[Senate Hearing 119-305]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 119-305
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
SECOND SESSION
on
S. 462 S. 2787 S. 3695
S. 1349 S. 2860 H.R. 204
S. 1464 S. 2968 H.R. 677
S. 1497 S. 3004 H.R. 952
S. 1981 S. 3082 H.R. 1829
S. 2417 S. 3493 H.R. 3872
S. 2554 S. 3526 H.R. 3937
S. 2754 S. 3527
__________
FEBRUARY 12, 2026
__________
[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
62-927 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
Daines, Hon. Steve, a U.S. Senator from Montana.................. 3
Heinrich, Hon. Martin, a U.S. Senator from New Mexico............ 16
WITNESSES
Checketts, Ty, President, Association of National Grasslands..... 18
Raby, Jon, Nevada State Director, Bureau of Land Management, U.S.
Department of the Interior..................................... 24
French, Christopher, Associate Chief, U.S. Forest Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture...................................... 40
Regan, Julie, Executive Director, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 60
ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
Alaska Rainforest Defenders:
Statement for the Record..................................... 607
Archuleta, Floyd:
Letter for the Record........................................ 151
Baker, Robert D. et al.:
Article entitled ``A New Frontier: Managing the Forests in
Alaska, 1970-1995'' published by Intaglio, Inc., 1995...... 336
Barnes, Beret:
Letter for the Record........................................ 268
Barrasso, Hon. John:
Opening Statement............................................ 1
Bernstein, Mary-Claire:
Letter for the Record........................................ 269
BlueRibbon Coalition:
Letter for the Record........................................ 5
Bogart, Steven:
Letter for the Record........................................ 270
Buck, Julia:
Letter for the Record........................................ 271
Butler, Paul:
Letter for the Record........................................ 272
California Wilderness Coalition:
Statement for the Record..................................... 192
Carbon County, Utah:
Letter for the Record........................................ 123
Carbon Water Conservancy District:
Letter for the Record........................................ 125
Carr, Kaitlyn M.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 273
Center for Biological Diversity:
Letter for the Record........................................ 263
Checketts, Ty:
Opening Statement............................................ 18
Written Testimony............................................ 20
Chicagof Conservation Council:
Letter for the Record........................................ 274
Conservation Lands Foundation:
Statement for the Record..................................... 176
Cortez Masto, Hon. Catherine:
Opening Statement............................................ 2
Crandall, Karen:
Letter for the Record........................................ 276
Daghero, Mowgli:
Letter for the Record........................................ 277
Daines, Hon. Steve:
Opening Statement............................................ 3
Poster depicting grazing allotments in the Middle Fork Judith
Wilderness Study Area...................................... 111
Daniello, Paul:
Letter for the Record........................................ 279
Davidson, Kirk:
Letter for the Record........................................ 280
de Cavi, Sabina:
Letter for the Record........................................ 281
DellaSalla, Dominick A.:
Statement for the Record..................................... 266
Editorial entitled ``My Turn: Why I Oppose Privatization of
the Tongass Rainforest'' published in the Juneau Empire on
October 29, 2024........................................... 604
Donovan, Brittany:
Letter for the Record........................................ 319
Down, Richard:
Letter for the Record........................................ 282
Eastern Sandoval Citizens Association and Las Placitas
Association:
Statement for the Record dated May 13, 2019.................. 82
Letter for the Record dated February 25, 2026................ 173
Echo-Hawk, Walter R.:
Article entitled ``A Context for Setting Modern Congressional
Indian Policy in Southeast Alaska''........................ 401
Flammer, Steve:
Letter for the Record........................................ 283
Fox, Sage:
Letter for the Record........................................ 318
Franzen, George:
Letter for the Record........................................ 106
French, Christopher:
Opening Statement............................................ 40
Written Testimony............................................ 42
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 118
French, Jesse:
Letter for the Record........................................ 284
Gorsuch, Lee:
Letter addressed to Amy Miller of Alaska Public Radio, dated
December 7, 1993........................................... 610
Great Falls Bicycle Club:
Letter for the Record........................................ 8
Harold, Stephanie:
Letter for the Record........................................ 285
Heinrich, Hon. Martin:
Opening Statement............................................ 16
Support packet for the Buffalo Tract Protection Act.......... 79
Support packet for the Cerro de la Olla Wilderness
Establishment Act.......................................... 139
Holt, Jr., Stacy:
Letter for the Record........................................ 286
Incline Village General Improvement District:
Letter for the Record........................................ 160
Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska
Anchorage:
Report entitled ``A Study of Five Southeast Alaska
Communities'' published in February 1994................... 447
Judith Basin (MT) County Commissioners:
Letter for the Record........................................ 9
Kautzer, Schyan:
Letter for the Record........................................ 289
Keep Tahoe Blue:
Letter for the Record........................................ 179
Kemp, Molly:
Letter for the Record with attached summary and review by
John Wisenbaugh of the Institute of Social and Economic
Research report ``A Study of Five Southeast Alaska
Communities''.............................................. 291
Kilby, Mitchell E.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 300
Klingel, Jon:
Letter for the Record........................................ 155
Knight, Rebecca:
Commentary entitled ``What So-Called `Landless' Supporters
and Media Don't Tell You''................................. 598
Additional commentary on S. 2554............................. 602
(The) Las Placitas Association:
Letter for the Record........................................ 81
Lee, Hon. Mike:
Statement for the Record..................................... 120
Map entitled ``Land Conveyance Near Price, Utah, May 8,
2025''..................................................... 121
Letters of support for S. 3004............................... 122
Maps related to S. 3004 (Figures 1-10)....................... 126
Minutes from August 13, 2025 Price City Council meeting,
including proposed alternative to the Upper Price River
Watershed Environmental Impact Statement................... 136
Lujan Grisham, Hon. Michelle:
Letter for the Record........................................ 103
Mackrow, Paula:
Letter for the Record........................................ 303
Mapes, Craig:
Letter for the Record........................................ 304
Mapes, Lynda V.:
Seattle Times article entitled ``Target on Tongass: The
Wildest National Forest May Soon Lose Its Protections''
published on January 3, 2026............................... 305
Meade, Parker:
Letter for the Record........................................ 314
Menchego, Timothy:
Letter for the Record........................................ 91
Montana Farm Bureau Federation:
Letter for the Record........................................ 12
Montana Outfitters and Guides Association:
Letter for the Record........................................ 13
Montana Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife:
Letter for the Record........................................ 10
Montana Stockgrowers Association:
Letter for the Record........................................ 14
National Parks Conservation Association:
Statement for the Record..................................... 190
National Stone, Sand, and Gravel Association:
Letter for the Record........................................ 162
(The) Nature Conservancy:
Letter for the Record........................................ 71
Olson, Rebecca:
Letter for the Record........................................ 315
Outdoor Alliance:
Statement for the Record..................................... 180
Outer Continental Shelf Governors Coalition:
Letter for the Record........................................ 157
Pentz, Wyatt:
Letter for the Record........................................ 316
Placitas Chamber of Commerce:
Letter of for the Record..................................... 100
Poirier, Jeanne:
Letter for the Record........................................ 317
Powell County (MT) Board of Commissioners:
Letter for the Record........................................ 15
Price City Municipal Corporation:
Letter for the Record........................................ 122
Price River Water Users Association:
Letter for the Record........................................ 124
Prouty, Carolyn:
Letter for the Record........................................ 288
Pueblo of Santa Ana:
Letter for the Record........................................ 90
Questa, NM (Village of):
Letter for the Record........................................ 147
Raby, Jon:
Opening Statement............................................ 24
Written Testimony............................................ 26
Questions for the Record..................................... 114
Red River, NM (Town of):
Letter for the Record........................................ 148
Regan, Julie:
Opening Statement............................................ 60
Written Testimony with supplemental material................. 63
Representatives of the Southeast Alaska Landless Native
Communities:
Statement for the Record dated February 26, 2026............. 440
Statement for the record dated December 2, 2020.............. 570
Rio Grande Del Norte Coalition:
Letter for the Record........................................ 152
Romero, Eliu E.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 150
Sagebrush Habitat Conservation Fund:
Letter for the Record........................................ 164
San Antonio de Las Huertas Land Grant:
Letter for the Record........................................ 94
Sandoval County (NM) Board of Commissioners:
Resolution No. 8-6-15.7...................................... 95
Letter for the Record........................................ 97
Sandoval, Michael T.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 93
