[Senate Hearing 119-237]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 119-237
PENDING LEGISLATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
PUBLIC LANDS, FORESTS, AND MINING
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
S. 90 S. 1005 S. 1476
S. 91 S. 1175 S. 1737
S. 140 S. 1195 S. 1860
S. 451 S. 1228 S. 2016
S. 764 S. 1319 S. 2033
S. 790 S. 1321 S. 2042
S. 888 S. 1341 S. 2262
S. 902 S. 1363 S. 2273
S. 945 S. 1468
__________
DECEMBER 2, 2025
__________
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
62-250 WASHINGTON : 2026
=======================================================================
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
MIKE LEE, Utah, Chairman
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho RON WYDEN, Oregon
STEVE DAINES, Montana MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
TOM COTTON, Arkansas MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
DAVID McCORMICK, Pennsylvania ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
JAMES C. JUSTICE, West Virginia CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado
CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi ALEX PADILLA, California
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona
JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
------
Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining
John Barrasso, Chairman
JAMES E. RISCH CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO
STEVE DAINES RON WYDEN
TOM COTTON MAZIE K. HIRONO
JAMES C. JUSTICE ANGUS S. KING, JR.
CINDY HYDE-SMITH JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER
LISA MURKOWSKI ALEX PADILLA
Wendy Baig, Majority Staff Director
Chris Prandoni, Majority Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel
David Gardner, Majority Professional Staff Member
Jasmine Hunt, Minority Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Minority Chief Counsel
Maya Hermann, Minority Natural Resources Policy Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Barrasso, Hon. John, Subcommittee Chairman and a U.S. Senator
from
Wyoming........................................................ 1
Cortez Masto, Hon. Catherine, Subcommittee Ranking Member and a
U.S. Senator from Nevada....................................... 2
Heinrich, Hon. Martin, a U.S. Senator from New Mexico............ 3
Gallego, Hon. Ruben, a U.S. Senator from Arizona................. 7
Wyden, Hon. Ron, a U.S. Senator from Oregon...................... 132
Hickenlooper, Hon. John W., a U.S. Senator from Colorado......... 190
WITNESSES
Panel 1
Bennet, Hon. Michael F., a U.S. Senator from Colorado............ 8
Panel 2
Norris, Kelly, State Forester, Wyoming State Forestry Division... 140
French, Christopher, Acting Associate Chief, U.S. Department of
Agriculture Forest Service..................................... 150
Raby, Jon, Nevada State Director, Bureau of Land Management, U.S.
Department of the Interior..................................... 164
Torres, Jocelyn, Chief Conservation Officer, Conservation Lands
Foundation..................................................... 185
ALPHABETICAL LISTING
Barrasso, Hon. John:
Opening Statement............................................ 1
Bennet, Hon. Michael F.:
Opening Statement............................................ 8
Letters and statements of support for the CORE Act........... 10
Cortez Masto, Hon. Catherine:
Opening Statement............................................ 2
Daines, Hon. Steve:
Letters of support for S.451 and S. 1175..................... 195
French, Christopher:
Opening Statement............................................ 150
Written Testimony............................................ 152
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 217
Gallego, Hon. Ruben:
Opening Statement............................................ 7
Heinrich, Hon. Martin:
Opening Statement............................................ 3
Photographs of mine pollution in the Pecos Watershed......... 5
Hickenlooper, Hon. John W.:
Opening Statement............................................ 190
Lee, Hon. Mike:
Photographs of a public works facility in the Dixie National
Forest..................................................... 206
Norris, Kelly:
Opening Statement............................................ 140
Written Testimony............................................ 143
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 216
Raby, Jon:
Opening Statement............................................ 164
Written Testimony............................................ 166
Questions for the Record..................................... 221
Risch, Hon. James E.:
Statement for the Record..................................... 222
Torres, Jocelyn:
Opening Statement............................................ 185
Written Testimony............................................ 187
Wyden, Hon. Ron:
Opening Statement............................................ 132
Written Opening Statement.................................... 134
APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
Responses to questions for the record............................ 216
Letters and statements submitted for the record.................. 223
----------
The text for each of the bills addressed in this hearing can be found
on the Committee's website at: https://www.energy.senate.gov/hearings/
2025/12/public-lands-forests-and-mining-Subcommittee-hearing-to-
receive-testimony-on-pending-legislation
PENDING LEGISLATION
----------
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2025
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:00 p.m. in
Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John
Barrasso, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Good afternoon. Thank you all for being
here today. A number of the bills on today's agenda are
priorities for my home State of Wyoming, including two of my
own bills. I would like to first focus on basically one of
those two, and that is S. 140, which is the Wildfire Prevention
Act of 2025, which will help us improve forest management
practices and address our nation's wildfire crisis.
There is broad agreement that the U.S. Forest Service and
the Bureau of Land Management have failed to manage our forests
in a serious and credible way over the years. While I am
grateful to President Trump and his agenda for improving many
of these practices, there is still plenty of work that needs to
be done.
Roughly 63 million of our 193 million acres of the National
Forest System are at severe risk of catastrophic wildfires. My
bill will set clear expectations for federal forest management.
It will provide additional tools to federal agencies. It will
help these agencies treat more acres, sell more timber, and
remove the red tape that has hindered forest management
projects for far too long.
The Wildfire Prevention Act will increase the pace and the
scale of forest treatments and improve data transparency as
well as accountability. It will reduce wildfire hazards through
mechanical thinning, prescribed fire, utility line vegetation
work, hazard tree removal, and grazing. It is essentially a
tool for wildfire prevention, and it streamlines many current
practices.
The bill will also support our wildland firefighters so
that we can put more boots on the ground during fire season.
Wildfires are devastating communities across America and
especially in the West. Wyoming is no exception.
I am so delighted to have here with us today Kelly Norris,
who is Wyoming State Forester, as well as all the witnesses who
will join us for today's hearing. I look forward to hearing all
of your testimony.
Senator Cortez Masto.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. I, too,
want to thank Chairman Lee and Ranking Member Heinrich, as well
as Subcommittee Chairman Barrasso for holding today's
legislative hearing.
As he said, we have a full agenda--26 bills. Many of these
bills are the products of years of on-the-ground work to try
and develop a local consensus on the appropriate balance of the
many competing priorities for use of our public lands. Several
of today's bills were previously processed through the
Committee last Congress, and I look forward to working with my
colleagues to further advance these important bills through the
Committee.
I want to recognize as well that we have two Nevadans with
us today: Jon Raby, the BLM State Director for Nevada,
representing the agency's views, and Jocelyn Torres, the Chief
Conservation Officer for the Conservation Lands Foundation,
which is based in Las Vegas. I also want to welcome back to the
Subcommittee Christopher French, with the U.S. Forest Service,
and I would like to welcome Kelly Norris from Wyoming, the
Wyoming State Forester. Welcome to all four of you. We look
forward to hearing today's testimony.
I want to highlight just two of my bills that are on the
agenda today. One is S. 1005. It's the Southern Nevada Economic
Development and Conservation Act. This bill is supported by a
broad bipartisan coalition, including the State of Nevada,
local tribes and municipal governments, conservation
organizations, local business associations, affordable housing
advocates, and chambers of commerce. It was favorably reported
by this Committee last year on a bipartisan basis, and I hope
to work with the Full Committee Chairman and Subcommittee
Chairman to gain their support.
This bill is an extension of the 1998 Southern Nevada
Public Lands Management Act, or SNPLMA, which has created a
process by which the BLM and Clark County would jointly select
designated land parcels to sell in order to responsibly manage
expected growth and development needs. Land sale revenues then
come back to Nevada to invest in education and local
conservation projects.
In fact, when Interior Secretary Doug Burgum testified
before our Committee earlier this year, he highlighted SNPLMA
as a model for land disposal and for its ability to direct
investments into local conservation and improving local
recreation education opportunities. This bill builds upon the
successful SNPLMA model and expands the number of acres
available for disposal under the program.
Las Vegas's population is expected to grow by more than
820,000 in the next few decades, and we need to responsibly
manage that growth. Additions to this disposal boundary are
critical because Las Vegas is fully encircled by federal land.
Over 90 percent of the county is comprised of federal land.
This bill helps BLM release certain lands for necessary
residential and economic development in a coordinated and
responsible way. It also allows the county a say in whether
potential development is in keeping with the county's master
growth and climate mitigation plans.
Overall, the bill sets a cap of a potential 25,000 acres to
be disposed through SNPLMA, and the bill also protects over
350,000 acres specifically for habitat mitigation and
conservation.
The bill facilitates outdoor recreation by expanding the
immensely popular Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area,
and includes requests from our two local tribes to expand their
reservations that will help facilitate tribal housing, energy
development, conservation, and economic development needs.
The bill also creates two job creation zones to help local
communities steer new construction toward lands that are
already developed with relevant infrastructure and
transportation routes. Finally, the bill accelerates and
prioritizes BLM's review and processing of affordable housing
project applications.
I also want to highlight one final bill that I have on the
agenda today, and that is S. 91. This is the Western Wildfire
Support Act. Last year, this bill was favorably supported by
the Committee through a voice vote.
My co-lead Senator Sheehy and I hope to have the same
support from the Committee again this Congress. This bill
provides at-risk communities with additional resources to help
prevent wildfires before they start, and also to combat those
that do spark, and help communities touched by wildfire recover
and rebuild.
