thank you so much, Mr. Chairman,
Madam Ranking Member.
Thank you, all of you for traveling out here today. I have
enjoyed listening to you today. I am Melanie Stansbury, and I
am deeply proud to represent New Mexico's 1st congressional
district, which is right in the heart of central New Mexico and
includes 10 rural counties. And so I know very well all of the
issues that you all are here to talk about today, and I really
thank all four of our witnesses here today.
And I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Clarke. We have a
broken bureaucracy, and there are certainly no easy solutions.
And Mr. Neiman, we absolutely need to be supporting our
local timber sawmills. They are a critical part of the West,
and especially also of forest stewardship. And I think
especially family-run businesses are particularly important.
And I also agree, Mr. Canterbury, that grazing is an
important part of the West, and our food system and also,
increasingly for forest management, having our livestock not
only grazing to make food but also helping with forest
stewardship is also becoming an increasingly important tool.
And Dr. Gibbs, I appreciate your testimony today and I am
going to ask a question here in a moment.
And, you know, I want to just say I am excited to serve on
this Committee. My background is as a water resources
professional. I rarely get to say that these days, but I worked
for 20-plus years in the field of water resources planning and
drought management and, obviously, the intersection with land
stewardship, and so I really appreciate the opportunity to
serve on this Committee.
But I am concerned about what we have seen over the last 3
weeks in terms of what the administration has been putting
forward in terms of policies. We saw a whole slew of executive
orders on the first day of this administration, essentially
undoing much of what the previous administration had done to
protect private and sensitive lands, especially lands that are
important for conservation reasons, for climate resilience, for
wildlife habitat, for endangered species.
There were areas that were removed from drilling in the
Outer Continental Shelf because they were considered unsuitable
for various reasons, areas in Alaska that have been removed for
decades that, executive orders rolled back the protections for.
And just in the last couple of weeks we have seen a slew of
executive orders at the Department of the Interior that are
targeting DEI programs, that are targeting energy and mining,
the Outer Continental Shelf in Alaska, and we are also hearing
that the Department of the Interior is reviewing the protection
for national monuments.
And I think all of these actions by the administration need
to be discussed. Because when you take them in the entirety of
what they add up to, it is not just the rollback of the work
that the last administration did, it is really the opening of
massive amounts of public lands, waters, and mineral resources
across the West to multi-national corporations. And for what
purpose?
You know, in the case of New Mexico they are talking about
taking away protections for Chaco Canyon. This is one of the
most sacred places on the face of the planet for our Pueblo and
Dine people. And they want to actually open up the greater
Chaco Canyon area for oil and gas drilling so that some oil and
gas companies can make a few million dollars off of it and ruin
it for all of eternity?
They are talking about opening, you know, a vast mining
operation at Oak Flat in Arizona, which is the sacred site of
the Apache people for thousands of years. There are reasons why
we protected these places. It is not an ideological affinity
for some technical term around multiple use. It is because they
are sacred, because they have cultural importance.
And the funding freezes are going to have real impacts for
our communities. All of you talked about land and water
impacts.
And Dr. Gibbs, I know you have already answered this, but,
taking away and freezing all of this funding, millions of
dollars to States, Tribes, and local governments that could
help with land stewardship, what kind of impact is that going
to have on our communities?
Mr. Gibbs. Yes, thank you for that question. It could have
devastating impacts on wildfire issues, devastating impacts on
protecting life, property, and critical infrastructure.
You know from your experience being a water leader, impacts
just on wildfires alone, if we don't have the resources and
staff capacity to get out there to do fire mitigation work, to
put together firebreaks, to work with our local communities to
make sure we are doing work at the right pace, right location,
right scale, could have dramatic, dramatic impacts not only on
people in my community, but I know you know Colorado River
issues well, too, of course. But it could have devastating
impacts on 40 million people that depend on Colorado River
water, for example.
And so the relationship we have with our Federal partners,
you know, whether it is dealing with remediation of orphan
wells or old abandoned mines, water quality and quantity, these
are life-and-death issues for people. It is not just something
that should be wrapped up into politics at all.