Sealaska Corporation:
Statement for the Record..................................... 332
Shoup, Jack:
Letter for the Record........................................ 321
Specialty Equipment Market Association and Off-Road Business
Association:
Letter for the Record........................................ 187
Sportsmen for the Rubies:
Letter for the Record........................................ 169
Stewart, Nathanial:
Letter for the Record........................................ 322
Storey, Nate:
Letter for the Record........................................ 323
Street, Allan:
Letter for the Record........................................ 324
Suh, Ian:
Letter for the Record........................................ 325
Surfrider Foundation:
Letter for the Record........................................ 209
Sykes, Allison:
Letter for the Record........................................ 326
Taos County (NM) Board of Commissioners:
Resolution No. 2018-21....................................... 143
Taos Pueblo Warchief:
Letter for the Record........................................ 142
Taos (NM) Town Council:
Resolution 18-28............................................. 145
Tenakee Springs, AK (City of):
Letter for the Record........................................ 301
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership:
Letter for the Record........................................ 171
Torres, Jack:
Letter for the Record........................................ 105
Torres, Marty:
Letter for the Record........................................ 149
Trout Unlimited:
Statement for the Record on S. 3526.......................... 212
Statement for the Record on S. 3527.......................... 214
U.S. Department of the Interior:
Statement for the Record..................................... 206
Uy, Junice:
Letter for the Record........................................ 327
Washoe County (NV) Board of Commissioners:
Statement for the Record..................................... 166
Watts, John:
Letter for the Record........................................ 329
Western Watersheds Project:
Letter for the Record........................................ 168
(The) Wilderness Society:
Letter for the Record........................................ 73
Wilderness Watch:
Statement for the Record..................................... 215
Policy paper entitled ``Keeping the Wild in Wilderness:
Minimizing Non-Conforming Uses in the National Wilderness
Preservation System'' published in June 2005............... 224
Appendix I--Policies and Guidelines for Fish and Wildlife
Management in National Forest and Bureau of Land Management
Wilderness................................................. 244
Copy of House Report 101-405 from February 21, 1990.......... 256
Factsheet entitled ``Science Doesn't Support Livestock for
Fire Prevention''.......................................... 262
Wilson, Karen and Jeff:
Letter for the Record........................................ 330
Wynn, Carter:
Letter for the Record........................................ 331
----------
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/
2026/2/public-lands-forests-and-mining-subcommittee-to-receive-
testimony-on-pending-legislation
PENDING LEGISLATION
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2026
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 10:00 a.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. I call this hearing to order. Good
morning and welcome, all of you, to the hearing today. I
appreciate all of you making the trip to be with us. We have a
number of bills on today's agenda, priorities across the West.
This morning's hearing will look at many pieces of legislation
that impact our federal lands.
Families and communities in Wyoming and throughout the West
depend on federal lands for energy and mineral development, for
grazing, for forest management, and for recreation. Included in
the agenda is a bill of my own that is important to those who
graze on federal lands. I would like to take a moment to
highlight the importance of this legislation, S. 2787, the
Grasslands Grazing Act. Livestock grazing on federal lands has
a strong tradition in Wyoming and across the West. Federal
grazing is a necessary tool for wildfire prevention and for
promoting rangeland health. It is widely used by both the U.S.
Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. The U.S.
Forest Service manages both national forests and national
grasslands. Livestock grazing is done on both national forest
land and grasslands. Obtaining a federal permit for grazing on
national forest land is common practice. However, there is a
lack of federal certainty and clarity for obtaining the same
permits for grasslands.
In Wyoming, cattle graze on the Thunder Basin National
Grassland, located in northeastern Wyoming in the Powder River
Basin between the Bighorn Mountains and Black Hills. It
encompasses a little over a half a million acres. That's a lot
of land. My bill helps bring regulatory clarity for grazing
permits from the U.S. Forest Service. Ranchers across the West
depend on access to grazing on our national grasslands. They
deserve to have certainty that their grazing permits will be
approved in a timely manner. The Grasslands Grazing Act will
give Wyoming's ranching families the stability that they need
to keep their operations running strong.
I would like to welcome all four of our witnesses here this
morning, especially Ty Checketts, who is always wonderful to
have here. He is one of the wonderful Wyoming ranchers who have
been back to DC to testify, speaking on behalf of the important
work that they do each and every day on their operations. I
look forward to hearing your testimony, and from all of you.
But first, I would like to turn to Senator Cortez Masto for her
opening remarks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso. I also
want to thank Chairman Lee and Ranking Member Heinrich for this
legislative hearing today. Today is the second legislative
hearing held by the Subcommittee, and I look forward to working
with my colleagues on planning several more this year. We have
a full agenda. As you have heard, there are 23 bills. Several
of today's bills were previously processed through the
Committee last Congress, and I look forward to working with my
colleagues to advance them further.
I also want to welcome all the panelists today. It's great
to see everybody, from Jon Raby to Christopher French. Mr.
Checketts, welcome, again, and also to the wonderful Julie
Regan. I appreciate that Julie has come all the way over from
Tahoe. She is Executive Director of the Tahoe Regional Planning
Agency. She will be providing testimony specifically in support
of S. 3695, which is the Santini-Burton Modernization Act.
Thank you so much.
And I, too, want to talk about some of the bills that I
have on the agenda today. I so appreciate that there are
several of my bills. One of them is S. 1349, which is the Ruby
Mountains Protection Act. This bill, which has already been
favorably approved by this Committee in each of the previous
three Congresses--let me say that again, three Congresses--
would prohibit oil and gas development within the Ruby
Mountains area of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, which
is located in Elko and White Pine Counties in Nevada. The bill
was created after the Forest Service received a request by an
out-of-state member of the public to develop 54,000 acres of
land within the Ruby Mountains. In 2019, the Forest Service
determined the area was not appropriate for leasing due to the
low potential for oil and gas resources and due to the
extensive involvement of the community in opposition to leasing
efforts. This bill codifies the determination that was made by
the Forest Service under the first Trump administration,
ensuring this great public space is preserved for its
recreational opportunities, outdoor economy, rare wildlife and
plant life, and the local culture that these mountains support.
The other bill is S. 1981, the Strategic Grazing to Reduce
Risk of Wildfire Act. This bill would direct the Interior
Department and the Forest Service to work with grazing permit
holders to create a strategy to utilize livestock grazing on
public lands to mitigate risk posed by wildfires. In states
where most of the land is managed by the Federal Government,
like my home State of Nevada, ranchers and cattlemen rely on
public lands for grazing purposes. Now, more than ever, due to
climate change and historic drought conditions, these lands and
the populated areas near them are threatened by wildfires that
grow in size and intensity almost yearly.
And then, I would also like to talk about S. 3695, which is
the Santini-Burton Modernization Act. This bill is bipartisan,
bicameral, and bi-state. It has wide local support from the
Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, local government, and
the business community from both sides of Lake Tahoe--
California and Nevada. It has the full support from our Tahoe
delegation in the Senate, co-sponsored by my colleagues,
Senators Rosen, Padilla, and Schiff, and my co-lead in the
House, Congressman Kevin Kiley from California. This bill
modernizes the original Santini-Burton Act of 1980 that
utilized revenues from targeted land disposal in Clark County
in Southern Nevada to preserve Lake Tahoe from growing threats
of environmental degradation and from rapid development through
land acquisition and land management on both the Nevada and
California sides of the lake. Changes were made to the law in
1998 that limited the use of funds granted by the act, by the
land sales. However, preserving the pristine quality of Lake
Tahoe requires our everlasting vigilance and ability to adapt
evolving practices. Modernizing the Santini-Burton Act would
allow Tahoe partners with additional tools to manage public
lands and address visitation impacts. The goal here, and I am
hoping working with our colleagues, is that we can continue the
original intent of the Santini-Burton Act.
I just want to mention two other bills on today's agenda
that I am also appreciative of, and they are very important to
my home state, and they are sponsored by my colleague, Senator
Rosen. That is S. 462, the Truckee Meadows Public Lands
Management Act and S. 3493, the Carson City Public Land
Correction Act. Both of these bills, like the Southern Nevada
Lands bill, received a hearing in December, were favorably
reported by the Committee with bipartisan support last
Congress, and are community driven. They prioritize locally
identified needs, including specific land disposals to
facilitate local economic development and residential housing
needs, conveyances to facilitate efficient municipal management
or support for local tribal communities, and efforts to
preserve certain public lands for conservation and outdoor
recreation.
I look forward to the hearing today. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thanks so much, Senator Cortez Masto.