We have already delivered funding to help support wildfire
risk reduction in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law that we
passed under the previous administration. Passing this
legislation is a critical next step to combat the threat of
wildfires across the country. Again, I want to thank the
Chairman for holding today's hearing, and I look forward to the
conversations today.
Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks so much, Senator Cortez
Masto, for your comments. I would like to invite any of the
other members of the Committee who would like to speak about
bills on the agenda.
Senator Heinrich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN HEINRICH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman. And I want to very
much thank you and Ranking Member Cortez Masto for convening
this Subcommittee hearing today. I look forward to working with
both of you to get some of the bills we are hearing about today
signed into law in this Congress.
I want to talk briefly about two bills on the agenda
supported by my constituents in New Mexico. The first, to
designate portions of the Gila and San Francisco Rivers as wild
and scenic rivers, represents decades of work by the local
community to protect the Gila River and its incredible
watershed.
From its headwaters high in the Gila Wilderness--America's
first wilderness--to the Lower Box, where it enters neighboring
Arizona, the Gila River is the lifeblood of western New Mexico.
And the Gila River boasts some of the best whitewater rafting
in the Southwest and some of the best trout streams where I
have spent countless hours with family and friends.
Named for long-time Gila defender Dutch Salmon, who
described himself as a ``redneck environmentalist,'' S. 1476
would provide permanent protection for many of the stream miles
in the Gila River region.
The second bill would protect another watershed in New
Mexico, this time in the northern portion of my state. The
Pecos Watershed Protection Act would prevent new mining claims
from being staked in the Upper Pecos Watershed. This area was
home to lead, zinc, gold, copper, and silver mining in the
1920s and 1930s. Because the waste and tailings from those
operations have never been adequately cleaned up, the
communities and landowners in the Pecos area still suffer with
polluted water and soil today.
In 1973, tailings dams failed at the Alamitos Canyon Mill,
sending mine pollution into Alamitos Creek and the Pecos River.
The tailings were never remediated, and the dam was never
fixed, so pollution continued to stream into the watershed. And
then, in 1991, an early spring rain washed mill waste into the
river, resulting in a massive fish kill. Ninety-thousand trout
died at the Lisboa Springs Fish Hatchery alone, not to mention
the damage to the Pecos River as a whole. Cleanup efforts since
that spill have been very limited and have left the community
to deal with ongoing pollution of their soil and water. These
photos were taken on a farm in the Pecos Watershed.
[The photos referred to follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Heinrich. The orange here is mine pollution that
flows into these farm fields anytime there is a heavy rain,
especially during the spring snowmelt at the beginning of the
growing season. And these are not historical photos. These were
taken earlier this year. This is the pollution that my
constituents are still living with today. And yet, a company
wants to open a new mine in the exact same area as the old
Tererro mine that is still polluting streams and farms today.
How can we ask these people to live next to a new mine when
this is what the land in the basin looks like every time it
rains?
There is not a single person in this community that I have
met with who supports this proposed mine. Not one--not county
commissioners, not local businesses, not the state, the
farmers, not the tribes, not the acequia parciantes--like,
literally no one. I also want to say a quick word about the
person who took these photos.
Ralph Vigil was a lifelong Pecos resident who was the glue
of this community and the champion of this living river. And he
owned Molino de la Isla Farm, and in his spare time, he
organized his neighbors to advocate on behalf of this river. He
knew every nook and cranny of the Pecos Valley, and he fought
to protect his and his neighbors' ability to sustain their
traditional way of life.
Ralph died suddenly in May of this year at the age of 46,
and it grieves me to know that he did not live to see his
beloved Pecos protected from future mining. But I know that the
people of Pecos are carrying on his work and carrying it
forward, and I hope we can finish it soon. Thank you very much,
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Cortez Masto for having this
hearing.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Heinrich. Senator
Gallego.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RUBEN GALLEGO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA
Senator Gallego. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso and Ranking
Member Cortez Masto. I am excited to say that this afternoon we
are considering one of my bills, my Cross-Boundary Wildfire
Solutions Act.
This legislation will help us prevent and manage wildfires
that burn across federal, state, tribal, and local lands. As we
all know, wildfires really do not care about boundaries and
they do not stop so people can adjust to whatever the proper
way to fight that fire is on that jurisdiction.
But unfortunately, our current laws do, and that's actually
slowing down a lot of these responses in western lands. So
right now, federal, state, tribal, and local fire crews have to
follow different rules, even though they are preparing for and/
or responding to the same fire.
So that makes it harder for them to share information and
work together quickly. There are also funding sources that can
only be used within a single jurisdiction, making cross-
boundary fire mitigation even harder or slower. So my bill
would require the GAO to conduct a comprehensive study of the
programs, rules, and authorities that impact cross-boundary
wildfire mitigation and to provide clear recommendations to
help streamline and improve collaboration between different
levels of Government.
With this bill, we can cut through the red tape and get
ahead of these fires, and this could not come at a more urgent
time. This year, Arizona alone saw more than 200,000 acres burn
across the North Rim of Grand Canyon National Park and the
Kaibab National Forest.
The Dragon Bravo Fire, one of the largest fires in Arizona
history, destroyed iconic landscapes in the North Rim and
devastated local businesses whose livelihoods depend on
tourism. Arizona, like many western states, is a patchwork of
state, federal, tribal, and private land. If fires are moving
across these lands faster than different levels of government
can coordinate and prepare for them, the fire has the
advantage.
As our wildfire season grows longer and our wildfire
landscapes change, we need stronger research and better
coordination to manage these fires and keep communities safe.
The Cross-Boundary Wildfire Solutions Act would help us get
there by improving the working relationship between federal
agencies and their state, tribal, and local counterparts.
I want to thank specifically the nonpartisan Wildland Fire
Mitigation and Management Commission, whose expertise helped
shape this bill, and my friend, Congressman Joe Neguse, who
introduced this bill in the House. I am proud to see it
included in today's hearing, and I look forward to working with
the Committee to keep it moving toward passage. So, thank you
again, and I yield back.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Gallego. If there are
no other members that would like to be heard, I would like to
welcome Senator Bennet to the Committee. Thank you for being
with us this afternoon.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. BENNET,
U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO
Senator Bennet. It's wonderful to be here. Thank you very
much for your allowing me to come, and Ranking Member, thank
you very much for having me here. And I want to say to both
Senators Heinrich and Gallego how incredible it is to sit here
to listen to the passion you have for our part of the world and
how much I deeply, deeply appreciate the values that you are
fighting for.
Thank you for working with Joe Neguse in the House. Mr.
Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing, and for giving me
the chance to testify today. I am grateful to have the
opportunity to speak about a bill that is very important to
Colorado, the Colorado Outdoor Recreation and Economy (CORE)
Act.
The CORE Act will protect over 420,000 acres of public
lands across Colorado. It creates new wilderness, recreation,
and conservation areas, providing lasting protections for
iconic landscapes like Mount Sneffels, the Tenmile Range, the
Thompson Divide, and Mount Emmons.
The CORE Act demonstrates Colorado's approach to protecting
public land. Over the past 15 years, Coloradans negotiated this
bill at trailheads and at kitchen tables. County commissioners
across the political spectrum, outfitters, ranchers, hunters
and anglers, and local businesses rolled up their sleeves to
find the best way forward to preserve our special places.
These Coloradans know how fundamental public lands are to
our identity and economy, and they did the hard work to ensure
the CORE Act reflects the diverse interests of our diverse
state. The result is a balanced bill that enjoys the full
support of seven counties, 17 towns and cities, and our
Governor.
It also has the longtime support of Senator Hickenlooper,
and I am very grateful for his continued work to advance the
bill through this Committee. Today, I have over 50 letters of
support from counties, tribal leaders, conservation groups,
sportsmen, water groups, and community leaders. I would ask for
unanimous support, Mr. Chairman, that these letters be entered
in today's hearing.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
[Letters of support for the CORE Act follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Bennet. Thank you, Chairman. I really appreciate
your giving me the chance to be here, Chairman Barrasso and
Ranking Member Cortez Masto, for this opportunity.
The CORE Act enjoyed bipartisan support from this Committee
last Congress, and I hope that you will respect the years of
work that went into this bill and honor the Coloradans who have
spent over a decade drafting, refining, and pushing for its
passage. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the chance to
testify.
Senator Barrasso. You are welcome, Senator Bennet, and I
know you have lots of things going on. You are welcome to stay
for the hearing. We have wonderful witnesses who are going to
testify. And if you have to leave because of other pressing
matters, we certainly understand, but we will keep you well
informed of the discussions, and we appreciate your efforts. So
thank you, Senator Bennet.
Now, I would like to invite the other members of the panel
to join us at the table, and as you are joining us at the
table, I see that we are now joined by Senator Wyden, and I
would like to ask Senator Wyden if you would have any comments
or remarks that you would like to share with members of the
Committee.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. Yes, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Chairman, thank
you, and I appreciate the bipartisan cooperation with you. As
you know, in Oregon, we are very interested in the Owyhees. You
have priorities in Wyoming. We have been able to find common
ground, and I thank you for it. Today, we wanted to talk
briefly about the Oregon Recreation Enhancement Act.
Our legislation would protect and enhance Oregon's most
iconic recreation destinations, the Rogue and the Molalla
Rivers. It also contains key protections for several sources of
clean drinking water across the state and would provide
direction for wildfire risk reduction.
These special rivers are home to some of the world's most
iconic salmon and steelhead runs and have helped to supercharge
Oregon's local recreation economy. We have a long history of
working to protect this remote area of southern Oregon.