This is something that, being the head of the Department of
Natural Resources, I think of often. You know, I stay up at
night thinking about not if, but when we have our next
megafire, and thinking about all the different partners that
are involved with fighting that fire and so forth. And whether
it is the BLM or the U.S. Forest Service, they are my brothers
and sisters as we work to problem-solve this.
And so it is scary to think about what potential impacts we
could have. And we are just really monitoring it closely
because we are just not sure right now what is in versus out,
what is considered Green New Deal or what is not, you know? And
for us it is common sense partnership at the end of the day
that we need.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you very much.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I hope that these funding
freezes, and obviously, the courts are weighing in right now,
but I think, you know, as was noted, this is life or death,
especially in our fire-prone communities.
And I noted, Dr. Gibbs, you are also a firefighter. Thank
you for your service.
Thank you.
Mr. Tiffany. Does the gentlelady yield?
OK, the gentlelady yields. I now recognize Representative
Maloy for 5 minutes.
Ms. Maloy. Well, I want to thank all of the witnesses for
being here. I know this is a big sacrifice, and it really is
helpful for us. I have follow-up questions for Mr. Canterbury,
Mr. Gibbs, and Mr. Neiman, but you can probably relax because I
have my old boss up here and I only have 5 minutes to ask him
questions. So I probably won't get to any of you. I may have to
ask follow-up questions.
So for my colleagues, you know Eric Clarke is a smart guy
because he hired me right out of law school before he knew if I
had passed the bar.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Maloy. But also, when I first interviewed he hired
somebody else, not me. He hired me the second time. So this is
a really long revenge plan I am working on here.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Maloy. Now I have got him where I can ask him
questions.
Mr. Clarke, you talked about consistency in your testimony,
and some of these are projects you and I worked on together
where we are working with an agency and they make one decision,
but it takes them years to make a decision, then they roll back
that decision and it takes them years to roll back the
decision, then they change it again and it takes them years and
you have to keep studying it.
And I have sat here and listened to a lot of talk about
funding being frozen, and how that is going to impact agencies.
I just wonder if you can give us a guess. How much money do you
think it could have saved taxpayers in Washington County if the
agencies, like our friend, Mr. Canterbury, suggested, targeted
resources on getting projects done, instead of dragging their
feet for years while taxpayers are paying for man hours and
also analysis?
Mr. Clarke. Thanks, Congresswoman. I just have to warn
everybody, you never know what someone you are going to hire is
going to do to you after the fact.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Clarke. Easily, our county taxpayers are easily losing
$2 to $5 million a year as we are trying to work through these
broken processes on projects that we know need to happen, that
everybody agrees will eventually happen, but we just can't get
them there.
Ms. Maloy. Yes. And is it fair to say that on some of the
projects we have worked on together, there may be one
personality in an agency that, for ideological reasons, just
disagrees with what the county is trying to do? And one person
in an agency can drag their feet and slow a project down for
years.
Mr. Clarke. Yes.
Ms. Maloy. Is that fair? OK. So I have been in a lot of
hearings. I have been doing policy for a long time, and I
always hear from agencies we are expected to do more with less.
They want us to do more with less. We can't fill our positions,
we don't have enough people. I would like to see agencies do
less with less.
And thank you, Mr. Neiman, for reminding us that the Forest
Service has a mission, and it is a very targeted mission. And
what I see is them doing a lot of things that are not that
mission, but they can't fill the positions that are focused on
watersheds and production.
And so, Eric, would you unpack for us a little bit, either
with the Northern Corridor or with the habitat conservation
plan, how many people at those agencies you have to work with
to do something that everyone agrees is a good idea and is
eventually going to happen?
Mr. Clarke. Yes, thank you for that question.
Ms. Maloy. You are welcome.
Mr. Clarke. So those of us that are boots on the ground in
these situations, we work every day with our Federal partners.
And they want to be our Federal partners, right? These are
people that are living in our communities, that are doing work
that they love, that are trying to help stuff get better.
And so when we put together a land use application, we go
into them and we say, hey, we need a new road. How are we going
to make this a win-win? Or we need a new water project, how do
we do that? We are interacting with the whole team, and we are
doing it regularly, consistently, and we are having some back-
and-forth and working through our disagreements, and that could
be a great process. It should be a great process. That is how
land management should be, where the local people are coming in
and talking to the Federal people, and we are working through
those.