Senator Daines.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Daines. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Cortez
Masto, thank you.
Included in today's agenda is one of my bills, the Montana
Sportsmen Conservation Act. Our family roots in Montana go back
five generations. My wife and I spend as much time outdoors as
we can throughout wilderness areas in Montana, as well as our
national forests. Montanans are clear about the importance of
their public lands, and count me in as one who believes
strongly in that. Local input and the best available science
guide land management plan revisions, but unfortunately,
congressional inaction has left many areas in Montana in limbo.
The original intent of wilderness study areas was for land
management agencies to study and then make recommendations to
Congress as to whether an area is suitable and should be made
wilderness or should be released to general management and not
suitable for wilderness. There is so much misinformation--and
frankly, lying--going on on this issue, but I want to set the
record very, very straight. Congress, then, must act on these
recommendations. Montanans are tired of going through the
process of studying, providing input on these areas, and then
not seeing any action taken or resolution. The consequence of
this inaction is unacceptable, and I am determined to fix it.
Following a multi-year, collaborative process with strong
public comment, spanning multiple administrations, the three
areas in my bill, covering just over 100,000 acres, have been
deemed unsuitable for permanent wilderness. Let me say that
again--multiple collaborations, over multiple administrations--
have been deemed unsuitable for wilderness designation. These
are the Hoodoo Mountain, Wales Creek, and the Middle Fork
Judith Wilderness Study Areas. The bill is supported by both
the Powell and Judith Basin County Commissions, as well as
multiple outdoor recreation, timber, and ag groups. I ask
unanimous consent to add the eight letters of support I have
received into the record.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
[The letters referred to follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Daines. I would also like to note that if this bill
would be enacted, the lands included in it, as well as the
Forest System as a whole, will continue to enjoy statutory
protection from NEPA, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean
Water Act, the Clean Air Act, CERCLA, FLPMA, and multiple other
conservation and land management statutes and policies. I hope
that sets the record straight, because there is a lot of
misinformation about this issue. The Forest Service, with
public input, also develops forest management plans and travel
analysis reports. The Montana Sportsmen Conservation Act does
not strip protections, but instead, improves the ability to
restore wildlife habitats, enhance sportsmen opportunities,
mitigate wildfire risk, and increase multiple-use opportunities
for Montanans. Montanans have waited too long for Congress to
act on these three WSAs. It's time to listen to the science,
listen to those on the ground, respect the collaborative
process with massive amounts of public input, and return these
areas to general management with multiple conservation
protections remaining in place, as I mentioned earlier.
I want to thank our witnesses for their attendance at
today's hearing. I look forward to your testimony.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Daines.
Senator Heinrich.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN HEINRICH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman, and I want to thank
both you and Ranking Member Cortez Masto for convening this
Subcommittee hearing today. This hearing will add to the
significant number of conservation bills ready for markup, and
I look forward to working both with you and Chairman Lee to get
them marked up, passed, and frankly, signed into law, most
importantly.
I would like to highlight two of the bills that I have on
the agenda that are widely supported in New Mexico. The first
bill would implement a mineral withdrawal for four small
parcels in the Placitas area, just north of Albuquerque. The
threat of a gravel mine in the area and the particulate
pollution that comes with it brought the community together to
seek permanent protection for these parcels. The largest area,
commonly known as the Buffalo Tract, is valued for hiking and
outdoor recreation, but also serves as an important wildlife
corridor between the Sandia Mountains to the south and the
Sangre de Cristo Mountains to the north. These parcels are
adjacent to a neighborhood and a community. There are literally
several gravel mines only a few miles from the Buffalo Tract
that are not controversial in this community because they are
in an appropriate location. Further, the lands in this
withdrawal proposal are culturally and ecologically significant
to two Pueblos, two Native American tribes in New Mexico, who
support this effort. For these reasons, it is an inappropriate
location for gravel mining. This has been, literally, a decade-
long effort, and I appreciate the support that the community as
a whole has provided for this bill in past Congresses, from the
local municipality, to the county, to the local tribes, and the
neighborhood association. It goes on and on because this is not
a controversial bill in my state.
My second bill would establish the Cerro de la Olla
Wilderness within the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument,
and this parcel encompasses Cerro de la Olla, which is a
towering shield volcano over the Taos Plateau where the people
of Taos have hunted, gathered herbs, and collected firewood for
literally generations. The high elevation of Cerro de la Olla
offers solitude and unparallelled views, while the surrounding
landscape of the monument offers recreational opportunities,
including whitewater rafting, fishing, hiking, and camping.
Designating this wilderness will ensure that all the above
values are preserved so that future generations can experience
them.
In addition, this bill would make some minor adjustments to
the boundaries of the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument to
include recent Land and Water Conservation Fund acquisitions
adjacent to the monument. The acquisitions will allow new
public access to the monument, and increase opportunities for
both recreation and traditional uses, but most importantly, we
are further protecting these acquisitions from commercial
development in an area that is renowned in New Mexico for its
viewshed. LWCF acquisitions such as these are great examples of
a community coming together to build economic development
opportunities, to unlock access for pristine hunting
opportunities, hiking, recreation opportunities, and provide an
opportunity for protecting fragile and valuable landscapes.
This bill is a major priority for the Taos community, including
both the county, the Pueblo of Taos, the city, and I am proud
to be able to offer this bill for consideration today.
Both of these bills have had literally years of support and
been processed by this Committee in past Congresses with
bipartisan support. Understanding that the Chairman of the
overall Committee and I may differ in opinion about this type
of conservation legislation, I hope that we will be able to
have these bills considered and advanced on a markup short-list
soon. And once again, I want to thank you, Chairman Barrasso,
and the Ranking Member for having this hearing today.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Heinrich.
We are going to turn to the panel now, and it's an honor to
introduce Mr. Ty Checketts this morning. Welcome to the
Committee. He is President of the Association of National
Grasslands. He is a Wyoming native from Newcastle, Wyoming. His
wonderful wife, Becky, is here. She has joined us as well.
Thank you, Becky, for being here this morning. Good to have
both of you here. Ty ranches on his family operation. They run
a thousand head of Black Angus on about 65,000 acres of both
public and private land. He is a member of the Wyoming Stock
Growers Association. He also holds a seat on the board of the
Public Lands Council, and is a member of the National
Cattlemen's Beef Association. Ty, I am very grateful that you
are here today. I want to thank you for representing the
ranchers across the United States.
I also want to take a moment to thank the other witnesses
for joining us this morning, especially the Nevada State
Director of the Bureau of Land Management, Mr. Jon Raby, and
Associate Chief of the United States Forest Service within the
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Mr. Chris French, who is a
friend and regular witness to the Committee. Thank you both for
coming here again. I would also like to welcome Ms. Julie
Regan, who is the Executive Director of the Tahoe Regional
Planning Agency, and I look forward to hearing everyone's
testimony this morning.
Mr. Checketts.
OPENING STATEMENT OF TY CHECKETTS,
PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF NATIONAL GRASSLANDS
Mr. Checketts. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking
Member Cortez Masto, and other members of the Committee. I am
grateful for the opportunity to be here to testify on Senate
bill 2787, the Grasslands Grazing Act of 2025.
For background, my name is Ty Checketts. I am President of
the Association of National Grasslands, and also serve as a
board member on the Public Lands Council, a member of the
Wyoming Stock Growers, and also NCBA, like the Senator said.
Most importantly though, I am a husband and a father. Our
operation is on the Thunder Basin National Grassland. My family
and I own and operate the historic Fiddleback Ranch. We run on
65,000 acres. We run a thousand cows. Without our permits, it
would be impossible for us to ranch on this scale.
ANG represents 30 national grasslands, grazing
associations, and districts. There are 1,275 members that
utilize one million AUMs of permitted grazing on four million
acres on the national grasslands across the West. We work
directly with our Forest Service friends to manage and improve
these lands for long-term sustainability. Grazing on federal
lands is diverse, but the laws governing it shouldn't create
winners and losers. National grassland permittees have fewer
rights than our friends on the BLM and National Forest lands.
This inequity stems from FLPMA's final language in 1976. It
originally included the national grassland permittees, but was
later removed in committee, leaving them without due process
protections under 43 U.S.C. 1752. As a result, the U.S. Forest
Service created two classes of permits. Under 36 CFR 222.3,
Forest Service permittees have more rights. National grassland
permittees have fewer rights.