Since it first passed, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of
1968 has been able to protect over 44 miles of the Rogue River,
but more must be done. Despite this, the Trump administration
has testified it doesn't support the bill because of concerns
over energy and mineral dominance. This is a remarkable claim
for several reasons.
For one, it has never been clearly established that this
region has the potential for successful, sustainable commercial
mineral production. If it was, and if it proves to be, I would
be happy to follow my long record of working with all sides for
mutual benefit of multiple use.
I have been outspoken about my concern for increasing
domestic production of critical minerals, even introducing
federal legislation to further that goal. I do believe it needs
to be done in a balanced kind of way with responsible voices at
the table. This is not where we are with these places in this
bill.
A report prepared and reviewed by multiple certified
mineral examiners found that the proposed withdrawal would not
cause the loss of any known economic mineral deposits. Even
more remarkable is that this administration justifies its
opposition to the proposal over concerns that it interferes
with priorities surrounding energy dominance. The
administration that just gutted the country's domestic energy
production by killing so many renewables and creating a
manufacturing energy crisis is now crying wolf about energy
dominance. It makes your head spin.
It is further evidence that the Trump administration simply
isn't willing to look at locally driven, crafted solutions for
responsible resource management. What's in this legislation
represents years of direct feedback and input from people on
the ground.
Of the 45,000 comments on the withdrawal, all but 27 were
in support of the proposal. Mr. Chairman, you and colleagues
have been very gracious to allow me this time. I would ask to
put the rest of my remarks in the record, but it is a noted
point of pride on this Committee for generations that we have
respect for locally driven solutions being honored.
That is what we are doing in the Owyhees. I look forward to
continuing to work closely with you and my colleagues, and
appreciate the chance to make these remarks, and put the rest
of my comments in the record.
Senator Barrasso. Well, without objection, it will be
included in the record. And thanks so very much for your
leadership on all of these important matters. Thank you,
Senator Wyden.
[Senator Wyden's written opening statement follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. I understand Senator Hickenlooper is on
his way. We are going to move ahead with introductions of the
panel, and when he arrives, we will allow him an opportunity to
make comments on his legislation as well. I am honored to
introduce Ms. Kelly Norris to join us today. Kelly is no
stranger to the Committee. You have been here testifying
previously, and you are Wyoming State Forester. You have been
in that position for a couple of years, but before that you
served as our Interim State Forester.
And you are a resident of Cheyenne, Wyoming, and have a
degree in forestry from the University of Wisconsin-Stevens
Point. Most importantly, you worked for the Wyoming State
Forestry Division for 15 years. So she knows forestry, she
knows Wyoming, and her experience working as a forester for
both the State of Wyoming and the U.S. Forest Service qualify
her clearly to be here sharing her knowledge with us today.
You have years' worth of critical on-the-ground knowledge.
It's a valuable resource to the Committee, so we are delighted
that you are here. I am grateful you have taken on the
responsibility of protecting Wyoming's forests. So, thank you
for joining us.
I also do want to take a moment to thank our other
witnesses for being here today, especially the Associate Chief
of the U.S. Forest Service within the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Mr. Chris French. Welcome back to the Committee.
The Nevada State Director for the Bureau of Land
Management, you may be doing a little more of an introduction
in a second, Mr. Jon Raby. And we promise to get you out of
here before the sun goes down and the lights are illuminated on
the beautiful Capitol Christmas tree, which has come from your
State of Nevada.
We also would like to welcome Ms. Jocelyn Torres, who is
the Chief Conservation Officer for the Conservation Lands
Foundation. In light of Senator Hickenlooper not yet being in
the room, we will turn to Kelly Norris for your testimony.
Thank you.
OPENING STATEMENT OF KELLY NORRIS,
STATE FORESTER, WYOMING STATE FORESTRY DIVISION
Ms. Norris. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member
Cortez Masto, and members of the Subcommittee, for holding this
hearing today, and for the opportunity to testify on behalf of
Wyoming State Forestry Division.
My name is Kelly Norris. I am the Wyoming State Forester,
and a member of the National Association of State Foresters. I
appreciate the Subcommittee's commitment to forestry and
wildland fire issues, and the recognition that we need to work
proactively to address wildfire and forest health problems of
the nation. The Wildfire Prevention Act of 2025 is one such
example.
I also appreciate being on a panel with my state's close
federal partners, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land
Management. The Wyoming State Forestry Division is the
connection between federal agencies and our local
municipalities, communities, nonprofit partners, and all who
have a stake in safe and healthy landscapes.
We lead in cross-boundary work because we are responsible
for all forestry matters in the state. This is including
private, state, and community forests. Because of this unique
role, we know where our highest risks are, where current
capacity lies, and where we need help plugging in the gaps with
support of our partners. I appreciate the Wildfire Prevention
Act's efforts to create increasing goals for federal land
management agencies.
Over the past decade, state foresters have been using tools
such as the Good Neighbor Authority to partner with federal
agencies and accomplish more active management and fuels
reduction activities that are needed to protect our communities
and watersheds.
In fact, many states are investing significant financial
resources to accomplish more work on state, private, and
federal land. These coordinated efforts help prevent
catastrophic fires. The 2024 Elk Fire in Wyoming had the
potential to be highly destructive, burning over numerous
leased cabins on state trust lands.
But due to the combined efforts between state and federal
partners, a large cross-boundary project that included timber
harvesting and aspen enhancement stopped the Elk Fire on state
trust lands, saving cabins, important wildlife habitat, grazing
forage, and costs associated with dozer lines, retardant drops,
and firefighters trying to save and protect that area.
State foresters around the country continue to help the
federal agencies reach these attainable goals. Stable funding
is needed to ensure we can continue to increase accomplishments
together. I also appreciate the bill's effort to accurately
describe how many acres are treated each year and their
location. State foresters are working closely with the Forest
Service and Bureau of Land Management to develop a
comprehensive all-lands forest health treatment database. This
includes working toward standardized reporting metrics so
Congress and Americans can clearly understand the costs and
benefits of proactive land management on all ownerships.
In addition, Wyoming and state forestry agencies have been
readily deploying privately available wildfire technologies. As
core members of the National Interagency Fire Center, we ask
the Subcommittee to ensure the bill's Public-Private Wildfire
Technology Deployment and Testbed Partnerships incorporate
states and locals into planning and deployment of new
technologies.
Forest management and fire suppression are inherently
linked, and so are local, state, and federal wildland fire
agencies, with each entity responsible for its own specific
jurisdiction. Nationally, state forestry agencies provide safe,
effective wildfire response on approximately 1.1 billion acres,
a large portion of which is in the most complex and difficult
firefighting environment, the wildland-urban interface.
Collectively, state and local fire departments respond to
80 percent of the wildfires nationwide, with hundreds of
thousands of firefighters and resources. I will end with an
example of how this works in Wyoming, where local volunteer
fire departments provide fire protection not only for state and
private land, but also have agreements to assist with the
protection of federal land, such as the Thunder Basin National
Grassland.
The Thunder Basin National Grassland is over half a million
acres in size, is located within four Wyoming counties, and
staffed by one federal engine. Wyoming operates as all-hands,
all-lands when it comes to wildfire response. And when a fire
starts within the Thunder Basin National Grassland, local
volunteer fire resources respond immediately with dozens of
engines and typically suppress these fires on federal lands all
within a mutual aid time period.
This highlights the need for state foresters and local
governments to be a key component of a coordinated, all-
government approach to fire suppression, with an equal emphasis
on proactive mitigation and forest management before wildfires
ever start. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Norris follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Mr.
French.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER FRENCH, ASSOCIATE CHIEF, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE
Mr. French. Good afternoon. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso
and Ranking Member Cortez Masto, and the rest of the members of
the Subcommittee for having me here today to present the views
of the U.S. Department of Agriculture on the 18 bills under
consideration pertaining to the U.S. Forest Service.
My name is Chris French. I am the Associate Chief of the
U.S. Forest Service, and have worked with the agency for more
than 34 years. These bills cover a wide range of issues,
ranging from how we approach wildfire reduction and risk
management to land exchanges, designations of wilderness and
wild and scenic rivers, and more. I defer to the U.S.
Department of the Interior for its views on those elements of
the bills where we have shared equities.
Under President Trump and Secretary Rollins' leadership,
the Forest Service has the largest and most prepared wildland
firefighting force in the world. We successfully put out 98
percent of the wildfires during initial attack, keeping fires
small so they don't threaten communities or require large
amounts of resources.
In service to the President's vision, articulated in
Executive Order 14308, ``Empowering Commonsense Wildfire
Prevention and Response,'' the agency is working closely with
the Department of the Interior to more closely align operations
between the two departments.
The wildfire bills that are subject to this hearing--S. 91,
140, 902, and 2033--could help transform how the Forest Service
and other wildfire agencies prepare for and respond to
wildfire. They demand faster detection and shared standards
across agencies, expand our use of technology, increase
resources for firefighters and postfire recovery, and
accelerate hazardous fuels treatments and hazardous tree
removals. USDA supports the intent of these bills, as they
generally align with the administration's goals to improve
federal response to wildfire. We would welcome the opportunity
to work with the bill sponsors and the Committee to address
some implementation concerns.