But then what happens is we will get a local person to
write something up on their desk, and then it goes to a desk in
Salt Lake, and then it goes to a desk in Denver, and then it
goes to a desk in Washington, D.C. And before it trickles back
to Denver, to Salt Lake, to our desk, we have lost a year and a
half, and it all changes in that time.
And so then the boots on the ground, great Federal
employees that are just wanting to get stuff done, are pulling
their hair out because they are tired of us calling them and
saying, ``Why isn't anything happening,'' and then it gets back
to them and it is different than the good thing that they put
together and proposed be done.
Ms. Maloy. Thank you. That is the important thing I wanted
to get out of this hearing.
And I am almost out of time, so I just want to put a fine
point on this because we have had a lot of talk on both sides
about Federal funding and do we need more or do we need less.
And I agree with our friend next to you that it needs to be
targeted. It needs to be focused on the agency's mission.
And we are Congress. We control the purse strings. So right
now we have got an administration that is trying to show where
money is being spent well, where it is not being spent well.
And I would just remind everyone to ignore the hysteria and
focus on the balance of power. We have an oversight obligation,
and we are doing it here. Thank you all for being part of it.
And with that I am out of time and I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentlelady yields. I now recognize Ms.
Randall for 5 minutes.
Welcome.
Ms. Randall. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. It is a delight
to be here in this Subcommittee to have a, you know, good
discussion about Federal lands management.
I have the great honor of representing Washington State's
6th district, which is most of the Olympic Peninsula and a
little bit of the City of Tacoma. And in the peninsula we are
lucky to have the Olympic National Park, a park that spans
922,651 acres and includes 95 percent designated wilderness.
And surrounding the park we also have the Olympic National
Forest, Federal forest land.
You know, we are really lucky in Washington to have this
unique ecosystem in our backyards and, you know, many people
who have lived there for generations and generations, including
the usual and accustomed land of 12 federally recognized Tribes
who have stewarded it since time immemorial and many folks who
choose to move to the beautiful Pacific Northwest because of
this unique place.
I will never forget one of my first canvassing experiences
as a State senate hopeful when I knocked on the door of a
Republican woman who said, ``Oh, don't waste your time with me,
you know, I am not going to vote for you.'' And then I asked
her what she cared about, and she said protecting the waters
that are home to the orca whale in Washington State. And that
really exemplifies to me how bipartisan the protection of our
unique ecosystem is in Washington's 6th.
You know, one of the things that is special about this
place is how many ways folks have to access the lands. Folks
hike and camp, you know, they hunt and fish. And science
happens in the forests and in the waters, you know, of the Hoh
River, and Lake Quinault, and in the national park, and along
the Pacific Coast. It is also an incredible boon to our economy
to attract folks out to visit this special place.
Mr. Gibbs, the outdoor recreation economy accounted for
$639.5 billion in 2023 nationwide. We know that parks and
public lands are centerpieces of this business, and that means
jobs and opportunities for communities, especially communities
like mine. Could you talk about the role you have seen public
lands play in the outdoor recreation economy in Colorado, and
how selling off public lands to corporations or shutting down
our access to recreation in order to create more resource
extraction might impact it?
Mr. Gibbs. Yes, yes. Thank you, Representative. And I was
just thinking what a beautiful location that you represent. I
would love to visit that area sometime.
In Colorado we are also really blessed with just amazing,
beautiful outdoor spaces and vistas and rivers. We are also
blessed with amazing outdoor recreation opportunities. I would
argue that we have some of the best--or the best--places to go
skiing, and to hunt and fish, to go rafting with your friends
and family and so forth. And outdoor recreation is $36.5
billion to our State's GDP, so it is significant. And, you
know, I am here in Washington, D.C., and I would argue anyone
to the back of me, I would ask them, you know, what do you
think of when you think of Colorado? Many people think of the
world-class recreational opportunities.