It requires a simple change in language to replace the
words ``lands within national forests'' with ``National Forest
System lands.'' What this means for us as producers is, it
gives us 10-year permits, priority for renewal, the preference
system, written notice and opportunity to correct these issues
before suspension or cancellation, and two-year notice before
cancellation except in emergency. These are basic new process
protections that BLM or Forest Service permittees currently
enjoy. This bill simply puts national grasslands on equal
standing. Long-term permits equals long-term stewardship, and
allows us, as ranchers, to develop water, maintain fences, soil
and forage improvements, and gives us financial stability. A
10-year permit gives our lenders the confidence so we can
borrow the money we need to operate. Producers can plan and
invest and stay on the land.
The average age of a rancher is nearly 60 years old. Over
the next 20 years, 70 percent of ranch land will change hands.
Young producers need predictability and sustainability to stay
in the business. Since 2017, the U.S. has lost 17 percent of
cattle ranches--more than 150,000 operations. The national herd
is at a 75-year low. Meanwhile, beef demand is up over nine
percent from the past decade. We can't afford to lose more
ranchers, and ranchers can't afford to lose more AUMs. The
USDA's own plan calls for no net loss of AUMs. Sixty percent of
the western beef herd grazes on federal lands. Fifty percent of
the nation's breeding ewes do as well. Department of Interior
estimates $1.5 billion in direct economic impact and $8.5
billion annually in ecosystem services. National grasslands are
some of the highest quality of forage available. When you can
plan, you can manage better and the land benefits.
Grasslands cover 25 percent of the Earth's surface and they
store 34 percent of the global carbon. Grazing supports native
grasses, which are so important to our ecosystem. It reduces
invasive species, such as cheatgrass, lowers wildfire risk that
destroys communities and costs millions, and supports
biodiversity in our wildlife. The changes this legislation
addresses only extend to U.S.C. 1752 due process rights, not
all of FLPMA. The Conservation Practice program stays intact.
Prior exemptions stay intact. Grazing associations keep their
current structure.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, members of the Subcommittee,
Senate bill 2787 is a simple fix with enormous impact. It
creates a uniform, equitable, and predictable framework for
ranchers who rely on the national grasslands. It helps ensure
the long-term viability of rural communities, rangelands,
America's food supply, and ultimately, our national security.
Thank you for your time. I am happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Checketts follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Thanks so much for being here.
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 testify 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, an agency I have had the
pleasure to work for for over 30 years. 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 generally be managed for a
broad range of uses, such as energy development, livestock
grazing, timber production, hunting and fishing, and
recreation. FLPMA also requires BLM to manage public land
resources on a sustained-yield basis for the benefit of current
and future generations. Under the Trump administration, the BLM
is managing the nation's public lands as national assets
capable of growing our economy, helping balance the budget, and
generating revenue for American taxpayers. These assets benefit
all Americans. The BLM is working to fulfill the President's
vision while protecting our beautiful lands and ensuring that
America's public lands serve the American people.
Many of the bills on today's agenda further the Trump
administration's goals and priorities, particularly those
related to mineral development, fire management, recreation and
access, and supporting local communities. The administration is
committed to unleashing American energy as part of the broader
agenda of strengthening the economy and lowering the cost of
living, and the BLM is working to secure a reliable and
resilient domestic supply of minerals.
BLM supports H.R. 3872, as it would expand the federal
lands available for hardrock mineral development. This aligns
with President Trump's direction to take immediate action to
facilitate domestic mineral production to the maximum practical
extent.
Wildfires threaten lives and livelihoods and cost our
nation hundreds of billions of dollars annually. The current
administration is focused on streamlining organizational
structures and regulations, including those needed to address
today's wildfire crisis. The BLM welcomes the Subcommittee's
interest in hazardous fuels reduction and supports S. 1981 and
H.R. 204.
Secretary Burgum recently reaffirmed the Department's
commitment to expanding public access to the land and waters it
manages by issuing Secretary's Order 3447, expanding hunting
and fishing access, removing unnecessary barriers, and ensuring
consistency across the Department of Interior lands and waters,
which among other things, directs agencies to expand access and
opportunities where compatible with law, safety, and
conservation needs.
Under Secretary Burgum's leadership, the BLM is taking
concrete steps to implement and expand access to individuals
with disabilities. The BLM supports S. 2968's objective of
preserving accessibility and expanding outdoor recreation
opportunities for Americans with disabilities and recognizes
the importance of ensuring access to public lands in a manner
that is safe, predictable, and consistent with applicable law.
We welcome the opportunity to work with the sponsor and the
Subcommittee on the bill.
S. 3527 furthers the administration's recreation, timber
production, and energy dominance goals while providing greater
flexibility to manage and balance multiple uses, and the BLM
supports the bill.
Several bills on the agenda propose management designations
that would restrict motorized vehicle use, decrease public
access, prohibit mineral development, and limit the ability of
BLM to adequately manage and protect the lands in response to
changing conditions, including the growing risk of wildfire and
changing public needs. The BLM does not support the special
designations, mineral withdrawals, and other restrictions
imposed in S. 462, S. 1464, and S. 1497.
The BLM recognizes the challenges presented by irregular
land ownership patters and believes that land conveyances 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. 2554, S. 3493, and H.R. 952.
Finally, the BLM has no objection to H.R. 3937, and looks
forward to working with the Subcommittee and the sponsor to
ensure the review directed by the bill includes all relevant
agencies and mineral materials.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on these important
bills. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Raby follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Thanks so very much.
Mr. French.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER FRENCH, ASSOCIATE CHIEF, U.S.
FOREST SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. French. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso,
Ranking Member Cortez Masto, and other members of the
Subcommittee. It is my pleasure to be here today. Today, I will
present the views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture on 16
bills that pertain to the U.S. Forest Service.
I am Chris French. I am the Associate Chief of the U.S.
Forest Service, and in the wide-ranging nature of the bills we
are discussing today, I think that when you look at all of
them, it really demonstrates the breadth of the work that we do
at the USDA Forest Service. The American people use national
forests and grasslands for essential activities that support
economies, ways of life, and American prosperity. Ranchers,
loggers, miners, and recreationists, among others, rely on
accessing these lands for their families, businesses, livestock
grazing, timber harvesting, hunting and fishing, recreation,
and mineral and energy development, all of which we will be
discussing today in these bills.
While the work we do on behalf of the American taxpayer is
largely focused on delivering services locally, we recognize
that management of our lands has broader regional and national
impacts. So, I hope that today's discussion showcases the many
ways in which national forests and grasslands provide benefit
and opportunity to the entire country. While our positions vary
across the bills, our testimony expresses our willingness to
sit down and work with bill sponsors and the Subcommittee on
the ideas they put forward. As always, I defer to the
Department of the Interior for its views on the elements of
these bills that would impact lands under its jurisdiction.
Many of the bills included in today's hearing align with the
Forest Service's commitment to ensuring the National Forest
System lands are accessible and productive to the American
people.
S. 2968 updates the Forest Service travel management and
motor vehicle use plans in order to facilitate access to a
variety of recreation opportunities for all Americans. H.R.
3872 expands opportunities for hardrock mineral leasing on
federal lands. S. 2787 and S. 1981 promote grazing on national
forests and grasslands, ensuring streamlined implementation of
permitting and the use of grazing as a strategic wildfire risk
reduction tool. We support the goal of all of these bills and
we hope to work further with the bill sponsors on any technical
adjustments.
H.R. 204 supports the Agency's ongoing efforts to build
trust with the American public around the work we do, and in
this case, our efforts to reduce wildfire risk. We support this
bill and would like to work with the sponsor to ensure the
bill's reporting requirements fully capture wildland fire risk
to communities, the scope and effectiveness of our treatment
efforts, and the associated cost to the American people.
The remaining 11 bills under discussion today direct land-
based changes in specific geographies. Across these bills, the
Forest Service is committed to working with communities,
tribes, and other local entities to resolve issues related to
land uses. The Agency is similarly committed to working with
you, Congress, to ensure that the bills' text achieves your
intent. Across these bills, we do not support actions that
limit our management flexibility or conflict with executive
orders and other administration policies. To this end, the
administration does not support further mineral withdraws from
the federal, state and/or additional wilderness or wild and
scenic river designations that limit our management.
While our written testimony details some local concerns, in
general, we support land conveyances, transfers, and disposals
that make sense for our communities. In my experience, the
legislative language directing these actions can often directly
affect the agency timelines to complete them. We want to make
sure that we are responsive and we meet your expected time
frames established in the bills. So, for that reason, we hope
to work with you to ensure that the bill language directing
these actions facilitates prompt execution through the use of
consistent language that streamlines our process requirements,
reduces burden on agency resources, and effectively achieves
the congressional intent.