There are a number of bills, including S. 764, 888, 945,
1319, 1341, 1476, 1737, and 2042 that add new wilderness areas
and sections of wild and scenic rivers, establish new
recreation areas, and withdraw some lands from mining and
logging. The Forest Service actively manages forests to provide
multiple benefits while reducing the risk of catastrophic
wildfire for communities in the wildland-urban interface. While
some of the areas in these bills were recommended for inclusion
in the Wilderness Protection System or in the Wild and Scenic
River System, USDA does not support the inclusion of these
areas, as they are contrary to the administration's timber
production, energy, and mineral dominance priorities.
The administration opposes S. 2042 and views the 2001
Roadless Rule as a barrier to managing critical areas that are
at high risk for wildfire and protecting communities on over 40
million acres of inventoried roadless areas of National Forest
System lands.
Bills S. 1860, 2016, and 1005 would transfer or exchange
federal lands for local government, tribal, or corporate
purposes. These bills aim to increase the prosperity of local
communities by supporting development of infrastructure and
resolving jurisdictional issues while providing for
conservation. USDA supports the intent of these bills and would
like to work with the bill sponsors and Committee to address
some of our implementation concerns.
S. 1363 and S. 1228 aim to strengthen partnerships the
Forest Service has with communities and expand youth corps
involvement in land management. Forest Service supports the
intent of these bills and would like to work with the bill
sponsors and Committee.
S. 2262 would restrict public participation in federal land
policy rulemaking to U.S. citizens and safeguard against AI-
generated comments. USDA supports the intent of this bill and
would like to work with the bill sponsoring committee to
address some technical concerns.
In closing, I want to thank you, Chairman Barrasso and
Ranking Member Cortez Masto, for the opportunity to appear
before the Committee today, and I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. French follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. French. Mr.
Raby.
OPENING STATEMENT OF JON RABY, NEVADA STATE DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF
LAND MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Raby. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Cortez Masto,
and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity
to provide testimony on the bills on the hearing agenda related
to the Bureau of Land Management.
My name is Jon Raby, and I am the State Director for the
Bureau of Land Management in Nevada. The BLM manages
approximately 245 million surface acres located primarily in 12
western states, and approximately 700 million acres of
subsurface mineral estate.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act, or FLPMA, sets
forth the BLM's multiple-use mission, directing that public
lands be managed for a broad range of uses, such as energy
development, livestock grazing, timber production, hunting and
fishing, and recreation. FLPMA also requires the BLM to manage
public lands on a sustained-yield basis for the benefit of
current and future generations.
Under the Trump administration, the BLM is managing the
public lands as national assets, capable of growing our
economy, helping balance the budget, and generating revenue for
the American taxpayers. The BLM is also working to fulfill the
President's vision that public lands serve the American people.
Many of the bills on today's agenda further the
administration's priorities, particularly those related to fire
management, recreation and access, and supporting states and
local communities. The Trump administration is focused on
streamlining organizational structures and regulations,
including those needed to address today's wildfire crisis.
Wildfires threaten lives and livelihoods and cost our nation
hundreds of billions of dollars nationally and annually.
The Department welcomes the Subcommittee's interest in
wildfire preparation, management, and recovery, as well as
mitigation activities like hazardous fuels reduction, and
supports the goals of S. 91, S. 140, and S. 2033. We look
forward to working with the Committee to ensure that the safety
of our firefighters and the public remains the highest priority
of wildland fire management efforts.
The administration is also committed to unleashing American
energy and expanding timber production as part of a broader
agenda of strengthening the economy and lowering the cost of
living. The Department has a renewed focus on responsible
resource management and economic growth, while ensuring the
responsible stewardship of the nation's public lands and
resources, and the BLM is working to ensure a reliable, secure,
and resilient domestic supply of minerals and timber. Several
bills on the agenda propose restrictive designations that are
contrary to the administration's energy dominance and timber
production goals.
The Department does not support legislation that would
eliminate future mineral development opportunities, limit
access to domestic sources of critical minerals, or impede the
management and harvest of timber. As such, the Department does
not support S. 764, S. 888, or S. 1476. The Department supports
congressional action to resolve wilderness designations and
wilderness study area statuses.
While the Department supports WSA releases in some of
today's bills, it does not support wilderness designations,
wild and scenic river designations, or mineral withdrawals,
such as those found in S. 1195, S. 1319, and S. 1476. The
Department believes the BLM has sufficient authorities to
appropriately manage these lands without impeding public
access, limiting outdoor recreational opportunities, and
prohibiting mineral development.
The BLM is working to ensure its plans and permitting
decisions reflect the input of state and local governments and
the people who are most affected by public land management. The
BLM supports the bills on the agenda that would benefit local
communities, including S. 1175, which would expand the
eligibility for payments in lieu of taxes to help fund critical
community services.
The Department recognizes the challenges presented by
irregular land ownership patterns and believes that land sales
and exchanges are an important tool to ensure management
strategies are effective and in the public interest. As such,
the BLM supports the land conveyances proposed in S. 1005, S.
1195, and S. 2016.
The Department is also committed to fulfilling its trust
responsibilities to tribes and Alaska Natives and supporting
tribal self-determination, and has no objection to provisions
taking land into trust for the benefit of tribes in S. 1005, S.
1468, and S. 2016.
The Department appreciates the legislative intent to
enhance coordination with New Mexico's land grant-mercedes in
S. 1363. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on these
important topics, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Raby follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Raby.
Ms. Torres.
OPENING STATEMENT OF JOCELYN TORRES, CHIEF CONSERVATION
OFFICER, CONSERVATION LANDS FOUNDATION
Ms. Torres. Chair Barrasso, Ranking Member Cortez Masto,
and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity
to testify in support of S. 1005, the Southern Nevada Economic
Development and Conservation Act. My name is Jocelyn Torres,
and I am the Chief Conservation Officer for the Conservation
Lands Foundation. We represent a broad nonpartisan national
network of community leaders and advocates solely focused on
protecting lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management.
The work of the Conservation Lands Foundation and our
network of more than 80 community-based organizations across
the West is something personally important to me. Having grown
up in Las Vegas, Nevada, the ancestral homelands of the
Southern Paiute people, there were recreational opportunities
easily within reach.
Although the community has significantly grown since I was
a kid, we have done so without diminishing the quality of
public lands and recreational opportunities. If anything,
thanks to legislation such as the Southern Nevada Public Lands
Management Act, which Senator Cortez Masto mentioned, and the
Land and Water Conservation Fund, recreational opportunities
have increased over those 30 years.
In the last year alone, I attended a groundbreaking for the
Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area visitor center and took
the newest little member of our family to a visitor center that
just opened for the Ice Age Fossils State Park that opened last
year in 2024. All of my life, Nevada's public lands have taken
care of me, my loved ones, and my community. It is important to
me that I care for the land in return, and it's something that
Nevadans value as well.
The essence of the Southern Nevada bill before you revolves
around this shared concept, that we mitigate for the resources
we use in order to grow and thrive as a community. This was the
basis for the community conversations, which began almost a
decade ago, to craft this legislation. The early days involved
several meetings with different communities, from conservation
to affordable housing, to economic development interests. Those
conversations continue to this day, not only between the bill
sponsor, Senator Cortez Masto and these various parties, but
through healthy debates at municipal planning meetings,
roundtables, presentations regarding zoning, water
conservation, and affordable housing.
I am here today to ask you to continue this bipartisan work
and move this bill forward. You have an opportunity before you
to not only enhance protection for places such as Red Rock
Canyon National Conservation Area and the Desert National
Wildlife Refuge, but to do so in a manner that invests in the
local economy by addressing the needs of a rapidly growing
region in a very thoughtful manner.
Red Rock Canyon is expected to see more than four million
visitors this year, and the bill would expand Red Rock Canyon
by more than 50,000 acres, allowing for more opportunities to
hike and bike, and more protected areas for the endangered
Mojave Desert tortoise. Often referred to as Southern Nevada's
crown jewel, Red Rock Canyon was Nevada's first national
conservation area and was originally protected for its unique
and nationally important geological, ecological, and cultural
values.
The Desert National Wildlife Refuge, the largest national
wildlife refuge outside of Alaska, is the wildest part of the
Silver State, containing Nevada's best wildlife habitat and one
of the largest populations of desert bighorn sheep. The refuge
has been utilized for thousands of years by the Southern Paiute
people, Southern Nevada residents, and visitors alike, and was
originally proposed as wilderness in 1974, and it is past time
that we conserve it for its priceless values.
Beyond conserving and enhancing some of Southern Nevada's
most beloved places at a time when demand for public land
access is at an all-time high and the need for enhanced
conservation is at a critical point, the Southern Nevada
Economic Development and Conservation Act would also restore
lands to the Moapa Band of Paiutes and the Las Vegas Paiute
Tribe, helping them also achieve their nations' conservation
and economic development goals.
Nevada's federal and local elected officials, tribal
governments, and local communities have come together to put
this proposal before you today. The work to conserve our
landscapes and quality of life has always been important, and I
know this Subcommittee understands the urgency and importance
of action in ensuring we uphold these values.
Lastly, I would also like to express support for four other
bills under consideration today, S. 764, the CORE Act,
sponsored by Senators Bennet and Hickenlooper of Colorado; S.
1195, the Pershing County Economic Development and Conservation
Act, sponsored by Senator Rosen; S. 1319, the Pecos Watershed
Protection Act; and S. 1476, the M.H. Dutch Salmon and Greater
Gila Wild and Scenic River Act.
The four bills, like SNEDCA, honor commitments to
strengthen our bonds with the lands that we know and love.