And I think it is really important to note that in Colorado
we work hard to find define a balance. We can be the fourth-
largest oil and gas producing State, while at the same time
having the best skiing opportunities, while we also have some
of the best mountain biking opportunities, and working hard to
find a balance.
We also have what is called our outdoor regional
partnerships. Mr. Canterbury and I really agree on there is one
particular location in his community called Envision Chaffee
County, where we work hard to bring the ranching community
together along with the mountain bikers, along with the
firefighters and all different user groups to try to find that
sweet spot because it is not them or oil and gas or recreation.
It is recreation and it is preservation and it is conservation
and it is supporting our wildlife. So it is an all-the-above
approach that we work really hard in Colorado to strive for.
Thanks.
Mr. Stauber. Don't forget the timber.
Mr. Gibbs. And the timber industry plays an important role,
too.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Randall. Thank you, Mr. Gibbs.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentlelady yields. I now recognize the
Vice Chair of the Subcommittee, Mr. Kennedy, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Chairman Tiffany, and I am honored
to work with you as the Vice Chair. Thanks for that
opportunity. And thanks to the witnesses, particularly the
Honorable Clarke.
Mr. Clarke, thanks for being with us and tolerating your
former employee's prosecutorial questions that she has. I am I
am looking forward to actually working with all of you to make
sure that we revitalize and restore multiple use of Federal
lands together. I think we can do that.
The Biden administration has ignored Utah's needs and
neglected their duties to keep Federal lands open to the
public. By limiting Utah's resources, the Biden administration
artificially limits the State's economic growth and has limited
the opportunity for housing and jobs for young Utah families.
The youngest State in the union is Utah, and we are supportive
of using these lands that these young families can have an
opportunity to grow.
In addition, I refuse to allow the Federal Government to
neglect Utah lands any longer, and I am looking forward to
working with the Trump administration to find solutions to
bring much-needed relief to struggling Utahns, particularly in
our rural communities. And so Mr. Clarke, I had a question for
you in that regard because you know very well the Northern
Corridor.
And thanks for your written testimony. It details a lot of
what has happened in the Northern Corridor in Washington
County. It has been negotiated in good faith under Trump and
mandated by Congress, and this happened despite the county's
extreme efforts to secure additional protections from the
Mojave Desert tortoise. And I am committed to working with the
Utah delegation and the Trump administration to construct the
highway and boost Washington County's economy.
How did the Biden administration's decision to refuse the
Northern Corridor affect the locals, tourists, and the Mojave
Desert tortoise is my first question.
Mr. Clarke. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair, and I apologize if I
slip and refer to you as senator, though, because the last time
we time we did this, you were in the State Senate.
It harms all three. When we can't build infrastructure in
rapid-growing area that harms quality of life, it harms the
ability for tourism to continue to flourish, and the regular
residents.
But the fact that we went so far above and beyond where,
where Congress had already said, ``You are going to get a road
there,'' but we still mitigated for it under the Endangered
Species Act in order to prevent a lawsuit. We went so far above
and beyond and protected thousands of acres of desert tortoise
habitat. Then to have that taken away just felt like a slap in
the face to us.
Mr. Kennedy. In your testimony, your written testimony,
even as to the tortoise you mentioned that 8 to 1 or even 10 to
1 tortoises would suffer as a result of the Biden
administration's decision. Can you expand a little bit on that?
Mr. Clarke. Yes. So tortoises are a unique endangered
species in that they don't move fast. And so we can put a road
through tortoise habitat, we can clear the tortoises, we can
put in tortoise culverts. They are burrowing animals. And so we
can put a road through habitat with some impact, but really a
pretty minimal impact. And that is what we proposed to do, was
put a road through an area, and then we offset that with 7,000
acres of protected area, half of which was developable.
Now, that developable 3,500 acres, if that gets bulldozed
and houses go there, that is not the same thing as having
culverts under a road. That is permanently taking away the
habitat.
Mr. Kennedy. Yes. Thank you for that explanation.
I will yield the rest of my time to my extremely
outstanding colleague, Congresswoman Maloy, who has some
additional questions.
Ms. Maloy. I am abusing my authority like I always do in
your Subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate your patience
with me.