That concludes my testimony. I look forward to your
questions and the opportunity to testify here today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. French follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Thanks so very much.
Ms. Regan.
Ms. Regan. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso,
Ranking Member Cortez Masto, and members of the Subcommittee.
As I am Julie Regan, the Executive Director of the Tahoe
Regional Planning Agency, I am prepared for S. 3695. So, I will
cede my time to others until that is called for further in the
program.
Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Hyde-Smith, would you like to
talk about your bill before we go to the questions?
Senator Hyde-Smith. I would, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you to these witnesses for being willing to do what you
are doing, and all the services that you provide, but
definitely for your dedication. It is much appreciated. And I
do appreciate the opportunity to speak on the American Shores
Protection Act of 2025 that would codify the 2020 memorandum
that placed a moratorium on oil and gas leasing in the eastern
Gulf of America. The moratorium still remains in effect today,
and the bill comes as the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
(BOEM) continues to advance the draft proposed program for the
11th National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing
Program.
The proposal fulfills BOEM's statutory responsibilities and
it aligns with President Trump's executive order ``Unleashing
American Energy''--what I have been so anxious to do. The
proposal considers all potential options in federal waters that
could benefit the American people. Expanding opportunities in
the Gulf could help meet growing energy demand, create jobs,
and support refineries along the Gulf Coast. Additionally,
sales will help fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund,
benefiting states across the country, not just Mississippi.
Congress should allow BOEM's process to proceed without
restricting the administration's authority.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I hope Congress continues
exploring policies that strengthen American energy production
on behalf of all Americans, and again, thank you guys for being
here.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Hyde-Smith.
Senator Murkowski, would you like to make an opening
statement, or would you prefer that we proceed to the
questioning? It's up to you, your choice.
Senator Murkowski. Let's go ahead and proceed with the
questioning, please.
Senator Barrasso. All right, thank you.
Mr. Checketts, if we can talk about some of the things you
mentioned in your testimony, you know, almost half the land in
Wyoming is owned by the Federal Government. In most of our
states the Federal Government is the number one landlord for
all of us here--public places that people from Wyoming depend
on, accessing their livelihoods. Congress directed grazing,
timber harvesting, and recreation to occur on these federal
lands. National grasslands fall under a different authority,
and therefore, there is no certainty when it comes to grazing
permittees and the certainty that you talked about in your
testimony. So, can you please describe the importance of
certainty for you and other permittees on the national
grasslands?
Mr. Checketts. Senator Barrasso, it's so important that
this bill passes. Let me explain. Currently, our grazing
agreements can be canceled within 30 days--30-day notice.
Imagine running a business where all you have is a 30-day
guarantee. Many ranchers, such as myself, have debts. Many
ranchers have obligations. We all have families to feed and
cows to take care of. Think about the local economies, the
schools, the hardware stores, the dealerships. Our local
economies require ranching. We have to have ranching to support
our rural way of life. It's the backbone of America. Some of
the finest people I know are those who work every day out
there, taking care of our lands to make them better for
generations to come.
Senator Barrasso. In a second, I am going to ask you what
you actually have to go through each time a permit comes up for
renewal because national grasslands and national forests fall
under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service. They are not
required to renew permits or allow grazing on the national
grasslands. So, tell me what you have to go through.
Mr. Checketts. Thank you, Senator. I am going to tell you a
personal story. In 2022, when with the Thunder Basin Grazing
Association went to renew our permits, there was a disagreement
between our friends with the Forest Service, and we were simply
told that if we did not sign, that we would be trespassing. So,
we signed under duress. And I tell you, it is a stressful time
for us, it is a stressful time for the Forest Service. Passing
this bill will help us so that we have long-term sustainability
on the 10-year deal, but that is something else that we should
work on too.
Senator Barrasso. So, you talked about the benefits to the
local communities of the ranching and the agriculture. Could
you also talk about how cattle grazing helps the national
grasslands?
Mr. Checketts. I would love to do that. I will tell you
what, ranchers are the original conservationists. Nobody loves
the land more than we do. Every day we work to protect the
land, to preserve it, to make it better, to make it sustainable
for our cattle, for our families, for our livelihoods, for the
sportsmen that enjoy it. It helps with invasive species. As we
graze, it protects against cheatgrass. Grazing protects us
against the wildfires that destroy our local economies and cost
millions of dollars each year.
Senator Barrasso. So now that I have Chief French here, I
am asking you, following up on what we have just heard, federal
grazing permits from the U.S. Forest Service can be obtained
for both national forest land and national grassland. Currently
there is a lack of certainty that we are hearing about for the
communities and for the ranchers and a lack of clarity for the
permittees who wish to renew or obtain permits. How does the
Forest Service undergo permit renewals for national forest land
compared to the grasslands?
Mr. French. It's under two different statutes. Mr.
Checketts is right. There shouldn't be two different standards.
They should be treated the same, and we would like to
administer them in the same ways.
Senator Barrasso. Great.
And then in terms of wildfire, the United States Forest
Service manages, what, 193 million acres of land, 154 national
forests, 20 national grasslands, including, of course, the
Thunder Basin National Grassland in my home State of Wyoming.
Wildfires across the United States burn millions of acres every
year--land at risk, homeowners at risk, the ranchers. How does
grazing on Forest Service land actually help mitigate fire
risk?
Mr. French. It reduces fine fuels that carry those fires.
It reduces dead fuels that often are carrying those fires, and
most of those grassland systems, they evolved over time with
fire as a part of them, and with heavy grazing. And so, it's a
natural part of the system.
Senator Barrasso. Great.
Mr. French. It helps.
Senator Barrasso. Mr. Checketts, anything else you would
like to add?
Mr. Checketts. This is so important, Senator, to take care
of the ranchers, the local economies. I am so passionate about
ranching. I mean, it is the backbone of America. As you know,
in our home State of Wyoming, there are 500,000 people and a
million cows. And everything that people use each day has beef
in it, whether it's the makeup, whether it's our shampoo.
Everything that has glycerin--I mean, beef is important.
Senator Barrasso. It's what for dinner--and breakfast and
lunch in Wyoming.
Mr. Checketts. Beef, beef, beef, beef.
[Laughter.]
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Senator Cortez Masto.
Thanks for being here.
Mr. Checketts. Thank you.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Thank you to the panelists
as well.
Ms. Regan, let me ask you a couple questions. I appreciate
that you are here to talk about the Santini-Burton
Modernization Act. To start with, why is the Santini-Burton
Modernization Act necessary? If you would address that, and
then also how it differs from the original act from 1980?
Ms. Regan. Thank you, Senator Cortez Masto. Again, good
morning, Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member, and members of
the Subcommittee. Julie Regan here, Executive Director of the
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. I will give you some brief
introductory remarks and then continue to fine tune point the
question.
OPENING STATEMENT OF JULIE REGAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TAHOE
REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY
Ms. Regan. Our agency was formed by an interstate compact
between California and Nevada, and ratified by Congress in
1969. Our mission is to protect Lake Tahoe, a federally
designated Outstanding National Resource Water, while
supporting our local communities and economy. I do appreciate
the opportunity to address your questions and the Committee
today in support of the Santini-Burton Modernization Act, S.
3695, a bi-state, bipartisan bill that is of the utmost
importance to Lake Tahoe. The Tahoe Basin is the ancestral and
current home of the Washoe people--the Washoe Tribe of Nevada
and California, as they are known today. Tahoe is also the
second deepest lake in the United States and one of the
clearest large lakes in the world. Tahoe's nearly 200-square-
mile surface straddles the border of California and Nevada at
more than 6,200 feet in elevation in the Sierra Nevada Mountain
range.
Tahoe welcomes millions of visitors every year to our
public lands. Outdoor recreation and tourism drive our $5
billion annual economy. This, in turn, supports our very small
year-round population of 55,000 people. Tahoe also boasts a
sizable community of second-home owners, who hail from nearly
every state in the nation. Today, nearly 80 percent of the
Tahoe Basin is owned and managed by the United States Forest
Service, but it has not always been like this. The first public
lands in the Lake Tahoe Basin were established in 1899, as the
Lake Tahoe Forest Reserve, and totaled 37,000 acres with no
access to Lake Tahoe's beaches. By 1960, just 50 percent of the
Tahoe Basin was publicly owned. The 1980 Santini-Burton Act was
essential to Lake Tahoe's conservation and public lands success
story.