Thank you for the opportunity to share today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Torres follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks to all four of you for your
testimony. Before proceeding to the questions, I would like to
turn to Senator Hickenlooper in case you would like to make
some comments about legislation that is pending.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO
Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking
Member--Ranking Members. And thank you for including our two
Colorado wilderness bills in today's hearing--our Sarvis Creek
Wilderness Completion Act and the Colorado Outdoor Recreation
and Economy Act, also known as the CORE Act.
I think Senator Bennet was here earlier, so I won't belabor
that too much. Sarvis Creek Wilderness is located in Routt
County--the Routt National Forest near Steamboat Springs, which
is in the northern part of Colorado. Our bill would expand this
area by roughly 7,000 acres, fulfilling actually the original
vision of the community as was first proposed roughly 50 years
ago.
The expansion will protect watersheds that feed into the
Yampa River, a tributary of the Colorado River, and help
conserve the habitat that 250 to 300 elk rely on. Coloradans
generally all love our wilderness. I haven't met--I am sure
there are some people that don't trust or are suspicious about
wilderness--I haven't met one yet. Sarvis Creek Wilderness has
outdoor recreation opportunities and landscapes that are hard
to imagine anywhere but where you see them there, and
Coloradans across the state want to make sure that that's
protected.
We are proud of the support we have received from local
governments, the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, and various
conservation and recreation groups. Similarly, the CORE Act was
developed with amazing widespread and broad on-the-ground
support. It is a product of more than a decade of Colorado
communities, businesses, outdoor recreation enthusiasts,
conservationists--various advocates working together to protect
over 400,000 acres of public lands in our state.
Senator Bennet has led the charge on this, pulling together
stakeholders all over the state that cherish these landscapes,
from the 14ers, like Mount Sneffels, to the shores of Blue Mesa
Reservoir, the largest body of water in the entire state. It's
a big deal for small businesses, for hunters, for anglers,
farmers, ranchers, conservation and recreation advocates, for
Coloradans who want to make sure this land is permanently
protected.
Both of these bills play a significant role in our $17
billion outdoor recreation economy. I appreciate their
inclusion today, and I hope we can work together to continue to
advance and enact these bills. Thank you. Thanks to all of you
for being here as well.
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you, Senator Hickenlooper. We
will proceed with questions. I would like to start with Kelly
Norris, because this year in Wyoming, we had fires especially
devastating in western Wyoming, the Red Canyon Fire, 124,000
acres outside of Thermopolis and moving to the East from there.
Last year, the Elk Fire burned about 98,000 acres. Rural
communities in the West are feeling the aftereffects from
another devastating wildfire season. As more incidents start,
and suppression resources are spread thin, federal and state
agencies need to work together. How do the state, local, and
federal agencies work best together to accomplish incidents
such as these wildfires?
Ms. Norris. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso. The one important
part of all of this is that we are working at the same time
together, not just during the fire in the fire season, it's all
year round. So currently, right now, coming up in Casper is our
Wyoming Rural Fire Association meeting, and we will have BLM
and Forest Service representation with the counties all working
together to talk about next year's fire season.
But on the ground, when we are in a fire season, what we
know is state capacity and local capacity. We know where our
risks are, where the resources are, and we are quickly
gathering those, looking at state contracting systems. And
then, we work with our federal partners quite closely when it
comes to--as that fire grows.
One great example is the Wyoming Aviation Program. We
utilize a full time employee from the Medicine Bow-Routt to
help us with our contracting system for the state's two
helicopters. We are able to keep them going 24/7 because of the
associated personnel that the Forest Service provides for us.
Senator Barrasso. Can I ask you a follow up on that? So,
how do you see the Wildfire Prevention Act helping to
streamline authorities between state and federal agencies?
Ms. Norris. Thank you, Chairman. Great question. We see
that as helping the agencies in many different ways, looking at
the new technologies and having the state and locals
participate in those new technologies that you talked about
with the testbed systems. And also, having the agencies do
exactly what the authorities say they should be doing. And many
of those could be done through Good Neighbor Authority as well.
Senator Barrasso. Well, in terms of the Good Neighbor
Authority, I think it has been a very successful tool. Since
2017, when the Forest Service launched the program, we have
contracted over 12,000 acres of federal land in the state.
Included in my legislation are reporting requirements to track
how much work is being done through Good Neighbor Authority.
Are there things that are holding us back in terms of using the
Wyoming State Forestry Division and Good Neighbor Authority?
Ms. Norris. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso. Good Neighbor
Authority is a huge success in Wyoming. We have seen really
great strides going forward with it. One of the great parts of
Good Neighbor Authority is that we can reinvest that money back
into projects on the ground onto the units, but there is just
so much work to be done. And some of that timber revenue just
does not provide the same amount of funding to get the work
done that we need to do.
So one thing that we are looking at when we look at
Wyoming, and growing, we are going to need to grow capacity and
state staffing. And having some consistent, stable funding
would really help for short, long, and really long-term
planning for us. And so, that is one area that we see as a
barrier.
Beyond that is just planning and coordinating with the
Forest Service and making sure that we are following through on
the projects we are going to commit to.
Senator Barrasso. So, about half the land in Wyoming is
owned by the Federal Government. So land managed under multiple
use is required to be managed without impairment of
productivity of the land. I have long supported all use of
federal land, as wildfire mitigation is a tool. Are there big
barriers to accomplishing more active management, in addition
to the money aspect of it?
Ms. Norris. Thank you, Chairman. I would say, when we look
at wildfire, we are all--we have talked about it. We leverage
each other's resources. We are working together. We are
seeing--hey, you have this, I have that, let's get this done,
there is an emergency on the ground.
If we were to look at active management in the same
capacity and in that same light, and say, hey, look, we need to
leverage your state resources. Let's look at leveraging our
other partners in the same way that we are doing it and see it
as the emergency that it is. We need more work done on the
ground. Yes, we could get a lot more work done on the ground
that way.
Senator Barrasso. Mr. Raby, another one of my bills on the
agenda today is called the American Voices in Federal Lands
Act, because during a previous administration, I was concerned
over the public comment process regarding the BLM. My bill aims
to ensure that public comments being submitted for review are
submitted by U.S. citizens, and to prevent the risk of AI
commenting on public land rules. We saw last time the number of
comments coming in from China and how that was impacting
things--well, we got all these comments, but they weren't
people that were necessarily looking into the best interest of
our home states or of our nation. Can you just explain the
current safeguards that are in place at the agency to prevent
non-U.S. citizens or outside agents from influencing federal
land policy in the U.S.?
Mr. Raby. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the
question. And candidly, the agency does not have very good
safeguards to prevent non-U.S. citizens from providing comments
and malicious actors from providing comments that could put
critical planning efforts at risk. Certainly, your proposed
legislation would shore up that gap that we have in that
oversight that we need. And so, we would welcome that
direction, and it would help us greatly in our planning
efforts.
Senator Barrasso. Terrific.
Senator Cortez Masto.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Senator Barrasso, I am
going to defer to the Ranking Member of the Committee on ENR,
Senator Heinrich.
Senator Heinrich. Thank you both. Mr. French, the
administration recently reversed a very popular administrative
withdrawal in the Upper Pecos Watershed despite overwhelming
public support in that community for the withdrawal. Your
agency even canceled a public forum that would have allowed for
discussion of the withdrawal and given the community a chance
to share their views with the Forest Service. Would you commit
to coming out to the Pecos Valley and meeting with that
community and having a public meeting?
Mr. French. Yes, thank you very much for the question,
Senator. Of course, and we will have a conversation around any
of those issues. We know that the comments that we received on
the withdrawal itself overwhelmingly supported the withdrawal.
But across the agency, the administration's policy is to
preserve the spaces we have right now for future development
until such time that we understand what our current mineral
development is across the agency. So, it is more about a
broader administration policy around the use of public lands
and----
Senator Heinrich. But why not meet with the local community
before making a decision? I mean, that's kind of the way we
typically do planning in these public land agencies is, first
you listen to the community, just like Senator Barrasso, the
Chairman, articulated his issues with BLM planning. We want
these decisions to be rooted in local communities, and yet they
seem to have been cut out of this process.
Mr. French. Senator, as you are aware, when this was first
proposed more than two years ago, there was a broad comment
period on that so that we could understand what the feelings of
the community were. I am not aware of any comments that opposed
that withdrawal. But that is in conflict with the broader
administration's policy right now on the use of public lands
and supporting mineral and energy development.
Senator Heinrich. My dad worked for Anaconda Copper and my
grandfather worked at Battle Mountain Gold Mine in Nevada, so I
fully recognize that there are many places in this country
where mining can be done safely and with strong local support.
I just don't think the Upper Pecos is one of those places, and
I wonder, can you tell us, does the Forest Service even
consider values like recreation, agricultural productivity, or
traditional uses when making decisions about where to permit
new mining activities?
Mr. French. Of course we do. Yes, so there is a difference
between an administrative withdrawal versus when we actually
get an expression of interest, and we go through the
environmental process to look at what the consequences of
permitting something like that would be.
In those cases, we are looking at all the various impacts--
whether they are economic, social--to the environment that
surrounds where the mine would be, including the uses of that
area, such as recreation or cattle grazing. All that is taken
into consideration in how we permit areas and allow for that
activity to occur.
Senator Heinrich. Well, I very much appreciate your
willingness to come out and meet directly with the local
community, and I look forward to that happening. You called the
Roadless Rule a barrier. Do you know what sportsmen in New
Mexico call the roadless areas that are protected in our state?