Mr. Clarke, one more question is probably all I have time
for, but one of the things I wanted to point out at the end the
end of my time and ran out of time for is that, in the case of
the Northern Corridor or the Habitat Conservation Plan, who
pays for your time?
Mr. Clarke. Our county taxpayers.
Ms. Maloy. And who pays for the time of the people who work
at the Habitat Conservation Plan?
Mr. Clarke. Also county taxpayers. We have a big team,
including biologists, that are all county employees.
Ms. Maloy. And who pays for the time of the county
commissioners who have been negotiating this?
Mr. Clarke. Also county taxpayers.
Ms. Maloy. And who is paying for the time of all the
Federal people who are dragging their feet and making it take
longer?
Mr. Clarke. And that is all of us as a country.
Ms. Maloy. So we are talking about a road. We know how to
design it. We know how to make it tortoise-friendly. But we
have got people who are applying for a permit, people who are
slowing down the permit, and the taxpayers are paying all of
them. So when we talk about how we could do less with less,
this is what I am talking about. We could design a road, make
it environmentally friendly, and mitigate for any impact to
tortoises in a small fraction of the time that it has taken,
and with a small fraction of the taxpayer dollars spent that it
is taken.
And so it is sort of a charade we are playing to pretend
that all of these processes we are going through are doing
anything good for tortoises or for the taxpayers. You have got
8 seconds if you want to respond to that.
Mr. Clarke. I couldn't agree more that so many resources
are wasted and so many good things are prevented from being put
into place because we can't get projects done.
And I could make any ask, anything that Congress can do to
help cut through that tape, and not just impose time limits or
reduce things, but actually reduce the bureaucracy so that we
can get stuff done, is going to help those of us that have to
get things done on the ground able to accomplish things.
Ms. Maloy. Thank you.
Mr. Clarke. Thank you.
Ms. Maloy. And thank you for yielding me your time, I
appreciate it.
Mr. Tiffany. The Utah delegation yields.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Tiffany. I now recognize the gentlelady from Wyoming.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you. Lest we forget, the 2001 Clinton
roadless rule denied access, management, and use to 58.5
million acres of Forest Service lands. It was the largest
rulemaking in U.S. history at the time. And since then we have
watched as our forests have been decimated because of a lack of
active management.
Global warming and climate change are nothing but a
scapegoat to cover up the true impact of the Democrats' and
radical enviros failed land management policies. In fact,
Colorado is ground zero for the beetle outbreak, which occurred
because of the 1997 blowdown in the Routt National Forest that
took down 13,000 acres of trees in one night. That beetle
outbreak then spread throughout the entire interior West not
because of global warming, not because of climate change, but
because the Forest Service refused to allow treatment or
harvesting in those 13,000 acres. And our national forests have
been destroyed since that time.
The Biden administration's restrictive Federal land
policies have significantly impacted the timber industry,
particularly in Wyoming where Neiman Enterprises is one of the
largest sawmill operators. Forest management has led to
worsening wildfire risks, as well as insect infestations which
threaten both timber supply and forest health.
The U.S. Forest Service failed to meet its timber harvest
targets by 260 million board feet in Fiscal Year 2024, and
reduced targets for future years. Mr. Neiman, how has this
affected sawmill infrastructure in timber-dependent communities
in Wyoming?
Mr. Neiman. I will start and go back to that we originally
had three sawmills in the Black Hills. We shut one down in Hill
City, South Dakota, laid off 125 employees. Two years ago we
laid off one shift at Hulett, it went from two shifts to one
shift, laid off about 40 or 50 employees. Spearfish a year ago
this spring laid off 60, 70 employees at Spearfish, South
Dakota. Along with that we have laid off about 15 logging crews
that spread throughout the hills from a lot of different
communities throughout the area. So we have reduced our
employment tremendously.
When you go from two shifts cutting Ponderosa to one shift,
your costs go up. And then you compound that with all of the
inflation costs that have happened, and fuel costs, it puts you
in a real precarious position. So we are hanging on by a thread
with less than 1 year under contract right now, figuring out
what is our next move.