Under the law, funds from the authorized sales of federal
lands in Clark County, Nevada were appropriated to the Forest
Service to acquire more than 16,000 acres of land in the Tahoe
Basin. Through conservation and ongoing management, these
public lands protect Lake Tahoe's famed clarity, are critical
in community forest health and wildfire prevention, and offer
world-class recreation opportunities. However, changes to the
law decades ago inadvertently limited the law's scope so funds
could only be used to acquire lands, but not to manage them.
The lack of management funding contributes to negative
environmental, community, and economic impacts across the
region. If enacted, modernization would free up existing
funding for ongoing land management, allowing the Tahoe Basin
to complete more lake-saving environmental improvement
projects--projects that protect Tahoe's famed clarity, improve
recreation access, manage forests, and reduce wildfire risk.
The modernized bill enables the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and
California to make a meaningful step toward advancing
traditional knowledge for forest health management and
restoring tribal stewardship on their lands.
Finally, the bill maintains the 1980 federal land sale
boundaries in Clark County, and adds no new cost to taxpayers.
The Santini-Burton Modernization Act is the product of a multi-
year collaboration by our agency, Tahoe's state and local
governments, the public, the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and
California, non-profits, and the private sector. The bill also
requires ongoing local input through an annual spending plan
and partnerships with state and local jurisdictions.
In 1980, Congress had a bold vision--transforming Tahoe
into the national treasure that it is today. Thanks to Santini-
Burton, Tahoe's unique character continues to be of national
significance. But the threats to the lake require new
solutions, solutions that the Santini-Burton Modernization Act
can help deliver. I appreciate the consideration of this
Committee today. Hopefully, you all have the opportunity to
visit Tahoe soon. Samuel Clemens, the American author better
known as Mark Twain, is a local legend in Nevada and the Tahoe
Basin. He described the power of spending time at Lake Tahoe
when he wrote, ``three months of camp life on Lake Tahoe would
restore an Egyptian mummy to his pristine vigor and give him an
appetite like an alligator.'' Quite a description.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Regan follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Regan. I appreciate the opportunity to now answer your
direct question, and the main difference that I would like to
point out, as a summary of my testimony, Senator Cortez Masto
and members of the Committee, is that the challenges are very
different today in 2026 than they were in 1980. I will use a
prop to demonstrate the power of the iPhone, which did not
exist in 1980, and now with Instagram and social media, people
descend in certain places all at one time, too many places and
too many impacts to our natural resources. We are actually
having resources degraded on our public lands, and the funds
that were used to acquire those lands cannot be used to
maintain those lands and to take care of those natural
resources. So, that is a main difference.
Another issue is our wildfire protection and the ability to
actively manage lands that were purchased under the sale of
Santini-Burton funds for defensible space and fire safety.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Let me just ask you one final question here. Discuss the
difference between the funding that the Lake Tahoe Restoration
Act provides versus what the Santini-Burton Modernization Act
provides.
Ms. Regan. Thank you, Senator, for the question. Julie
Regan, TRPA's Executive Director, Tahoe Regional Planning
Agency. The Lake Tahoe Restoration Act, which you championed
along with our colleagues across the delegations in California
and Nevada, has been vital to the protection of lake clarity,
our forest health, fighting aquatic invasive species, and these
programs are very large capital investment programs and
projects. The Santini-Burton Modernization Act would allow
maintenance to support those investments, making good on those
investments, and it is a different suite of impacts that we are
seeing. The Restoration Act will not address the recreational
impacts. The Santini-Burton Modernization Act funds would
support maintenance and protection of our recreation assets to
allow more public access in the future.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I
appreciate you and the Ranking Member for holding the hearing,
and including S. 2554, which is the Alaska Native Landless
Equity Act, on the agenda. This is legislation that has been
co-sponsored by the entire Alaska delegation. Congressman
Begich has introduced a companion in the House.
This is legislation that we dub our ``landless
legislation,'' and we are seeking to resolve an injustice that
has been around for about a half a century now in Southeast
Alaska. For reasons that are perhaps unknown and still debated,
there are five communities--the communities of Haines,
Ketchikan, Petersburg, Tenakee, and Wrangell--that were omitted
from ANCSA's authorizations to form village corporations back
in 1971. And as a result, the Alaska Natives in these
communities have not received the lands that they were entitled
to under ANCSA that other Alaska Natives received a long time
ago. And that has left a situation that has just been unfair--
wrong, in my view, and something that needs to be addressed.
And it's our responsibility in this Committee to attempt to do
that. That is what this bill does.
It allows formation of five urban corporations. It
specifies the exact parcels of land that they have selected to
fulfill the land entitlement. And importantly, it does so while
fully protecting public access, valid existing rights,
including for fishing, hunting, recreation, subsistence. It's
about 115,000 acres of land for the landless communities. Now,
some of you may say that seems like a lot, but in Alaska, or
the Southeast region, or even the federal holdings in
Southeast, which total about 21.9 million acres, what we are
talking about here for this landless group is about one half of
one percent going to rightful native ownership while about 190
times more stays under federal control.
We have worked really hard over the years to bring this
legislation to a place where people who are looking at it can
say this is fair and this is something that I can support. We
refined it. We worked it over and over again. This Committee
has seen this issue before us multiple times. We have held
Committee hearings on it over and over--in 2015, 2023, today.
So, this is a little bit of a rerun here. But the changes that
we have incorporated have been based on what we have heard from
many, identifying the challenges, turning them around and
really turning opponents into supporters--among them, believe
it or not, the Nature Conservancy.
They wrote us a letter back in 2023, which we reported to
the bill with its passage. And as part of that letter, they
say, ``Too often, advocacy in the United States has
intentionally sought to undermine the rights of indigenous
peoples in the name of conservation. This has caused tremendous
harm to Alaska Native peoples and their traditional homelands,
and the legacy of this power dynamic continues to this day.
With this history in mind, TNC publicly affirms our support for
resolution for the landless communities in Southeast Alaska. In
assessing this legislation, we hope the voices that are most
important to this Committee are not those of conservation
groups, but rather, those of the sovereign nations in Southeast
Alaska for whom this has been a generation-long injustice.''
That is from the Nature Conservancy.
The Wilderness Society also wrote us a letter apologizing
to the landless people for the hurt caused by their past
opposition and declaring their support for the bill. So, we
have come a long way, colleagues.
I am going to ask unanimous consent to add those letters
from the Nature Conservancy and the Wilderness Society to the
hearing record.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
[The letters referred to follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Murkowski. But I would ask colleagues, take a look
at them. See the legislation through the eyes of some of these
conservation groups that have really been following this issue
for a long time. I think we have worked to strike the proper
balance and we are doing right by a special place, by the
Tongass. We know that every acre in the Tongass is important to
somebody, and particularly to those who have lived there since
time immemorial.
I want to ask one quick question to you, Mr. French. You
know this issue very, very well. You have been around it a long
time. In your testimony, you acknowledge the special
relationship. You acknowledge the role that the Tongass plays
in the economic health and prosperity of the region's
community, and you point out that you are looking forward to
discussing with the Subcommittee and the sponsor the
implications of the bill, particularly to the timber program on
the Tongass. I guess the direct question is, does the U.S.
Forest Service, does USDA support our landless legislation?
Mr. French. Thank you, Senator, for the question. And you
are right, we have spent years working through the details.
Senator Murkowski. Yes.
Mr. French. On the individual parcels, and we completely
understand the need and the whole delegation's approach on
this, and we are very appreciative. We don't oppose the bill.
We want to make sure that everybody does understand there are
parts of this that will impact some planned timber sales. And
as long as everybody knows that, we look forward to working
with you as it goes forward.
Senator Murkowski. Well, again, I would just remind that
the parcels that have been identified have gone through a very
laborious, thorough, open process in terms of identification.
So, I would like to think that we can work with the Forest
Service to deconflict in these areas. So, you have committed to
working with us, and I appreciate that. BLM has also committed
to working with us on some technical modifications. We think
that we are in pretty good shape because you have been working
with us, again, whether it's technical modifications or with
regard to actual selection. So, my goal is to finally bring
this home, that after decades of a longstanding injustice, that
the people in these communities are finally able to have the
equity that they deserve. And I would like to think that our
agencies are going to be partners with us in achieving just
that, along with this Committee.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Cortez Masto [presiding]. Thank you.
Senator Heinrich.
Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Ranking Member.