Mr. French. I do not.
Senator Heinrich. They call it elk habitat.
Mr. French. Yes, they do.
Senator Heinrich. And if you overlaid the Roadless Rule
with--I mean, I almost hesitate to suggest people do that
because they would see places that I like to go and have some
solitude when I am elk hunting. But how many public meetings
did this administration have before proposing overturning the
Roadless Rule?
Mr. French. The administration has only proposed a new
approach on the Roadless Rule. The general approach there is
thinking about what are the barriers to protecting communities
from wildland fire risk. There are more than 24 million acres
of the wildland-urban interface that are either within roadless
or within a mile of roadless, of which we are restricted from
how we treat those areas, other than let's say using prescribed
fire. Access----
Senator Heinrich. I looked at a number of state roadless
treatment numbers and there are substantial amounts of those
roadless areas being treated for fire prevention.
Mr. French. That is correct. But it limits the type of
activities that you can do. And I will go back to the
discussion that was happening earlier with Senator Barrasso and
the question around how do you expand these areas.
Oftentimes when you are doing fuels reduction work, the
actual value that is coming out of those materials is minimal
compared to the actual cost of doing that work. So in order for
us to do more acres and create broader areas of treatments, we
need to do the most efficient treatments that we can.
Providing access and providing the ability to get in there
and do that is the way to make that happen. Otherwise, those
costs for doing that work are extremely, extremely expensive
per acre.
Senator Heinrich. Well, once again, I would just encourage
you to have a robust public process before making these
decisions. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Daines.
Senator Daines. Chair Barrasso, Ranking Member Cortez
Masto, thank you for the opportunity to examine some great
pieces of legislation here today. In fact, today's agenda
includes two bills of mine, Senate bill 1175, the Small County
PILT Parity Act, and Senate bill 451, the Restoring State
Mineral Revenues Act.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for consent to add the
letters of support I have received from counties for the
record.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
[The letters referred to follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Daines. I want to start with my bipartisan Small
County PILT Parity Act. We have discussed the importance of the
PILT program in this Committee many times. It has strong
bipartisan support. I can tell you it's essential for Montana's
rural counties to be able to provide crucial services, such as
emergency response, as well as public safety. However, the
current PILT formula puts counties with a population of less
than 5,000 at a disadvantage by capping their payments and
limiting the revenue streams that they have.
The Small County PILT Parity Act, which has previously
passed out of this Committee with bipartisan support, would
rectify this disadvantage. To fix this, the PILT calculation
table should be expanded to accommodate population tiers at
levels down to 1,000 people or even fewer, and not just stop at
5,000.
These counties can and should receive fair compensation
without reducing payments to counties with larger populations.
When you are kind of this East Coast-centric world of D.C.,
they look at everything on a per-capita basis. If you get out
West, it's all about square miles. And so, I've got some very
large counties in terms of geographical area, but very small
populations.
And talk to the folks who are trying to--the road grading
teams, the public safety teams, they have a lot of ground to
cover, despite the fact that they've got low population but
massive landmasses. So, I want to thank Ranking Member Cortez
Masto for co-leading this bill to help bring parity to the PILT
Program, and I want to thank the members of this Committee who
have also co-sponsored it.
A question I have for Mr. Raby: Nevada and Montana both
have numerous counties with populations of less than 5,000.
Those are the kind of counties I like to go to. You don't see
hardly anybody, and you have a chance to experience amazing
parts of--I will still call it the real Montana that is still
out there. Do you agree that expanding the PILT table will help
support counties with high federal land ownership but low
populations?
Mr. Raby. Senator, thank you for the question, and I
absolutely support that. I have seen that in Nevada, places
like Esmeralda County, where they have 98 percent plus public
lands and a population of 1,000 or less. And so, it would
absolutely help those counties. Having worked in Montana, prior
to my time in Nevada, I have seen the same need, and your bill
would absolutely address that and benefit those counties.
Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Raby. A follow-up question--
can you confirm for the Committee that the bill does not change
the calculations for counties with populations above 5,000? We
are simply expanding the pie, not taking away from larger
counties.
Mr. Raby. Senator Daines, thanks again for the question.
And yes, I can confirm that. It does not change the payments
above.
Senator Daines. Great. Thank you. I think it's an important
fact because I know there have been concerns in the past that
somehow we are just going to reshuffle the dollars, but that's
not the case the way we have the language written here in this
bill.
I want to turn to my Restoring State Mineral Revenues Act.
Under the Mineral Leasing Act, revenues generated by oil and
gas development on federal lands are supposed to be split 50-50
between the Federal Government and the states and counties
where the oil and gas is actually developed.
But in classic D.C. bureaucracy form, the Federal
Government charges states a two percent admin fee on their half
of the revenues. This is just a backhanded way to take more
money from the states and counties that are affected the most.
This bill that I have is very simple. It eliminates the two
percent fee and returns the revenue back to a true 50-50 split.
It has strong support from county governments and has passed
this Committee multiple times in various revenue-sharing bills.
Now it's time to get it to the President's desk and make our
counties whole.
Mr. Raby, back to you again. Do you agree that the states
and the counties where federal oil and gas development actually
occur should receive their fair share of revenue generated
within their borders?
Mr. Raby. Senator Daines, thank you for the question. And
of course, in places like Montana or Nevada, 50-50 means 50-50.
And so, your bill would absolutely do that, and I agree 100
percent that that should happen.
Senator Daines. There is an old saying that somebody who
says they will meet you halfway sometimes is a poor judge of
distance. I would say that's probably true of some DC
bureaucrats here. But thanks, Mr. Raby, and thank you, Chairman
Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Cortez Masto.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. I want to talk a little
bit about one of the bills that I have before the Committee
that we have passed in a bipartisan way previously, which is
the Southern Nevada Economic Development and Conservation Act,
S. 1005.
Mr. Raby, let me start with you. You talked a little bit--
and Ms. Torres talked a little bit--about SNPLMA. I am very
familiar with that in Southern Nevada. It has been in existence
since 1998, and it created a disposal boundary around Las Vegas
and directed the BLM and Clark County to engage in a joint
selection process to approve parcels of land for disposal. This
ensures that local government has a role in determining whether
land is developed--where, when, and how. And this legislation I
have builds on that legislation to expand the boundary and
places a cap on the amount of acres that can be developed in
the future under SNPLMA.
Quick question: the legislation that's before you today--
does the Clark County lands bill mandate land sales in the
legislation that's before you today?
Mr. Raby. Well, the Clark County lands bill--and thank you
again, Senator, for the question. It provides the opportunity
for those land sales on those acres, and is a much-needed
opportunity for expanded growth and development in the greater
Las Vegas area, Las Vegas Valley, and Clark County in general,
for everything from housing to, again, other development needs.
Senator Cortez Masto. But it doesn't mandate that land
sale. In other words, because of that collaboration within--if
we are expanding the disposal boundary, it doesn't mean that
everything is going to be sold. There is a process that the
county will work through with the BLM to determine when and
where they will move forward with that land sale. Is that
correct?
Mr. Raby. Yes, Senator Cortez Masto, that is absolutely
correct.
Senator Cortez Masto. Right, and because I am trying to
dispel some of the misinformation out there, this doesn't
mandate that the 25,000 acres is being sold. I also know, and
we know in Nevada, Las Vegas uses less water than it did in the
1990s. And that's because of the incredible conservation and
drought mitigation work that we have done, particularly in
Southern Nevada. Is it your understanding that these water
conservation efforts will still be a priority in the Clark
County lands bill for future development as well--that it isn't
going to be negated in any way whatsoever?
Mr. Raby. Yes, that's correct, Senator Cortez Masto. Those
will still continue on and remain a focus into the future.
Senator Cortez Masto. And then part of the collaboration
around this particular piece of legislation focused on the need
for affordable housing. And can you touch on that? What I would
really like you to confirm is, because in Nevada, for us to
address housing needs, working with the Federal Government,
there are actually two agencies we have to work with--not just
the BLM, where the land would come from, but HUD, right? So,
can you confirm how BLM implements that authority when we are
invoking it under SNPLMA and looking at affordable housing, and
how you would work with HUD?
Mr. Raby. Yes, again, thank you for the question, Senator.
And the way we work with HUD and with the local communities is
that the local entities nominate those parcels for affordable
housing to the BLM. We then coordinate with Housing and Urban
Development to ensure it meets the requirements under the
Cranston-Gonzalez Act, again, the annual mean income, so that
we can ensure that those parcels will be utilized for
affordable housing in perpetuity.
Senator Cortez Masto. Right. And are there barriers that
you can speak to or hurdles that you face in deploying these
projects?
Mr. Raby. I would say the barriers that we are seeing right
now have to do with the nomination process. I think we could
look at a joint selection process that would allow the BLM a
more active role with the local communities to help guide that.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. And then finally, with
respect to this legislation, S. 1005, based on the property and
the sale of certain property, there is revenue that is
generated, and that revenue comes back into the state.
I am going to ask both Mr. Raby and maybe Ms. Torres, talk
about the revenue that comes back to the state. How does it
benefit, and is it just Nevada? What is that revenue used for,
and how does BLM make that decision? And then Ms. Torres, if
you could touch on the conservation piece of it as well.