I hope we see some really significant changes that puts us
back on track. So we hope that we can see the light of day here
fairly soon so we can see some hope. I am a third generation,
and I hope to pass it on to the fourth and maybe the fifth
generation. If we don't see that light, then I will be making
more restrictions and shut down. And the impact that has on
communities is tough.
Ms. Hageman. These policies have horrific impacts upon
forest health, upon our environment, upon our watersheds, but
they also have horrific impacts on our communities, taking away
our jobs.
Since the year 2000 over 1,500 sawmills have shut down due
to declining timber sales. What policies should Congress pursue
to restore multiple use timber harvesting and prevent further
economic losses in Wyoming's forestry sector?
Mr. Neiman. Well, I would start, we had Congressman
Westerman in here a few minutes ago, I would start by passing
the bill that he has proposed, the----
Ms. Hageman. Healthy forests?
Mr. Neiman. Yes, yes. I think that would be a good start.
But we are going to need other actions along with his bill.
And I know Senator Thune, Senator Barrasso are working on some
amendments that should be helpful. But it is going to take a
clear change of direction to get this shape back up.
Ms. Hageman. You know, one of the things that bothers me so
much about Washington, D.C., and Representative Maloy has
touched on it a couple of times here, we are $36 trillion in
debt in this country. What that means is we have spent massive
amounts of money with deficit spending. Deficit spending in and
of itself is bad, but it also covers up a lot of really bad
policies.
It is wonderful to have flowery language about protecting
recreation and the Belknap and the little flower here, and I
want to see a tortoise there. It is so fine and dandy to say
all of that. But when you destroy your communities and destroy
your tax base, you become incapable of actually protecting the
very environment you profess to love.
There has to be a balance in the way that we manage these
resources. These catastrophic forest fires are spewing more
carbon into the atmosphere than every single car in the entire
country in a matter of months. What we saw in California is an
absolute tragedy beyond anyone in this room's imagination, and
it is because of failed land use policy and a refusal of people
to recognize global warming and climate change, and screaming
that at the top of your lungs isn't going to do a damn thing to
fix any of this.
It is imperative that we manage these resources for the
best interests of the American citizens. I appreciate you being
here and being willing to talk about common-sense solutions and
why we must change course if we are going to protect and
preserve these resources into the long-distant future.
Thank you, and with that I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentlelady's time has expired. I am going
to take my 5 minutes for questioning now.
By the way, I think that is the Fix Our Forests Act that
you might have been referring to, Mr. Neiman.
Mr. Clarke, you talked about--it was either a community or
your family's mill that closed. Tell us a little bit about that
mill closing and why it closed.
Mr. Clarke. So it was a community mill in Escalante, and it
closed around the 1990s, when you were talking about how there
was a lot of things that happened. And in my personal
experience, I spent a summer working for the Forest Service on
a trail crew and I remember having a conversation with the
forester, who was kind of over timber permits at that time. And
I remember I definitely treated her like I assumed that she
was, I am definitely on the right side of the spectrum, I
treated her like she was not on my side of the spectrum.
And she stopped me 1 day and she said, ``Look, I am a
forester. Like, I want to have healthy forests. You have got to
understand that that is what I am going for.'' And so she and I
had a conversation about the forest. And what would happen is a
Utah-based environmental group would file a lawsuit every time
they issued a timber permit, and it made it impossible for a
sawmill in a pretty remote area to have what they needed.
Mr. Tiffany. So as a result of those lawsuits? That was a
big part of why that mill had to close?
Mr. Clarke. Yes.
Mr. Tiffany. Yes. Are there more mills in Utah today than
there were 20 years ago?
Mr. Clarke. Definitely not.
Mr. Tiffany. Significantly less?
Mr. Clarke. Significantly less.
Mr. Tiffany. You said something about you would want to
change something in regards to judicial review. What is that
specific item? I think you said it in your testimony. What is
that item that you would like to see changed?
Mr. Clarke. So we were the victims of an out-of-court
settlement where, had the Biden administration just stepped
away and let us defend an action, we would have been fine. But
the environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging something
that the Trump administration had approved, and then there was
an out-of-court settlement that wasn't based on anything
important.
And so what we need is more certainty that sue-and-settle
thing harms us.