Mr. French, we have seen a pretty substantial cut in the
workforce in New Mexico in the Forest Service. We have seen
that on the Santa Fe. We have seen it on the Carson National
Forest, the Cibola, the Lincoln, the Gila. It has been felt
across the system, from issues like trail maintenance, to
processing permits for outfitter guides, to wildfire
preparedness. The bills that we are talking about today direct
your agency to do a number of things--to take actions and
undertake new endeavors and new policies, all of which require
an adequate workforce. How many National Forest System staff
would actually be needed to fulfill your mission, all of the
things that the Congress has tasked the National Forest System
to do and to properly manage the roughly 193 million acres of
land that the U.S. Forest Service manages?
Mr. French. That's a big question.
Senator Heinrich. And I bet the Forest Service has looked
at this.
Mr. French. We have.
Senator Heinrich. I bet there's an answer.
Mr. French. So, I mean, the reality is, if you look at the
requirements of statutes of what we are told and asked to
accomplish, the needs for funding and staffing far exceed the
requirements that are placed on us to manage those to standard,
and we manage the largest trail system in the country, 165,000
miles of trails. And yet, the staffing that we have, and the
budgets that we have, we struggle to maintain up to a third of
it a year. Now, I mean, we are working to overcome the things
you just talked about. Today, we are announcing 2,000 summer
hires, recreation hires to assist us in overcoming that work.
We have been in a place of getting our workforce to a more
sustainable level to the budgets we have, but we have done that
work. We can certainly share it with you. I am not prepared,
today, to give you----
Senator Heinrich. I would appreciate it if you can share
that work with us.
Do we pay our firefighters enough?
Mr. French. In my opinion?
Senator Heinrich. Yes, in your opinion.
Mr. French. No. I think that--I want to be thoughtful here,
because I don't have with me a particular position from the
administration, but as a past firefighter, myself----
Senator Heinrich. Yes.
Mr. French. When I look at what we ask them to do, and
watching over the last 20 years, our fire seasons becoming
larger and larger, putting more and more demands on them and
their families, and when I look at what is being compensated at
state levels, I think there is work to do there.
Senator Heinrich. Mr. Raby, same question. The BLM manages
246 million acres. How many folks would we need to adequately
manage that?
Mr. Raby. Senator, thank you for the question. And of
course, in the Bureau of Land Management, we have an
organization of about 9,000 employees to manage 245 million
acres. We receive about $5.75 per acre to manage these lands,
which, we have always been a lean organization. We have been
very focused, again, on our mission delivery, and at the same
time, ensuring that we have organizational efficiency and
workforce optimization. So, we have these, you know, again, we
have always had these sort of competing objectives at times,
but they are complementary objectives as well. And so, while,
again, we may not have always received what we may have
desired, we can't look on ourselves and say we are going to be
woeful about what we don't have. We are very focused on what we
do have, and then we set our priorities accordingly, and of
course, we are fully staffed in our wildland fire organization,
as well as law enforcement, and energy and minerals. And then,
we certainly rely on a lot of partners to help us, between
state and local organizations as well.
Senator Heinrich. The parcels that were identified for
withdrawal in the Buffalo Tract Protection Act make up roughly
a little over 4,000 acres. One of my concerns is that they are
kind of scattered through residential neighborhoods. So, the
impacts of a gravel mine amongst a residential community would
be felt pretty acutely, and residents are rightly worried about
health impacts, noise, particulate pollution, as well as
disruption to wildlife in the area. I mean, that's kind of the
reason why there is, to my knowledge, no real opposition to
this legislation. There is literally a gravel mine just down
the road that is very successful and people are okay with
because it's not in the middle of a residential community. Do
you think that a suburban neighborhood is the appropriate place
for a gravel mine?
Mr. Raby. Senator, thank you again for the question. And
when we look at the proposal for mineral withdrawals, that can
preclude opportunities and options for, again, what we believe
is responsible development that can take into account local
considerations.
Senator Heinrich. I'm sorry, Mr. Raby. How is it
responsible to put a very noisy, very particulate-heavy
industrial activity in the middle of a suburban neighborhood? I
don't understand the responsible part of that statement.
Mr. Raby. We go through a lengthy process between the
environmental reviews.
Senator Heinrich. I know the process. Because I heard about
it from all of the community members in that area. I don't know
of anyone who supports this. Your position--the BLM position--
has literally no community support. Do you listen to the
community before you make a decision like that?
Mr. Raby. Well, Senator, of course we listen to the
community. We have our local line officers, our district
managers, field managers who absolutely are engaged with the
community, and they have to also account for the national
policy direction when we have a declared national energy
emergency, which, by reference, includes a mineral emergency.
We have to----
Senator Heinrich. How does producing gravel solve the
national energy emergency?
Mr. Raby. Yeah, it's a mineral resource that, again,
provides----
Senator Heinrich. Right.
Mr. Raby. Opportunity for development and----
Senator Heinrich. Which we produce five miles away in
abundance.
Mr. Raby. Your point is well taken. I understand.
Senator Heinrich. My point is that your policy in this case
is completely disconnected from the local community, and while
we have very wide opinions on this Committee, where we get
crosswise is when there is a federal policy dictated from
Washington, DC that is completely disconnected. And this is
where Senator Murkowski and I actually agree. It's where
Senator Daines and I actually agree. When we get in trouble is
when we don't listen to the local community, and in this case,
it is my view that the administration and the BLM are
completely ignoring the local community.
And so, Ranking Member Cortez Masto, I want to enter into
the record, if there is no objection, all of the community
groups, from local tribes, to the county, to the local
municipality, to the neighborhood association that this would
impact, their views on the Buffalo Tract Protection Act.
Senator Cortez Masto. Without objection.
Senator Heinrich. Thank you.
[Letters and statements of support for the Buffalo Tract
Protection Act follow:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso [presiding]. Anything else? Any additional
questions?
Senator Cortez Masto. I do, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Please.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you for the opportunity here.
Mr. French, let me talk to you, something similar, on the
same vein that you are hearing, I think, from some of my
colleagues. I want to talk about S. 1349, which is the Ruby
Mountains Protection Act. In December, Senator Heinrich had
asked you at a hearing here about the agency's decision to
rescind a land withdrawal for the Pecos Watershed in New
Mexico. And at that time, you replied 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. I respect that.
The agency, however, Mr. French, also rescinded then an
administrative withdrawal for the Ruby Mountains in northern
Nevada. And I know you are familiar with this because we have
talked about this. However, the agency already understands the
current mineral development potential in the Rubies, because in
2019, under the first Trump administration, the Forest Service
released a decision saying that ``with the overall unfavorable,
non-conducive oil and gas geologic conditions and the `No to
Very Low' and `Low' potential for oil and gas, these lands have
low energy resource values. Offering low energy resource value
lands . . . would not serve the best interest of the public
from an industrial or environmental perspective.''
So, this bill that we are introducing is merely a
codification of the Trump administration's findings in 2019.
So, I guess my question to you is, why are we still here with
the withdrawal? Why are we still fighting this? And why are you
still opposed to moving forward?
Mr. French. Senator, I understand exactly why you are
asking the question. That was the decision in 2019. That
decision remains, and will continue to protect in that local
way the further development of oil and gas. You know, what we
are talking about here is, where a national policy approach,
which, again, from the administration, is about making sure
that we maintain the flexibility for future mineral
development, aligned with policies that doing something through
an administrative or legislative withdrawal doesn't take into
account the local needs. And I think that was part of the
conversation that was just happening to understand that.
In this case, you are seeing a position in a statement
that, in general, does not support any sort of withdrawals, but
it doesn't change the fact of that 2019 decision that we made
that made that finding that essentially limits oil and gas
development in the Ruby Mountains.
Senator Cortez Masto. So, then let me jump to you, Mr.
Raby. On January 14, 2025, the BLM initiated a two-year
segregation to consider a 20-year administrative public land
withdrawal for the Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge and
surrounding BLM lands that have been threatened by mining
proposals to drill into the sensitive groundwater system, which
could dry up seeps and springs that are the core of this
refuge. You as well know the Devils Hole unit of Death Valley
National Park and the lifeblood of the surrounding area. Local
community leaders are in unanimous consent in their desire to
see this withdrawal. A meeting took place on February 27, 2025
to receive public comment, but it is unclear if anything has
taken place.
So, Director Raby, I am disappointed, obviously in the Ruby
Mountains withdrawal decision. I don't quite understand it,
still, but I am glad the segregation for Ash Meadows has
remained in effect, under the same administration. I'm a little
curious about why there is a difference between the two, just
pointing that out, but can you give me the status of the
withdrawal?