Mr. Raby. Yes. Senator, again, thanks for the question. And
just in brief, the funds that are generated through the land
sales are deposited in a special account. And those are
utilized for everything from hazardous fuels reduction work, to
capital improvement projects, to parks, trails, and natural
areas that communities benefit from, especially rural
communities, in addition to the urban areas--places like White
Pine County, Lincoln County, and Churchill County benefit from
the opportunity to receive funding through the Southern Nevada
Public Land Management Act special account.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. I know I am running out of
time. And if Ms. Torres can just address this question, I would
appreciate it.
Ms. Torres. Thank you, Senator. Yes, there are two ways I
think really that those funds benefit conservation. One is, you
are allowed to use those funds to purchase land that can help
create wildlife quarters and strengthen the investments and
other protections that we have in the county.
The second, which I mentioned in my testimony, has been
used to really enhance recreation and conservation
opportunities, either through stewardship or creation of new
trails, really creating a complete package for the conservation
protections with stewardship investment and then guiding
recreation to be used in a way that's not creating more damage.
Senator Cortez Masto. I appreciate that. Thank you. I know
my time is up, but I thank you for the add additional time.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Lee.
Senator Lee. Thanks so much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to each
of you for being here. Mr. Raby, I would like to start with you
if that's okay. In September 2023, the Biden administration
released a new series of travel management plans for the
Labyrinth Canyon and Gemini Bridges area near Moab, Utah. Those
renewed plans close off 317 miles of roads. And of that 317
miles of roads, more than a third of that--114 miles of the 317
I mentioned a moment ago closed by the Labyrinth Canyon Travel
Plan are historic roads protected under R.S. 2477.
Now, R.S. 2477 was, of course, enacted back in 1866 and
repealed non-retroactively with FLPMA in 1976, but the valid
existing rights-of-way, in existence and in use prior to that
date, still are to be respected. Now, by preserving the valid
existing rights-of-way under R.S. 2477, FLPMA did a good thing.
Unfortunately, Congress didn't provide enough clarity as to a
clear path about how to resolve disputes arising under R.S.
2477. And that gap creates significant friction between
counties, the state, local residents, and BLM field offices.
How would explicit direction that keeps a route open until
it has been fully adjudicated give BLM staff more certainty to
reduce these conflicts and reduce their severity?
Mr. Raby. Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for the question.
And that clarity would be welcomed and would ensure that the
R.S. 2477 rights are protected and preserved and would prevent
any potential misapplication of management actions on the
ground that may, you know, diminish those rights.
Senator Lee. And I believe S. 90 would help us in that
regard substantially. I want to switch now to S. 1860 and go to
you, Mr. French. As you can see, these pictures show a public
works facility that already sits on this parcel inside the
Dixie National Forest.
[The pictures referred to follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Lee. The facility, as it is built, as it exists
today, is quite insufficient for storing essential safety
equipment, safety supplies, and including but not limited to
snow removal equipment. Just yesterday, the public works staff
had to drive 20 miles--20 minutes away to replenish their own
supply of snow-melt material, as the storage capacity in this
current facility was depleted after just two relatively minor
snowstorms.
So, that's kind of a problem. Any time you are delaying
access to critical safety equipment and supplies, it's kind of
a problem. This bill would fix that, but if it's not conveyed
as the bill tries to do, to the town of Brian Head, what
ongoing management and safety concerns could arise as the town
continues to grow?
Mr. French. Thank you, Senator. As you know, we support the
bill, and we think there are ways that we can help you make it
more efficient so we can see this happen more quickly.
Senator Lee. Great.
Mr. French. We basically agree with you that there are a
number of safety concerns here in terms of the town. The Forest
Service is supportive of creating access, conveying land, or
doing some sort of permit to help the town out, but we do think
we can make this go faster with a little bit of work with you.
Senator Lee. Thank you. Mr. Raby, let's go back to you.
About two weeks ago, this Committee held a hearing on the land
planning process, and both sides of the aisle seem to agree
that the process needs reform. The reality of how the process
currently plays out is that the views of states are often left
out entirely, and restrictive designations often end up getting
layered one right on top of the other, and ultimately public
lands in countless circumstances are just locked away. And as a
result, BLM's ability to carry out needed management activities
involving critical things like fuel treatments or habitat work
ends up being hamstrung.
As the state BLM Director for the State of Nevada, where
you have the highest concentration of federal land of any state
in the country, you have real on-the-ground experience with
these issues. Can you tell us how the current process affects
BLM's ability to make real-time management decisions and
execute projects?
Mr. Raby. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question. And you
know, what I have seen in my experience is that our current
planning process, as we are directed, is complicated,
cumbersome, and can take years to complete. I see opportunities
for us to enhance the ability to not only streamline but to
decomplicate the process, as well as ensure that our mandate
under FLPMA to include states, counties, and tribes in the
planning process is met, as well as opportunities for us. As a
plan is in place and we implement it, we need the ability to
update that more nimbly than we have been able to in the past.
And so, the ability to adjust on the ground is important as
well.
Senator Lee. And you can do that in a way that helps you
carry out the priorities of FLPMA rather than eroding them.
Thank you very much. My time has expired. I will submit the
balance of my questions in writing. Thanks.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Lee. Senator Cantwell.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding this important hearing, and thank you for including the
Roadless Area Conservation Act, which would codify the 2001
Roadless Rule, which protects nearly 60 million acres of
pristine national forests in 39 states.
There are about two million acres protected of roadless
forests in the State of Washington. And obviously, the idea had
been, let's not keep building roads everywhere. Obviously, take
advantage of the lower forest to get timber, and then
obviously, keep some of our most pristine forests. Some of the
most visited areas of outdoor recreation in Washington are
these areas, and they help drive a $26 billion economy in our
state. So, we are excited to keep it.
The Tongass is another special place. I know my colleague
is here from Alaska. We may not share the same views on this,
but I know she thinks the Tongass is a very, very special
place. And you know, it is clean water, and carbon
sequestration, and unmatched recreational and tourism
opportunities, and wildlife habitat supporting hunting and
fishing, and commercial activities.
But obviously, if we cut down most of those forests, some
of them 800 years old, that economy goes away. So, we know that
fishing, and I am talking now in many parts of my state and
others, also are supported from these forests.
And clearly, with 370 miles of Forest Service road, they
have a $5.9 billion backlog of maintenance. So, instead of the
Forest Service maintaining the existing system, this
administration wants to rescind the longstanding Roadless Rule
to potentially buy more roads the Forest Service will not be
able to take care of.
In addition, the Roadless Area Rule ensures that more than
240 million people living within 100 miles of the national
forests continue to have pristine public forests where they can
fish, hunt, and recreate. That is why my colleague from
Arizona, Senator Gallego and I reintroduced the Roadless Area
Conservation Act.
And I wanted to ask you, Ms. Torres, I think my numbers are
right about this, but obviously, this economy has broader
importance to the U.S. outdoor recreation economy. Do you think
the sector will take a hit if we repeal the Roadless Rule?
Ms. Torres. Thank you, Senator. I think generally the
outdoor recreation economy takes a hit any time we remove
stability and certainty. You know, we are all talking today
about planning ahead, and the outdoor recreation economy also
needs to plan ahead. They need to submit for permits, they need
to ensure that those areas are going to provide what the
visitor wants to see, and if you remove things and add roads
and add other things, it takes away from that experience.
Senator Cantwell. And the challenge is, we already have
this backlog that we're not dealing with. So Mr. French, did
the administration do an assessment on the fiscal cost of
rescinding the Roadless Rule in terms of how much taxpayers
would be asked to pay for new roads in these pristine areas?
Mr. French. Well, the roadless rule doesn't compel road
construction. All it does is change the restrictions we have in
roadless areas for doing other work that is necessary for
healthy forests and protecting communities.
The primary driver of this, as I said earlier, is that
there are more than 24 million acres that are within our
wildland-urban interface or within a mile of it within roadless
that we can't effectively treat right now to protect
communities, and faced with the choice of protecting the
community versus the inherent cost of providing access to thin
those forests, we are going to make that choice to protect
those communities. I also recognize----
Senator Cantwell. We're talking about very special places
that oftentimes are at much higher elevations and definitely
don't have communities that are right adjacent to them. But----
Mr. French. We have more than 24 million acres that are
directly adjacent to----
Senator Cantwell. I am well aware of where our forestlands
are. And my state has probably done some of the best treatment
available. Even the Chairman of this Committee came and helped
have a hearing with me at Seattle University and talked about
this years ago when the fires were rampant.
But guess what? We started doing better planning and better
treatment and promoting CLT, and basically trying to get--
basically saying let's get better management of our forests. We
can do both things. We can basically have better treatment
policies and say that some areas really don't need roads built
into them because why, with all the backlog, do we need more
roads?
This is about--I think Senator Risch did a great job of
coming here and explaining how as Governor he helped implement
this policy in his State of Idaho, and it was a smart policy,
because he made the decisions and then he got cost
effectiveness for taxpayers and he also got the outdoor economy
that he wanted to see.
So, I feel like we can do both, and I hope that we can do
both. But I think the issue here is that we already have
backlogs on roads that I am sure many of our colleagues would
agree do need to be dealt with. And so, the issue is the
juggernaut of the outdoor economy--are we going to continue to
keep it and protect it?
And I will meet with you or anybody in the administration
to get a better plan on cross-laminated timber. To say to the
mills, I will guarantee you a price of long-term contracts if
you can do treatment and you put it into cross-laminated
timber, this is a winning strategy.