Mr. Tiffany. So it was a sue-and-settle.
Mr. Clarke. Yes.
Mr. Tiffany. And it has been used time after time, hasn't
it, to stop projects, to stop proper management in the Western
States in particular, is that right?
Mr. Clarke. And in particular, projects that have gone
through the whole process and have been greenlighted finally,
and then they get this sue-and-settle that isn't based in the
facts, it is just based on the politics.
Mr. Tiffany. Yes, thank you.
Mr. Canterbury, earlier you had a number of questions from
Representative Neguse and he tried to get this Committee to
believe that the first thing you believe in is that there needs
to be an increase in funding, they call it ``resources'' here
in Washington, D.C., there needs to be more resources. That is
called greenbacks by most people. Is it necessary to increase
the budget by the Bureau of Land Management to get more money
to you, or could there be money that could simply be redirected
and get it to the ground in order to be able to get the permits
that you need?
Mr. Canterbury. So if I may, and I will try not to take too
much time, if we just back up in history, when I used to walk
into the agency office there would be three people in the
office that manage the entirety of the resources and the lands
that are being managed today with 300 to 400 people. Those
three people could talk to us and sit down and figure out what
was the best.
We cannot regulate conservation. Conservation comes from
those of us that are on the land.
Mr. Tiffany. Yes. So in other words, if the dollars are
spent appropriately, the permitting process can be completed
for grazers like yourself. Is that correct?
Mr. Canterbury. It can be completed. You can help simplify
that permitting process.
Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Neiman, would you rather have us change
regulations and permitting, those type of things, or would you
like the Federal Government to give you more money?
Mr. Neiman. The first, for sure. Less regulation. I don't
want more money. Businesses should stand on their own if it is
given a fair chance. So regulation is helping destroy us.
Mr. Tiffany. How many families lost jobs as a result of the
reduction in some of your mills and the mill closures? How many
families have lost jobs?
Mr. Neiman. Directly related to us, along with the
independent contractors, someplace between 150 and 200 families
lost their jobs. If I go back to what happened in the 1990s, I
think it was like 26,000 or 30,000 jobs were lost. It was a
huge amount.
Mr. Tiffany. Twenty-six to thirty thousand jobs where?
Mr. Neiman. That was throughout the West.
Mr. Tiffany. Throughout the West. And are Americans more
likely to buy a 2x4, or you name whatever wood product, are
they more likely to buy that from an American company these
days, than they were 40 years ago?
Mr. Neiman. I am seeing a strong trend to lean back to
support buying American, buy from the U.S. I am feeling that.
Mr. Tiffany. Compared to 40 years ago, when you look at
today with the mill closures that we have had across the United
States, are you more likely to buy a 2x4 that has been made in
the United States today than you were 40 years ago, when we had
a lot more mills?
Mr. Neiman. Yes.
Mr. Tiffany. We were more likely to have it 40 years ago
that it might have been made in America. Is that correct?
Mr. Neiman. Yes.
Mr. Tiffany. Yes, and it would really be nice to get back
to that time, wouldn't it?
Mr. Neiman. Yes.
Mr. Tiffany. Yes. I have a whole bunch more questions, but,
you know, I listen to this from the Ranking Member when he
talked about Humboldt County out in California and that, boy,
things are just going to fall apart as a result of that.
Are you completely dependent on the Federal Government? Is
that what is being said here when you hear a statement like
that? I don't think anyone should want to be put in that
position. And this conjecture that we may not be able to
complete projects, let's see if those projects actually do not
happen because, I can tell you, the Trump administration is
going to make sure that money gets to those frontline
communities, rather than funding that 400 people that it now
takes to get a grazing permit out. Let's do it in an effective,
efficient manner that reflects the wants and needs of the
American people.
So with that I conclude my questioning, and I want to thank
all the witnesses for their valuable testimony.
Members of the Subcommittee may have some additional
questions for you, and we will ask that the witnesses respond
to those questions in writing. Under Committee Rule 3, members
of the Subcommittee must submit questions to the Subcommittee
Clerk by 5 p.m. on Friday, February 14, 2025. 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 3:53 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]