Mr. Raby. Senator, thank you for the question, and the
status is that the parcel segregation is still in place, as in
about, you know, 14 months of the two-year parcel segregation,
we continue to work on, you know, with our partners with the
Fish and Wildlife Service, the evaluation of that area. We no
longer have the same mining proposal out there currently. And
so, that, you know, does not exist out there, that application.
And so, we will take that under consideration as to whether a
mineral withdrawal would even be appropriate to advise on in
the future.
Senator Cortez Masto. Do you think you are going to need
more time for any analysis, and if so, would you let us know
and seek an extension of it?
Mr. Raby. We will certainly let you know.
Senator Cortez Masto. Okay, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Well, I think Senator Daines is on the
way down to ask a couple of questions related to his bill, but
any other thoughts that any of you have based on the hearing
and what you have heard from one another today about ways we
can be helpful?
Mr. Checketts. Everyone is looking at me, but I----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Checketts. I better say something.
Senator Barrasso. We are having this hearing--in my
opinion, this is the key bill to the Committee, so.
Mr. Checketts. Well, Senator Barrasso, I will tell you
what, grazing is so important. And grazing really protects our
nation, protects our food supply. We have seen a lot of things
in the news lately about beef prices, and even with beef prices
the way it is today, guys, it's still tough to make it as a
rancher. The beef prices, similar to what it was in 1980, when
you add in inflation, when you add in all the different costs
of operating, so to tie it back to our bill, our bill is so
important to protect our ranching, to protect our families, the
people that work every day to feed this nation, to clothe this
nation, to give us the different supplies. And I am grateful
for our Forest Service and BLM partners, and I affectionately
say that we own the grass, you guys own the land, and I am
grateful for them. Without the Forest Service and BLM, we
couldn't make it work.
What a nice nation this is to have the opportunity to work
together with our federal lands to make it possible to feed our
nation, and to allow me, as a rancher, to do what I love, what
I am passionate about--to ranch, provide for my family, provide
for my cattle. And I promise you that we take care of the land.
We love the land more than anyone, and we appreciate that
opportunity and our partners here in this room to allow us to
do it. It is the honor of our lives. And we will take care of
it.
Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Well, you mentioned earlier, the best
stewards of the land are the people that live on the land, the
people that are there locally that want to make sure we are
protecting it. We talk about the environment, the respect for
the environment of the people that are on that land.
Mr. Checketts. Yeah, we love it. And you know, we talked--I
heard these guys talking about fire. We are grateful, also, for
our partnership when we fight fires with the Forest Service and
BLM, but I just want to add something here, and the important
thing is cooperation and collaboration. I serve on two
different rural fire communities, and when they are anxious to
go fight fires, we are there first, and our Forest Service and
BLM partners come and it works so good when we work together.
And my encouragement to save money would be to have more local
leadership with our BLM and Forest Service partners when we
fight these fires. They have these command centers, and it's
important that they involve the local people there.
Senator Barrasso. Great. Well, thanks so very much to all
of you. We are going to turn to Senator Daines for questions,
but maybe other members may have additional questions, and they
will be sent to you. There is going to be a deadline for us to
submit those questions, and that is close of business tomorrow,
but we would ask that you get the answers back to us by a week
from the end of this hearing today.
Senator Daines.
Senator Daines. Great. Chairman Barrasso, thank you.
Mr. Raby, when FLPMA was enacted, the BLM was directed to
identify lands with wilderness characteristics. Congress has
the opportunity to consider adding these lands to the National
Wilderness Preservation System. Today, the BLM manages 487
wilderness study areas, totaling about 11.1 million acres.
Thirty-seven of those 487 are in Montana. Until Congress
decides what to do with the WSAs, the BLM continues to manage
the area with the status in limbo indefinitely--that study
status. My question is, Mr. Raby, what are the long-term
consequences for recreation, forest management, and even
wildfire response of wilderness study areas not getting
resolved?
Mr. Raby. Senator Daines, thank you very much for the
question, and certainly having that wilderness study
designation complicates multiple-use management. And so, it
inherently limits our ability to carry out hazardous fuels
reduction treatments. It can affect forest management
activities. It can create limitations on recreation and access.
So, it creates a layer of complicating, you know, management
direction on areas that, as you noted previously, especially
these ones in Montana that are before us in your proposed
legislation, those were never found to be of suitable
wilderness characteristics, and that has been since 1986.
And so, they do complicate multiple-use management out
there, and certainly their release would help uncomplicate
that.
Senator Daines. This isn't meant to be a Trivial Pursuit
question, but do you remember who the President was in 1986?
Mr. Raby. Well, I believe that was Ronald Reagan.
Senator Daines. It was Ronald Reagan.
Mr. Raby. Yes.
Senator Daines. So it goes back to the Reagan presidency in
terms of how long this has been in limbo and needs to be
resolved. And we are talking about, in this bill I have,
100,000 acres of 11 million acres that are currently in limbo
under the wilderness study area designations. Do you agree that
Congress does need to move forward to finally resolve these 11
million acres currently in limbo to either put them in
permanent wilderness or back to general management?
Mr. Raby. Senator, the short answer is yes.
Senator Daines. Thank you.
Deputy Chief French, the Forest Service determined the
Middle Fork Judith Wilderness Study Area was identified as
unsuitable for wilderness over 30 years ago, and that was
reaffirmed again in the fall of 2021 after extensive public
engagement. Could you briefly talk about what led to this
determination and what public input there was in that process?
Mr. French. Yeah, our forest planning process that looked
at this a second time, the engagement occurred over the course
of six years--many, many public meetings. I think there were
over 100 organizations that commented. We had about 1,200
individual comment letters that came in. And again, for the
second time, it was found that it didn't have the
characteristics to remain as wilderness. And so, we did our
part of what Congress asked us to do, but it sits there still
kind of in this limbo after we did the assessment, and it
mandates a management that isn't aligned with what the
community told us it should be.
Senator Daines. And I think that that's important
testimony, and I thank you that there was a public process with
a lot of public input. And again, with these WSAs, when they
are deemed suitable for wilderness, we should be looking at
taking the next step to make them wilderness, but when they are
deemed not suitable for wilderness, we should return them back
to the general management status, which, as I mentioned earlier
in my opening remarks, still has multiple protections as it
relates to the general management status. It's just that they
won't be managed as de facto wilderness as they are today.
The Forest Service also manages three active grazing
allotments that cover the majority of the WSA. I've got a
poster board here behind me.
[The poster referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Daines. In 2019, the Forest Service reported to the
Montana legislature that there is no mining and the vegetative
management is minimal, though the Forest Service has
recommended, and I quote, ``nearly one million board-feet of
harvest per year for fuels management and to help maintain
early successional habitat for health.'' My question is, could
you confirm for this Committee that this continues to be the
recommendation and that releasing the Middle Fork Judith back
to general management will benefit hazardous fuels reduction
and wildlife habitat?
Mr. French. From my conversations back with the Forest
Supervisor when they were doing this plan, generally, I would
say yes. I haven't heard anything that would change that. You
know, we are seeing a need to get in and actively manage these
areas that have had fire excluded for as long as they have and
have had no active management. I have not seen any change from
that, so, yes, generally, I would agree.
Senator Daines. As we say out West in these dry semi-arid
climates, that either we are going to get in and proactively
manage the forest or the forest starts to manage us, certainly
through these catastrophic wildfires that we see as fire season
is lengthened and temperatures have increased.
How does the current designation affect the grazing
allotments, and what happens if the WSA is returned to general
management?
Mr. French. Well, I mean, I think the thing to remember
here is that it is being managed as wilderness right now, and
what that does for us is, it changes the way we can access
things, the way that we can do improvements for our permittees
that have range allotments in those places. It limits our
ability for flexibility for increasing some of those allotments
because wilderness requires you only to allow what was
historically there when it was designated. And then, it just
limits our ability for active management of those areas, even
in some places, folks not wanting to see prescribed fire,
although we can do it.
So, all of that is limited by the designation, of which,
again, at the request of Congress to see if it was even
suitable for that designation, through a large public process,
we determined no, twice.
Senator Daines. Mr. French, thank you.
Mr. French. You're welcome.
Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks so very much to all of you.
I appreciate all of your input and your testimony. It was very
helpful for all of the members. We are looking forward to
moving these bills forward. So, we appreciate your time.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:19 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
----------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]