The Colville, which had I don't know how many--I think $2
billion worth of timber burned up in one fire season--$2
billion worth of timber. So, we have to do a better plan than
that. But, you know, basically building more roads into the
pristine areas I don't think is the way to do that. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Cantwell.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I always
like to talk about things that we do share in common because I,
as you know, have a great deal of affection for the Tongass--
all of our national forests--but recognize the extraordinary
potential that we have in our forests and recognizing that
multi-use is not an inconsistent policy to have when it comes
to our national forests, and that means everything from the
very important recreation and tourism, to also the economic
opportunities that we have for our communities that rely on our
forests, and that sometimes it does require a level of access.
And as you have pointed out, Mr. French, it's not a requirement
that you build a road. It just allows--it recognizes there are
different restrictions that are appropriate. And there are
many, many restrictions in the Tongass existing, and they will
continue with or without application of the Roadless Rule.
I didn't come here to talk about roadless. I want to talk
about S. 2016, the Chugach Alaska Land Exchange and Oil Spill
Recovery Act. Thank you for including this on the agenda. I
would hope we might get our landless bill on as well, but maybe
next time we will do that. Actually, we are working on that on
the full Committee, so I think it's not on this Subcommittee.
So, thank you for that.
I don't need to go into old history here, and really tragic
history, but it was 1989 when the Exxon Valdez oil spill
occurred--one of the worst environmental disasters in our
history. It hit the Chugach region incredibly hard. Nearly
wiped out the traditional ways of life of Alaska Native people
who are so tied to the land and the sea there. And 35 years
later, both the people and the environment are still reckoning
with that.
Government tried to step in. Sometimes those efforts caused
another set of problems. Back in 2019, in the Dingell Act, I
included a provision that required the Interior Department,
along with the Forest Service and Chugach Alaska Corporation,
to review the long-term impacts of the spill and the recovery
actions that followed. And one of those measures was a land
buyout that was overseen by the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee
Council.
So, surface lands from Alaska Native village corporations
were purchased. They were divided up among the federal agencies
and placed under strict conservation rules. But the subsurface,
the part that Chugach, Alaska owns, was left unresolved. And we
have seen over time our village corporations had to take steps
that they had to deal with given the economic situations and
sold some of their lands. But Chugach, as the regional
corporation and the owner of the subsurface, was not part of
that process.
So, they are left to navigate this split-estate issue with
the Federal Government, which for decades has resulted in
regulatory obstacles that undermine the promise that Congress
made under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. So, we are
in a situation now where I don't think it's right. The Federal
Government cannot ignore Chugach and the Alaska Native people.
We have a responsibility to make this right here. So, what
we have with this legislation is not a financial settlement.
The federal government owes Chugach land in their region, land
that they are entitled to under ANCSA. The native people who
call this region home want the land because it's their
connection--their connection to it is what matters. This is
what is deep and enduring. The EVOS buyout resulted in a
significant loss of native ownership. More than 241,000 acres
were placed under federal control, and that has diminished
native voices and the ability for native people to shape the
future of their homelands.
So what we are trying to do now is to fix that. You can
call it ``land back'' if you will, but to me I think it's just
about honoring commitments. I think it's time to stop treating
native communities in Alaska differently from native
communities in the Lower 48 when it comes to federal land
issues.
So what we offer in this bill I think is a win-win. It
directs a balanced land exchange between Chugach, Alaska and
the federal government that addresses the Dingell Act report's
findings. It permanently protects the conservation lands. And
it finally gives Chugach and its shareholders a fair resolution
to their ANCSA claims.
I might note to the Chairman and the Ranking Member here,
the House Natural Resources Committee has advanced a companion
to this bill. They did that last month on a bipartisan basis.
So hopefully we will be able to do the same here in the Senate.
I am going to direct a quick question to you, Mr. French.
In your testimony, you say that the Forest Service supports
the intention of the bill and you are looking forward to
working with us to resolve any issues on the parcels identified
in the bill for exchange that perhaps were not originally
identified in the 2022 study and report. I would hope that we
could count on you to be engaged quickly and in a responsive
manner so if there are any outstanding issues, we can address
them and get this bill moving to resolve, again, a very, very
long-outstanding issue.
Mr. French. Thank you, Senator. Yes, we completely support
the bill. I commit that I will sit down with your staff rather
quickly to work out where we see those issues.
Senator Murkowski. Right. Thank you. Mr. Raby, you are in
agreement there?
Mr. Raby. Senator Murkowski, yes, 100 percent agreement.
Senator Murkowski. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much.
Senator Cortez Masto.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. One quick question, Mr.
Raby, I have for you. It's my understanding that BLM has been
collaborating with HUD on identifying appropriate parcels of
public land to deploy affordable housing, and in fact, both the
Secretaries of the Interior and HUD met in Las Vegas to discuss
this issue. I am curious, can you provide the Committee with
any update on the progress of this initiative?
Mr. Raby. Senator, thank you for the question. What I can
say here is that the BLM, in conjunction with HUD, we have
identified lands within and around areas in Nevada that are
adjacent to population centers of 5,000 or more. It gives us a
metric to look at where lands may be potentially available for
affordable housing. There will be additional work, and we can
certainly follow up with you and your team with a status update
on that.
Senator Cortez Masto. I would appreciate that. Thank you.
Mr. Raby. You are welcome.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Hickenlooper.
Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you. And I appreciate you
asking an extra question. I am sure that Senator Cortez Masto--
as I was racing up the steps to get here, asked that additional
question.
Ms. Torres, I want to thank both the Chair and the Ranking
Member for including our Sarvis Wilderness Completion Act in
today's hearing. As I mentioned earlier, it expands the
existing Sarvis Creek Wilderness to what was originally
proposed in the original designation back in 1993.
It was excluded at that time due to a proposal to develop a
ski area, which in the end turned out to be unviable. So, it's
safe to say that 32 years later, without that impediment, it's
about the right time.
So, I guess I wanted to ask Ms. Torres if you could speak
to the broader value provided by conservation and low-impact
recreation on landscapes like Sarvis Creek.
Ms. Torres. Thank you, Senator, for the question. Yes, I
mean, I think for states like Nevada, states like Colorado,
it's so important to the quality of life to have that outdoor
low-impact recreation. It provides different recreation
opportunities, and I think we very much learned during COVID,
and I think Senator Barrasso mentioned this as well, those
areas with not a lot of people where we can really escape and
check out, and really become kind of one with nature, provide a
different experience that a Disneyland or a Las Vegas sometimes
doesn't provide.
So, I think it's important as we talk about diversifying
our economy, diversifying our outdoor recreation economy is
also important, and bills like this provide that.
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes, thank you. I appreciate that.
And certainly, when I first went up into the north of
Yellowstone Park, in the Beartooth Wilderness area up there, my
first summer of research looking at these volcanic rocks, and I
hadn't--my father died when I was a kid, and then we as a
family, we didn't go to church. We, you know, my mother was so
brokenhearted that well, we just, rightly or wrongly, didn't go
to church. And when you are a little kid, you know, there's no
rush to go to church. So I hadn't been to church probably in
over a decade, and I came back from that first summer doing
field work up in the high Absarokas, and I, without thinking
about it, went to church. I think the power of wilderness and
making sure we protect these sacred places is really more
valuable, I think, than we often realize for many, many, many
people.
Let me turn back to Sarvis. And I have a question for Mr.
French. The land that will be protected by the Sarvis Creek
Wilderness Completion Act falls in the Harrison and Green Creek
Watersheds. These are rare, pristine, subalpine regions that
feed into the Yampa River. BLM categorizes this area as having
no known potential for oil and gas development, and the Forest
Service has testified in the past that there is no suitable
timber base, no roads, no trails, no commercial use in this
area.
So I was a little disappointed by the Forest Service
testimony on this bill, which referred to the protections for
Sarvis Creek as contrary to the administration's energy and
mineral dominance priorities. I think we can still advance
energy goals while conserving our special places.
So would the Forest Service agree that some areas don't
make sense for development but do make sense for protections
that the community supports on a broad level?
Mr. French. Thank you, Senator. Yes, we are incredibly
proud of the 36 million acres of wilderness that we steward on
behalf of the American public and understand the importance of
these areas.
I have been to Sarvis Creek, so I understand the values
that you talk about. I think as a matter of course, the
administration right now has taken a position that they're not
going to support adding more additional acres into the
Wilderness Preservation System until we have been able to work
through a number of other goals the administration has.
Senator Hickenlooper. So it's a more question of time and
priorities, I guess.
Mr. French. I would just say at this time, we're not
supporting--the administration is not supporting additional
inclusions into the Wilderness Preservation System.
Senator Hickenlooper. I hear you. I'm not--just trying to
get it clear. Thank you. I appreciate that. I appreciate all of
your work, all of you. Very much appreciate the efforts and
contributions you have made. I think--someday I am going to
come back as a state forester, if I play the cards right. Thank
you. I yield back to the Chair.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Hickenlooper. I do
appreciate your testimony that you did find God in Yellowstone,
which is in Wyoming, so we appreciate your comments there.
Senator Hickenlooper. Actually, the Beartooth Wilderness I
am talking about is just north of the boundary. If you took the
eastern boundary and the western boundary of Yellowstone up for
about 10 miles up there, about 300 square miles, but it's
unfortunately, sadly, in Montana.
Senator Barrasso. Sad indeed. My goodness. Anybody is
welcome to Wyoming at any time, and you will find magnificence.
Thank you all for being here. Members and Senator Lee
probably will be introducing some questions for the record.
They will be done within the next 24 hours. I would ask that
you submit the responses within the week. If there are no other
questions or answers, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:33 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
----------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]